[Colin2B]

Ok, "Do good and avoid Evil".

If the owners of the "naked scientists forum" opines that mine ideas are improper then I am ready to quit.  For next 15 days I am not going to login, by that time any one of them including moderators can give their opinion.

Right, goodbye
Yours
Psreddy

It depends what you mean by improper.
Most of your ideas on this thread are either wrong or misleading and the moderators have on occasions pointed this out to you, but we do not have the time to take up all the false statements you make.
We offer this New Theories section for anyone to offer their scientific or pseudoscientific ideas, so in that sense you are doing nothing improper. However, you say "Do good and avoid Evil"
Are you doing good? No, because your posts mislead others who might otherwise learn the truth.
Are you doing evil? Lead was removed from petrol because there was evidence that it reduced the IQ of children by 4 points. Posting incorrect information can also have detrimental effects on people by blocking their ability to understand the correct nature of science, which can then affect their performance and progress at school or work.

We do not have a problem with people presenting new concepts and ideas, but misrepresenting scientific ideas does no one any good.

[Zer0]

Most Ideas are like Investments.

The more Time & Energy & Emotions invested...the more Reluctant one feels to back off or Quit.

But, when All you get are Negative returns, it's Wise to Stop!



P.S. - @pasala
Please Do Not Leave.
🙏
Stay back with US... let's Grow up Together.

[Colin2B]

P.S. - @pasala
Please Do Not Leave.
🙏
Stay back with US... let's Grow up Together.[/color]

All he has to do is listen and learn

[Zer0]

All he has to do is listen and learn
[/quote]


Easier Said, than Done.
Especially in this Case.
🙏

The User has been formulating their Own " Theory of Gravity " since 2015.

Going about Hypothesising this specific " Gravitational Supposition " since 2019.

Travelling steadily in a specific direction & gaining momentum since 692 days...
Nobody should ideally expect the individual to be capable of taking a sudden 180° " U " turn in just a matter of 15 days.
👎
(I am Aware the target has been set by the User himself)

Wish the Individual could have participated a little more in other sub- sections of the Forum.
     
     Would have contributed to the community as well as learnt other relevant things which might have helped in modifying & formulation of their " Gravity Theory " in a harmonious manner in relation to Reality.
👍



P.S. - Really Appreciate your sheer level of Persistence in following what You feel is Right...But, Perhaps being a Realist helps out Alot on a Science Forum.

Tc! Pasala.
🍭

[pasala (OP)]

Friends,
Well, I would like to tell everybody that I am not worrying about comments.  But worry is about future.

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.  Einstein has taken up seriously and presented it in beautiful way.  I read General relativity several times.  Finally I came to know that GR on Gravity is incomplete.  Einstein says Curved space time as responsible for Gravity.  But he did not give us, what is curved space time is?,  how it is formed and creates gravity on a mass.  He has done wonderful thought experiments.  Einstein gave us instruments, maths for a lab test but did not talk about modus operandi, leaving us in confusion. Finally, he could not present us complete picture of “what exactly is gravity”, leaving the scientific world to depend on inverse square law.

I had read Einstein GR several times and noted important points.  Einstein theories are not ordinary, it is very, very difficult for an ordinary person to understand them.  Within short time, realised that Einstein has “wrong step” in his thought experiments itself.

Say:
“Is there any physical experiment you could do within the confines of your spaceship to tell whether you really were accelerating through space (assuming there were no windows to look out from), or if, instead, you were inside a spaceship stationary on the surface of Earth? Einstein said no—just as Galileo imagined the indistinguishability between a person inside a smooth-sailing ship (confined without windows) and a person on land, Einstein realised that the effects of acceleration and gravity were indistinguishable too. This is called the equivalence".

As per Galileo, equivalence is in between, closed room of a ship to Earth.  As per Einstein, it is in between closed cabin of a space ship to Earth.  It refers or gives us meaning that “there is also equivalence”.   But I could not found any discussion on Galileo’s equivalence anywhere.    Here it is not discussing about equivalence, but saying that there is also equivalence.  Unless we discuss about Galileo’s equivalence, there is no use in discussing another equivalence.

