Gravity Defined

  • 75 Replies
  • 8248 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Gravity Defined
« on: 25/07/2015 17:47:32 »
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/
 
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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #1 on: 25/07/2015 18:18:14 »
Quote from: Dreamian
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/
 
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.
This is the wrong forum for this. It belongs in the New Theories forum. Just to let our members know, this new theory was posted in another forum, i.e. at http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/28473-gravity-defined/

Dreamian asked for a critique on his new theory. The words I chose to use were things like "garbage." Unfortunately Dreamian misunderstood my intentions and though that I was insulting him which is not true of course. I'd never insult someone I just met or who hasn't insulted me first.

Dreamian - If you think that I insulted you then I apologize for it. I wasn't going to critique this because there's too much work to critique it. However, since today is a slow day for me I'll critique a little of it so that you can get an idea of what I meant. I'll print it out, sit down, and go through it line by line. However there are going to me a large number of comments regarding your writing style, i.e. the way you wrote it I found very confusing. For example;
Quote
If it is not a difference in density, and the void it exists within, that is responsible for it's interactions, than what else? ?
Please do me a very big favor and do not explain what this means in this thread until I've heard from at least one other member as to what they think that it means. The reason for this is my way of  critiquing what you wrote. I can't  critique something that I don't know what it means, but I also want to explain the problem with the way you expressed your idea.

So after I've gone through it, and you choose to no longer insult or attack me like you did in the other forum because you misunderstood what I meant, I'll come back and post my analysis. That is, if I choose to finish it. I might get bored or it might be too confusing to critique. And that's the main problem that I see, i.e. it's very confusing.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #2 on: 25/07/2015 18:36:57 »
Quote
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?

Later on, the text wanders into anthropomorphism, matters of personal belief, and various other unscientific sillinesses. 

There being no apparent malice, I'll shift it to New Theories where it may strike a chord with other believers in aether and fairies.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #3 on: 25/07/2015 19:23:46 »
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/
 
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.

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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #4 on: 25/07/2015 19:35:56 »
Quote from: alancalverd
Sorry, friend, but this is all nonsense.
That's almost the exact same thing I said in the other forum. I thing I used the phrase "total garbage" myself.

Quote from: alancalverd
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?
We're certainly on the same wavelength my friend! Here are my responses to that part
Quote from: pmb
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.

His argument for it's use is that he uses it when it's "obvious" to him. Certainly not a scientific or logical argument by any means. I told him that I don't have time to read garbage like that. He responded to that and my critique by saying
Quote
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.
That's how he argues. To him "doesn't make sense" is not the same thing as being wrong. So to him the theory of gravity is fine even if it doesn't make sense. How do you reason with someone who uses that kind of logic?

Read the rest of his response, Alan. You'll get an idea of what to expect from him regarding your criticism. I'm almost certain that he's going to claim that you insulted him.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #5 on: 25/07/2015 19:37:25 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
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.
Don't let Jeff's modest confuse you. He's quite knowledgeable in physics and very bright.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #6 on: 25/07/2015 20:06:10 »
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/
 
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.
Your enthusiasm should be honored my friend and I always give credit to those with new ideas for the courage and persistence they radiate. However, I'm offering you some friendly advice and I recommend you take it if you hope to spare yourself much grief.

Your theory is much akin to the Aether theories that have long since been disproven. I would hope that you check into the current scientific reasons why this theory was abandoned many years ago. Unless you acquaint yourself with the scientific evidence available today that details why physicists understand gravity the way they currently do, you risk locking yourself into preconceived opinions that will impede your potential progress in learning the realities of gravity.

You would do yourself a favor if you spent some quality time learning why our present gravitational theory makes more sense than those out-dated Aether theories.

Good luck to you my friend.....................................Ethos



"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #7 on: 25/07/2015 20:19:49 »
I really was looking for feedback regarding my hypothesis and not my writing style or choice of words.

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.  As I pointed out in the other forum, I think that a lot of physicists must think it obvious that there must be a smallest substance, as they spend a great deal of time trying to discover it.

My entire hypothesis is being shunned on writing style and the like. That seems very surreal to me! 

True, I am not a physicist, nor do I make use of math as a physicist would in their hypotheses, I was pretty straight on that from the beginning.  I do have reasoning skills, and those skills I believe may have come up with a possibility that explains Gravity and the existence of energy.

I am not trying present my hypothesis as being proven fact, therefore the use of the word "believe" etc, resulting in yet more unbelievable critique.

Thats Ok,   My hypothesis is still there for those who actually get the points I am trying to make. I do "believe" my points are valid, and that they present a very real possibility. 

I believe that my definition makes much more sense than blindly believing that mass warps space time or something to that effect. Yes, I use phrases like "makes sense" another area of unbelievable critique" but I would rather follow a path that makes sense, than one that does not; therefore something must make sense to me before I would stake my belief in it.

I asked a question in that other forum and did not receive an answer

is it your stance that like so many believe in that a higher deity just is, that energy just is? or that electric charge just is?

I have offered a possibility that does "make sense", although not proven or fitting the requirements of an actual theory, that may well explain how energy is, or electric charge is, as well as Gravity is.

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #8 on: 25/07/2015 20:36:22 »
Thank you Ethos,  I was aware of the aether, I was not aware that it attempted to explain gravity, or that it was disproved. I believed that there could be conflict there as far as my referring to this substance as the Ger, but I also did not want to redefine a substance that has already been defined and named. I will have to check into why it was disproved and see if I can reason why it should or should not disprove my idea. Although, if it uses physics math, it will likely be too far over my head to understand. I really don't know if at my age I want to take the time to learn the math.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #9 on: 25/07/2015 21:23:30 »
Quote from: Dreamian
I really was looking for feedback regarding my hypothesis and not my writing style or choice of words.
I gotta tell ya, Dreamian. It's very frustrating when you keep repeating this same old rhetoric claiming that we haven't explained the problem with your essay and that all we did was whine about a few words that you chose to use. This is one of the several reasons I chose not to help you. When we get people posting new theories and they're so bad that we can barely understand what the OP is trying to say because its all very unclear then its always been the case that the OP can't understand the criticism and will, instead, turn on the people criticizing their theory. Do you think we should rush in and let you insult us merely because you're not catching on to what we're trying to say? In essence we're all saying that it's shear nonsense. Got it? I hated doing it but I did take a small amount of time to show a few examples.  But every single day in all forums there's always people peddling their new theory and claim that they've got it all figured out and the entire physics community has had it wrong all these years. Yup. All 22,000 of us physicists in the US have it wrong but that one person "who doesn't need math" has proved them all wrong. Ya! Right!

