It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascinating Theory of Gravity

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toadmund
That theory would suggest that a very dense object would have things coming at it with the same pull as a not so dense object. (these objects being the same size)
Unless of course these sub-atomic particles pass through less dense objects much more easily.
No it doesn't. Didn't you or Noreaster read the link in Noreaster's OP?


In order to ensure mass proportionality, Fatio assumed that gross matter is extremely permeable to the flux of corpuscles.



originally posted by: Phage
One more question. Why if, these "impercetable subatomic particles" everywhere, does gravitation closely follow an inverse squared relationship to distance?
The illustration in the OP source shows the concept:



originally posted by: NorEaster
Just thought I'd share a new (to most of us) notion concerning the actual physical nature of gravity. I'm not sure that I am sold on it, but it sure beats the hell out of a metaphysical version of magnetism, and kicks the f*ck out of an imaginary aether that's made of space-time.
I don't know why you're defending it when you said you just learned of it and didn't even know how it addresses the mass-density relationship. Why would you do that?

If it was true "global warming" would take on a whole new meaning according to Poincaré, who according to your link made a calculation that


shows that earth's temperature would rise by 100000000000000000000000000 degrees per second. Poincaré noticed, "that the earth could not long stand such a regime." Poincaré also analyzed some wave models (Tommasina and Lorentz), remarking that they suffered the same problems as the particle models. To reduce drag, superluminal wave velocities were necessary, and they would still be subject to the heating problem. After describing a similar re-radiation model like Thomson, he concluded: "Such are the complicated hypotheses to which we are led when we seek to make Le Sage's theory tenable".
So the fact that the Earth isn't heating up by 100000000000000000000000000 degrees per second should be pretty easy to confirm, right?

How is this better than space-time? Hint: It's not, since space-time models result in no such temperature rise for the Earth.




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The illustration in the OP source shows the concept:

An equal influx of those imperceptible sub atomic particles? Particles that are somehow a better notion than spacetime.

But this is how shadows work:
c.tadst.com...

Unless the imperceptible subatomic particles have a point source, it doesn't really seem to make much sense. Since they are coming from "everywhere", equally, that doesn't seem to be a point source.




edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
You aren't showing the rays coming from infinity which is apparently the idea. I'm not trying to defend it so much as explain what the idea is.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I know you're not defending.
In the case of a non-point source, the force would not be dependent upon distance, right? Shadows would be cast in straight lines. The "shadow" of the Sun would have the same effect on Mercury as it does on Mars.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I don't know if you understand the illustration (probably because the idea doesn't make a lot of sense).

But what the illustration shows is converging rays. If the rays really converged in such a fashion, then moving the object half the distance would block 4 times as many of the rays shown, hence, inverse square relationship. While I understand the illustration, it's hard to make any sense out of it physically since it's hard to imagine what would make rays converge like that from distant sources.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

I agree with you in principle, that the question of gravity is open to speculation. What I can never get my head around is that people are prepared to have discussions like this, without the mention of dark matter.

I'm just saying it makes up about 80% of the universe. We cannot measure it, we also do not know then how this material interacts with the stuff we can see. Some are even talking of dark photons and other mindnumbing malarkey.

I'm sorry and it's nothing personal, but until we breach that gap in our current understanding regarding dark matter, it's all hot wind.

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

While I understand the illustration, it's hard to make any sense out of it physically since it's hard to imagine what would make rays converge like that from distant sources.
Uh huh.
Unless it's the warping of spacetime caused by...
Oh wait. Never mind.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Here's the text that accompanies the inverse-square illustration, but I'm not sure it helps:

Since it is assumed that some or all of the gravific particles converging on an object are either absorbed or slowed by the object, it follows that the intensity of the flux of gravific particles emanating from the direction of a massive object is less than the flux converging on the object. We can imagine this imbalance of momentum flow - and therefore of the force exerted on any other body in the vicinity - distributed over a spherical surface centered on the object (P4). The imbalance of momentum flow over an entire spherical surface enclosing the object is independent of the size of the enclosing sphere, whereas the surface area of the sphere increases in proportion to the square of the radius. Therefore, the momentum imbalance per unit area decreases inversely as the square of the distance.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Surely common sense dictates that shadows in this context (i.e energy projections encountering obstructions) are probably not involved in Gravity given that Stellar Objects and Planetary Masses would not exist without Gravity operating in the first place.

Space Time is actually great descriptive wording as we can visualise the dimensions of Space (assuming space is Quantized) and the 9 different ways a very small object (quanta) can move independently through the following dimensions:

3 Spatial (XYZ)
3 Super Spatial
3 Intra Spatial

youtu.be... (skip to 6:09 gives a good visual description).

The time bit applies because if this object is small enough, it can also have 2 time co-ordinates (number of resonances against neighbour and super spatial transition).

Simple explanation is Gravity and the Gravitational field is a change in density of the quanta of localised space.





edit on 2-6-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I see. It's only the converging particles that count.
Is it isotropic or not? No parallel particles?

