HOw to Explain Gravity

[dannat]

I am wondering how could I succintently explain what we know / don't know about gravity to a 15yr old intelligent girl thinking of a science career.

I have told her I don't really believe it is a straightforward force, more of a natural phenomenon. Also probably does not quite fit into the fundamnetal forces of physics (like electro-mag etc)

Any ideas are welcome - so for xelasnave & others GO WILD, with your responses and wild theories -

NB Please keep them to 6 LINES!

thanks daniel

[renormalised]

Gravity is the change in the geometry of spacetime generated by a massive object sitting in spacetime. However, in terms of everyday experience, gravity is the force which a massive object generates that attracts other objects to it...e.g. the gravity of the Sun helps keep the Earth in orbit about itself. Or, makes an apple fall to the ground when an apple breaks off an apple tree.

Daniel....gravity is a natural phenomenon as well as a "force" and is one of the fundamental "forces" of nature (like EM, WN and SN). It's the weakest of all the "forces"...some 10^39 times weaker than EM. Yet its influence is universal and overwhelming. What we don't know about gravity is what it actually is... we call the particle that supposedly carries the gravitational "force" a graviton. However we have never detected gravitons....they're hypothetical. We also don't know why it's so weak. We have ideas as to why it is, but they remain speculation. In actual fact, we know very little about gravity and what it is, other than what we can observe.

[bojan]

Gravity manifests itself as attraction force, proportional to attracting masses and inverse proportional to square root of distance between them.
As for "what it really is"... we do not know at the moment, and the future theories will tell us more.
This is as wild as you should go with thing like that... not to confuse people (too much) :-)

[dannat]

thanks guys this is good! :thumbsup:

[erick]

If she is very bright and interested, she might cope with Richard Pogge's lectures:-

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=24169

He deals with gravity in a lecture in Astronomy 161 (Newtonian) and then from a Relativity perspective in Astronomy 162.

There are lecture notes and podcasts.

[renormalised]

Most 15 year olds would be lost trying to comprehend what are essentially university level subjects, Eric. Unless, of course, she is gifted. In which case, it would be prudent to introduce her to these subjects as trying to "reduce" them to "more manageable" levels will only bore her to pieces and make her lose interest.

[renormalised]

Daniel, if she has any problems with anything you introduce her to, feel free to contact me here and I'll help in any way I can.

[TrevorW]

1. All objects are affected by gravity the more massive it is the more gravity it has
2. The effect of gravity diminishes with distance
3. If an objects falls then there is gravity
4. If an object floats without other forces applied to it then there is no gravity
5. Gravity can affect other forces.
6. Gravity exists in normal space time

[sjastro]

Reminds me of a 16 yr old girl who won a bronze medal at the Australian Physics Olympiad and went on to represent Australia.

I gave her my Uni books on GR and Particle Physics. These books required a fairly sophisticated knowledge of mathematics but it proved no obstacle for her. An amazing intellect but I wonder how she relates to her peers.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

She probably can't because she's so far ahead of them that they just can't understand her. She's more than likely far more mature than they are. Not that she may look down upon them, she may even want to try and make friends, but her peers probably think that she's weird. More than likely, she's been picked on since she was a small child, by the other children. Probably had/has nicknames like mad scientist, Prof. Einstein etc. Luckily for her, these days they have organisations in some states which encourage students like her and work to their skills and talents.

I'll bet she could probably read at a very early age. Always been interested in Science.... I wonder if that all fairly describes her, Steve?

[erick]

Yes, and it's sad how gifted children often have to "dumb down" to keep friends. I've seen it happen - they know they have to keep quiet and not answer every question else they get into trouble with peers - it's a pity.

[renormalised]

Exactly, and what's worse is as they get older, having not being able to fully express themselves and work to their fullest capacities....given challenges to stretch them and further their development.... they end up just like the rest of their peers. They either lose interest in learning entirely or end up developing bad habits that stifle them. Then, if and when they go further with their education, they're just average students and not the exceptional students that they could've been.

[sjastro]

I don't know her very well. According to her mother she's had trouble making friends her own age which is obviously not a surprise.

She went to Melbourne Uni with the intention of gaining a career in Particle Physics. She was able to go straight into the second year maths units, as her mathematical abilities (and knowledge) demonstrated in the Physics Olympiad were way above the requirements of the course.

The last I heard of her she dropped out of Uni and is in a classical choir where she is making friends. Maybe she found Uni boring, hopefully she will go back as Science needs people of her talent.

At least she is making friends which ultimately is more important than an education.

Regards

Steven

[Suzy_A]

No such thing as gravity: the Earth just sucks.

[AlexN]

Gravity does not suck.

[renormalised]

True, having friends and becoming socially competent is very important, but so is an education. However, the most important thing is that she is enjoying herself, having fun and doing what she wants to do. I know of many people with excellent school results that did no good at uni. Simply because they couldn't handle the pressure, or the responsibility of having to be independent in their studies.

[AlexN]

mmm, As do I, It seems that without constant direction from teachers a lot of people just cant get their butts into gear. I was one of them... I'll be going back and finishing my course in the next year or so... Bit older and a bit wiser hopefully...

[renormalised]

That's good to hear:)

Being highly intelligent and good at school (or even being gifted) is no guarantee that you'll do well at uni...or anything else for that matter.

[sjastro]

I think anyone who represents their country in a Physics Olympiad is probably well equipped to handle the pressures of a University environment, and be ultra competitive to be at the top of the class.

University life however can be a very lonely experience without friends.

Steven

[renormalised]

You would think so, but I know people who couldn't handle it anyway. They needed a structured env' with a pushing influence (a teacher) to keep them motivated.

Yes it can be, but if you get along with your fellow students it's not all that lonely if you don't socialise with them on a "friends" basis. I suppose, though, it depends on your personality and how well adjusted you are.

[TrevorW]

:whistle::whistle::whistle::whistle : People you are drifting I can hear the twilight zone sound track

[renormalised]

There's nothing "Twilight Zone" about it, Trevor. Drifting somewhat off topic we may be, but we're still talking about educational/life experiences that are related to the topic.

[xelasnave]

Indeed gravity does not suck...

and there is no such thing as a force we describe as attraction..


gravity pushes..

it is a universal pressure created by all the particles travelling from everywhere to everywhere else...and when one embraces such a concept as a fundamental truth we will find we do not need dark matter and the force they seek currently described as dark energy is indeed the system of gravity that controls the Universe...it pushes..and in evidence I present the propostion that it is impossible to hold a galaxy in place if one were to enlist the mythical force of attraction..only push can perform such a feat...either that or one has to conceed that gravity travells faster than light..which it can not I suspect.

General Relativity is simply geometry, (think of it as a pythagorean?? formula wiht an added dimention..time...) that seeks to record how space is affected by matter whereas it is matter that is effected by space..sadly General Relativity offers no reason why space "bends" but I suggest it is bent by a system of particle pressure that general relativity seeks to quantify but pays no recognition to its existence..

General relativity presents a prospect that space is bent in subserviance to the math :D..what it really is and a physical explanation as to why is absent..and the explanation..could be:D that space is in fact a sea of particles travelling in all directions at c and providing a resultant pressure ...

this idea is not new and goes back a ways (Le Sage 1745) but it is clear that Newton was familar with the premise and when pressed for the make up of the force of gravity offerred as a good scientist of the day would have been bound to do ..he said it was indeed the force of God...Dr A did not contridict this notwithstanding he revolutionised the rest of Newton's approach to gravity with general relativity... so it seems that science has left that part of gravity in the same place Newton and Dr A left it....the force of gravity is left with God..we have the Sums but we dare not take away the power:)

I have been sailing (sailed a boat from Brisbane to Balina..great adventure) and been observing and missed this ;)...



alex:):):)

[GTB_an_Owl]

was wondering where you were :hi: :family:

now the place can get back to normal

geoff

[Ian Robinson]

No mass no gravitational field.

Next question.

[bojan]

Alex,
Why on Earth the "pushing" force of gravity would be the ultimate panacea to all our troubles in understanding the world, as you are claiming?
Could you please elaborate directly, in detail why is that, and what are the implications of the idea.
From what you wrote above, this is not obvious at all. It looks and smells more like a Sunday sermon :-) And this is definitely not a science.

Edit:
Also, why pushing gravity force is acceptable and attracting is not?
What is the difference between those two concepts? Mathematically, it is only the sign, "+" or "-"....
However, OBSERVATIONS and all our other experimental experience tell us gravity manifests itself as an ATTRACTION FORCE.

We had discussion some time ago on this forum when I challenged anyone to derive the Newton's law of gravity from that "pushing" force concept mechanism.. and no-one ever presented any trace of result of that work so far.
And I am saying it will not happen anytime - simply because it can not be done.
The challenge is still on :-)

[xelasnave]

I am delighted with the interest in this matter.
Thanks to all.
No mass no gravitational field is certainly the current view but I hold a different view... it is the current view that prevents anyone going past the need for dark matter...
I am neither a scientist or a preacher I am Alex I am a thinker and in my own world a doer...

The math of the Push Universe is simple.. and is as follows...

P = P

I see things this way... the particle flow of everything from everywhere approach has the only chance of uniting the forces...General Relativity is fine but it tells us nothing of the machinery and thats why it can not fit the other forces...and it never will.

Equivelance is nice but is poor logic... I may as well say a horse and a car are the same because they both provide transport.. and so a mechanic can not take his knowledge andd apply it to a race horse... so why trust a system of defining gravity that finds its basis in how a lift travells and a humans reaction to the forces generated....
I say the math of General Relativity may well be helpful in measuring space in humans terms but does nothing tyo offer an explaination as to the force ofd gravity and how it works...

If we are to rely on what science is happy with as to its understanding of gravity we are left with the conclusion, of Newton and left in place by Dr A ,and that is the fanciful notion of gravity being due to the force of God...and if anyone says such is not so I would like to hear what they think our current science attributes the force of gravity to if not the position that Newton and Dr A were happy to accept.... I do not ..it is incredible that folk pass happily by that when speaking of Newton or Dr A's contribution to human understanding of gravity.



Push however can achieve such ....

I am pressed for time but later I will provide my TOE and I am sure then all will realise that there may be something in my approach.

alex:):):)

[bojan]

Alex,
Being Alex, you did not answer my question :-)

So let me repeat the challenge, in some more detail:

Assuming there are some strange particles that fly grom everywhere to everywhere, in the process of hitting other particles (including matter, like electrons, protons, atoms, molecules etc), they are delivering some of their momentum (m*v) to them.. and because there must be a screening effect, in the vicinity of massive objects, there will be some asimetry, there will be more push towards than away, resulting in what appears as attraction force... Am I right in assuming this is your Idea?