You're totally missing the point. It's not about your words. It's about what they mean and what you meant by them. You're arguing about what you believe to be obvious. We've explained to you that such a term can't be used in a scientific essay. The reason is because it's subjective. By that I mean that what's obvious to you, the opposite could be obvious to everyone else. For example; you claimed that
Quote from: Dreamian
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.
There is absolutely nothing obvious about what you're claiming to be the case. Even if I believed otherwise it wouldn't mean others would find it obvious. That means that it's subjective and you can't use subjective concepts in a scientific deduction because the conclusion would also be subjective meaning the reader could rightly conclude that you're argument is wrong.

Quote from: Dreamian
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.
Once again you failed to understand the point. That was only used as an example. Clearly you didn't pay attention to what I wrote before that, i.e. where I wrote You use terms like .. Later when I mentioned it all I did was say that when you use notions like what you believe to be obvious it doesn't constitute an argument.

You're very confused about the criticism because you believe we're complaining about your grammar when in fact we aren't. We're complaining about your logic. All theories or arguments require logical deductions. All logical arguments include three main components. Two of which are propositions and one is the actual logic itself.  The two propositions are the premise(s)s and the second is the conclusion(s). A logical argument can sometimes have the form "If A then B."  What you have is "I think A and it seems to me that B is true. The former is a scientific type argument. The later is a casual conversation.

You claim to use reason and logic but none of the ingredients of a logical deduction or argument are present in that essay.

I already told you one thing that was wrong and you claimed that I didn't. That's why I really don't want to continue, i.e. because if I did you wouldn't recognize it as a logical scientific criticism. You claim that all you did was study one physics course in college. I, on the other hand, did not only that but got a BA in both physics and math and went on to graduate school, almost completing an MS in physics. That means I have a great deal more knowledge and experience in reading, studying and forming logical scientific arguments and proofs.

So let's start with the first part of your essay which contains some substance. The first sentence of the second paragraph is what I'm talking about. What proof, evidence or reason do you have to substantiate your assertion that To understand gravity and to define it, you need to break things down, dissect mass to it's smallest parts.? I.e. why? Currently we don't need to know anything about the structure of matter to be able to describe the gravitational field in a region of space and how matter will behave when placed in that region. So what reasons do you have that the current understanding is wrong?

Then regarding elementary particles you claim
Quote from: Dreamian
... these cannot be studied with a microscope, but must be reasoned out logically within the mind, using what knowledge we have of our environment
There's no reasoning that can tell you things like this. Although we can't use a microscope to study matter at that level we can certainly study it using other equipment such as particle accelerators. We've learned a great deal from the data collected from experiments which used particle accelerators.

Quote from: Dreamian
It reasons that A smallest substance must exist.
"It reasons" is not an argument. You can't merely say "It reasons" and expect someone to accept what follows. If you claim that it "reasons" then you have to state the reasoning. You go on
Quote from: Dreamian
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance..
Again with the "obviously". Why is it obvious this time? What does the term "substance" mean in this case? When it comes to particles the smallest particle is the ones that are truly elementary and have a radius of zero, i.e. point particles. But that has nothing to do with any theory of gravity. A theory of gravity must take the distribution that exists of matter in a region of space and predict how particles will move when placed in the gravitational field produced by that matter. This is a non-quantum theory since there isn't a quantum theory of gravity yet and what you wrote is an essay on classical gravity.

Later on you go on to claim
Quote from: Dreamian
Interactions and the energy it creates is what allows for this substance to form the particles that create the elements
This too is an assertion with no justification for it.

Later on you go on to claim
Quote from: Dreamian
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".
Yet another unfounded claim and the introduction of something which is unclear what it is or why you gave it that name. What does "varying degrees of density of the smallest substance " mean anyway?

That's the problem with it all. There's no logical derivation here. All there is are your claims with no justification to them. And to boot it's all extremely poor and terribly put together making it extremely confusing. This isn't a theory or a deduction by any means. In fact it really isn't anything at all. All it really is, is a statement of your beliefs. And not very interesting or reasonable beliefs either.

Sorry, but d'ems the facts. :)

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #10 on: 25/07/2015 21:24:35 »
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_fisica36.htm

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. but like i said, not done reading it yet. I have a poker game that is very relative at this point.

There is a big difference in my definition of gravity than with the aether theory.  without a proven theory in existence, I think my idea is still a real possibility.

That letter verification seems more of an eye exam than anything else lol

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #11 on: 25/07/2015 21:40:09 »
Well,  poorly put together or not, I do believe I am on the right track.  physicists use reasoning all the time to come up with ideas, and ideas for experiments to prove their ideas. Which sometimes can be dis-proven, likely from another physicist having reasoned and then proven otherwise, or maybe just reasoned otherwise. 

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.

But, I really don't care, if it offends anyone, then they really don't need to read it or respond.

I felt insulted in the other forum because you did not offer what I considered criticism, if you had I would have had a means of responding.  How do you respond to "its complete garbage"?  There lies the insult.

It felt like an insult, it even seemed to possess the purpose of being insulting. I would do the math to prove that theory, but I wouldn't know where to begin. All I have is my reasoning skills and a keen desire to know the truth.

