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.

 

Inside the box thinking about gravity in the SM

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2020 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I always enjoyed Wallace Thornhill's theory of gravity, that it is a by product of electricity. Here is one of his diagrams explaining the dipole effect of electric fields.



Here is one of his longer presentations going into depth of that theory and also providing quite a bit of rational arguments against our current theories:





posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Just thinking outloud here - if the Planck length is the minimum length we can measure and is related to the limit of the amount of energy before it collapses into a black hole, then nature has put a restriction on what we know and what we can't know?
Well, sort of but not really. Yes it's true that we can't investigate scales smaller than a planck length since a photon with enough energy to do that would form a black hole, but that's not really the realistic restriction on our knowledge, since we can't begin to come anywhere close to making photons with such energy levels nor can we conceive of any way to do that. So, our knowledge is restricted by more practical considerations of the maximum photon energy we can produce, as opposed the the theoretical limit you mention.

a reply to: ClovenSky
That diagram makes no sense. If gravity was an induced electric field, why does it not behave like an electric field?

Electric charges can attract or repel: like charges repel, opposite charges attract. So if the earth is emitting an electric field, all you would need to do is make an object with an electric field such that it repelled the Earth's field and you'd have a type of "anti-gravity", or something that's not attracted to the Earth, but repelled by it. And yet that simple test proves that diagram is wrong. People really have to understand almost no physics at all and be completely unfamiliar with experimental evidence to think that diagram makes any sense when compared to experimental evidence.

The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe


EU is completely at odds, however, with everything modern science has determined about the universe.

"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem; it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."
That diagram about gravity being an electric field is clearly contradicted by evidence, and it's so easy for anyone to prove it, that gravity always attracts, while electric fields can repel or attract so they don't behave the same way.


"From what I've seen, most EU claims are on the cranky end of [the] scale. That's why most astronomers ignore it: No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically."
There's really no "electric universe theory" to debunk. I never see any mathematical predictions in electric universe presentations, which are what can tell us if a theory is consistent with observation or not. In fact EU tends to avoid math and that oddly seems to be what followers like about it, but that makes it completely a non-starter for the scientific community who needs to test a model to see if it's true or not, and there's no way to do that without being quantitative, which requires using some math.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Do you have Sean Carroll's book "Spacetime and Geometry"? Page 159+ presents the Lagrangian Formulation. I have a couple of comments on your approach but have to write them up later. If you don't have Carroll's book, his lectures are free online. I have them and will post them up later. Carroll's book is excellent, however, and goes into great detail on all topics.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If i have misused the term Lagrangian Point.

It is because it was the closest representation to explain points that appear in my model.

Unfortunately. I don't know what else to name them.

I start with one point. This is very dark. Red/green/blue all in the same point.

This point is spinning extremely fast. And, it propagates.

This propagation results in the colours r/g/b to separate (outwardly from the centre point) in six main directions of three axis' A/B/C +_.

They produce a cube shape at a point in space away from the central point.

The eight points should be gluons.

As the three colours (probably neutrinos) continue their propagation.

Another point appears where the propagating colours connect again to produce the cube shape again.

This process continues. And cubes are formed in a scale when the points (gluons) appear.

Maybe i should have called them Gluon points.

Have to go to work now.

Will reply to all thread comments tomorrow.

Thanks.


edit on 14-2-2020 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

I think it would be helpful if you describe your hypothesis in terms that others can recognize. Then plug in your ideas. For instance, your system has momentum. You can write the equations of motion in Hamiltonian form which would describe your system. Read through this paper and see if you can plug in your ideas so that they can be interpreted more succinctly.



Describe the Three Body Problem:

www.maia.ub.edu...

In your system, mass and gravity already exist so how does your hypothesis define gravity? It doesn't seem to be different than our current understanding (or lack of) of gravity. Can you elaborate? Thanks - interesting topic.



posted on Feb, 14 2020 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Electric charges can attract or repel: like charges repel, opposite charges attract. So if the earth is emitting an electric field, all you would need to do is make an object with an electric field such that it repelled the Earth's field and you'd have a type of "anti-gravity", or something that's not attracted to the Earth, but repelled by it. And yet that simple test proves that diagram is wrong. People really have to understand almost no physics at all and be completely unfamiliar with experimental evidence to think that diagram makes any sense when compared to experimental evidence.