Now, all I am asking you is to start from the above, and derive the formula from it for that residual force.
The result must be of a form F=G*m1*m2 / SQRT(R), the famous Newton expression for gravity force.
Why? because:
We KNOW that it is valid for very small and very large distances (from fraction of mm to light years - experimentally confirmed.. in the lab and in space) .
We KNOW it affects anything from the size of electron to the size of a star cluster, again experimentally confirmed in the lab and in space (OK, there are some unexplained effects on galactic scales, but only unless we assume there is more matter in Galaxies than is visible. With this assumption, whatever that matter might be, the problem goes away).

Only when you come up with this derivation, I will take your comments and ideas seriously.
P=P is simply not adequate... Not for science, that is.

However, until then and while you work on this (impossible, IMO) task... in the moments of rest and relaxation... lets have a beer and some fun ...:cheers::rockband:

EDIT:
I just wanted to add couple of more things you have to consider when deriving the expressions and interpreting the results:
- Calculate the total mass of "pushing" particles. This may be very interesting to know :-)
- Density of "pushed" mass... Gravity works for extremely dense objects (electron for example: it seems its density is infinite, as it does not have (measurable) size.. it is almost like a small BH, only it does not evaporate (but, all that will be meaningless because once you prove your theory, Mr Hawking and his ideas will also go into the trash of the science history..). However, if it does not have size, how can it screen the "pushing" particles? And gravity IS affecting it. And the proof is in the total effects between two masses.... electron mass is ~0.2% of that total, if my memory serves me well... too much to be assumed non-significant).
- and so on....

[AlexN]

Im very interested to read more :)

[Jeff]

Interesting discussion.

The push/shadow/particle models of gravity are thought provoking and initially seem to be viable, but then seem to .... well ... fall down!
I find it especially hard to conceptualise these models for Black Holes.

Info on the following site is a bit of a mixed bag, but some of the questions are valid and much of it is thought provoking.
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

I applaud people who question & challenge theories and try to improve on them ... it's like a breath of fresh air. Sometimes we have too much faith in conventionally held views (eg. gravity and cosmology models) and get too lazy to challenge and improve on them.

Re explanations for an interested teenager:
- start with Wikipedia enty for gravity
- It summarises the development/evolution of various models
- As for the "why" of gravity, I just enjoy the mystery for now
(while efforts continue to find links with electromagnetism and/or quantum theories)

[AlexN]

The "why" for gravity - when i put my beer down. I want it to stay put.. :)

[bojan]

My feeling is that "pushing" particles have to be of infinite mass and therefore infinite volume density to explain residual force for objects of all sizes and masses and densities. This is simply unworkable and inconsistent concept, even if considered just as a mathematical mind game (as some popular theories were accused of being just that).
Actually, ideas like that create more problems than they manage to solve (if any).




Same here.
BUT, to maintain the credibility of the challenger, it has to be done at the same level as so called "official science".
That means, the tools used to challenge those theories (math) must be of
the same or better/higher standard... Otherwise, it is only chat with friends & pint of beer in the pub :-)
The problem is, scientist ar NOT DUMB. And they also go to pubs.. or they used to.. well, majority of them. So all those ideas are already considered (together with hectolitres of that valuable liquid :drink:)

[bojan]

I had a look at this website and after the first couple lines I found a problem...

The author claims that BH were never observed..
OK... That may be so (indeed, they were never DIRECTLTY observed)
However, couple of stars near the centre of our own Milky Way WERE observed, orbiting something invisible, in very very close orbit (100 AU or so), which has a mass of couple of millions of suns.
There must be an explanation for this.
Perhaps it is not a BH.. but the mass estimation is certainly pretty correct.. and size is smaller-than-something... and it is a monster of an object. So what is it ????

Another problematic claim on that website:

"The upper limit on the strength of gravity implies that Einstein's general relativity equations will have to be corrected so that gravitational field strength can never exceed a fixed upper limit. This is analogous to requiring that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Trying to extrapolate the success of general relativity from its successes under low field strength conditions to very high field strengths is analogous to extending Newton's and Maxwell's equations to motion at and beyond the speed of light."

This is simply not the case.

What is really implied here is non-linearity of space-time continuum. However, speed f light is finite and of certain value not because of non-linearity but because of exactly the opposite. Also because of the mechanism of EM wave propagation in space, and that is described by Maxwell's equations.

I am still reading this website... so there will be more comments from me, hopefully :-)

[bojan]

Oh...
This last one tells all.


*****
Here's a really weak astrophysics joke:
If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
****

Now, if the author considers THAT a joke (weak even..), I am giving up on him, 100%.....

[xelasnave]

How exciting to find so much interest in this subject.

Firstly before I study math to prove that what is suggested can not be done in fact can be done I would like to find if there is a consensus of all those participating here to the current position science treats gravity.
We have Newton and Dr A both of who say gravity is due to the force of God.

Perhaps the notion of push is difficult to accept but I would think it is much easier to accept than leaving the answer to the prime motor of the Universe as being unexplained and in the hands of God...

So whilst we wait for establishment of the current position I will use the time to derive Newtons formulas (or similar) from the push concept.

In truth my mind has been preoccupied with other matters and indeed my body has been taken merely to drive a certain person from place to place...

I like the positions that are being taken here and take this opportunity to say I will answer all questions posted to date to everyones satisfaction..I just need some time...I cant do this on the run as I am off some place else in a matter of moments...

Pus h has no problem with black holes for they are an extrapolation of math bringing into reality a myth ...they are binary systems which because of the interesting features of a push universe causes us to see things wqe wish to..black holes..but in fact it is the high shielding of particular binaries that produce the vortextual situations that generate the exotic rays sited as evidence expected where there be a black hole....


Sorry to offer more things to debate before disposing of the stuff on our list..however we have to establish the facts as to my God propostion as being sciences position at the moment.

alex:):):):):):):)

[xelasnave]

Bojan asked

Assuming there are some strange particles that fly grom everywhere to everywhere, in the process of hitting other particles (including matter, like electrons, protons, atoms, molecules etc), they are delivering some of their momentum (m*v) to them.. and because there must be a screening effect, in the vicinity of massive objects, there will be some asimetry, there will be more push towards than away, resulting in what appears as attraction force... Am I right in assuming this is your Idea?

For the sake of establishing a starting point I say yes..however it is too simple in this formate...

There is no need for more push or less push way of thinking about it but perhaps in the context of the universsal flow I speak about as having more or less energy ..the flow direct from "space" will have more energy than the flow that has passed thru the planet....or thru a simple hydrogen atom for that matter...

Sorry I cant stay but I am on a lead... and it is being tugged right now

alex

[bojan]

Alex,
Let's put God aside... This is only a last resort for those impatient people who can not find (acceptable to them) solutions to problems NOW, and/or who are not willing to wait (or not willing to accept that certain puzzles can not be solved in their life time).

I want to give you here another starting point:
Assume that you have infinite plate, made of material which is perfect shield for your "pushing" particles, and a golf ball 1m above (or near) it.
Could you tell what will be residual pushing force on the golf ball?
To satisfy all conditions I mentioned in previous posts, you will have to conclude at the end (by calculations of course, not by common sense logic) that that force must be huge, infinite in fact. Because here you have ALL the universe pushing this poor golf ball in only one direction.
The acceleration that ball is suffering will be also infinite.
To achieve this, the mass of "pushing" particles hitting the ball in certain time interval (say, 1 second) must also be infinite.

From this starting point, you can imagine very easily that the mass density of "empty" space is also huge.... and so is the mass of the whole universe.
Now, according to current BB theories only 75% of required mass of the Universe must be allocated to Dark matter, the rest is known to exist and is visible.
But if we go for "pushing" theory of gravity, it is my feeling we will end up with even bigger problem. I bet it will turn out this theory predicts/requires 100.000.000.000.....etc times bigger mass of the universe. And it is not there otherwise we would already have contraction of the Universe instead of expansion?

Also, those particles (they must have mass otherwise they do not have momentum so they can not push anything) apparently do not interact with themselves at all.. otherwise the Universe would be a very crowded place. And we know it is not. Not in this sense, that is.
How can you explain those basic problems with "pushing" theory, without creating even bigger problems?

I am fully aware that I am grossly simplifying things here. I am just trying to give you counter-arguments. on the same or similar level you are using.

[AlexN]

Could it not simply be the fact that Newton and Dr A could not find a suitable answer to the question, so following suit on almost every decision made way back when, they just wrote it off as an act/force of god?

I'm no scientist or mathematician, but I would put forth that for either theory to be true, there is still a lot that needs to be proven... Newton and Dr A, Did they ever prove the existance of God? If not, how did they draw the conclusion that Gravity is directly related to God? On the other hand, Proving the Push Universe theory, you will have to be able to prove the existence of infinite forces..

I would have to think that proving infinite force would be much more likely than proving existence of god.

[bojan]

I would not be surprised if they (especially Dr A) used expressions like this just as a figure of speech... which was also acceptable/polite in those times. And often mis-interpreted

[bojan]

I am sorry but I must clarify your statement above.

You are talking about less energy after passing through the object.
Where is that energy gone? Is it converted into some other form?
Because we know that energy can not be created nor it can be lost. It can only be converted into other form, however the total amount must be the same before and after ANY interaction (where energy conversion takes place)
There are other conservation laws we are talking about here.. one of them is the conservation of momentum, which must also be accounted for down to the last bit.
If energy is somehow left in an object your particles are passing through, then this object must have absorb it.. which means it must have became hotter.. which means if your theory is correct, everything in the Universe should be blazing with heat.
Which is clearly not the case. The average temperature of the Universe is 4° K.... The hotter bits are hotter because of nuclear fusion (stars) or because of gravitational potential energy converted into heat (brown dwarfs, accretion disks around black holes etc)

[bojan]

I have some more food for your thoughts, Alex... :D:

If we assume that "pushing" radiation is not absorbed (because if it were, everything would have been very hot, and more massive and more dense the object, the hotter it is, and we acepted that this is not the case), then we must assume that this radiation is somehow reflected (leaving some momentum with massive objects, through elastic collision process).
But this may create additional problem for screening theory: It may turn out (after integrating residual "pushing" flux in 3D) that resulting force on two objects close to each other is actually nil, zero... because there is also reflected component of this radiation from objects which pushes them away from each other.
Or simply, it will turn out that the resulting expression is not of the required form, and not valid for wide range of object masses, sizes and densities (Which I feel will be the case here).

And all this,without even touching the nature of those "pushing" particles or waves or whatever that may be...

[AlexN]

anyone got some related reading they would like to recommend? I've taken great interest in this, but unfortunately I dont understand as much of it as I'd like.

Cheers.

[xelasnave]

Firstly I am sorry that I have been on the road again and not been able to get my teeth into this... but Bojan if you are patient I will answer all your questions ... in the interest of not getting into every area at once let me say my observation of the offerring up of the force of God as sufficient explanation to gravity is to me an important point in so far that is indeed the current position of the scientific world.... If Newton said such on a matter of his interest and indeed something that constructed part of his reputation we can not lightly dismiss the statement...if invalid then the next traveller to seek the recognition of coming up with an advance on Newton's work..namely DrA...or cutting out furter lead up to the point..they have left God as responsible for the force of Gravity... such a statement must be taken seriously for a variety of reasons... science is science it cant let some things lay and ignore them as a slip in a musing moment that need not be thought more upon...


