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.

 

Redefining Gravity. Is it possible? I'll try.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I will be all too happy to explain all of that, plus add in some other things I know about quantum physics, at a later time (in about 2 and half hours actually - I'm at work now on break). But it's all interesting stuff! Talk to ya soon!




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Okay! I'm back - time for explaining some of this then...

First, I'll tackle your question on water, since it's easier.

The simple answer is that water isn't affecting gravity. Perhaps that's where a lot of people make a mistake - between Weight and Mass. Mass is intrinsic, it's the same anywhere. Weight, however, is dependant on where you are. On the moon, astronauts weigh less because there's less gravity pulling them down - however, their mass remains the same.

1 kg is the same on earth as on the moon. On earth 1 kg = 2.204lbs. On the moon, though, 1 kg = 0.1lbs

Now, water doesn't change the mass, mass is always constant, but it does change the weight. Why? Because, in line with Newton's first law, when you push against water, it pushes back. It's true. Take ice.

Ice is water in a crystal form, and is pretty unique for actually being less dense than liquid water even though it's solid. When dropped in a glass of water, the ice will float. Notice, however, that the level of water rose in the glass. This is because the water's got to make room for the ice.

Now, since the ice is less dense, the water can take up the space below the ice and be closer to the bottom of the glass. The ice still partially sinks because the weight of any ice above water continues to push down. Once equilibrium is reached (the push of equal = the push of water), the ice floats.

Rocks sink because their density is greater than the water, and so their push will always override water's push against it.

So why do boats float?

Because, overall, boats are LESS DENSE than water! "How can that be?" you say, "when the boats are made out of metal - which is denser!" - because, just as the electric charges of a Hydrogen Atom cancel out to make it appear neutral from a distance, from a distance, the boat is less dense than the water.

The boat has a lot of empty space in it - lots of empty rooms and whatnot. These rooms have the density of air. It's like a jug of water. When empty, it's lighter than when all the water was inside it. So a boat, so long as the average density is less than water, will float just as the ice did.

Submarines take advantage of this property by increasing or decreasing their overall density by filling up and pumping out water into their hulls, so that the overall density becomes greater than the water, and the sub sinks.


Now, your second bit, looking for quantum loopholes...

Quantum Entanglement is a wierd thing. The two particles, wherever they are, do affect each other instantly. However, the way this works prevents information from travelling faster than the speed of light. A particle that begins to spin faster may cause the other to spin slower - but since observing a particle changes how it acts, one would never know if the other particle is spinning faster or slower (observing it would change it).

Overall, I can't really think of any loopholes that could change your theory to bring it in line with observations.

Actually... putting some thought to it... there is one possibility.

It could be possible that there is a Second Electromagnetic Force - however, it could just be considered gravity.

Essentially, the main problem with an Electromagnetic Theory of Gravity is that it would require a polar opposite to the "attractive" force of gravity. Also, it would require that like charges attract, instead of unlike charges. Whilst I do believe that negative mass is possible, I don't think it influences our universe, since the repulsive force that our unlike gravimetric "charges" would have on each other would have seperated the two at the beginning of the universe.

Mind you, negative mass would have some amazing properties (and creatures composed of negative mass would see us as being similarily wierd) - but might also have some properties of matter and anti-matter, although the energy required to force mass and neg-mass to interact might be infinite, so I don't think we have anything to worry about.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Essentially, the main problem with an Electromagnetic Theory of Gravity is that it would require a polar opposite to the "attractive" force of gravity.




That polar opposite could be found in a multiverse, could it not? Our Anti-universe may exist in another dimension or possibly some other arena of existence that we are unable to comphrehend at this point. Possiblility? C'mon Hawkings, figure it out



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
That polar opposite could be found in a multiverse, could it not? Our Anti-universe may exist in another dimension or possibly some other arena of existence that we are unable to comphrehend at this point. Possiblility? C'mon Hawkings, figure it out


Exactly. Like I said, if negative mass worked in that way, like an electric charge where like forces repel and unlike forces attract, then in order for an Electromagnetic Theory of Gravity to work, LIKE forces would have to ATTRACT (hence why matter clumps together) and UNlike forces would have to repel.