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #12 on: 25/07/2015 21:51:25 »
Actually I do have ideas on what could prove my idea, but those ideas are very much a work in progress and will not be shared at this point.

But perhaps you could help. Are there devices that can measure changes in gravity, small changes as well as direction of the force?  without doing any research, I reasoned that perhaps capillary tubes filled with water, perhaps another liquid or treated water might aid in such a measurement, but direction would be a problem.

any ideas?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #13 on: 25/07/2015 21:52:11 »
Quote from: Dreamian
physicists use reasoning all the time to come up with ideas, and ideas for experiments to prove their ideas.
Absolutely they do. Is that what this was supposed to be? A mere step to where you want to end up? You presented it as if it was a finished work and that's a great deal different than how you get to a theory.

Quote from: Dreamian
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.
If you weren't so rude and extremely insulting to me while I was trying to help you then I would have offered to help you hone those skills. However due to the horrible way you treated me and Alan I won't have anything to do with you. I'll merely make one suggestion and let it be done with. Carefully study the following two books:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
Practical Logic: An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking by Douglas J. Soccio and Vincent E. Barry

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #14 on: 25/07/2015 22:25:11 »
I really did not feel I was being rude to you and alan. I am just being straight forward as to how I felt about your response. I don't recall having ever insulted either of you.

Please don't feel insulted by my disagreeing with your assessment, but I did not at any point present this as a finished product. I stated in the first paragraph that this was a work in progress and feedback was important to me.

I did not mean to insult you by pointing out that "complete garbage" was not the kind of feedback that would be helpful to me, and that if was insulting to me.

I would like to point out something in regard to my last post, I think that atmospheric pressure on such a device, being unstable as it is, wind pressure etc, would not allow for that accuracy I would require.

still looking for ideas.


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #15 on: 25/07/2015 23:42:02 »
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_fisica36.htm

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.

There remain a few stubborn individuals that call themselves scientists that continue to preach one form or another of an Aether Theory. If one wishes, they can find many such offerings on the internet today. And this is the proof about what I was warning you about. If someone becomes so invested in their pet theory that no amount of good evidence will ever change their mind, they have become locked into their own delusion. Sadly, there are an abundance of such cases readily available on the internet. Before you get too heavily invested in personal intuitions, take my advice and learn a little more about what mainstream science has to say regarding the issue.

A good and honest scientist will accept his errors because truly, the truth is more important to him than his personal biases.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #16 on: 25/07/2015 23:46:31 »
Quote from: Dreamian
I really did not feel I was being rude to you and alan.... I don't recall having ever insulted either of you.
You most definitely were, without doubt. More so in the other forum where you wrote
Quote
and yet you take your precious time to insult me. That speaks a lot about you.
which I take offense at. It wasn't meant as a compliment, that's for sure. You either intended to insult me or were oblivious to that fact that you did. What do you claim that the purpose of that comment was? Then there are irritating comments like
Quote
I would think as bright as you claim to be you would understand this.
which is a lie. I never claimed that I was bright, although, in all modesty, I am. And that's coming from my peers. E.g. a friend of mine is a PhD astrophysicist at MIT who tells me that I'm very very intelligent. I never say those things about myself. I will only quote those people who say them about me.

Quote from: Dreamian
I am just being straight forward as to how I felt about your response.
In retrospect I now see that it was a poor choice of words. It was very hard to find a word to describe how I felt about it so I chose the word that kept coming to my mind, i.e. garbage. However I now see that I should have taken into account your possible feelings.

Quote from: Dreamian
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.

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #17 on: 25/07/2015 23:50:00 »
The concept of the aether was created because physicists thought that electromagnetic waves needed a medium to travel in, ie to support the undulations. It was later determined that no such medium is required. Therefore there was no reason for the aether at that point. However some scientists argued that just because we don't need it, it doesn't mean that it's not there. And on it goes.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #18 on: 25/07/2015 23:59:15 »

Then in the future never claim someone is insulting you when, after your request, they criticize your work. Got it? Nuff said.
And I agree completely with Pete here. Pete could help you greatly if you would respect his expertise and fairly consider the points and positions he's trying to describe for you. There is an old saying:

"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!"

If you truly want to learn physics, you'll need to  become a much better listener. Many of the scientists here will be willing to help you in this regard but you will need to abandon what we often call: "crack-pot theories". Hopefully, you understand that I in no way am intending to insult you.......................................Ethos
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #19 on: 26/07/2015 00:30:57 »
See what I mean? Not one person answered my question as to what you meant when you wrote
Quote
If it is not a difference in density, and the void it exists within, that is responsible for it's interactions, than what else? ?
What does that tell you?

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #20 on: 26/07/2015 02:34:27 »
Sorry  nothing has been said thus far that convinces me that my idea is garbage or crack pot, i am sure that you have had access to information that has convinced you of that, but I have to make that decision based on facts, that i have had the ability to analyse myself, and not hearsay.  i will continue to read the newest theories and try to make sense of them.  I will indeed be looking into the experiment that proves that electromagnetism does not require any kind of medium to travel through.  I have not read the details of that yet. In college in my electronic communication classes we simply touched on that little. Until I have had opportunity to think on it myself, analyze the evidence;  I am still leaning toward the idea that it does.

So, nobody is aware of a device for accurately detecting gravity?

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #21 on: 26/07/2015 07:51:12 »
Quote from: Dreamian
Sorry  nothing has been said thus far that convinces me that my idea is garbage or crack pot, ...
Of course not. People who write their own theories like this are never able to be convinced that they made a mistake. They're blind to it. It's due to a lack of understanding of the physics involved. You'd have to set yourself on a strict course of study in physics to see it.

Quote from: Dreamian
So, nobody is aware of a device for accurately detecting gravity?
Of course we are. Let go of two objects of different masses. If they fall at the same rate then there's a gravitational field present. You know there's a gravitational field in your room don't you? All you have to do is drop a marble and a bowling ball at the same time. You'll find that they hit the ground at the same time. That's what a gravitational field does. Don't tell me that you weren't aware of this all too simple fact?