So to see how insufficient our understanding of gravity is I say such is evidenced by the acceptance of the two great mens positions.

I say there is a force and it is not God's it is simple and understandable..it is not as mystical as the notion of God and I will present my views as best I can.

Bojan as to the above observatuions you made I offer the following...to be continued I will be back

alex

[xelasnave]

Where does the energy go:shrug:? the very question that in the effort of answering gave me more confidence that push is the way things work:D.

Why is the center of the Earth hot? could it be that the energy required to heat it is in fact gained from the "flow" interacting with the planet as they pass thru to provide the environment of less pressure when meeting the incoming flow...

Consider the Corona of the Sun..as you say energy can not be created or destroyed..so where does the energy come from to heat the Sun's Corona many fold hotter than the surface of the Sun..could it be that the Corona is evidence of the meeting of the incoming flow (of everything) with the out flow from the Sun.
I think that is a reasonable view more so in view of the fact that even NASA can not offer an explaination ..and as far as I know there is no reasonable explaination of why the COrona is so much hotter..I did read they thought it was because magnetic packets of gas heated the Corona..they had the sums but the Sums told them that even if such was posible that it would offer only a one ten thoushant contributuion..hardley a view that holds hope...
needless to say I cant quantify my proposition with math but if you look at a movie of the Corona and think what I suggest is happing you will see it clearly... Sun spots are where the flow is concentrated..similar to lighning..again evidence of the flow..but that is another story.

The flow must be indeed infinite but matter is not so the cahnce of the flow interacting with matter is not infinite...however the denser matter the more of the flow will interact... but no matter how dence matter becomes I suspect that only a small portion of the flow will interact with it....

Think about lightning...I do a lot even since it near got me ... above the clouds we get a thing they call a sprite...it is the bank up of the flow from space..the flow continues as lightning ...of course the sprites and lightning are not all the flow that is flowing but visable evidence (posibly in my morosophic view of the matter) of parts of the flow that are held up.. and as such similar the how the Corona has more energy than current science can account for.

That is short and all I have time for unfortuantely but I will go thru all that has been written and answer each bit as soon as I can;)
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I do not believe in waves existing without a medium of some type..and whatever the flow is made up of if nothing else provides a medium for all waves:)

sorry to be so brief you will get my drift or it will present you with a flaw in my approach ..each of which is good.

alex:):)

[xelasnave]

Sorry stuffed that some of my post is within your quoted post.
alex

[bojan]

Alex....
Re corona: it is not energy issue but temperature issue. The total energy to heat corona to those high temperatures is very small because the density (and mass) of the corona is miniscule compared to the surface of the Sun.
And this mechanism can and it is explained by acoustic shock waves, hitting the discontinuity in media they are traveling through ... The whip cracking is a good, classical example: your hand moves the whip relatively slowly however the tip of the whip moves faster that sound, producing the characteristic sound. Also, the magnetic fields play a huge role here... the science that deals with this is called magneto-hydrodynamics.. again, the models (formulas) are very similar (same form) as formulas describing the hydrodynamic of fluids and gasses
Another good example is behaving of water in pipes, where if you stop the flow too suddenly on one end, the other end of the pipe may burst because of reflection of shock wave produced by quick closure of the valve, which will produce enormous pressures, not present in static conditions..
Yet another example is transformer: you can have small voltages on one primary and extremely high voltages on the secondary windings. However, the power (energy flow in units of time) is the same on both sides (if we assume we have ideal transformer with no losses)

The interior of Earth is hot because of radioactive decay of uranium and other radioactive elements. Also, much can be accounted for by gravitational collapse of the primordial cold matter planets were formed from. If you say that the power output from decay or gravitational collapse can not be significant enough, put some calculations on paper and you will see that it is.
Do you know what is the power output of the Sun, expressed as Watts per cubic metre of Sun's volume?? It seems to be huge, right?
But... it is only 50W per cubic metre, average... or 200W/m^3 in the core. Peanuts.... A power of mere soldering iron... Yet, at Earth's distance the power flux is 1.4kW per square metre. But all those numbers fit.... they are not intuitively accepted as correct by most people, though.
We can not make any conclusions based on our "feelings", unless we understand the issue and have previous experience with it. We have to prove all those ideas with calculation results. And all numbers must fit.
Only then we can have some confidence that we got it right, and it is still not 100% certain because many models will describe natural phenomena with the same kind of math but the essence/mechanisms could be totally different.
The good example of this is gravity and electric field: both are described with the same model (inverse square law, the formulas have exactly the same form) but they are totally different phenomenons.

BTW, there was some work done to exploit this idea and to try to describe the gravitational field with Maxwell's equations. Those guys even had some success in terms that some numbers for gravitational field and rotation of galaxies fit. Also they claim they explained the Pioneer anomaly, and Mercury's precession. But all this is still too early to be exited too much and to draw any drastic conclusions. However, this theory also does not require any pushing mechanism, just like EM theory. When I find it I will post the link to that paper (actually, I think I already posted it somewhere in the same area here on IIS)

Edit: some comment re Sun's power output are added in the text of the post.

[bojan]

re media and waves... you can find notes on Michelson-Morley experiment and repercusions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

Media for EM waves is space itself, which can carry EM field.
All is described with Maxwell's equations, the mechanism of propagation, everything.
EM force is unified with weal force into electro-weak force in modern theories.

The equivalent theory will one day be offered for gravitational waves.

[bojan]

That is OK..

I need much more beer that my body can tolerate to wash down everything that has been said here:eyepop:
I have not suggested any special effect here... I am only saying that it is my feeling (based on me playing with such math during uni days) that the resultant expression for "pushing" force will probably be nothing like inverse square law.
It is up to you to prove me wrong or right ;)

[bojan]

http://www.math.ucla.edu/~jimc/klein_h/maxwell.html (http://www.math.ucla.edu/%7Ejimc/klein_h/maxwell.html)
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.research/2008-02/msg00048.html
http://archive2.newsfeeds.com/sci/_Maxwell_s_Equations__of_Gravity103 70410.html

And, most interesting and relevant to the our topic:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news98_l.htm

[Jeff]

As a specific gravity text, I can recommend:

Gravity from the Ground Up: An Introductory Guide to Gravity and General Relativity
(Bernard Shutz, 2003, 488 pages)


For info/opinions on the centuries old push/shadow/particle models of gravity, Wikipedia and Google are probably the best sources.

A couple of fantastic Astronomy Science books which provide a much broader coverage astrophysics & cosmology (including gravity, evolution of supergiant stars into neutron stars & black holes, speculative dark matter, speculative dark energy, etc) are listed below.

The Cosmic Century: A History of Astrophysics and Cosmology
(Malcolm S. Longair, 2006, 565 pages)

Universe
(Roger Freedman and William J. Kaufmann, 8th edition, 2007, 864 pages)

All of the above are available on Amazon.com ... not sure about local sellers.

[AlexN]

Thanks Jeff, Just ordered Gravity from the Ground Up, I'll take it from there

:)

[bojan]

Thios book is also available on Google:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=P_T0xxhDcsIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Gravity+from+the+Ground+Up&ei=fQiqSNzyFoKqsgOtjJyeBQ&sig=ACfU3U3fuCghQS_kAwPgD_YuJq21uUi n3w#PPR25,M1

[theodog]

No -not really -it just warp all around it.

[xelasnave]

Well as with most things I have a problem with the MM experiement..clearly it was a failure as they did not find the eather that is obviously there.... what is the gravity B probe doing when it all bolis down..frame dragging??? well one could use the results to establish the eather... it is so frustrating to be on the run when this subject is running.... there is so much that astill has to be exp

[xelasnave]

so as I was saying there is a lot to explain for the push side and we are having a shot gun approach with a scatterring of facts etc that need pulling..er pushing together..
but I am still on the run..I am in someone elses reality such that mine is not as it once was...

The MM experiment put the eather to rest however what does the gravity b probe experiment seek to prove..the concept of frame dragging..a frame is a math concept seeking to quanify or demonstrate the properties of space yet somehow the theory is made the reality..there are no graph or gid lines in space effectively bending..so what is being bent if not the eather... my proposition is too simple to be given its credit so you may have to think hard about the implication I point to....

still I can not think at the moment..she is waiting out there somewhere and when I hit the street she will find me so I can only think of that...I promise as soon as I can I will get a machine and space to answer all the propostions put in this post...and by the way if your waant to work out some sums on gravity ..as Newton did..to approach the matter from a push side would lead to an inverse square.... he was well aware of the concept and I think in his time pushiong was the flavour of the month..however the guy who was working with it and who Newton knew was hunted down by the church ..supposedlyy on another matter..and done in... still the sums will flow if you approach it from push..

sorry my words are hasty and maybe seemingly crazy without furtjer qualification:whistle:.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

from Bojans post.........Re corona: it is not energy issue but temperature issue. The total energy to heat corona to those high temperatures is very small because the density (and mass) of the corona is miniscule compared to the surface of the Sun.
And this mechanism can and it is explained by acoustic shock waves, hitting the discontinuity in media they are traveling through ... The whip cracking is a good, classical example: your hand moves the whip relatively slowly however the tip of the whip moves faster that sound, producing the characteristic sound. Also, the magnetic fields play a huge role here... the science that deals with this is called magneto-hydrodynamics.. again, the models (formulas) are very similar (same form) as formulas describing the hydrodynamic of fluids and gasses

Well I still like my view better... if we accept the shock,,,, wave thing what is it that the shock wave is reacting with..for mine its the flow.

alex

[Jeff]

Google only shows a preview of the book, although a pretty good one ... about 100 of 430 pages.

[bojan]

Shock wave propagates through media (gas, fluid, solid). When it hits the boundary (abrupt change of media properties - abrupt means the space in which properties are changed is smaller than wavelength) it reflects or refracts from that boundary. In case of Sun this is photosphere, the surface of the Sun.
Reflected wave can interfere with incoming wave, creating areas of high or low (pressure, voltage, field strength.. you name it).
There is no need for any kind of interference with pushing flow or whatever.

Another example of this effect is tsunami. Not much is happening in open sea... but a lot is happening on the shore.

Alex, you may "like" or not this or that....
But to prove that concept you "like" is a correct one and applicable to reality, this is completely another issue.

I am repeating here again, it is not possible to derive inverse square low of gravity force from pushing particle (or whatever) flow, without making some extraordinary assumptions, which have nothing to do with reality we are observing, and creating even bigger logical and mathematical problems. Science simply does not work that way....

[bojan]

Alex, do not tell me you have problem with reality :eyepop:
MM experiment was NOT a failure. What failed here were initial expectations that did not fulfill. They wanted to show that ether exist, and they proved that it does not.
Simply put, scientists learned a lot from this experiment, results of which paved the way for Dr A's (and others) ideas.