Einstein’s mind is set in such a way, mass as responsible for all gravity.  Spaceship is far away from all “gravitational mass”, clearly tells us how his thinking is going. 

If the space ship is accelerating from a gravitational field, Einstein’s equivalence is correct.  Suppose if the space ship is in deep space, if it accelerates back to Earth there is no proof of “acceleration equating gravity”. 

But, here we can deduct several important things on Gravity:
01   Cabin of the space ship is locked here in a strong gravitational field.
02   There is gravity as long as the space ship accelerates.
03    As the space ship reaches, gravity field inside the space ship is adjusting with that of outside space.
It clearly tells us:
01   Gravity can be packed in a small area and moved
02   Gravity is a field present on the Earth
03   This field adjusting with outside space, clearly tells its important quality of moving from high to low.
04  It is surprise to see, Gravity field in a small area such  as cabin or elevator is giving same results

One  of my friend, used the words proper and improper, and declared that mine ideas are improper.  Ok, you have every right to say, why mine ideas are improper.  I am sure that we are in the section of “NEW THEORIES”.  when ever there are comments that I am not following or mine ideas are not as per standard physics, it is surprise to me, used to check whether I am in the section New Theories or not. 

For that, see all my replies, I use to present similarly, as is done now, as per standard physics with quotations and deducting mine ideas.

Here, moderators have every right to discuss anything.  Since we are in the section, new theories, they have to take up new ideas as well and have to discuss, whether they are correct or wrong.  Suppose, as presented by me, acceleration is not equal to gravity.   They have to take up this and compare it with standard physics and have to give their judgement why mine idea or theory is wrong.  If they feel that new theory or idea is correct, encourage them as well with your suggestions. 

Saying, simply improper and is not as per standard physic and not useful to any one, is not correct.  We are in the section new theories and therefore, tell why new idea is incorrect.  If not, it is better to merge new theories with other one.

Friends, actually, I am not worried, about these comments, but worry is, in this scenario how can I present complete picture of “what exactly is gravity”.    It is not criticising Einstein theories but taking them further.

Gravity is a vast and difficult subject to be dealt with.  Unless there is co-operation, it is very difficult for me to move further.   Gravity is interlinked to several other theories.  So, unless we decide “what exactly is gravity”, further progress is impossible.

Yours
Psreddy

[Kryptid]

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.

Based on what evidence?

[Bored chemist]

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct. 

An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
So it's pretty clear that any deviations from it must be tiny.

[pasala (OP)]

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct. 

An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
So it's pretty clear that any deviations from it must be tiny.

As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us.  Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity.  For that  there is no perfect answer for "what exactly is gravity". 

What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.

[jeffreyH]

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct. 

An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
So it's pretty clear that any deviations from it must be tiny.

As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us.  Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity.  For that  there is no perfect answer for "what exactly is gravity". 

What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.

General relativity has passed every test that has been devised for it.  It incorporates the inverse square law. Are you clairvoyant? You seem to be in touch with the ghost of Einstein. Say hi from me and tell him he did a fantastic job.

[Colin2B]

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct. 

As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us.
What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.

If it incorrect then we have a choice, we can go for what is correct.

Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity. 

Just because you don’t understand what curved space time is and how it is responsible for gravity doesn’t mean others don’t understand it.
Rather than reject what you don’t understand you should make an effort to understand it.

[pasala (OP)]

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct. 

As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us.
What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.

If it incorrect then we have a choice, we can go for what is correct.

Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity. 

Just because you don’t understand what curved space time is and how it is responsible for gravity doesn’t mean others don’t understand it.
Rather than reject what you don’t understand you should make an effort to understand it.