Seems it's a lot more complicated than spacetime. Also, the OP seems to contend that we know that gravific particles exist. I hadn't heard that they have been detected.

edit on 6/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

The error with the Shadow theory is that it would seem to favor both volume and density of the objects involved as opposed to being directly related to mass. I believe practical observable data supports a direct correlation to mass and density.

Picture the dynamics of 3 objects. One an extremely dense and massive object but small, the second a large object of significant mass and a 3rd object which is large with little mass. I do not believe you would get the correct dynamic relationships using the shadow theory of gravity.

I could be mistaken, but that is my take on it.


I don't know that it's as cut and dried as it's made out to be. Isn't Jupiter a gas giant of a planet? Not that it matters, I guess, since it is considered to have enormous mass due to its size anyway. Still, isn't iron and rock much denser (and therefore possessing a greater mass) than gas?

To be honest, I see a lot of problems with every theory concerning gravity. Especially if the theory depends on assertions that are inherently hard to justify without leaning heavily on inductive logic. That's one of my biggest complaint about Relativity. The blanket assertions are monumental, yet the verification processes have largely been heroic examples of extreme induction.
edit on 6/2/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I see your point. I have a suspicion that "gravity" is (perhaps) a range of forces or ramifications that, while being caused by differing issues, have been lumped in together due to similar or somewhat similar net effects. I don't know, but if the same "force" is responsible for keeping everything on a planet on that planet, then it's quite a complex bit of multifunctionality (just the scalability issues alone) for it to be the same "dumb" force that holds solar systems, star systems and galaxies together as successfully surviving macro-systems. After all, how much force would it actually take to "reach out" to the moon and hold it into the orbit it has? I would imagine that it takes a lot. And yet, if this force is emanating from our own planet's core, then why aren't we all crushed to the surface by it? Yes, that seems like a little kid question, but perhaps it only sounds like that because we're so used to the idea that the same force that yields to a leaf in a strong breeze, is the same force that holds the entire moon to its orbit. Science has this troubling tendency of making flat assertions that it knows will probably have to be dismissed at a later date when more data comes in. I just wish it was better at admitting its own ignorance.

I understand the urge to find unification between all mechanical processes. Especially since Maxwell's electromagnetism triumph launched everyone in that direction. Still, the fact is that Strong Force and Weak Force are still complete mysteries, relative to WHY they exist as they do, and obviously warped space-time isn't going to unify gravity with them. Besides, I still have yet to find any paper or video or anything that explains space-time as being anything other than relative positioning within a 3D volume displacement at a specific instant in time, and as far as I can tell, that's not a description of anything that planets, stars, photons or galaxies can swim through.
edit on 6/2/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NorEaster

You don't have a question.
Right. I had three.
And you didn't answer them.


Okay. Keep in mind, however, that I am also asking questions about this theory. I posted this as an inquiry. I'm not an apologist for this theory.


1) How are "imperceptible particles" different from spacetime. You said, "we know they exist." Which imperceptible particles exist? How do we know they exist if they are imperceptible? We know that spacetime exists because observations support its predicted properties.


Can you even explain to me what space-time is? Not the mapping strategy definition of space-time, but the "fabric" definition of space-time. Can you supply a link that actually defines it as this 3 dimensional "aether" that provides the geometry of open space? I have been through papers, and technical explanations, as well as the idiotic Youtube videos, and after weeks of simply looking for a definitive description of what it is, the best I have come up with is that space-time is a residual matrix of position points that exist as a result of the prior existence of material items occupying these positional locations at previous instances in time. If this is so, then I actually have a much more realistic explanation concerning why such a physical matrix would emerge, and why it would persist. In fact, it was that very specific explanation that has driven me to try and make sense of this space-time "fabric" theory.


2) Why do to the "imperceptible particles" produced by the Sun not push the Earth away from the Sun? You said, "That's a clown question and you know it." That is not an answer. It is an evasion to a valid question based on the "theory."


The description of the bombardment that this shadow theory suggests is the result of all suns everywhere out there, and who knows what else that's also careening through the cosmos. The suggestion is that this bombardment is sufficient to offset the sun's own radiation impact on its own planets. Like I said, this isn't my theory, and I'm not an expert on it. I have my own issues with any of these gravity theories concerning why each planet has been allowed the orbit it occupies, if the draw from the sun is "dumb" and a simple gravitational field. If it's only about attraction relative to mass, then why is Mars (less mass than Earth) between Earth and Jupiter? I don't like any of these gravity theories.

It was a clown question because it was presented as a clown question. I don't respond with deference to statements that suggest that I haven't considered what can only be seen as an obvious issue.


3) Why if, these "imperceptible subatomic particles" are everywhere, does gravitation closely follow an inverse squared relationship to distance? The Sun is by far the most abundant local source of "gama radiation, photons, neutrinos, whatever." You answered this one...sort of.

"I would imagine it's because of the constancy of the barrage of stuff from all angles and directions on all material objects. It's that constancy that stabilizes the "formula".
That does not explain why the force of attraction is related to the inverse square of the distance between bodies. If gravity is a shadow effect the force would would be directly proportionate. A shadow is directly proportionate to the distance between the object casting the shadow and the object upon which the shadow is cast. The Sun has very nearly the same apparent diameter as the Moon. Why does the Earth not orbit the Moon as it does the Sun?