[sjastro]

Alex,

If you want to equate push particles with the Lorentzian ether which would have given a positive MM result then the whole concept of push gravity goes down the drain.

A positive MM result would imply that push particles moving in the same direction as the Earth's motion would have a greater KE then push particles trailling the Earth. The higher KE push particles would simulate gravity as a repulsive force on a second body.

Your argument that the mathematics used in GR fails to explain why space time can be curved as representing a flaw is simply wrong.

The whole point of mathematics in science (particularly in physics) is to provide the logical framework for the postulates that are made and why alternatives to the postulates fail.

For example Newton's inverse square law for gravitation is a postulate which is supported mathematically as solutions to Newtons equations for planetary motion in the form of elliptical orbits. An inverse cube law doen't apply as the solutions would result in unstable spiral orbits.

Similarly Einstein postulated that space-time is curved in the presence of matter and used Riemannian geometry to support that postulate. If space time is not curved than GR would predict all motion would be straight line in Euclidean space. Planetary orbits could not exist.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Bojan said...........

Alex, you may "like" or not this or that....
But to prove that concept you "like" is a correct one and applicable to reality, this is completely another issue.

I agree proof is the bottom line however just because I cant prove it wont cause my current view to lose favour with me.

Bojan said.........

Alex, do not tell me you have problem with reality...

It is indeed posible that I visit a different reality to others:screwy:;):whistle:.......

I still think that the MM experiment need not be the end of the matter:eyepop:... it certainly proved that light is independant to any eather that may or may not exist and that if it did exist that light is not dependant upon it or is bound to be confined within it...:shrug:

However given that 300 billion dollars is being spent to find the HB particle and they are not sure they will find it, does this not suggest room for doubt as to the eather:shrug:..for we have a particle speculated (by reasonable postulations based upon what is accepted as current solid science,) which(the HB) they are not sure they will be able to isolate..if the particles that may make up a supposed eather is as small as I deduce they must be then could it not be that the MM experiment did no more than establish that there is no link between light and the way light may travell in it....that is all the experiment establishes..the fact that light did not behave as all thought it may has no bearing upon the existence or non existence of an eather but only says that light does not travel within it and related to its overall movement. So I say is that maybe more is drawn by some from the experiement than may be entitled...

alex:):):):):)

alex

[xelasnave]

Steven said.........

If you want to equate push particles with the Lorentzian ether which would have given a positive MM result then the whole concept of push gravity goes down the drain.

Not for me Steven ... my position is ..it is my belief that thuings work by push and that anything that says different must be regarded as suspect:D

Steven said....
Your argument that the mathematics used in GR fails to explain why space time can be curved as representing a flaw is simply wrong.

Well if the GR maths does explain WHY space time IS curved and by what force other than the force of GOD I have missed it... when I first started with GR I was told that the sums need not know why space is curved.. and to ask why it can be curved such to fit the results the sums provide do occur was not necessary...if this is the way of it I fail to see any explanation of the force that provides the results...

I have been critical of GR only because of this..I have no doubt the sums work but I still say the sums offer no mechanical explaination... GR does no need to know if the "force" therefore is attractive or repulsive..and so I doubt if GR from that approach can dismiss a pushing force (or an attractive for for that matter) however if one thing is clear it ceartainly does not seek to correct Newton on his statement that gravity is due to the force of GOD..without addressing such does this not mean that DrA, notwithstanding a revesion of everytrhing else to do with gravity) that he was not happy with Newton on this point....

If attraction is the way of it how is it that a galaxy can hold in place via attraction?...the only way it can is to introduce more matter.. Dark matter may be the way it is but I think it is wrong..can I prove it not really but I bet you will find it difficult to support attraction as king when dealing with huge objects, such as galaxies, where the message of gravitry could take some 150,000 odd years to be noted from one end to the other...

Steven said........

Similarly Einstein postulated that space-time is curved in the presence of matter and used Riemannian geometry to support that postulate. If space time is not curved than GR would predict all motion would be straight line in Euclidean space. Planetary orbits could not exist.

I have no problem with the results dictated by GR... I simply assume that someone who the world has elevated to a high position of intelectual respect could be correct...and so I should hope that GR works... but still it mentions no force and as I said... not to comment upon what bends space that the sums can follows, record and calculate predictions upon....in the absence of a comment in GR as to force does that not leave Newtons view as current..that GOD is the force of gravity???

Now I dont think that many scientists think GOD is behind the force of gravity but that it what they siliently support if they offer no further comment...and in here in this vswry thread I have not seen any refutation of GOD's input or lack of input and other than my assertion that gravity works in a certain ,,mechanical,,way no one has bitten intop the force behind gravity issue... it is no good to say the sums of gheneral relativity is the force..they are sums only..it is not the sums or the genius of Dr A that bends space ..there must be a reason past what the sums indicate..I speculate upon what it could be ..which is far past current science..and therefore yet to be established beyond doubt:lol::lol::lol:

The force of Attraction does not exist and I dont think GR insists that it does.:shrug:

Now everyone must be patient with my explanations ..they will take some time and some may find because of their radical nature difficult to accept upon first consideration:whistle:.

alex:):):):)

[Kal]

So do magnets block the 'magnetic rain' causing them to push together?

[bojan]

I'm giving up....:cheers:

[sjastro]

So belief prevails over science. Alex for someone who knocks Issac Newton for using God as a cop out over the mechanistic side of gravity and then resorts to the belief argument is being a bit rich.....



You missed the point over my previous post over mathematics being used as logical system to support postulates. No point going over old ground.



So push gravity offers an explanation for the mechanism.
Explain to me the mechanism for the creation and motion of push particles.
Or as Bojan suggests why the universe doesn't heat up due to the inelastic collisions.



Well I hope you use mathematics to justify your arguments and don't simply state "because I think it is so.:)

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

This may be interesting contribution to our discussion....
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/08/22/podcast-gravity/
I haven't hear it yet because I can not access mp3 files through company connection...


Edit: It is pretty basic.....:rolleyes:

[xelasnave]

Magnets are a great example of how humans grab the preconcieved idea that they work by attraction..
In my Universe magnetism is one manifestation of the flow and when we see what we thiink is attraction it is in fact a push system in opperation.
I admit it is difficult to approach things this way if one has no faith in the push system but just because it is difficult to imagine does not mean it can not work the way I suggest... still I respect your opinion but encourage you to consider how I could see it the way I do.. I have really thought it through and am confident that if others did similar they may see it similar.

Thanks for your input:thumbsup:

alex:):):):)

[xelasnave]

I feel that the fault is mine..I am not able to write at lenght or present a credible arguement on the run.

Still never give up ..

I am open to any reasonable explaination as to how gravity works..I dont think I have found anything reasonable that all... and given GR works without expalination of the force of gravity suggests that the matter is open for investigation.

alex:):):)

a

[xelasnave]

Steven said........

So belief prevails over science. Alex for someone who knocks Issac Newton for using God as a cop out over the mechanistic side of gravity and then resorts to the belief argument is being a bit rich.....


Steven I am not a scientist and feel that to stand on my position and state that I have more than a belief in my approach would be rather rich also ..still none of that worries me...

Consider this..I can suggest how push works on a mechanical level however I have not come across any expalination as how attraction may work..in fact I suggest one can ponder such a problem and will not come up with any reasonable idea as to how attraction works...if you can enlighten me on that one I will be in your debt.

alex

[xelasnave]

Steven said........
You missed the point over my previous post over mathematics being used as logical system to support postulates. No point going over old ground

Sorry and thanks for pointing out my mistake.

alex

[xelasnave]

Steven said.......

So push gravity offers an explanation for the mechanism.
Explain to me the mechanism for the creation and motion of push particles.
Or as Bojan suggests why the universe doesn't heat up due to the inelastic collisions.

Well when I get things back to normal I shall provide you with the way I believe what you ask about works...
However briefly I do not think it is a billard ball type of thing with particles bashing into each other... a push environment suggests to me that the "push particles" would give up energy or rather impart it to something else via an orbital interplay...

But remember what I am on about is basically a new toe and so given the enormity of such an undertaking I feel that I will be less than specific on various points...

You can entertain yourself finding flaws which I welcome however just because I can not answer everything to match the level of proof demanded by science does not mean that my basic premise is flawed.

As I said above have a go and present to me a mechanism describing how attraction works ..

alex

[xelasnave]

Following on to Steven's question re heating of the Universe...

The razor tells us to find the simplest approach.. so attraction gives us invisable matter and a belief that the Universe is made up mainly of matter we can not see and energy that we can not expalin...
I say the heat you seek can be found in..the Sun's corona and all the corona in the Universe..it can be found in the core of planets... and if you see this flow as interacting on a very limited degree with matter I dont think it is too hard to answer the heat question.


Steven said.........Well I hope you use mathematics to justify your arguments and don't simply state "because I think it is so.
Now Steven I am not good at maths but I hope I can present enough logic to perhaps have someone try to destroy the idea (or support it) with math.

I believe of math that it is a tool that can prove the point one is tryiny to make..I have used it so ..look at a spread sheet and tweat some of the inputs for the resuolt you want...

However the real problem with math in trying to prove anything is the Universe is so great and much more complex than humans regard it to be... however lets consider the problem...how can one quantify this flow given it contains part of everything from everywhere and we can only see (assuming we are in the push universe for a moment) a very small part of this flow and its interaction with matter..I say on a simple level the math is contained in P=P or the flow in open space is in balance...if the flow is otherwise it is because of shielding (primarily) and determining the shielding of any body in this context to a reasonable degree of accuracy I feel wouold be extremely difficult..

anyways there is a lot of math on the net showing why push can not work but I have never looked for math in support.

alex:):)

[xelasnave]

I started on the push idea because of my frustration of coming up with a mechanism for attraction..I feel if anyone takes on the same problem they may come to a similar conclusion as me...attraction does not add up...it would require a message out and a message back... if a two way message system seems unworkable I found that push could work because there is only need for a one way message...now think of C..if gravity acts a C this means that the attraction message must be travelling twice C... I hope you follow here and see my logic and not attribute it to craziness...

AND I would like to thank all who have contributed and encourage all to shoot as straight as they can and see if I can be brought down on this matter...

I have to go she has found me

alex

[bojan]

Alex... GR DOES explain gravity as curvature of space-time. If you want to move in such a space-time against "grid" you MUST change the energy level of the bodies involved. This results in what we perceive as "force" over some path.. which is energy.
I suggest you read some physics books on the issue ("Motionmountain-21st_edition.pdf" text, for example - I posted the link some time ago here on the forum).
Only when you understand the basics of kinematics and concept of energy (potential, kinetic etc) then you can try to see if your ideas fit. Otherwise it does not make sense to go on, because what you are talking about here is belief and faith and that belongs to other areas of human mind-games...
We should stick to science here.