You are right #Arbitrageur, this diagram is not right, ...but it is not even wrong!
What the EU proponents don't get is the awareness of electric field density

Any charge is a density in a field, one electron is a density, one proton is a density
.. minus 1 + plus 1 is 2 field density of 0 charge

The diagram from top to bottom looks like this ( this! way not the other way around... electrons density field is denser because they are smaller... )
BIG MASS - -1 - +1 - -1 - +1 - -1 - +1 - -1 - +1 -SMALL MASS
looking at the field density you get this
BIG MASS - 8d - 7d - 6d - 5d -4d -3d -2d - SMALL MASS

You have to consider the coulomb forces between the particles themselves, sure, but the overall attraction is there, even if is 22 magnitude weaker.



all you would need to do is make an object with an electric field such that it repelled the Earth's field and you'd have a type of "anti-gravity"


NO... it does not work like that...like you say.
If you wanted to "naturalize" the gradient of the density field, you need 22 times the charges that fit into a "normal" space in an atom, and this of course for the whole matter you want to "disconnect" from the density field... and this, gives you just "levitation" in the field but not acceleration... ( well +1 does it , ha ha ha... )

Sure there is question.. how this field density affects the electro-magnetic field so there is a gravity attraction..
In a denser field the propagation of EM is slower so the charges move slower. ( the charges move with the field and define it )
In quantum mechanic terms I would say, the probability for the charges to be at a given point shifts to the side of the denser field, ( ...still a slope ! ).

This is how gravity works, charges attracting or repelling each other being probabilistic more on one side than the other because of the field density and the velocity in that field.

I know it is possible to "reverse" the field even easier, modulating the shape of the field ( field is just a slope at a given point, transverse waves modulation is the key... )
but we are not talking about it here...



#thanks to my mentor!
edit on 14-2-2020 by Bandu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2020 @ 08:39 AM
link   
It might be worthwhile to watch Leonard Susskind's videos on the mathematics of relativity. This lecture in particular focuses on gravity and what Einstein meant when he derived his equations:


www.youtube.com...

edit on 15-2-2020 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The subject is Gravity.

I'm going to add some maths to the scales found as previously mentioned.

They seem to me to be dynamical in nature.

The undefined colour axis is 40% longer than any other line in the cube. And runs from nearest cube corner (neutrons),to farthest cube corner. Passing in a slope through centre 0. Influencing the formation of the cube shape form (in this model). From spherical waves also connecting all three axis' in their six directions as these six neutrons and two undefined colour neutrons propagate.

The two undefined particles have infinite energy. And situated between B and C axis' seems to influence spin.

The cube rotates at 1/6 spin (60 deg segs = 360 deg) along horizontal axis' A and C. and form six of the eight particles. And 1/2 spin of the vertical B axis (2 x 180 deg spin = 360 deg) being the other two of eight particles to form a cube shape.

The 1/2 spin of vertical axis B changes the particles from pro to anti. (Uncertain of frequency of vertical 1/2 spin).

The spherical waves are finite in strength. And. Although the two undefined particles are infinite energy. The spherical waves are approx 10% less infinity. They don't decay. They hold on to each directional axis' at a point of approx 90% of the axis'. Which forms points at halfway along the curve between 1/6 spin (where the colours meet), and flatten the edges of the cube to form another cube inside.(Flat edges being six sides of the internal cube). Rotated 1/6 and approx 10% less in size (when new points are connected).

We can use a finite number to represent infinity. To confirm the approx 10% difference.

20 is used in the diagrams to follow. It is 0 to 10+- (2 x 10).

Diagram 1 shows spherical wave. With 10 used to represent infinity at that point of propagation. Maybe this is a Gravitational wave?



Diagram 2 shows curves of wave being flattened by approx 10% to form cube shape.



Diagram 3 shows how, when the new approx 90% axial points are connected. They form an internal cube.

The internal cube being what might be the observable Universe at this point? With the outer cube being beyond the observable?



Pro and anti particles were mentioned earlier.

Diagram 4 shows the anti particles and how they appear at a vertical half spin.



I will continue with the scales of these undefined particles (which could perhaps be W and Z bosons?). And show later.
















edit on 16-2-2020 by blackcrowe because: correct percentages

edit on 16-2-2020 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-2-2020 by blackcrowe because: correction



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 01:45 AM
link   


You might need to define time though.
a reply to: alphaseeker

I have not recognised time so far that i know of.