Really, I accept that I don't know:
01  What exactly this curved space time consists of
02  In what way or how it is paving way for gravity

I am trying very hard to get the information, since it is the base to say, how gravity is keeping the planets in particular place and to maintain perfect line and length.

When you are saying that I don't, you must be having knowledge.  Please, it is my humble request as well, tell me what this curved space time consists, when it is responsible for gravity how it paves way for gravity.

You can make me to shut with perfect explanation as well.

[pasala (OP)]

In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct. 

An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
So it's pretty clear that any deviations from it must be tiny.

As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us.  Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity.  For that  there is no perfect answer for "what exactly is gravity". 

What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.

General relativity has passed every test that has been devised for it.  It incorporates the inverse square law. Are you clairvoyant? You seem to be in touch with the ghost of Einstein. Say hi from me and tell him he did a fantastic job.

It appears, you are doing very good job.  Keep it up.

[Kryptid]

I am trying very hard to get the information, since it is the base to say, how gravity is keeping the planets in particular place and to maintain perfect line and length.

Technically, it isn't. Orbits change over time.

[pasala (OP)]

Well, it is true that in any region distant from massive cosmic objects such as stars, space-time is uncurved.  Ok, If one were to probe spacetime in that region by sending out a ray of light or a test body, both the ray and the body would travel in perfectly straight lines.

However, all masses curves or distorts space time around them and light ray will follow geodesics   

Ok, let us study it with simple thought experiment of Einstein.
01   Let us take an elevator, having holes in opposite direction.
02   If you send a ray of light through one hole it will move out through the other hole.

Here there are several important points:
01   The elevator is in the strong gravity field and there is gravity inside elevator also.
02    Mr. X’s weight, who is inside the elevator continues to be 75 Kgs only.
03   When the ray of light is sent through one hole it moves out through the other hole.
04   It tells us, in normal course, irrespective of gravity, light travels in straight line.
05   Ok, suppose let us imagine that all the planets are in at rest or stationary, even if space time is curved near to the masses, light never bends.  There is no gravitational lensing at all.
06   Further we can also deduct that, space time where light is travelling, may be curved or uncurved, doesn’t matter, it moves in straight line.
07   It clearly tells us that, space time which we are taking as empty, may not be empty as well.
08   At present we are taking, if we place any mass, anywhere, in response it will curve the space time around it.
09   For me it is a big doubt, unless there is something, how a mass curves or distort space time.
10   Mass only alters or curves existing gravity field and mass has no capacity to create any gravity field.
11   If mass has the capacity to curve or create gravity by itself without outside support, planets need not be in a solar system. 

However things will change, If the elevator accelerates forward. 
01   Though the source of light is relative to elevator, light start bending or accelerating in opposite direction.
02   Here, it is true that light ray is moving in straight line as long as the elevator is at rest or stationary on the ground.  We should not forget that this is happening in a strong gravity.
03   If the elevator accelerates forward, the light ray accelerates downwards. Here also we can draw several important conclusions.
      a)   When the elevator accelerates forward, what makes light to bend. 
     b)   Here, at present we are taking it as Gravity bending light.
     c)   If we take it for gravity, it gives us best clue that as the elevator accelerates forward,
                gravity field is moving downwards.
     d)   Gravity field while moving downwards, density increases and gives additional weight.
     e)   What else proof is needed to prove that gravity is a field present on Earth
      f)   What else proof is needed to prove that it is the density of the gravity increasing at the
                bottom.
      g)   What else proof is needed to prove that this field is having important quality of moving
                from high to low, as it adjusts.
04   So, in normal course, if gravity is at rest or stationary, there is no bending of light at all.
05   As the elevator moves forward, gravity field is moving in opposite direction.  For this I had already given lengthy explanation, we are lifting frame only and in turn frame drags the contents including gravity.
06   So, light bending is an indication that gravity field is not at rest or stationary and is moving.