For some reason you are trying to stick to "mechanistic" approach.
But this way of thinking DOES NOT work on atomic level (even on molecular level there are effects that can not be explained without quantum mechanic), as we all know. You simply can not calculate anything with any accuracy by using mechanistic model. How can you use your "push" (pushing what by what?) here? No way...

You are in BIG trouble here, mate... ;)


As I said before, I am giving up here :hi:

[Jeff]

Hey Alex,

It’s great to see some genuine analysis happening re particle/push concepts of gravity, and how they could physically work. If everyone through the ages just accepted the “conventional views” in science, then very little progress would ever have been made.

However, I would implore you to also consider the possibility that push/shadow/particle models of gravity do in fact “suck”, but not in the way you imagine. :D

Several years ago a very intelligent friend of mine (a successful inventor, entrepreneur, and manufacturer with excellent mechanical & electro-magnetic knowledge/skills) became quite enamoured with the push model gravity and tried to convince me of its merits.

I had never heard of the model before and was therefore a little sceptical (being from a science/engineering background), but was also quite interested because the model seemed intuitively to be plausible. Through our mutual respect, we agreed to investigate/discuss the push model together and evaluate its merits. After a couple weeks of reading/discussing we reached a consensus which I have roughly summarised below.

1. Although the model had some popularity in the past (eg. 19 century France), it seems to have significantly fallen from favour for various reasons. There is a very small minority of people who still think this theory has got some merit worth serious analysis. It was uncanny (although probably not relevant) how many supporters also favoured UFOs, perpetual motion machines, alternate medicine, and various conspiracy theories about all sorts of things anti-establishment. I got sidetracked into trying to understand knowledge versus belief, and came across the following book which I found interesting. It's a bit of a rant which focuses a bit on the "why are we here" question, but also has some great discussions about faith ... why some people tend to be more "belief/intuition" based rather than "evidence" based in their convictions. A bit off-topic ... I know.
How We Believe – Science, Scepticism and the Search for God
(Michael Shermer, 2003, 330 pages)

2. One recent proponent of the “push” theory for gravity is a US guy by the name of Walter Wright who thinks everyone else is stupid, and he's the next Albert Einstein. His "push" theory was cast in 1968, when back holes were still highly theoretical / science-fiction, and strong observational evidence for them had not yet been encountered.
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/wright1.htm (http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/wright1.htm)

3. We found some instances of Wright's theory being used as a "thought experiment" in the general media (and for junior university students), but it's not taken very seriously. It seems to be a variation to the LeSage 1784 "kinetic theory of gravity". Here's a brief article from Sept 1987 which is fairly blunt about Wright's claims (attached).

4. Have also done some digging on the guy who did this review and he looks okay to me.
http://www.sas.org/CarlsonCV.html (http://www.sas.org/CarlsonCV.html)

5. Other attempts at refining "push gravity" theories exist, and some have even made it to books, but it appears that the arguments are similar to Wright's and they create many more problems than they "claim" to solve. Here's a guy who found the $ to make it to print:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0968368972/qid=1105105266/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-7288021-6218506?v=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0968368972/qid=1105105266/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-7288021-6218506?v=glance&s=books)

6. Current state of conventional gravity theory/model has progresses a bit in the past 36 years, but still resembles Newton and Einstein. Here's a typical explanation of a current model (based on integrating "energy density", rather than calculations based on a single mass considered to act from its centre of gravity).
http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm (http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm)

7. Some other alternate theories are based on "expansion"- once again, they appear to be interesting thought experiments, but not very plausible models by my reckoning. Here's an example, which seems like a guy who can write & debate and is looking to make lots of money. http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm (http://www.thefinaltheory.com/pages/1/index.htm)
Here's also some typical info from someone who attempted to investigate this theory...
http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html (http://homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html)

For me, General Relativity is a better model to accurately describe & predict the large scale effects of gravity, although the “how/why” is probably less intuitive to conceptualise than a push model. Determining an underlying mechanism for gravity (whether tied to electro-magnetism or not) still seems a long way off to me. Likewise, we widely accept though observation & experiment that positive and negative particles attract … but even this we do not yet really understanding why.

Cheers,
Jeff

[sjastro]

Alex,

The unexplained energy you refer to is dark energy which has absolutely nothing to do with attraction and attempts to explain the cosmological constant for the expanding universe as a repulsive or dare I say it push force.

Ironically push gravity could be considered a mechanism for the cosmological constant but it would have to explain the missing 74% dark energy in the universe.:)
By your own reasoning push gravity should therefore be dismissed as an alternative.........

And you're wrong regarding the corona. If the solar corona is caused by push particle flux it would be evenly distributed, be spherically symmetrical and unchanging. Instead the shape of the corona changes considerably according to the solar cycle.

And the action of the push particle flux would increase the surface temperature of planets not their interiors.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-17-02.html#vid-02-02

[xelasnave]

Thanks to all for the wonderful contributions herein.

Just for the record I say that I am not into the alternative stuff and the rat bag ideas that flow within such places.

I see no conspiracies other than those that have been exposed by the press.

My approach generally is scientific (notwithstanding my radical approach to gravity)

I believe in nothing or anybody and everything is always up for review in my Universe.

I say that my belief in my approach is not science however it represents simply my thinking upon the matter..which is far more considerable than the litttle bits I drop on the net ...

I simply have tried to work out how the Universe works and so far I am happy that from my approach I can make it work with push....

I hold both Newton and Dr A (and Leonardo) as my heros because they tried to take human understanding forward... certainly I would like to do similar and feel confident that someone who has greater ability than me may in trying to destroy the idea of push may just be struck with the realisation that I have been privy to and take it further....:P:whistle:

I am going to Sydney without you know who so maybe I can give this matter better attention...

So far nothing that has been raised do I see as a problem:D but admit there are areas that I must explain further... like a woman I never think that I have lost the arguement but only that I have not made my point quiet clear:lol::lol::lol:

However still with the little I have read on gravity do I feel the matter has been sucesfuklly dealt with...
We have a grave problem in that we can not come up with a re4asonable theory of everything or put another way we can not unite the forces...gravity is the odd man out..it can not be fitted in... well I say I can fit it in and without tearing down all the science before it..GR approaches the matter in a way that will prevent any unification of the forces I believe... now it matters not if I am right or wrong what matters (to me) is that I at least try and help humans move forward....

I feel my ideas are no more crack pot than some physisist who goes public saying a black hole hiolds the key to time travell or those who happily speculate upon multiple Universes because an odessey in math took then there...

I am not trying to be disrespectful to science but point out the obvious..gravity needs an update and trying to fit it into the rules that wont allow a unification of the forces will take us nowhere.........

If we ask simple questions like ...how does attraction work? what in effect bends space time (and I note Bojan's expalnation using energy is ahead of any explaination I have found to date)..and particularly why would an external pushing force such that is required to hold galaxies in place simple stop somewhere "above our heads"... does this force as strong as it is die off somwhere outside the galaxy?? well I simple doubt that it does and suspect that if we were not focused uipon fitting the concept of attraction in the picture we will find a wonderfully ellegant picture of how gravity and indeed all energy works...
now can I deliver all this..well I believe in myself and am sure in time that I will...
I will simply follow up on the problems perhaps develop my math or employ someone to provide what I want...consider the problems that the big bang theory has... if you are a convert you will never see them and if you are an exponent of the big bang you will never consider it could be wrong... and at this point I remind those who favour the big bang that one has to swallow a huge pill when asked to accept the "theory" of inflation..without inflation the big bang is dead in the water... I find it easy to question the notion of inflation...everything became everything and in place in a matter of seconds is difficult to accept I personally would be looking for something less demandibng of faith in theory...
so am I silly to overlook things that some see as the nail in the coffin of push...yes of course I am silly..just being interested in the subject must alert folk to the fact I think more than is healthy: however in time I bety I can answer things to everyones satifaction ....... I take what I can out of this preoccupation with gravity..I am leaning a lot of stuff just by the amount of things I have to read to find where the current position as to gravity is..do I understand it all ...no but I do form understandings that help me move forward... but at this point I still believe there is something to the push approach.. I have it worked from an atom to the largest scale of how I can comprehend the Universe.......and it all works well for me... I can expalin lenses, moment, electricity and magnetism in a push system and maybe even how things work in a fission reactor and a fussion reactor... my way thast is..but still see it in a conventional sence also so as to take in any accumulated knowledge...

Anyways sorry7 to be short and non specific ..I hope to get a new lap top in SYdnet and my own net account so I dont have this duck in to a library or friends for a short burst...

I will think thriough all that has been presented...... and ask this one question again...how does attraction work if it is so available for observation one would think someone has it wired...


alex:):):)

[Jeff]

Hi Alex, appreciate the open and honest response, and I'm really enjoying this discussion. :thumbsup:

My point 1 below was a bit off-topic ... had just noticed when researching push gravity a few years ago that some of the referencing websites covered other controversies also (moon landing conspiracy, UFOs, etc). I can see from your contributions to this forum that you're actually very scientific in your approach, but I thought some of the background on Walter Wright might add to the discussion. Apologies if I have implied that you're heavily into alternative stuff ... I should have proof read my note before posting. :ashamed:

The book on push gravity which I mentioned in my point 2 below looks like it could be a good read ($15 from Amazon). So many interesting books, and such little time to read !!!! :sad:

Cheers,
Jeff

[bojan]

The discussion about related topic on Centauri dreams is very interesting. Definitely worth reading.


http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1537

[Jeff]

Good article, and interesting website too!

Will be very interesting to see if observations/data and models significantly improve over the next few years to better understand gravity & spacetime for galaxies/galaxy-clusters.

[xelasnave]

I am still running from Brisbane to Tabulam to Sydney as driver for you know who...but I tried to buy a computer and 450d canon today ..finally got the deal set and the guy has to order it in ..I leave Sydney tonight....well no big deal I am off to Brisbane tonight..in Sydney tonight... anyways still have not got satisfactory internet access..however I have decided to write a book on the subject.. not to prove or disprove my approach but to consolidate all I have read on Newton, LaSage Dr A, String theory, big bang etc ... the market will be very narrow however I feel compelled to do so... my new friend is into astrology and it dawned on me that astrology works also by push:whistle:... anyways that prospect turns a nurdy book into a posible best seller and I look forward to the nights that we can work on the project together;)

I know it is not accepted as total authority but the fact that I am always right suggests that I will not be wrong on this gravity push matter...:D

anyways after a day negotiating on the 450d body and the lap top and running about to get the cash the guy did not have it in stock:sadeyes:..what a day... the good news is I am again talking to my Son :thumbsup:and he, you know who and me are having dinner ask I speak:):):)..he likes her I can tell..,.

Anyways push works when you think it thru... it is difficult to thinkl that anything we have learnt in school or University may be wrong but push works...I am not easily fooled and have looked long and hard at the current gravity position..it is hopelessly inadequate..however no one will see this unless they can realise we have not learnt everything..DrA may be right and indeed Newton is right however I see noithing that downs push... in time I promise I will pove my point and as I said I will do this ... I read a maths book in the book shop so maybe I throw some of that in to add the credibility of math proof..it is very much a language.... I have learnt a bit the rest should be easy..no problems ..its just the time..you know who taught maths physics and stuff so maybe I can get bher to help...

anyways must go it is rude to talk at the dinner table let alone talk on the net...so I will go...