There are also two devices to detect (1) gravitational acceleration and (2) gradients in the gravitational field. The device to measure the first is an gravimeter (or accelerometer). The device to measure the second is a gravitational gradiometer.

See
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_gradiometry

No matter how many times I read this over I can't make any sense out of it. It appears that you're basing everything on the axiom that there exists some sort of substance that you define as "the smallest substance." However you don't say what "smallest" means. I.e. you don't say whether "small" refers to physical size or to its mass. If you mean physical size then there is no unique entity which can be called "the smallest" because many particles are point particles, i.e. have zero radius. Then you give this "smallest substance" the name "Ger" (why did you choose this as the name?).

Almost every single line is an unfounded assumption and as such it has no more substance to it than a fairy tale. That's not an insult. It's an analogy.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2015 08:22:11 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #22 on: 26/07/2015 09:03:55 »
Hi Dreamian,I have read your link, I am not a physicist but know some physics, I am sorry but I do not even understand what you are trying to say, it seems vague and confused.

Gravity mechanism which you seek is something at a quantum level in my opinion, but mentioning voids confuses things, voids are empty of everything including light and all mass.
Explaining something you imagine happens is not science alone, I have learnt that much from science.  Gravity is a force, an attractive super glue if you like, between all matter is a bond, in the space between matter there is an unseen and undetected linkage for this bond, maybe we could say that electromagnetic radiation or CBMR is a gravity conduit, and matter is coupled to matter through this conduit.
But even saying that does not tell us what gravity actually is. We could say that gravity is simply protons attracted to protons, but again it still limits our understanding.
Great scientists from history know maths is needed to explain the processes of physics. This way we can mimic the process and repeat and predict. i.e land on the moon or orbit a satellite.
Your idea needs to have a use or it just becomes meaningless.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1358
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #23 on: 26/07/2015 12:09:02 »
Hi there Dreamian

I feel compelled through sheer sympathy to reply to your thread. :)

I am not here to insult you and can, through my own experience, sense that you have had an idea that you are clearly having some trouble expressing... In that I have experienced this phenomenon myself I have some advice for you.

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 despite the clear mathematics provided, and it was only in the 1960's that it really became mainstream. (So I've read).

But... It is really IMPORTANT that you get past these descriptions of your idea and take on board what other posters say.  This is a LEARNING process if you can get with it.

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.  You have to show how your idea links portions of established theoretical physics and proven physics together in a "probable" fashion.  To achieve this without a solid base in mathematics is very difficult, you have my sympathy!

The advice above regarding learning is valid.  I recommend that you read a book called "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.  This book outlines where physics is proven, where it is based on supposition and where the current theories do not mesh together.  If I were you I'd be looking at redshift and the electromagnetic in relation to the phenomenon of gravity.  This book also touches on particle physics and "may" provide you with some essential physics terminology.  I've found that using the correct terminology is paramount to communicating with physicists/scientists on these sites. (Still working on that one myself :) )

All the best to you...
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #24 on: 26/07/2015 15:39:35 »
Quote from: timey
DO NOT let the descriptions "crackpot" and "nonsense" put you off.  These are descriptions that are applied to all "ideas" until they are proven.
That's not right at all. Ideas that become theories are very different than ideas that remain only as ideas. Theories are required to have postulates that correspond to observations in nature or for which an experiment can be done to verify the postulates. The theory must also be able to make predictions, i.e. have predictive power. Otherwise they're of no use. This predictive power comes from using the postulates to derive results using logic to arrive at conclusions which may then be tested. Dreamian's essay has none of these elements. It's not a scientific theory in any sense of the term. It's merely a set of beliefs. But then again so is religion and that's hardly scientific at all.

Quote from: timey
  Relativity was once considered a crackpot notion ...
Warning: This is misinformation. Relativity was never considered to be a crackpot theory. It was recognized to be a great new theory shortly after it was published. Scientific evidence came in shortly after.

See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#early_experiments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Quote from: timey
... and it was only in the 1960's that it really became mainstream. (So I've read).
You mean to tell me that you don't know the connection between special relativity and the atomic bomb they dropped in 1945?

Quote from: timey
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.
There is nothing in that page about any definition or theory of gravity.

One major lack in his essay is that while he claims that he's not satisfied with what gravity is or a "proper definition of gravity" but makes no effort to tell the reader what he holds to be unsatisfactory about gravity and its definition. It's not even clear to me that he even knows how gravity is defined in physics. He says that he's giving a definition of gravity but there's no definition of it anywhere in that page.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1358
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #25 on: 26/07/2015 16:33:11 »
Hi again PmbPhy

I said:

"DO NOT let the descriptions "crackpot" and "nonsense" put you off.  These are descriptions that are applied to all "ideas" until they are proven"

You say:

"That's not right at all. Ideas that become theories are very different than ideas that remain only as ideas."

Well of course, you are stating the obvious!  However, there cannot be only correct ideas that transpire into working hypothesis.  For these "right ideas" there has to be, by definition, a lot of "wrong ideas" that go nowhere in order for the right ideas to be recognised as right ideas.  Also, there is a history in physics for ideas that were considered right to be subsequently proved wrong.  The earth not being the centre of the solar system as thought for hundreds of years... for instance. 

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 personally found "a" link that you posted on my thread to be very useful to me... although probably not for the same reasons that you posted it there for.

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.  I'm quite certain that I have read that these theories have been publicly slated in the far gone past by significant physicists doubting Einstiens thoughts! ...By mainstream I think I'm referring to relativity being taught in schools.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #26 on: 26/07/2015 17:39:20 »
Quote from: timey
Well of course, you are stating the obvious!
I was commenting on your belief that ""crackpot" and "nonsense"
Quote
.. are descriptions that are applied to all "ideas" until they are proven. 
which is most definitely not true. Ideas aren't crackpot or nonsense just because they haven't been proven yet. That's what I meant to say but I phrased it very badly. Thanks for pointing this out to me.