If that were true, then at the birth of the universe, even if neg-matter was in exact equilibrium with reg-matter, then the two would split off from each other, forming two separate universes that would continue to speed away from each other.

Mind you, with my theories on Neg-Matter, the stuff would actually be speeding away from us in time instead of space (neg-mass would always travel faster than light, and would require more and more energy to slow down - however, since matter automatically tries to go for the lowest energy state, this means tha neg-mass would have to have infinite speed, since that'd be the lowest energy point... this could be viewed as travelling in an opposite direction through time, and tachyons would be particles in the neg-universe that are like the cosmic rays in this universe... travelling almost, but not quite at, the speed of light).



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
How would negative energy effect this theory? And also with the Casimir effect, if all matter was equally positive or negative, with missing polarities/variables found in other demensions, what other factors would disprove an electro-magnetic theory of gravity?


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Well, negative energy is really not well known right now, so I would not substitute it into any theory at the moment until it's better understood.

Currently, "Dark Energy" only works at absolutely massive distances, and I'll go more indepth in a moment. The Casimir effect only works at miniscule distances, so shouldn't ever be considered as an "X" factor except when dealing with things at the subatomic level or smaller.

Now, Dark Energy currently has 2 main schools of thought. First, it could be the "oppsite" of gravity - working greater the further things are from each other. However, the one gaining most consensus now is that Dark Energy is something of a "Cosmic Springboard".

That is to say, that the strength of Dark Energy is constant no matter where in the universe you are. As the universe expands, Dark Energy's strength/area would decrease, causing the universe to contract again. As the universe contracts, Dark Energy's strength/area would increase then, causing the universe to expand again.

Hence, a Cosmic Springboard.

Once again, I'm at work, so I gotta keep this brief. But I'll be back in another 2 hours or so!



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Tell me how this understanding is wrong.

My own space fabric analogy.


Take two large quilts, that spread over all of our known universe, stacked on top of each other. On the two outer sides of the fabrics there are unknown existences i.e. dark matter, multiverses, etc. But in between that quilts is our universe, sandwhiched in between the unknowns.

Okay now if you started placing matter inside the quilts in different places Planets, stars, galaxies, etc. They would have to make room for themselves inside the two quilts. Now assuming that the outer pressure on the quilts is tremendous, the fabric of space would bended around all matter, almost being form-fitted by the outside pressure. This would create an unseen resistence on all matter. The larger the matter, the more resistence, smaller the matter, less resistence.

Now you're saying that an object in motion stays in motion unless a force is acted upon it, etc. I respond with this: Space is so gargantuan, and filled will infinite amounts of matter, creating one hell of a giant fabric quilt, I'm talking so large our minds can't conceive. That said, there is somewhat one proton per square foot/mile (?) a small amount of resistence I agree. Such a small amount that it is more or less uneffective to passing motion. But, it is still a resistence is it not?

AAC

[edit on 17-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I don't think I quite understood what you meant to say at the end there...

So, I'll give you my Space-Time conception. First, the quick answer, the universe we exist in is composed of 4 spatial dimensions (there are more, but we need only concern ourselves with 4).

To extend and expand on that, we first need to take a step backwards to the 2nd dimension.

Welcome to Flatland!

You are a flatlander - you have width, and length, but absolutely no height. Midway through last millenium, your civilization realized that you're not living on a 1-d straight line, but rather on a single, immense circle - a thing of 2 dimensions like yourself.

If you look into the great unknown that is the universe, you see it as being 2-dimensional, but without edges. It seems to go on forever in all directions, all 4 of them.

Unbeknownst to you though, the universe, and even the circle you live on, curve and bend into a THIRD DIMENSION! Your circle doesn't bend in upon itself to form a sphere, but is rather a kind of dimple into 3-dimensions.