Sorry I can not engage and deal with the important matters raised ...

all is well life is great and I hope thats the way it is for everyone out there..

alex:):):):):):):):):):):)

[AlexN]

:) I look forward to an autographed 1st edition!! :)

[Virgs]

Astrology and push gravity - now you really have sunk your own boat. You have no maths to support either of these and your scientific method is flawed. I am sorry for the blunt reply but I for one do not see the funny side of this. If someone stumbles on your writings and they themselves have not researched, they may be led to think there is validity in your belief but it is only that, a belief, it is not science and there are far too many misconceptions already without you adding to it. Please understand I have no ill feeling towards you as an individual.

[bojan]

I do :love2: ;)

But not scientific side , of course.

[GTB_an_Owl]

uneducated as it may be
but in all my 61 years i have noted that -

if there is an Arrow going in one direction - there is sure to be an Arrow going in the opposite direction

think about it !

geoff

[sjastro]

So Alex you're going to be the Johannes Kepler of the 21st century.
Kepler devised the laws of planetary motion at the same time as casting horoscopes for the European nobility.

Your comment on the current gravity postion as being hopelessly inadequate is only a reflection of your lack of understanding or knowledge on the subject.

Regards

Steven

[AGarvin]

I think your a bit confused Alex as to what both Einstiens and Newtons theories are actually saying.

GR is a geometric theory that describes how the presence of mass/energy, momentum etc ... affects the shape of said geometry. The theory uses a particular type of geometry (Riemannian geometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry)) that allows "space" to curve. However it IS NOT saying that space curves in the real physical sense, it is simply treating space as though it curves. This is a very important distinction to make. We don't even know what space physically is, we don’t have a theory to say what space physically is and therefore cannot say whether it can really physically curve or not. This misconception also appears when folks talk about "expanding space" in cosmology. A more accurate term is "expanding universe" as we cannot say whether space is really physically expanding either (GR uses the concept of comoving coordinates to describe what is often misleadingly termed expanding space). Both Newtonian mechanics and GR will arrive at the same results in cases of low gravitational potential, but one treats gravity as a force and the other treats it as a consequence of geometric curvature. So which is correct? Both are.

It is perfectly valid Alex for you to propose a theory that treats gravity as a "push" force, but your theory needs to provide the mathematical foundation that allows me calculate how fast a tennis ball will drop when I let it go, or what path my spacecraft will follow as I do a fly-by of Jupiter. I suspect however that what your suggesting is that gravity in the real physical sense is a push and I don’t think you realize the magnitude of such a statement.

Andrew.

[Virgs]

A true scientist "understands" never "believes" - any one can have a belief but it does not make it science. Cults and fads are full of beliefs...

[xelasnave]

I must confess..the astrology thing was an attention getting step... I dont believe that crap
There is only one side..the funny side.
I doubt with all the stuff out there that one additional fool banging his gums will sway the balance.

You can not insult me..all words are truth or lies I can live with both;)

I have not presented anything in a scientific method and have never pretended to do so.. all I have is an idea..a theory requires as you know certain things..

Still while you are here may I ask if you know how attraction works????

Thanks for your post and I encourage your input.

alex:)

[xelasnave]

Thank you your interest shall be rewarded with a copy of the believers and collectors addition..you can collect without belief of course

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Mmmmm if we think of radiation being represented as arrows and where they may all point and if they had a quality of push that could give an understanding of the many sourses of push ...so one could visualise the concept I suggest it couold be helpful

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Sorry Steven my reference to the astrology thing was a little cruel and provocative.. I again say I think that stuff is crap.. but if I plan on selling a book it that sort of thing one needs to do to get publicity.. a nut gets more press than a real scientist I have noticed.

I dont know much less than most on the subject I feel.. but then until I know more I wont know what I dont know now...

The current cutting edge of gravity suggests there is an interaction of particles at a quantum level..it is this approach that is said to offer the posibility of uniting the forces... via the graviton..now it works apparently and is mathematically ellegant however if they want it this way we have to face the problem that approach runs into with the apparent necessity that the particle interaction must be at twice C...

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Valid observation and I agree absolutley with your view of "space time" and my point is and has been..GR is geometry finally..it seeks to descibe space from this position..fair enough but as you say and as I say it says nothing of the make up of space... I say space is a flow in the physical sence that provides a pressure in effect to do the work of gravity.

I simply say I can "see" how push can work..a one way message requiring no feed back or communication between bodies in effect...attraction does not work for me and I have never found any explaination of how attraction can work..I say it cant..I cant prove that... but I bet there is no one who can come up with how attraction works..well if no one knows how it works how can it be used as explaination with such casual regard?

Thank for your input to this thread it is great to see

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

errr...not that GR says attraction or push I think...I dont think GR mentions force of anynature???

and I mean I am not sure but thats my current impression.
alex

[xelasnave]

I agree but I am not a scientist presenting a theory..I speak of an idea and have always been open on that point..an idea can not move to theory status without experiment observation recording and predictions ( losely speaking) a theory is something more of a fact than a proposition of speculation...still we do have the theory of inflation..which although called a thoery in my view is nothing more than an idea.. and you can make a list of theories which are simply nothing more than specualtion..

If you think I am a bit lose look at inflation theory..its is not a theory yet it is claimed as such

My idea my belief as is I have stated... can I prove it..of course not..for goodness sake..I am specualting upon the theory of everything... it would take a team of hundreds to pull it into acceptable science ..so it will take me a fair while to match that I reckon.

I welcome any speculation upon how attraction work... even using a graviton;)

alex:):):)

alex:):):)

[bojan]

Alex,
Let me answer with counter-questions:
In your view, how Push actually works?
What is the "mechanics" of push that results in observed effects?

If you have a really good look at this "trivial" question, with your methodology it will turn out that you can not answer that either. Or can you?

[xelasnave]

You show me yours first:lol::lol::lol:

Of course I can show you how I think push works but you will probably want some sort of math proof:D

As to push I dont see it like billard balls hitting each other ..although that may be the way of.. I think particle interaction is via orbits..energy is moved about this way..maybe..I need a diagram to show it and one day when hooked up it will come..
alex:):):)

[Jeff]

I thought those grins and winks suggested as much. :lol::rofl::lol:
Was good to see some open and frank responses to your Astrology bombshell in any case.

[bojan]

I still haven't seen yours.. Come on.. show us :poke::poke::poke:

Well, after all, you started this pushing discussion, right?

Draw the diagram or whatever. As long as the explanation is consistent with the reality, and as long as it can explain and/or predict other phenomena, it will be adequate. Math can be done later.

[sjastro]

Er what? Quantum gravity doesn't work because of problems with the mathematics. So much for mathematical elegance. And how did you come to the conclusion that the particle interaction must be at twice C.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

think about the message out and back..attraction must need a message each way..at c max... well if c is max gravity will manifest as a speed half c.. soory had a long good answer but lost it and the lady wants to close the shop..will expand on that later..but think how can attraction work at c if the system must have a message out and back..say like radar...

alex:):):)

[Virgs]

Oh please, will you stop and read what you are saying. Where do you get the twice c from? If the sun exploded it would take 8 and a half minutes before the earth where to fling out of orbit - now how does your push gravity explain that!!! I feel that the members here are cutting you quite a lot of slack because they are polite and respectful individuals but your lack of any methodical modelling or explanations that are remotely observable with the world in which we live is starting to get tiring. I appreciate you do not have the maths background but please try and match your idea with some science or reasonable logical thought which will allow us to develop a test for this and if you can not , then stop with the idea that you some how have a greater insight than the true geniuses of physics. Now I re-state that is not a personal attack on you.

[sjastro]

That's a very interesting line of thought Alex :rolleyes:. Metaphysics isn't my strong point.

Perhaps you can explain why photons which are the particle carriers for the electromagnetic force don't travel at 2C. By your line of reasoning they should.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

Radar, eh?
But why there is a need for any confirmation of "message" ????
Could you elaborate this thought in greater detail?
And, if there is a need for confirmation, there will be a need for confirmation of conformation.. which means two particles will never be able to decide it is time to start moving towards each other.
Alex, you are in trouble here.

And yes, you have to answer Steven's question before you even think of continuing with this. Especially because in this case we are dealing with both repulsive and attracting force.

[xelasnave]

Dont worry I dont take things personal .. my presentation via writing is different to my in person approach.

The twice c possibility is indeed ridiculous..that is my point..however I think that an attraction system would need a message from body a to body b and then a message back from b to let a know what it is and what it is doing...so if we are to accept that gravity manifests at a speed of c this would mean that in the way I see attraction could only work..a message out and a message back finally we are faced with the message must travel back and forth at "twice" c so as gravity manifest a speed of c...
Now think about what I am saying..it is easy to read a bit and think I have lost it but try and think about what I am saying... attraction can not work..
Now as to reasonable logic I believe I use more than reasonable logic...certainly when we are asked to accept inflation as the saviour of the big bang and that all in effect "became" in a matter of some 30 seconds with nothing offerred in support I claim my logic is reasonable... where is the logic in multiple universes or supersymetry requiring a shadow worl of super partners???? my universe requires only the one universe..it requires no additional matter that we can not see (dark matter) ... I reject that I am not logical but accept the fast way I have to get these posts completed may leave others missing my point...

I like physics and respect it and those involved..this does not mean I am precluded from a view.. and given the time I will match, reject or accept any reasonable approach..but to think I am the only one guilty of speculation without support would be unfair on me...look at inflation.. where is the proof..Suskin has made a name for himself with string theory and yet this cutting edge of physics has no experimental evidence that I am aware of... Guth when offerring the life line to the big bang via his inflation "theory" which is no more than an idea..it is not a theory by any scientific definition.... level your sites at Suskin and Guth in the same way as you may care to level you sites at me and you will find they present a much larger target...now as I said I dont take it personal but fair go look at the leaders in physics who do far worse than me....

If you think I am harse answer me this..what qualifies inflation to be at the dizzy hights of a theory?? it was grabbed eagerly by the big bangers because they neede it and so in that case the harse demands called for before a theory can live were overlooked...if I am wrong enlighten me so I can move forward...

And point me to some place that gives an account as to how attraction works... I know of none and yet attracti0n stands as a given.. if it is to stand so..show how it works..and further as I get called upon to do...give some math in support...

Thanks for your input I enjoy it totally and dont worry that you may hurt my feelings..I have none ..hit me in the head with a brick and my only concern is what may be bothering you...