Quote from: timey
  However, there cannot be only correct ideas that transpire into working hypothesis.
I never said anything about correct or incorrect ideas. Only the test of time will determine that. I'm talking about ideas which have the form of a theory or an axiom/


Quote from: timey
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.
First of all I myself never used the word "crackpot" to refer to anybody or his theory. However it was unclear whether he meant to present his idea as a scientific theory. If so then what he wrote in his essay does not conform to the scientific method by any means and that makes it pseudoscience which is just another name for a crackpot theory. A person who promotes a crackpot theory is called a crackpot. Those are the definitions. I recommend that you look them up in Wikipedia. But don't blame me for them. I neither defined them nor did I have anything to do with his essay being pseudoscience.

There was a reason I didn't post in your thread. First it was far too long to read and I found it to be confusing too. I don't spend my time doing this anymore like I used to in the past. I've never had any good come from it. I've only been insulted by those people whose work I criticized. People who come here and post their theories hate being criticized. More often that not they simply want people to admire what they did and then flame those who think otherwise. When I've corrected them it's almost always resulted in a problem with them not understanding my response. Another serious problem is that the theories are extremely confusing such as this one. I'm just too damn sick and tired of the insults. A friend of mine who posts here suggested that I don't post in this forum anymore so I took his word for it. However I went to a forum I used to post in in months past and saw a thread in the physics forum which meant that it wasn't supposed to be a new theory. It was Dreamian posting this same subject. I thought I'd try and help him but it was impossible to read. Frankly I couldn't think of the right word to describe it other than garbage. In retrospect I don't think that was a very nice thing to do. Sorry Dreamian.  [:(]

Quote from: timey
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.
What personal attacks? Please don't accuse us of making personal attacks. That just causes problems. Just because he's getting very negative comments on his idea it doesn't mean that it's a personal attack by any means whatsoever.

Quote from: timey
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.
WHAT???? Where on Earth did you hear that from? That's totally wrong! See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity#Acceptance_of_special_relativity
Quote
Consequently, by about 1911, most theoretical physicists accepted special relativity.
And that was only 6 years after it was published. You sure have your facts wrong on this point. Have you ever read a history of Einstein and relativity?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1358
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #27 on: 26/07/2015 18:11:48 »
:)... PmbPhy...

I'm sorry you have become sick and tired of the status quo.  I can understand your viewpoint, I read more than I post and there is a lot of flack consisting of both idiocy and uppity-ness from both sides of the fence.

I was not saying that "you" were attacking Dreamian, I in fact stated the opposite in that you and others here may be a source of learning.  TheNakedScientists is one of the nicest established sites I have ever visited.  Other sites are sometimes not so.

You did in fact post me a link on my thread which, despite your admitting not having fully read it, did provide me with a good source of information. (Yes my thread is long, but it is a complete theory of everything, or would be if I could turn the logic into maths, therefore it has to be quite long.  I hasten to add that this does not mean that my logic is a match for the universe, but it is a piece of logic)

Yes I have read a lot about the history of physics and Einstien.  I am quite certain that there were Einstein opposers within physics, but tbh as the history of such is not my point of interest and it's been some time since I read about it, I cannot recall names and dates and cannot be bothered to look it up as it was not the point of my post.  Please forgive me if I have misrepresented on this matter.
Particles are very helpful, they lend themselves to everything...

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #28 on: 26/07/2015 20:14:47 »
Thanks fr the reply, timey. 

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

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".
« Last Edit: 26/07/2015 21:11:38 by Dreamian »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #29 on: 26/07/2015 21:50:11 »
Quote from: Dreamian
PMB,  that comment about dropping the marble in my room etc., that was not meant to be insulting? Humor?
Why would you think it was supposed to be either insulting or funny? This is how one detects whether there is a gravitational field in the room. To determine the existence of a gravitational field one has to determine whether objects placed in the field will accelerate at a rate that is independent of their mass. If you drop a bowling ball and a marble from the same height and they hit the ground at the same time (follow the bottom of the spheres making sure that the bottoms start off at the same distance from the ground) then you know that there's a gravitational field present. Haven't you ever heard of this experiment? It's one of the most famous experiments in all of physics. Galileo Galilei was the first one to do this from the top of the leaning tower of Piza (or at least that's how the story goes. It might merely be apocryphal). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

One of the benefits of reading more physics books is that you're learn things like this. To make an attempt at understanding gravity you must know its properties, i.e. what effect it has on matter.

Quote from: Dreamian
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.
Where did you hear that? I can't even imagine how they'd help detecting things like that. What's a "shielded weapon" anyway?

Quote from: Dreamian
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
Why not? They measure all of the properties of the gravitational field, i.e. gravitational acceleration and gradients in the field.

Quote from: Dreamian
( I know what a void is), and that the substance I refer to, having substance,
Two questions: What is a void and what is a substance. When I read it I assumed that those terms had their normal meaning but later it occurred to me that you probably redefined them. That's very very bad juju. One should never redefine a term that already exists. There's no need for it and it confuses everyone. There's no reason you can't create a new word for your use.

Quote from: Dreamian
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.
That entire essay is all about what you wanted to tell people what you believe. However I see nothing there telling the reader why you believe it. Why is that?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #30 on: 26/07/2015 22:54:17 »
Working through mathematics in the form of formulae and equations is not the only valid way to work - reason is often adequate for investigating and explaining things, and it's more important than merely crunching numbers. There are theories like SR and GR which describe a lot through mathematics but which can be shown to be deficient through reasoning - they don't actually work until you add a Newtonian time to them. People who only apply mathematics without using its full reasoning capability are missing a crucial trick and putting themselves in error.

