0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have developed a definition that I believe supports the idea that interactions with variances in density of a smallest substance and the void it exists within is responsible for gravity, as well as the existence of all particles and the energy they possess. http://www.gravitydefined.com/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] please keep in mind that I am not a physicist, so this hypothesis may not be what one is use to, but please offer your feedback.
If it is not a difference in density, and the void it exists within, that is responsible for it's interactions, than what else? ?
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance; that not only exists as the smallest substance, but it must exist in varying degrees of density for interaction to be possible. Interactions within this substance obviously must occur in order for energy to exist. Interactions and the energy it creates is what allows for this substance to form the particles that create the elements.
Sorry, friend, but this is all nonsense.
I appreciate the bold step of beginning an argument with "obviously" but whilst it is used by politicians, priests and philosophers, it doesn't work in physics. Where is the experimental evidence or hypothetical imperative for any of this paragraph?
You use terms like "obviously" to refer to things that make no sense at all....I already showed you one error, i.e. you're attempt at arguing a point which is clearly wrong to any physicist but you claimed it's "obviously" the way you thought it was. That's not an argument. ...Your entire article is filled with "I think" and "I believe" which makes it an unscientific paper. Physicists don't argue the validity of their theories with what they think or believe. It's only what they can demonstrate or logically argue that counts. And all arguments are based on axioms and there are no well-known axioms in your article.
and yet you take your precious time to insult me. That speaks a lot about you. If I use the word "Obviously" then it is obvious to me. i can't expect it to be obvious to everyone. You also read too much into what i said. I never claimed any theory to be wrong, i claimed they do not make sense, that they do not give a proper definition in my opinion. I have the skills to reason this, even without a phd. Now, the fact that they are categorized as theories and not as facts, means they are not necessarily correct. I would think as bright as you claim to be you would understand this. If you can take the precious time to insult me, then at least have the honor to take the time to point out my mistakes, otherwise you are just blowing a lot of hot air.
I briefly looked at your site. Firstly, you don't use mathematics. Therefore you have no theory. Secondly, you did ask for opinions so I will oblige. I am an amateur myself. The difference between us is I have put years of effort into reading and learning the physics. I am only now beginning to get some insights. Teaching youself is like climbing a mountain without any equipment. Simply understanding the meaning of some of the symbols used in physics and their meaning can take a while. Even after all this effort I have no theories. I don't know enough yet. So you can understand, I hope, why I don't take you seriously.
I really was looking for feedback regarding my hypothesis and not my writing style or choice of words.
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance; that not only exists as the smallest substance, but it must exist in varying degrees of density for interaction to be possible.
When I used the word "Obviously" in regard to the existence of a smallest substance, I did not in my wildest dreams believe that it would be the center of critique of the hypothesis that I was trying to present to this forum.
... these cannot be studied with a microscope, but must be reasoned out logically within the mind, using what knowledge we have of our environment
It reasons that A smallest substance must exist.
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance..
Interactions and the energy it creates is what allows for this substance to form the particles that create the elements
For Gravity to exist, not only must vast amounts of total void exist within the universe, but also varying degrees of density of the smallest substance that for clarity I will now refer to as the "Ger".
physicists use reasoning all the time to come up with ideas, and ideas for experiments to prove their ideas.
I lack proof, and the skills to present it properly so that it would even be taken seriously, all I have is an idea I reasoned to make sense at this point. but it really is unlikely that I will ever possess what is needed to prove my idea.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_fisica36.htm [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]I haven't read it all yet, but this has been pretty interesting so far, It claims that the aether theory was dismissed due to an experiment that has since been found faulty and so the aether theory is back.
I really did not feel I was being rude to you and alan.... I don't recall having ever insulted either of you.
and yet you take your precious time to insult me. That speaks a lot about you.
I would think as bright as you claim to be you would understand this.
I am just being straight forward as to how I felt about your response.
Please don't feel insulted by my disagreeing with your assessment, ...
Then in the future never claim someone is insulting you when, after your request, they criticize your work. Got it? Nuff said.
Sorry nothing has been said thus far that convinces me that my idea is garbage or crack pot, ...
So, nobody is aware of a device for accurately detecting gravity?
DO NOT let the descriptions "crackpot" and "nonsense" put you off. These are descriptions that are applied to all "ideas" until they are proven.
Relativity was once considered a crackpot notion ...
... and it was only in the 1960's that it really became mainstream. (So I've read).
I cannot understand your idea myself tbh. It is imperative that you refer your notions to experiment and explain where your idea differs to established theoretical physics and where it touches base with "proven" physics.
Well of course, you are stating the obvious!
.. are descriptions that are applied to all "ideas" until they are proven.
However, there cannot be only correct ideas that transpire into working hypothesis.
My point to Dreamian being that to have an idea is not a crime and that to be called a crackpot and have your idea called nonsense is not unusual on these sites. I do agree that he is not defining his idea very well and therefore posted my suggestions based on my experience of trying to express my own idea. I note that you make no comment as to this aspect of my post, but there again it is a symptom of these sites that a poster will only remark in the negative and ignore any positive aspects that they "may" agree with.
I'm just saying to Dreamian not to let what seems like personal insults or personal knock backs upset him and to look beyond this aspect of these sites and take the positive and carry on learning.
Yes I am aware of the history of SR and GR and the atomic bomb. Of course in the world of scientists these theories were in the forefront, especially by 1945, however not all physicists and scientists were that enamoured in the early days of Einstiens theories.