Thanks.




posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

As it looks like EU theory. I won't watch the vids.

Thanks though,




posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Thank you for your input. And , look forward to your comments/suggestions.

I have not got the book. But found the info online.

Thanks.




posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

You can never have zero gravity in our universe. In order to have zero gravity you have two methods. Ist being zero energy with no energy you get zero gravity. Notice i didnt say mass i said energy. This goes back to Einstien showing us mass is just another form of energy.

The second way is to distribute this energy so uniformly that spacetime becomes perfectly flat in all directions. Turns out this is what our universe is attempting to do even as we speak. Problem is it will take so long as to practically be infinite.

Now heres the problem i see with his theory color charges aside gravity is caused by motion. Heres what i mean if you jump off a cliff you will accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second. What this means is 1st second your speed increases to 9.8 meters then second it increases by 9.8 + 9.8 etc. This is the speed we fall towards the earth. At all times you are falling towards the earth luckily for us we have the ground to stop us this is in effect what gravity is. Gravity is the resistance of falling.

Lets look at a rocket when an astronaut travels to space he experiences about 3g or 3 times gravity. So what causes this? The resistance the rocket has to falling back to earth at 9.8 meters per second per second. The difrence the astronaut feels as pressure between him and his seat acceleration that pushes him away from the earth.

So in effect gravity is caused by acceleration of energy.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

There is no mass in this model yet. And at this point would be DE.



So in effect gravity is caused by acceleration of energy.


This model showing just that. At c. With the spherical waves (propagated by the A,B,C axis' together with the two undefined colour particles) only having a potential of 90% which creates 6 particles plus the two undefined colour particles. Eight in total (gluons). Making up the eight corners of the cubic shape. Whose points are 100%/infinity+-, seemingly dragged back along the spherical wave straightening the curve of the wave. To form corners/sides of a cube. Gravity being the weaker 90% limit of its direction. Energy from the two undefined colour particles being 100%. They seem to drive the A,B,C axis' to 100% also.

Thanks.


edit on 16-2-2020 by blackcrowe because: add more info

edit on 16-2-2020 by blackcrowe because: add more info



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe
Good topic and your original theory I came across a website on the web check out
Https:www.scribd.com/savvys84
He is also on to something regarding Gravity and how he is proved Einstein wrong in many instances



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

I believe you have the wrong idea about my model.

This model should hopefully fit Einstein's theories. And if i can provide enough useful information. As suggested by phantom463. Known numbers should be able to be plugged in to it to confirm with known results.

I am still drawing up the scales. And will post sometime later.

This model is meant to compliment and offer a different analysis of the accepted model by differing from how colour charge is represented. And using six directions (as i don't know which way charmed is).

You have made it clear you don't believe Einstein in the past.

I do. And this is a very classical model of mine.

Useful replies will be welcome.

Thanks.




posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe A train of thought is new and is commendable but now Einstein really was not right in general relativity and special relativity so however hard you try you will always come up short but anyway it's a good effort from you



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Thank you.




posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 06:47 AM
link   
In my opinion gravity is result of the binding energy inside the two gravitating bodies now this is a new concept the density body where is the binding energy and higher is the gravity produce 48 a reply to: Bandu



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Excuse spelling I'm using the talking version



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Heres the problem your model would have to explain why energy distorts space-time. we learned to a large extent Einstien was right. With the discovery of gravity waves confirms the very fabric of the universe distorts with energy. This distortion causes acceleration and we interpret that as gravity. Even light itself will distort space-time its just to such a small degree as to be unmeasurable.as a side note we have made some huge leaps into the understanding of light recently we have learned how to stop it only to have it resume I think currently up to 1 min. But more importantly we learned that light can be caused to travel slower than c, by changing its shape. This was 0.001 percent slower than it should have been but measurably different.

Now we know that as acceleration decreases mass has to increase do to the conservation of energy. Basic rule the energy has to go somewhere. but more importantly lets look at the 1st 100 seconds of the universe. we have used light to create positrons and electrons in the lab. We still see this matter being created from the big bang today as the largest gamma ray burst in the universe. So odly light created matter gives new meaning to the bible phrase let their be light. Any way went off on a tangent enough my students hate when i do that.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join