Keep up the fight for the other side as will be my position..
alex:):):):):)

[xelasnave]

As to the Sun disappearing you are right the message of gravity takes approx the time you say...so lets try and see how attraction can do that...does the Sun send a gravity message to the Earth..I am here Earth and then the Earth sends a message well I am here???? at what speed could such a message be sent and return to go?... if you say it is a one way message I can not see how attraction can work...if you can please tell me...try to work it out and I am sure you may detect the very reason why attraction for me is a myth....push is the only way you can have a one way message... of course if we are working on the basis that c is the speed limit for the universe and there is a lot to say that is the way of it..c is the top speed as far as I know.

And I do appreciate the kind manner which others accept me.. but please dont think I am a fool just because I missed doing my science degree...I invented the electric motor when I was 11 years..did not know they existed such was my knowledge but using electro magnets it was able to come up with an invention..original for me..with less knowledge and years than the guy who did it before me and gave them to the world...I topped the school in science (combined) having broke my nose in a weight lifthing accident 3 days prior to the exam..I got 98.5% marks..lost the 1.5 marks for a simple math error like writting 2 + 2 = 5 however that was a slip because I only got out of bed that day to do the exam..if not for the accident I know I would have nailed 100%....

I work things out with my own calculus.... ruff but close..and that is how real calculus works..close in that case is real close but never never never exact..look at the area of a circle..its made out of adding up the boxes that one has divided the circle into so as to work out the area... or that we never get there trip...we only get half way there..consider that approach in calculus..never exact but look what the appraoch allows us to do....but i CAN NOT CONVERSE MATH..IT IS A LANGUAGE... AND EACH TERM HAS SPECIFIC MEANING... opps soory hit caps lock but cant fix it now...

anyways I dont think I am a fool and I say I think very very deeply about what I try and present..days on end just on the one aspect..and if you think about attraction for a whole month all you will conclude is ..attraction is a myth born from human experience used as if it is a given ..but it has no proof...none absolutely none... I am being provocative so someone can take a good swing at my assertion..am I on the ropes..if you cant hit me now it will be harder later...how does attraction work... with or without math...

alex:):):):)

[Jeff]

Wow! For something which was not a personal attack, that's pretty full-on and personal! :lol:


I do not subscribe to the PUSH model for gravity, but if my basic understanding of the model is correct (please feel free to add/correct Alex) then:

1. Ubiquitous push particles (aka dark energy... let's call them gravitons) are a property of empty space, flowing in all directions, passing through ordinary matter objects, but also exerting a pressure in direct proportion to object mass.

2. When an Object is not in a gravitation field, it experiences equal graviton pressure in all directions, and therefore no net gravitation.

3. When an Object is in the vicinity of a Large Mass, it is partially shielded from gravitons, it experiences a net pressure in that direction. The effect is that the Object experiences a net force (in proportion to its own mass) in the direction of the Large Mass. The apparent force between the Object and the Large Mass is described by Newton's equation for gravitation, with terms having there normal meanings: F = G ( M1 x M1 ) / r^2

4 The PUSH model for gravity does not change the maths from the Newtonian equation, but simply proposes a candidate "mechanism" for the observed effects.

5. In the vicinity of the Sun, the Earth is partially shielded from gravitons in that direction. The net force on the Earth in the direction of the Sun is as per Newton's equation, and enables the Earth to remain in its orbit around the Sun.

6. If the mass of the Sun were no longer available to partially shield the Earth from gravitons in that direction, then the Earth would experience no net force (having equal graviton pressure from all directions), and would therefore continue in a straight line rather than remaining in its orbit.


So on a very basic level, the PUSH model can be visualised. It's when we start to dig deeper that some of its problems start to show.
- where do the proposed gravitons come from?
- by what magic to they interact with matter to impart momentum & kinetic energy?
- can their transferred/lost momentum & energy be observed or tested?
- how can PUSH gravity force inversely proportional to distance?
(makes sense for attractive gravity since spherical area is proportional to r^2, but not for PUSH)

Nonetheless, it may still be possible to test and refine/improve the PUSH model model to better explain and predict observable behaviour. I think it's an up hill battle myself, but can see the attraction of the challenge. :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Bojan the trouble I have got myself with you know who makes this seem easy meat....

I try to work out how attraction may work...how else than by a message from one body to the other and back again... that was the radar thing..the radar sends out a "message" the "particle" comes back and says what it has found...and that process I bet without looking into the radar thing will take at least twice the time it takes light to go one way..electromagnetic energy is at c..so out at c and back at c if you see what I mean...

I say the only way the particle can work is one way... how can a particle leave Earth for example got off to the Sun and come back to state gravity position???? attraction can not work..if it can there must be someone here who can say..alex you have missed this.. but I ask and I ask but no one offers any expalnation as to how attraction works..a say they never will because attraction is a myth..

How does attraction work?

OK how does push work...easy simply think of it as pressure at a general level..there is no need for any body to send out and recieve notification of other bodies nearby...one way as oppossed to two way...I can not see how attraction can be a one way message..

[xelasnave]

Great stuff Jeff..
From what I understand the best gravity ideas on offer comes from string theory..well is it a theory..well after 30 years it has as much right to claim the title theory as I may for my "ideas"..still it goes on still it is believed it holds the answers..
Well lets go back and deal with what they say there... gravity is expalined by particle exchange at a quantum level...mmm exchange..at what speed... are they close to realising attraction wont cut it???
String theory requires that particles can change... say a photon to a glueon??? I dont need that stretch... and consider what super symetry (underlying requirement for string theory) ..anmd it demands that every "normal" particle has a super partner...can we see them yet??? er no..maybe CERN can fix that but so far it is a stretch...Looking at this approach it seems that the concept comes from the geometric possiblitie4s... and from that we can develop the dconcept of multiple universes..well we have to have multiple universe or supersymetry wont work..what comes first the chichen or the egg???... really..this is cutting edge science.. I dont buy it and will argue with anyone who has ...
Is it impertenant to ask...just because it is geometrically posible does any posible geometric built universe exist in reality??? I can draw a Unicorn but it dont mean they are out there...but if I drew then long enough and pretty enough no doubt there would be those who would be convinced that I have something...and they in fact must be opuit there... well there are no unicorns and still lots of drawing of them...they are a myth..multi universes are a myth...The premise od super symetry provides possibilities but that doews not mean those posibilities are real or exist anywhere in the universe...
I am a nut to present push well push is easy to envisage certainly a lot easier than the notuion of super partners and multple universes...

The Greeks had the Earth at the center and the planets going around in their own little circles..maths proved it..well the math was right but the posibilities was horribly wrong..
All I am saying finally is some of the stuff scientists accept simply because it is posible in math needs thought and review using a little reason...
why should the Universe be made up of 95% of stuff we can not see...only one reason because we need to make it alll work by attraction..well idfd so how does attraction work... think of how difficult it is to make attracti0on work at huge scales..galaxies..they can not..absolutely can not hold together by attraction...and there are many smart scientists who say as much... they see dark energy as the reason..mmm a pushing force it seems..


sorry to be brief and my use of slang..
Please hit me if you can this is only round one:eyepop:

alex:):):)

[bojan]

Jeff,
I would like to see the derivation of formula you cited above (Newton's law).
In the past, I have challenged many people to do it (not only on this forum, it is amazing how this idea is attractive ;) ), but so far I have not seen a single line of it, not even in a simple form for idealized case, where matter has no granulation, not to mention more realistic case of matter consisting of particles of apparently all sorts of densities (including infinite, which it seems is the case of electron).

Let me repeat:
Gravity works on distances from the size of an atom (probably even much smaller, but it is masked by other, stronger forces on that scale so the Newton's law can not be confirmed easily) to the cosmological distances.
It works on objects that are infinitely small (electron) to objects that are the size of the whole universe (or so it seems).
The derivation of Newton's law must take all above in account at the end.

The attractive force (or all other forces, repulsive or attractive, measurable with dynamometer) is a manifestation of changing the energy level in a field. Simple as that. E=FxS ( energy/work equals force applied on certain path).

The problem with Alex and many others is that they are desperately trying to apply the artifacts of our perception to "outside reality".

For us humans, the only tool we have to understand and describe this reality is math. It is abstract and almost always counter-intuitive (because our minds developed to deal with bear in the cave who wanted to have us for breakfast, not to cope with electron spin etc, things which were totally irrelevant for our survival as species.
Lets accept this.... ;)

To be able to use math as a tool, we have to be educated. Otherwise it is just a chat with a glass of beer in hand.. which is not bad thing either, of course.

[bojan]

For your "pushing" particles to apply pressure to other particles (ordinary mass) , they also have to have mass.. otherwise this concept violates the preservation of momentum.
Also, if they have mass, and are "radiated" they are generated somewhere. taking the energy from that source, otherwise this concept violates the energy preservation.
Please explain :D

Also, they should not interact within themselves at all.. Otherwise there would be mutual shielding , which may totally hamper the concept (because it seems the number of those "pushing" particles per unit of volume must be infinite... )

[bojan]

Alex, I repeat one of my questions here, that you have not answered properly:
How the push works?

[bojan]

I would not call those "gravitons".. because this will create confusion with proposed particles of gravity field, and they do not "push". They carry the energy released in sudden change of gravity field, similar to photons, which are generated when we have the change of EM field.

[Jeff]

Good point.



My understanding is that the origin of Newton's gravitation formula was by fitting to direct terrestrial and planetary observations. The implication of the formula seems to be that the effect weakens as you move further away from a mass .... similar to moving away from a light source, where measured light intensity seems to diminish as it is distributed over an ever increasing spherical area.

I vaguely remember doing some math years ago to demonstrate that when using newtons formula, gravity from a single large body (coalesced chunks/particles) should be equivalent in effect to having the entire mass concentrated at the centre of gravity. I cannot recall the method (eg. calculus, finite element, or finite difference), but I could try to track this down for you if you're really keen ... but it would cost you. ;)



Good question.

Considerable effort has been expended to mathematically unite gravity with other fundamental forces interaction forces (strong, weak, and electromagnetic), but it is possible that gravity is in itself a fundamental force. If so, then the search for an underlying mechanism and unification efforts could go on for a veeeerrrry long time.

[sjastro]

Alex,

I'm afraid Mr Newton's Third Law blows your argument right out of the water. For the sake of the argument I'll go along with the metaphysics for the time being.

The Sun is sending out a gravity message to the Earth, the Earth is sending the same message out to the Sun simultaneously.
If the Sun "changed" its message, the Earth will change to the same message simultaneously. It's called an equal and opposite reaction.

A message only needs to be sent one way either from the Earth or the Sun.

Please don't try to say that Newton's Third law is wrong because push gravity attempts replicate Newton's Laws.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

Yes, this seems very intuitive..
However, the gravity works on VERY small particles, infinitely small - electron for example. Or quark (which still feels like mathematical construct to explain observed phenomena). So, how screening works when the size of the screen is infinitely small, and yet the gravitational force may be VERY strong (which will be obvious once the BH's existence is confirmed. BTW, see this link: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/03/astronomers-link-telescopes-to-zoom-in-on-milky-ways-black-hole/).
The screening model may result in the same form of mathematical expression to describe some , most obvious aspects of certain phenomenon, but, to have the theory, ALL KNOWN cases must be covered... otherwise the theory is not the theory, but just interesting mind game. And in this case, we do not have this coverage.