Now, from your perspective (seeing as how light isn't travelling "up" but will just continue going along the 2-d universe), you can't detect, nor even imagine, this mystical 3rd dimension - but it has astounding implications on your world!

In fact, your universe curves so much it actually goes into a sphere. If you were to mark an immovable point in your universe, and travelled in a perfectly straight line, you would somehow - quite to your surprise - end up exactly where you started. It seems impossible, because you never turned, never deviated from your course, never passed by a familiar constellation, and yet here you are.

Now, take this realm, and put everything 1 dimension higher.

We are 3-d - we live in a universe with height, width, and length. But there is a 4th dimension, one which we experience every day, which we are completely at the mercy of and cannot affect... Time. Time is the 4th dimension, that line at a right angle to everything else.

Let's return to our comfortable 2-d flatland though, since it's easier to conceptualize.

If Flatland curves into the 3rd dimension, what happens? Let's say that a downward force like gravity still exists in Flatland (we'll return to this concept, and how it's wrong, in a bit - but for now it's useful to explain things) that keeps you pinned to the 2-d surface. If something of mass comes along, it bends this 2-d surface into the 3rd dimension.

Like a bowling ball on a mattress, everything around it now falls towards it. These things aren't "attracted" to the bowling ball, it's just that their paths are warped by the ball's presence.

Also, if we imagine the 3-dimensional curved Flatland Universe as a Balloon, the distance between two points on an expanding balloon could move away from each other faster than the speed of light - and no one at either point would realize that they're moving. Like the universe we live in, there's no center to the universe on this 2-d plane - one has to go inside the balloon - move 3-dimensionally - to get to the center.


For our universe the same thing applies. Matter warps space-time. If you imagine a 3-dimensional grid, a planet moving through it will bend the grid-lines in towards the center of mass.

The important thing to remember about all this though is that anything passing through this distorted space isn't ATTRACTED to anything else. It's not a downward force like in our 2-d example. Rather, it's that space itself is bent. The path an object is taking is changed.

So, if I could measure only speed, and not direction, if I passed by Jupiter and had my course changed, I would never detect it. My apparent speed has remained exactly the same - however my direction (and perhaps my observed speed) could have changed.

If you take a piece of paper, and draw a line on it, then bend the paper, the line, from directly above (looking at the line as if it were 2-d and not bent into the 3rd dimension) would curve around the curve you made. The space hasn't changed, the line hasn't changed, but the path it has taken has changed.

It is in this way that Light is also affected by gravity. It's not affected by mass - since light has none - but rather, the space it travels along is bent, and so this line of light curves.

Now the main question concerning physists is "why does space-time curve?". It's right up there with "why do opposite charges attract?". Think about it, there's no particle that travels between two magnetically attracted particles. The information is sent via the quantum level. I don't believe we'll find "the graviton". I don't believe it exists. I believe that information on gravity travels at instantaneous speed, that it breaks the light barrier by never existing on it or through it in the first place. Why do I believe this? Because it's the only way our observations make sense. If information on gravity travelled as slow as the speed of light, then galaxies hitting each other wouldn't have stars that would know about it for tens of thousands of years.

Then again, I got a lot of personal theories, but since I'm just a Rogue Scholar, and not an actual physicist, I'm not often paid attention to



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Well explained,


AAC



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
I beleive that matter distorts space by it's very being. In a universe of energy and space, which neither are physical nor interfere with each other, matter is a unique fundamental. It provides a physical blockage. I think that matter's existance is like a stone in a pond. It will have ripples, and displace the area around it. Thus, what I am saying is that gravity may be the result of this, and as such it is emitted from or caused by every atom (ground zero). The effect is far ranging, and strengthened when atoms are in numbers. Group alot of matter together and you have a strong distortion/displacement of space.

Just thoughts.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Very informative, Yarium. Concise and to the point!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join