Consequently, by about 1911, most theoretical physicists accepted special relativity.
PMB, that comment about dropping the marble in my room etc., that was not meant to be insulting? Humor?
I have read about the detectors you linked in the next paragraph, I believe they have developed one for detecting shielded weapons on the border.
I just don't think the ones I have read about will work for me though, but I will check out those links and see if I can come up with a design that will. Thanks
( I know what a void is), and that the substance I refer to, having substance,
I think it is highly possible that gravity has everything to do with the void all substance exists within, and the void that exists with no substance.
Not only Ger0, but also Ger that is less dense then itself as it is seen as being a void in comparison to itself. However, as it is easier to fill a void than to create one, the Ger can never be completely pulled into the vast amount of voids that exist in the universe due to the Ger being pulled out in every direction of space as thin as is possible without creating new Ger0 (voids), which as I said, is more difficult than filling a void;
When a body of mass is looked at as a whole, in respect to the Ger that exists in the space that surrounds that body of mass, the mass can be seen,due to the interactions that constantly create, at very high speeds, Ger0 (voids) within that mass, as a void itself, not quite in the same respect as an actual vast void in space, but enough so that it creates a kind of tug-of-war with the Ger that exist between bodies of mass and between bodies of mass and the vast voids that exist in space.To a single body of mass existing alone in space, the pull would be equal in all directions, due to the great endless voids that exist outward from the boundaries of all Ger.
When a body of mass is introduced with another, the pull becomes greater between the 2 bodies of mass than it is in all other directions due to both masses being seen as if they were a void themselves, which is due to the Ger0 created with the interactions of the Ger within the masses. Therefore they create a slightly greater tug-of-war between themselves with the unstable Ger that exists between them, and so naturally they feel impelled to be gently pulled toward one another; or the smaller would be pulled toward a much greater mass, such as a planet due to the larger's massiveness and the forces between masses that won't allow for it to move against the stability that exists within its parameter, that can cover a galaxy and beyond.
PMB, It is the continued expressing of common knowledge, and implying that I am not even that knowledgeable that I find offensive
words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas
Some people take such statements as insult.
Am I wrong in thinking that you were trying to imply that I am not knowledgeable of facts that anyone outside of grade school should be aware of?
Some people take such statements as insult. Am I wrong in thinking that you were trying to imply that I am not knowledgeable of facts that anyone outside of grade school should be aware of?
Are you aware of any particles, with or without mass that appear and then disappear? Has something to that effect thus-far been observed?
TheBox, I don't believe there is any way that I can explain my idea that anyone is going to understand at this time. Basically the "void thing" you had concerns about. I cannot prove my point, but it was my contention that void did exist ( I know what a void is), and that the substance I refer to, having substance, would be impelled to occupy the void, however because it already occupies void in its current space it cannot shift position due to it being more difficult to create a new void than to fill one, however interactions (energy) cause voids currently occupied by substance, to become momentarily unoccupied by substance, which basically results in gravitational pull. It is brief and likely wont be understood, and I could be wrong, but there is the idea in a nutshell. I think it is highly possible that gravity has everything to do with the void all substance exists within, and the void that exists with no substance. And when I say "the void all substance exists within" I think that it is fair, if "Time" can be given fundamental quantity, I think I can do the same with "Void".
Let's get back to the plot for a moment.Gravity is adequately defined as either the attractive force between massive objects that is described by F = Gm1m2/r^2 or the warping of spacetime by the presence of a massive object. Since these are the definitions that everyone else uses, there is no point in inventing a new meaning for the word, any more than you might want to redefine "elephant".The interesting questions about gravity include(a) why do we not see a repulsive force, as with electrostatics?
(b) why is gravitational mass apparently identical to inertial mass?
(c) if you move one massive body, how long does it take for the change in its gravitational field to affect another body (i.e. what is the speed of gravity?)
If you can answer any or all of these questions without inventing undetectable substances or particles, you will have made a substantial contribution to human understanding. Otherwise, you are probably wasting your time.Meanwhile, to whet the appetite for a bit of science fiction, you might consider this:The gravitational field behaves mathematically like the photon field, with its inverse square property. So suppose gravity is transmitted by gravitons. What are their properties? Well (1) unlike every other particle, they have negative momentum because instead of pushing the target away from the source, they attract it. And (2) they don't have mass (negative or positive) because the source mass doesn't change with time. So suppose we have a huge source (say the sun) radiating gravitons into space, and we discover a static field that can bend their trajectory through 90 degrees. That means that we have a tractor beam (remember gravitons suck) that can accelerate a spacecraft tangentially to the source without expending energy. So we switch on our graviton bender and the spacecraft accelerates into an increasingly higher orbit. Now dream on.....
.. I was originally going to refer to the Ger as the aether, as I was aware of the aether theory, but was afraid that I may be redefining something that was already defined and I didn't want to step on any toes.
Alan, I believe that the Ger I refer to has possibly been detected already, and possibly named, it can be renamed at anytime, I already assumed that the "ger" would likely be renamed at a later time, but due to my ignorance, I have named it such for clarity within my definition only. Since this ger likely is drawn in by the voids created within mass, of which I have described, and then quickly vacates, it is likely that such an observance has already been made. Are you aware of any particles, with or without mass that appear and then disappear? Has something to that effect thus-far been observed?