The diameter of the moon might appear to an Earth observer as being "the same apparent diameter" as the sun, but let's be real here...You know and I know that what some guy on Earth perceives is never going to have any impact on the relationship between two orbiting masses in space. Einstein really screwed the pooch when he failed to put "the observer" in its proper place relative to reality itself. Now people think that Physics demands that they can direct traffic with their minds. Between Einstein and Youtube, we're heading back towards the Dark Ages of mysticism.

Keep in mind that I'm not selling this theory. I'm just bringing it up for examination here.


edit on 6/2/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

It is cut and dried. The effects of gravity are not in question. The relationship between mass and gravity is observable data. Jupiter has a large mass AND possesses a large gravity well. This is not up for debate....it is observable and demonstrable.

The only question is how gravity works....


edit on 2-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Phage
You aren't showing the rays coming from infinity which is apparently the idea. I'm not trying to defend it so much as explain what the idea is.


Same here. Why do you have to "own" something in order to present it? If I am appearing to defend anything, it's the notion that flatly dismissing something in favor of something else (like space-time, for instance) doesn't do any favors for anyone. This isn't a competition. It's an examination.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

It is cut and dried. The effects of gravity are not in question. The relationship between mass and gravity is observable data. Jupiter has a large mass AND possesses a large gravity well. This is not up for debate....it is observable and demonstrable.

The only question is how gravity works....



Einstein asserted that gravity and acceleration ARE the same force because they FEEL the same to an observer. That was quite an assertion, and yet there's no evidence of that being true at all. I guess that all answers are cut and dried if you are completely sold on those answers.

Still, how is it that Jupiter has large relative mass (relative to its size versus the size of the Earth) if most of it is been proven to be gaseous? Or are there gasses that are denser than iron? I'm just curious. I don't have an answer, and wonder what such an explanation would look like.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
By the way - not to derail this but - the video ads are a real deterrent for even wanting to refresh these pages. Just a thought.
edit on 6/2/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

You still do not get it.

What is cut and dried is the OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA!

Quote me and show me where I said ANY theory is cut and dried!

Jeez... What is cut and dried is the relationship between mass and gravity.

Show me one, even remotely provable, instance where this is not true.

Seriously...read the words.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: chr0naut

...

After all, how much force would it actually take to "reach out" to the moon and hold it into the orbit it has? I would imagine that it takes a lot. And yet, if this force is emanating from our own planet's core, then why aren't we all crushed to the surface by it? Yes, that seems like a little kid question, but perhaps it only sounds like that because we're so used to the idea that the same force that yields to a leaf in a strong breeze, is the same force that holds the entire moon to its orbit.

...

In the case of the gravity that holds the moon in place, the equations show that the force keeping us on the ground and keeping the moon in orbit is the same. This is where mathematics can actually clarify things by introducing scale to the scenario. In the case of the moon, the force acting upon any particular particle of the moon is smaller than the force upon any similar mass particle at the earth's surface.

Yes, the moon is massive and the force required to hold the entire thing in orbit is similarly massive but the classic 'rubber sheet' analogy does well in explaining how curved space-time could cause bodies to orbit (despite the fact that it is metaphorically recursive, explaining the action of gravity but requiring an understanding of gravity to do so). It provides a scale analog, that we can visualize, to see with our imagination if it would agree with mathematically generated values and with observation.

I myself have not encountered any particular issue with the current curved space-time paradigm of gravitation, but I do admit that my acceptance of the theory is, by this stage of my life, deeply entrenched.


edit on 2/6/2014 by chr0naut because: general tidy up for brevity and readability



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: chr0naut

...

After all, how much force would it actually take to "reach out" to the moon and hold it into the orbit it has? I would imagine that it takes a lot. And yet, if this force is emanating from our own planet's core, then why aren't we all crushed to the surface by it? Yes, that seems like a little kid question, but perhaps it only sounds like that because we're so used to the idea that the same force that yields to a leaf in a strong breeze, is the same force that holds the entire moon to its orbit.

...

In the case of the gravity that holds the moon in place, the equations show that the force keeping us on the ground and keeping the moon in orbit is the same. This is where mathematics can actually clarify things by introducing scale to the scenario. In the case of the moon, the force acting upon any particular particle of the moon is smaller than the force upon any similar mass particle at the earth's surface.

Yes, the moon is massive and the force required to hold the entire thing in orbit is similarly massive but the classic 'rubber sheet' analogy does well in explaining how curved space-time could cause bodies to orbit (despite the fact that it is metaphorically recursive, explaining the action of gravity but requiring an understanding of gravity to do so). It provides a scale analog, that we can visualize, to see with our imagination if it would agree with mathematically generated values and with observation.

I myself have not encountered any particular issue with the current curved space-time paradigm of gravitation, but I do admit that my acceptance of the theory is, by this stage of my life, deeply entrenched.



So, are you able to translate the definition "space-time" into an actual 3 dimensional environmental confine? I already understand Einstein's original definition, and have no problem with the sensible nature of it, but this translation of that into a 3D fabric has still got me irritated. There doesn't seem to be any rationale for it.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join