So, it is clear that light ray moves in straight line whether space time is curved or uncurved.  Ok, suppose if the Sun is at rest or stationary, curved space time  also will be at rest or stationary only.  Light coming from the other stars will not follow geodesics and will move out in straight line.

From the elevator example it is clear that unless there is a change, up, down, light is not taking any curves or bending.  Even in strong gravity field, if there is no change or movement light ray moves in straight line. 

Well, it is true that Sun is not at rest or stationary.  Sun is moving against its axis.  If Sun is moving, curved space time cannot be at rest or stationary, it is also moving.  Light ray coming from far reaching stars, if Sun is at rest, will not follow any geodesics, moves out in straight line.  Since curved space is moving, light ray is bent.

Yours
Psreddy

[Zer0]

@pasala


Hi Again!
🙋

I'm a Layman Science Enthusiast...
The Layest man ever, if that's even a word.
(I guess Not)

Okay.
Let's try n have a healthy discussion...here we go!
👍

Seems like You have a Deeper Understanding of Gravity, or maybe you are trying Real hard to figure out what it is...or perhaps neither.
🤔

Anyways, my question is short & simple...
How would You describe Your Gravity Hypothesis to a small kid?
(Dare i say Supposition)
😉

I Simply Completely Fail to Understand what exactly is it that you are trying so soo hard to explain in here...
I just Wish to put in a lil extra effort on my part to try & understand it.
👍

Could you, or rather would you help me with it?
😊




P.S. - Even thou Change is the Only Constant in the Universe, Some Things just never Change...Eveh!
🤭

[pasala (OP)]

Mr ZerO,
As said by you, even myself at the end, felt that I must have dealt issues / theories one after one in detail. 

Ok, let us discuss about Einstein thought experiment which is base for all our discussion.
01   Let us take an Elevator, having holes on opposite sides.
02    Now, if you send a light ray from one hole, it will move out through the other one.

If the elevator accelerates forward, things will be different:
01   Here, source of light is relative to the elevator.
02   Though source of light is relative, light accelerates downwards according to the acceleration of elevator.

Here there are several important things to be discussed.  As long as the elevator is at rest on the ground, light ray moves out through the other hole.  When the elevator accelerates, what makes the light to bend and to accelerate downwards.   Here, we should not forget that we are doing all these things in a strong gravity field.  As long as the elevator is at rest on the ground, even in strong gravity field, light ray is moving straight. 

In fact, for this bending of light we are taking Gravity as reason.  So, to bend the light ray, inside the elevator, there must be change in the gravity field.  Ok in case if there is no change in gravity field what is bending light?.

This is another important point, I had already discussed at length.  When we lift the elevator, literally, we are lifting the frame only.  In turn, frame drags the contents there in including gravity field.  In turn gravity field density at the bottom start increasing, pushing you backward. 

This is the reason, if we accelerate the car forward, engine drags the frame and in turn frame drags the contents, including gravity field and in turn density of gravity field at the end increases giving you additional weight, pushing you backward.

01   Ok, in case of elevator, when it accelerates forward, what is bending light downwards. 
02   Please remember that this is Einstein’s thought experiment only.  At present we are of the
        opinion that gravity is bending light.
03   If it is Gravity, we are already in strong gravity.
04   Unless there is change in the Gravity field there is no scope for bending of light.
05   Finally, one must accept that it is the Gravity field moving downwards and bending light.
06    One must accept that Gravity is a field present on the Earth.
07   When the elevator accelerates, density of gravity field increasing at the bottom shows that,
        its density itself is the gravity. 
08   It also shows one of the important quality of moving from high to low.
09   From the space ship example, it is surprise to see, even in small area such as cabin gravity
        field can be packed and moved, Einstein equivalence clearly tells us that this gravity in
        small area is giving same results.

Unless there is a change in the position of elevator, up, down, left or right no effect can be noticed.  It is also scientifically proved that when the elevator accelerates forward something is changing.

Please remember that this is Einstein’s thought experiment only.  When we accept that Gravity is bending light, inside the elevator, one  must also accept that Gravity is moving downward.