So, your approach on that front is fine, but when I look at your site I don't see anything of great substance there. There is no definition of gravity there (though then there's also no need for one as we already know what we mean by gravity - what we actually want to know is how it works), but you do provide a weak attempt at explaining a mechanism for it. You say there must be a smallest thing that can exist, and it isn't important whether that is the case or not - what matters is that you are proposing a mechanism in which there is a smallest thing that can exist, and you're then using that in your gravity mechanism. You then talk of this stuff being found throughout most of the universe and being at different densities. However, I can't see much of a mechanism in it.

Quote
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;

You seem to be saying that this stuff can't fill the space that's available for it to expand into because it's being pulled out into all the space that's available for it to expand into. That's not great reasoning. If the pressure can push it apart at all, it can keep pushing it apart until it has reached a fairly even pressure through the whole of space.

You describe ger later in such a way that it sounds as if it exists in different grades, and yet it's supposed to be the smallest thing that can exist, so the talk of "lesser ger" needs clarification.

Quote
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.

So you now have mass creating ger-voids in matter, and these cause a tug-of-war in the ger outside? Shouldn't it be a push-of-war as they try to fill the void inside the matter? But the matter will maintain that void, so the push will have the same effect as if the matter was full of ger and lacked a void - nothing will happen if the ger pressure inside the matter is maintained as it is.

Quote
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.

To explain something through reasoning, it is necessary to set out the chains of causation: X happens, therefore Y happens, etc. But it is important that X happening can reasonably drive Y to happen, and wishful thinking doesn't do that job. You imagine that a tug of war is set up by the existence of a void in matter, but you do not explain how a void there would cause a pull on anything. A push would make more sense than a pull, but even that can make no progress unless it is possible for ger to move into the void. You have no actual mechanism here at all. You have no mechanism by which the nearby presence of a void can have any impact on ger in space to tell it to push or pull harder in any direction over any other. You have no mechanism by which a larger void can cause the ger outside to pull or push more strongly.

It looks as if you've had the first idea on the path to creating a push-theory of gravity, though you're using magic to try to make it a pull instead, but you have yet to produce a mechanism that can make any piece of matter move towards any other other than magical attraction. To give you an example of what's needed for a theory of this kind, a push theory of gravity might have a stuff filling the whole of space which is destroyed by mass, so more of it is pushed into the place where the mass is all the time as the pressure is less there, and it is destroyed in turn, so the process keeps going. That is a mechanism which allows the stuff to flow towards matter and which could allow pressure differences to move matter around in the process, pushing them towards each other as the pressure between them is reduced. Such theories can be disproved fairly easily, but at least they do have a rational mechanism in them. Unless I've missed something, your idea lacks any such mechanism, having only useless voids in matter which can't do anything as you can't allow ger to move into them without the voids disappearing.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2015 22:58:19 by David Cooper »

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #31 on: 26/07/2015 23:31:42 »
Thank You David Cooper, that is exactly the kind of criticism I was looking for and was expecting. I had the same concerns as you, and I really didn't address them well in my definition. It is a work in progress.

 The thought that the pressure pushing the ger out into the void until it could push no further did cross my mind. I didn't really address that issue in the definition, but later felt I may have, kind of.  What I reasoned would keep the ger from continuing to push out into the void until it could push no further is the interactions (energy) that may cause the ger involved to become more dense, cohesion, the energy involved causing new voids to momentarily appear between the interactions, becoming a part of the interaction. But then, it is a work in progress, and so I have not worked out all the details.  The universe is still expanding is it not? so perhaps that is one reason for it. Of so, then you would expect a weakening of the elements. Perhaps there is research being done on this weakening, I don't know. Perhaps it is seen as aging of the universe. I really am not sure.


PMB,  It is the continued expressing of common knowledge, and implying that I am not even that knowledgeable that I find offensive

I would not have even posted my definition at this stage of its development, but I can not be sure how I have to develop it, and felt I would just throw it out there for discussion. What David Cooper offered is exactly what I was looking for.  Thanks again.

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #32 on: 27/07/2015 00:19:29 »
David Cooper, you are correct in your thinking that any voids within a body of mass when created should not allow for any new matter outside of the mass to be introduced as those voids would simply be refilled by the matter that created them in the first place. I thought long and hard about this, this seems to put an end to my definition of gravity. How could 2 body's of mass create a tug of war that would pull them together unless, like you said, the matter is somehow destroyed and then replenished?

 I am aware that it is believed that there are particles that can pass through normal matter, and it has always been my idea that this ger is such a substance. So while voids are being created, and they are quickly refilled with ger laying in wait in succession, not only within the body of mass but outside of it as well, perhaps for infinity even; there still needs to be made room for it, so how is this accomplished? Perhaps the vast voids that exist outside the boundaries of all ger is continuing to pull in all directions upon a body of mass, pulling any excess ger into it, expanding the universe. With two bodies of mass, the ger passes through the mass and continues toward those vast voids, this ger is replenished by the ger between 2 bodies of mass due to the pull being lessened between the bodies of mass, as those bodies of mass offer up all their excess from the other sides, the two bodies of mass acting as blockades to the pull from the vast voids upon each other.

However, when I was contemplating this very thing prior to writing my definition, I considered the followi g possibility and thus added it to my definition on my website:

You would think that any new voids created within the mass would merely be filled again by the matter that created it in the first place, thus if this is true, it would put an end to my definition of gravity, Thus there must be forces at work that prevent this from mattering: Ger will pass through normal matter, and thus the pull upon the ger would act through a body of mass as well. The ger is pulled in every direction by the vast voids fighting for possession of the ger with bodies of mass. the ger inline between two bodies of mass would feel more tension due to the addition of the pull of the mass coupled with the pull of the vast voids. This would cause them to move toward one another. Basically they are shifting locations in space and not actually taking on any new mass; any new mass that it might gain would quickly vacate again, however the two bodies of mass would have moved closer due to the tension, and then the process is repeated. this happens very rapidly. close to speed of light perhaps? Perhaps if there is a limit to the speed caused by gravity, than that would likely be the speed  at which this could occur?


Would something to that effect make more sense?

