[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.

So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Let me propose a different twist.  Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is simple concept.  At a given point away from a mass there is a delta change in space and time.  This is the essence of the force.  Its a natural occurrence so we can cause "antigravitational force" once we understand the reason behind the change in space and time in the same way we could cause unnatural electrical discharges once we understood electromagnetic interactions.
My concept is throw away the concept of space and to explain everything in terms of subspaces.  Two spinning subspaces, perpendicular to each other,  creates space with the gravity between them.  This gravity space adds with all of the other gravity spaces to create the universe.  This is the question on how gravity adds to itself.  The quark theory like my own has particles made from larger particle (Matter-Antimatter) both having positive gravity and yet the composite particle has only the gravity of the Matter-Antimatter difference.  The energy that is given up matches the change in the gravity.  How is the gravity changed and at what rate?

Maybe gravity is the rate of change in field srength of the electromagnetic force? That would make some sense also, not only to your own twist on my most repulsive theory, but also that which means that there cannot be a fundamental mediator (graviton)?

[PhysBang]

Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.

So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?

Einstein didn't have an elevator theory. He had a way of elucidating the general covariance of physical laws that enables one to dispense with certain differences between acceleration and gravity. This leads to different predictions that one can use to verify the theory.

As far as I can tell, you are simply calling every repulsive force, "antigravity." This does absolutely nothing.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

WRONG

It was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.

[PhysBang]

WRONG

It was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.

Are you saying that Einstein didn't use the general covariance of physical laws in his theory? Don't you know that's the point of the evelvator example? The example you brought up that is supposed to be a basic way of expressing a small part of his theory?

Or are you saying that there is more content to your own claims. If so, what are they? What is "antigravitational force"?

[Butterworthd]

First in response to the elevator theory.  Lets reduce Acceleration to its simplest form; increasing space coverage for a unit of time.  If we were sitting on a spinning merry-go-round and we let go, we would experience movement off the merry-go-round because of the centrifugal force. We are moving from the smaller space to the larger space.  Same thing happens with the subspace, there's a centripetal force moving us from the smaller space to the larger space.  With a mass the larger space is within it.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Nope - you said he did not use the elevator experiment to help or not help being the case, to dinstinguish gravitational forces with that of acceleration.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

But the rest is mostly true - sorry )

[Butterworthd]

There is a relationship between gravity and electromagnetic in my subspace theory.  In my view light comes from a particle and goes to a particle. This is saying a) charge only exists on particles and b) space only exists through subspaces.  When two subspaces (dark matter) reacts with each other they make space which is actually 2 two-dimensional planes interacting with each other.  This interaction is described by Maxwell; it is Electromagnetic interaction.  Now the question of charge is important since accelerating charge is the mechanics of electromagnetic interaction.  That's means that all fundamental particles have charge since they react with light.  Composite particles and atoms have no overall charge but the charges are still there or they could not react with light. You can not have gravity without light interaction.  Now you are back to dark matter.   []

[PhysBang]

Nope - you said he did not use the elevator experiment to help or not help being the case, to dinstinguish gravitational forces with that of acceleration.

I have no idea what the whole sentence means, nor what the different identifiable parts of that sentence mean.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

What do you need to understand what i said?

[PhysBang]

Could you please just tell us what you think the point of the elevator experiment was? In a little detail?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

''us''? Are you trying to say i am not clear with anyone here? All i ever do is try and make things clear.

Einstein's thought experiment was one which argued you cannot tell the difference between accelerational forces to that of gravity - noting also the person cannot see from inside the elevator.

[PhysBang]

And how did Einstein enact this similarity between gravity and acceleration? Through the demand that physical laws be written in a generally covariant form.

Note too that the elevator example does not include rotation, which is still an absolute acceleration in general relativity.

So, what can we possibly do with your repulsive principle?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

It's a thought-experiment. Generally, imagine you where in a spaceship which was stationary, and about 100 miles directly below your ship is a massive wire that can pull on your spaceship. To cut a long story short, the wire begins to pull, and you will feel the force of that pull and eventually whilst you may be remaining static in zero-gravity, your feet will eventually meet the ground of the spaceship. So the acceleration required to keep your feet safely on the spaceships floor is due to the similar charactericts of how a gravitational-acceleration is derived.

Rotation only really has great purposes in relativity when frame-dragging is considered.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

And how did Einstein enact this similarity between gravity and acceleration? Through the demand that physical laws be written in a generally covariant form.

Note too that the elevator example does not include rotation, which is still an absolute acceleration in general relativity.

So, what can we possibly do with your repulsive principle?

Not sure i understand your question though..

[PhysBang]

All you seem to have done is define "antigravitational force" to be any force that is repulsive. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Is there supposed to be something more? If so, what?

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

Why not?

If there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe.

Is this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.

[Mr. Scientist (OP)]

I would eat my hat with humbleness though. Physics, and science in general never has cared to much for people to assert even the most exotic of theories. Nor has science got where it has without them.

[PhysBang]

Why not?

Well, because we can already imagine all kinds of things. Simply declaring that all repulsive forces are antigravitational forces adds nothing.

If there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe.

Antimatter is well understood and we know its gravitational properties and its electromagnetic properties quite well. We can indeed distinguish between them on the basis of behaviour and measurement.

Is this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.

What principle? Could you please restate, clearly, what you imagine your principle to be?