Next we will discuss about gravitational lensing of light.

Yours
Psreddy

[CrazyScientist]

Here there are several important things to be discussed.  As long as the elevator is at rest on the ground, light ray moves out through the other hole.  When the elevator accelerates, what makes the light to bend and to accelerate downwards.   Here, we should not forget that we are doing all these things in a strong gravity field.  As long as the elevator is at rest on the ground, even in strong gravity field, light ray is moving straight.

The elevator analogy makes more sense, if you exclude any external gravitational field - let's focus only on the acceleration of elevator.

In fact, for this bending of light we are taking Gravity as reason.  So, to bend the light ray, inside the elevator, there must be change in the gravity field.  Ok in case if there is no change in gravity field what is bending light?.

Let's modify slightly the scenario and place the source of light and a sesnor in a stationary frame (e.g. on the 1st floor), while removing the side walls in that elevator - so that the light will pass through the elevator, which accelerates upwards and reach the stationary sensor on the opposite side:

In the stationary frame of source/sensor light is moving in a stright line from the source towards the sensor and it's the elevator which accelerates upwards. But in the frame of elevator it's the light source and the sensor which accelerate downwards.

Now if the light is being emitted by the source, while it is placed in the middle of elevator, in the frame of that elevator light will reach the sensor, when it is placed much lower, than in the moment of light emission - and because the relative velocity of both frames is constantly growing due to the accelerating elevator, path of light will be curved downwards in the frame of elvator, while being stright in the frame of source/sensor:

Ok, in case of elevator, when it accelerates forward, what is bending light downwards.

It's bending in the frame of accelerating elevator due to growing relative velocity of the source/sensor frame

[CrazyScientist]

I know, that it doesn't have too much with the gravity, but since we're talking about a scenario with the elevator, I wonder what would happen if we would modify it and place the sensor inside the moving elevator, while keeping the source of light in stationary frame. Let's say, that light is being emitted by the stationary source in the moment, when it is at the same level, as the sensor placed inside the elevator moving upwards - will the light reach that sensor or not? If it won't reach it, then the motion of elevator will become absolute/definitive, what will violate the relative nature of relative motion. If it will reach the sensor, then path of light will become curved upwards in the frame of stationary source. Which option is the valid one?

[pasala (OP)]

I know, that it doesn't have too much with the gravity, but since we're talking about a scenario with the elevator, I wonder what would happen if we would modify it and place the sensor inside the moving elevator, while keeping the source of light in stationary frame. Let's say, that light is being emitted by the stationary source in the moment, when it is at the same level, as the sensor placed inside the elevator moving upwards - will the light reach that sensor or not? If it won't reach it, then the motion of elevator will become absolute/definitive, what will violate the relative nature of relative motion. If it will reach the sensor, then path of light will become curved upwards in the frame of stationary source. Which option is the valid one?

Actually, I had taken Einstein's thought experiment and it is not mine.  Ok, when the elevator accelerates forward, basic question is what makes the light ray to accelerate downwards.  Einstein indirectly conveyed that gravity is bending light.  In my view, since it is giving additional weight or pushing you back, it is gravity only.   By this we can draw a conclusion that Gravity is a field present on Earth.

Ok, you are talking different thing.  You are saying that, light source is relative to elevator and you also proposes to place a sensor inside the elevator and also says that the sensor is moving up.  As the elevator accelerates forward, by doing so, you want to measure the relativity.  It is a different idea.

Actually, I don't want to go deep into your point, since main subject, what exactly is gravity will be diverted. 

Really I am working very hard, going by Einstein thought experiments only, to prove or say what exactly is gravity.  If any body having idea on this may share their ideas.

[Kryptid]

Ok, when the elevator accelerates forward, basic question is what makes the light ray to accelerate downwards.

The fact that you are accelerating upwards is what makes the light ray look like it is accelerating downwards. It really is just that simple.