So if I can also explain how greater gravity due to greater mass fits into this, would it give more credibility to this being a real possibility?  It seems obvious.  The greater the mass, the greater the tension.

 I modified my definition on my website to include this explanation.  As I have pointed out, It is a work in progress!
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 05:00:44 by Dreamian »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #33 on: 27/07/2015 02:01:30 »
Quote from: Dreamian
PMB,  It is the continued expressing of common knowledge, and implying that I am not even that knowledgeable that I find offensive
What on Earth are you talking about? "expressing of common knowledge"? What does that mean and where did I do it? And in what respect about you "not even that knowledgeable" do you claim that I said something?

The term for "lack of knowledge" is ignorance. Implying that someone is ignorant in a particular area such as physics or a subarea like gravity can never be claimed to be inherently offensive. That you feel that way is not my fault. All it means is that you lack something. Whoop-dee-doo. Big deal! We all lack something. We're all ignorant in one area or another. That's not an insult. It's just a fact of life. What I commented on was only about what I read - Period!! And from what I read you have a great deal to learn about physics and the scientific method. So why are you so offended about me telling you that you don't know something? There's a sh1t load of physics that I don't know. I know absolutely nothing about string theory. I know nothing about quantum field theory too. I suck at thermodynamics and statistical mechanics and at very ignorant when it comes to combinatorics.

Get this - I'm a very very intelligent physicist (I'm quoting an astrophysicist at MIT who said this about me). I have degrees in physics and mathematics. But to this day I don't even know my multiplication tables. How dumb does that make me? Lol!

So you see? We're all ignorant in one way or another. It's nothing to be offended over. I certainly can't read your mind and determine what you do or don't know so I base my assumptions on what I observe. I can't even recall how many times you wrote the phrased "I think" in your essay. Well that's where I'm coming from. "I think" that you have a ton of physics to learn. You yourself told us that you only took one course in physics in college. Do you want to know how many physics and math courses I took to get where I am? I'll actually list all the courses I had to take as an undergraduate:

Physics:
General Chemistry I, II
Physics I, II, III
Classical Mechanics
Thermodynamics & Statistical Mechanics
Optical Electronics
Electrodynamics I, II
Quantum Mechanics I, II
Philosophy of Science

In graduate school I basically took the graduate level courses of those above.

Mathematics:
Calculus I, II, III
Linear Differential Equation
Ordinary Differential Equations
Real Analysis
Complex Analysis
Combinatorics
Discrete Math
Numerical Analysis
Linear Algebra
Abstract Algebra
Transform Methods for Linear Systems
Methods of Applied Math

That's what I do know. There's not enough computer memory on Earth to tell you what I don't know.

There's a term that both I and Alan used to describe the contents of your essay, i.e. nonsense. Do you know what that means in the context in which we used it, or at least what I myself meant? It means

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense
Quote
words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas
And I do believe that your ideas are not intelligible. Many of us simply couldn't make sense out of what you said. You kept talking about things which weren't clearly defined and/or meaningful. We don't know why you said them, where they came from or why we should accept them as true.

If you ever want to do something in science like you attempted here then you can't be so sensitive. If you ask people for their opinions then you have to accept what they say and not claim that it's a personal attack and be offended. If someone believes that your work appears to be a result of a lack of knowledge then that's what they should tell you. Don't attack them when they do or nobody will ever try to help you again.

One of the moderators of the other forum wasn't happy with the way you responded to my criticism and took note of it. That should tell you something.
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 02:08:28 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #34 on: 27/07/2015 02:55:49 »
"Of course we are. Let go of two objects of different masses. If they fall at the same rate then there's a gravitational field present. You know there's a gravitational field in your room don't you? All you have to do is drop a marble and a bowling ball at the same time. You'll find that they hit the ground at the same time. That's what a gravitational field does. Don't tell me that you weren't aware of this all too simple fact?"


"You know there is a gravitational field in your room don't you?"

"don't tell me you weren't aware of this all too simple fact?"

 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?

Yes I am aware they have question marks after them, but I still read them as statements.
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 03:02:07 by Dreamian »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2794
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #35 on: 27/07/2015 03:16:58 »
Quote from: Dreamian
Some people take such statements as insult.
Not people who work in science.

Quote from: Dreamian
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?
When someone asks questions like So, nobody is aware of a device for accurately detecting gravity? the answer to that question is no, you weren't wrong. Simply dropping an object allows a person to "detect" the presence of gravity very accurately. To make sure its a gravitational force you have to make sure that it's mass independent so you have to drop two objects of different mass to make sure that they accelerate at the same rate. That is how you detect gravity. The device is your set of eyes. Perhaps you're confusing detecting gravity with measuring its value. But asking how to detect gravity is a very ignorant question. A question someone in grades school should know and someone in grade school wouldn't ask how to detect whether there's a gravitational field somewhere.

Forget it. You're waaaay too freakin sensitive to talk to. Every darn question asked of you is taken as insult. Good luck getting help with such a terrible attitude!!!
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 03:24:07 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #36 on: 27/07/2015 04:08:24 »
I edited reply 32

again
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 04:32:22 by Dreamian »

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #37 on: 27/07/2015 05:05:16 »
My website has been modified to include more definition in order to clear up some nonsensical stuff. It is still a work in progress and therefore there should be a lot more editing in the future.

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #38 on: 27/07/2015 15:00:34 »
https://str.llnl.gov/september-2013/libby

above is website that explains how a gravity detector is used to detected shielded weapons at the border, hidden within vehicles.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #39 on: 27/07/2015 17:15:53 »
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.....
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #40 on: 27/07/2015 17:43:52 »

 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?

I attempted earlier on to be understanding and as friendly as humanly possible considering your lack of education Dreamian. What is obvious to us is that your understanding of physics is very limited. I think it's high time to be very honest about who is really being insulting here.

You come here asking for our opinions and when those opinions are given, you abruptly accuse us of being insulting. The truth is, asking for opinions and then summarily rejecting them without any good evidence suggests that the author of that opinion is unworthy to have offered it. Now,..........tell me Mr. Dreamian, which is more insulting? To be told that your standard of knowledge needs improvement or, to first ask for an opinion and then promptly throw it back in the face of the one interested enough in the issue to respond with an honest answer.

Think about it Dreamian....................who's really being insulting?
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 18:25:55 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #41 on: 27/07/2015 17:58:43 »
I am not trying to throw anything back in anybody's face. If I insulted anyone, then I apologize,  I am perfectly aware that I am not anywhere close to being as knowledgeable about physics as he is. But I felt the questions asked were either an attempt at being insulting to my intelligence (not my knowledge of physics) or humorous. Apparently  I misunderstood. I am human. I apologize again for my misunderstanding. I will simply ignore any such misunderstandings on my part in the future to avoid such distractions. If you or PMB don't wish to offer help in the future due to my error, that is fine and understandable, and already accepted.

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #42 on: 27/07/2015 18:06:16 »
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?
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 18:09:42 by Dreamian »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #43 on: 27/07/2015 18:30:27 »
Are you aware of any particles, with or without mass that appear and then disappear?  Has something to that effect thus-far been observed?
Click on Wikipedia and search for the term: "Virtual particles"
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #44 on: 27/07/2015 18:39:04 »
I can't see that the new addition makes it any more viable. The existence of voids where matter is is not going to result in any paths of increased tension in the ger between pieces of matter. However, if ger have the ability to pull each other, you could have matter apply a pull on it of some kind which would spread out over distance and that might be able to do something. Thinking about soap bubbles floating on water might give you some ideas - watch the way they attract each other more strongly the closer they get to each other and then rip together at the last moment before sticking together.

I want to correct something I said earlier about push-gravity theories being easy to disprove. I've been wondering ever since why I rejected them in the past - I was developing one of my own but I can't remember why I put it on the shelf. I think the problem may have been that if you have stuff flowing into matter and being destroyed there, by the time you get to the centre of a planet there will be no gravity at all and next to no movement of the flowing stuff, so a clock would run at full speed just as if it was in deep space rather than being slowed by time dilation, but it now appears that this may not be a problem after all because the experiments which I assumed had settled this point may have not been done yet - we don't know if a clock would run slow at the centre of the Earth. Push-gravity theories may be viable then after all, and they have the major advantage of being able to handle black holes without needing any signals to escape from inside the event horizon at all. If such a theory can bend light around massive objects, that may be all that is needed to generate gravity because it may put an imbalance into the distribution of forces within matter such that it accelerates stuff towards whatever it is that's bending the path of light most strongly. Alternatively, the movement of the flowing stuff could add a kick of some kind to any matter it moves past, accelerating it far in excess of the speed of the flowing stuff itself (which might be flowing downwards through us all the time here at the Earth's surface at a speed of 1mm/s [that's a very approximate guess which might be out by several orders of magnitude] and which would cross the event horizon of a black hole at the speed of light).

Going back to your ger idea though, if matter could pull and push it repeatedly in opposite directions, I can imagine some kind of ratchet effect which could be used to pull other matter towards the source of the vibrations without also pushing it away (though I don't know where the energy would come from as the vibrations would be damped by any matter that was moved by them.) If this pull-push vibration spreads out over distance, you would also have a stronger pull the nearer you get to the source of the vibration.
« Last Edit: 27/07/2015 18:42:02 by David Cooper »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3214
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #45 on: 27/07/2015 19:55:51 »


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".

I think I now understand what you are trying to say , are you saying that empty space contains some sort of universal fabric?

In essence it does, in the form of electromagnetic radiation or Cosmic background radiation.  I think what you are looking for is a sort of Aether theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

''a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces''.

*

Offline scotty stull

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 27
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #46 on: 27/07/2015 21:32:20 »
Dreamian...    Variance.... To me this word is related to divergence, gravity is convergent. Newton's laws says there is both. Gravity is liken to a river flowing into all sides of a sphere where the mass of the river is small, that is very-very small ( Newton's third law of motion). Once gravity is in side the sphere the  mass of the sphere slowly increases and there is a corresponding "lossed motion", loss motion goes into the rotation of the earth as well as other rotations in side of the earth. However " variance " may be a good way to relate differences between the expansion rate of different sized orbiting particle systems as they relate to each other.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4072
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #47 on: 27/07/2015 22:21:10 »
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?

Possibly for the same reason that the strong force does not repel. There are theoretical electroweak interactions. Should we also consider gravitostrong interactions?

(b) why is gravitational mass apparently identical to inertial mass?

I would say it is because gravity acts on the object as a whole. Each molecule is affected equally. As the density of hypothetical force carriers reduces then 1/4, 1/9 etc molecules are affected. This follows from the inverse square law.

(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?)

That is the 64 million dollar question.
 
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.....

*

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #48 on: 27/07/2015 23:27:22 »
TheBox,  Yes, I believe I may have even commented in an earlier post that 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. Even after having read on the aether I felt that I was still ignorant to whether or not it was defined such that I could use it, so I named it the Ger, at least temporarily even though I may be referring to the same substance that has already been defined.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2034
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #49 on: 28/07/2015 00:37:22 »
.. 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.
You might want to read this http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57203.0
Phaedrus gives a link to a paper of his which includes an aether theory of gravity. Although I don't agree with it, it is one of the best constructed papers put in new theories and you might want to look at it as a sort of role model.
The problem with many new theories is that the author often does not know enough physics to understand the problem they are trying to address, or knows some but misunderstands key points. To put forward a good theory of the root cause of gravity you really need to  understand thoroughly the current laws, theories, latest research etc. it really isn't enough to propose a new particle, void, substance etc unless you understand all the current thinking and how your proposal fits a gap in current knowledge.
I suggest you do a lot of reading before revising your site, you will find it very stimulating.
Enjoy.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.