Also, those "Pushingtons" must be very small, infinitely small in fact, to avoid collisions between themselves (because this is what Alex insists on: mechanical explanation of gravity).

[bojan]

Pushingtons and epicycles.. both go into the same category of concepts.

[bojan]

Jeff, have another look at what I said about the total mass of pushingtons in one of my previous comments...
I still think it is a valid argument against the intuitiveity of "pushing" ideas..
If we assume the concept of pushing force is correct, then the inevitable conclusion from the thought experiment described above is that the density of the universe must be infinite. Therefore, the mass of the universe is also infinite. Which means we should have been in a Big Crunch even before the Big Bang started. Which is obviously not the case.
So, Pushingtons do not exist.
QED.

[Jeff]

If the "Pusitrons" making up much of free space are very small and also have the property of repelling each other, they could be very unlikely to collide with each other .... like electrons within the same valence energy shell whizzing around an atom. An alternate possibility is that any random Pusitronic collisions which do occur are elastic, enabling Pusitrons to retain their original speeds but with altered directions.

[I]

I'm not sure whether in this thought experiment you mean for the golf ball to be 1m from the plate's face, or 1m from the plate's edge. In either case, I expect that in the "Alexonian Universe" a plate of this nature would have to constitute a black hole ... and would collapse to spherical configuration. Light particles would be thrown into it never to return, and there would be yet another lost golf ball.

[xelasnave]

Your statement is a preety good account of how it works..yes the mass..if they have mass they can not travel at c..or can they:D.. nuetrinos have been shown to have mass and travel at near c... I think I could borrow the e=mc^2 thing here:rolleyes: small mass but high speed will give them a good
chance of supplying the energy we will need for it to work.

[bojan]

No chance, Alex.. put it on paper and add numbers (momentum, energy etc)
It will turn out the total mass is infinite, I bet on this with you for a round of beer :D

[bojan]

It does not really matter..
The idea is to block the Pusitron radiation from one direction.
Since our shield plate is infinite, and assuming the Pusitrons are not generated in the space itself (because this would violate the energy preservation principle), it does not matter how far away the golf ball is from it.. Let it be 1m then :-)
Of course, the question now is where they are coming from? But, let's take one step at a time...

[xelasnave]

Sorry had to go..at Drake and my mud cake and ice cream was served by a very nice lady..what a life here.. managed to get away for the day from you know who...:eyepop:
anyways the above was a pre edit I ended up with my text in the quote:shrug:...
however I expect it may work this way..a star generates energy..electromagnetic and that some part of the spectrum has our push particle:D... these particles would be very small however I find the term infinitely small hard to comprehend... and the prospect of an infinite Universe however makes one wonder if small as well as large could be infinite... it may well be... I think the fractal universe idea is along that approach yet they fit infinite into a big bang universe and of course that is impossible... infinite can not grow from finite so if I have it right as to what the fractal universe thing says I dont know how they can fit it into a finite universe...anyways..not thinking to well ..

If I need to supply more info to pass this exam just ask...:D

I have not answered how the machinery of push works... I will try ...

My view of say a hydrogen atom in "space" a long way from everything that may curve the space time grid...in other words no apparent gravity influence..which of course is impossible but unfortunately we have to see a unreal state so I can explain..

I see this H atom as having teo parts to its nuecleus whic orbit each other... they orbit because of the external flow... their binary orbit produces a magnetic field perpendicular to the orbit... the electron cloud we believe is the "case" of the atom is see like the helioshere of our solar system in so far as the external flow causes the electron to be confined to a specific orbit... this is in open space nothing around... so most think of the atom as being there in an empty region..I see it even there as within this infinite flow which causes the orbit of the particles making up the nucleus and determining the orbit of the electron... so push particles interact with this model maybe by orbiting like a comet around our Sun or even occassionally hitting the nucleus... and of course there are no sumks to support this but my explaination is to present what my imagination has constructed...and I do recognise it is my imagination by the way...so there is no need for folk to be upset that I can have this view when science presents a slightly differnt model of a H atom..the different is I see the flow as contributing to the energy of the atom on a regular basis..al the time.. such that the flow is responsible in fact for holding atoms together ..in a similar way to the way I suggest a gallaxy can be held together by an external pushing force....

I am sure there is a reason this wont work within current science and I look forward to hearing about it so I can get whatever needs fixing attended to....

I hope to get away and go back to Sydney and get a lap top and the next g conection as sone as I can and engasge this better..I know there is stuff I have not answered... not saying I can really but as this is something I like I like to see what stands against it and what may destroy it absolutely...

Thanks for all who have taken the time to participate..I am sorry I sort hyjacked this thread..I hope the young lady who prompted the original post is made aware of the stimulating discussion the post generated...such a great subject gravity ..better than football or politics it is the most fascinating thing one could think to talk about at a party for example...

Anyways must go the lady who is doing the ebook just came in..she is helping me with the book I have in mine..she is nice, sane and normal ..they say opposites attract:whistle:

alex

[xelasnave]

I take the bet I cant lose irrespective of the answer... a beer is a beer even if I have to pay the price:lol::lol::lol:

I near bought a math book the other day..I read a lot of it so I will try some sums maybe:D

I say the total mass is infinite it is just that being infinite it is not all in the one place:whistle:

If the Universe is infinite which it is..trust me I know a bloke who has seen it and that is what he reckons... then the supply of push particles is infinite... maybe even at that infinite small level..however I think not all the particles will interact... less particles will interact with a volume of H than with a bloke of U235 for example and yet the number interacting with the u235 is still in the overall picture only a small number of oush particles passing by that will interact...

Bojan as you have guessed I am having lady troubles and I just cant think and draw and stuff.. I can not get any free time but I am hoping it wont last much longer so I can get down to serious work on this:D

Thanks I hope we can at least get to have a beer one day

alex:):):)

[Sharnbrook]

Well Daniel, is your 15yr old girl still thinking of a science career, or has she decided on another path in life?

At least I'm glad the responses have been kept succinct, and under 6 lines. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

I know one thing, my 66 year old head hurts!!

[bojan]

Alex, please take your time.. and do not let lady wait.. because life is short and I do not think Gravitons and Pushingtons are more important that The One Who Took Your Heart ;)

But , as far as beer is concerned, I am taking this as a promise. Of course, you are paying because you lost the bet :lol:

[sjastro]

I thought this was a science forum. Don't let the facts get in the way Alex.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

I managed to embarrass myself on two occasions during this discussion...

Here:


And here (now this is getting really bad):




Of course, the correct expression is
F=G*m1*m2 / R^2


And nobody noticed the errors !!! Except my daughter, student of 4th year of teaching and science here in Melbourne on Deakin uni... when I was explaining by showing her what I am doing on internet, instead of spending more time with her :-)

It seems we are not paying near enough attention to what has been written here..

[xelasnave]

I agree:D
it was the great man himself DrA who said ..."If the facts do not fit the theory change the facts"... now I am not in the great man's level of endeavour but it does not mean I can not take on some of his ideas.

Yes this is a science forum and yes I got carried away hyjacking someone elses thread... I can not plead ignorance I am guilty..but science or not I have my views on stuff and I believe them to be more correct than others think they may be ... I dont see a problem... if I am not right science has nothing to worry about... if I am right it has nothing to worry about either...the sums will still work...

I am worn out in truth.. I have been from Sydney to Nambaccu to Tabby then up to Brisbane and back home and now in Casino leaving for Sydney again..alone at last ... maybe... she is supposed to stay here but I think she may try to tag along again...if she does I think I will tell her she loves me:D

Anyways there is a lot of stuff in this thread I did not really deal with when I have a clear head I will start a thread and present a decent case for the push thing...


Thanks to all for the tollerance..not of your thoughts but that you did not post them:whistle: its all good fun ..nothing like having beliefs chalenged by a fool..that me here.. but if anyone can work out how attraction may work lets hear about it.

alex:):):):):)

[xelasnave]

So does this mean she was happy with all my stuff????:eyepop::whistle:

alex:):):):)

[xelasnave]

AND there is definitely nothing between this astrology lady and me... I just drive her around and share accomodation bills... she is a man hater and I am not that fond of her lot either...

now back to science

alex

[bojan]

No, she was not impressed at all... with neither of us.

[sjastro]

Dr A also had a sense of humour, if he was serious about that remark he would have committed professional suicide.



How did you come up with that conclusion? Do you think the mathematical discovery of Neptune would have been accomplished with a push gravity model?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune




I hope you present experimental evidence supporting push gravity. Simply showing push gravity to be a mechanism doesn't prove anything.


I'm actually a very tolerant person.:hi:. Don't get me wrong Alex, I enjoy reading up on alternative views and this is no exception but you are trying to have a bet each way by inserting push gravity into current theories. The fact is push gravity is mutually exclusive to both Newtonian physics and GR.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

You are indeed tolerant Steven and I thank you for your kind approach...
AND no doubt there may be some work to put it all together so the push universe works...
I certainly will try to keep as much of the current science as possible in the new model:lol::lol::lol:

Actually Dr A may have been using those words when addressing someone doing much the same as I am..er did....so maybe what he said was out of context...

Push is what bends the grid in GR by the way:whistle:;)

As to alternatives I think we do need a review of dark matter, there has to be a better way... to admit dark matter offends reason in my view... and it is only needed because is accepted as the way things works... anyways dont think I have given up on this.. I admit there are problems but that is no reason to give up..the big bang would be dead if inflation had not saved it... so if the big bang can apply a theory which is not a theory to save it I dont feel that my digretions should exclude me having my say... for I express an opinion and one without proof and do not expect it be given any level of regard other than it is a view... by a non scientist...

alex

[sjastro]

Alex as you admit opinion is more important than the facts, your views should be in a more appropriate forum, say the general chat forum.

Your comments on inflation are factually wrong. The BB didn't require any rescuing. The BB predicted three possible configurations of the Universe, open, closed or flat. Inflation simply created the conditions for a flat universe to evolve.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

Perhaps this will shed some more light on pioneer anomaly....
It seems GR is (well, always was actually) in excellent shape !
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/18/flyby-anomalies-explained/

[xelasnave]

I agree with the alternate forum idea.

As to the inflation proposition I to a large degree have only repeated ideas I have read elsewhere...I thought inflation was required to solve the problem of uniformity within the Universe ... anywyas I will read about it again for something to do.

Thanks for your input Steven have a great day.

alex

[xelasnave]

Er I did not mention anything about Pioneer here I thought...maybe I did maybe someone else did..getting old so maybe I forget stuff...but you know I reckon they are slowing because space pushes:D...but I bet you thought I would say as much:lol::lol::lol:..

Thanks for the link.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I am sorry to dig this up but I have to say I am very sorry for the extreme sloppy work I put into my posts. It must have been a trial understanding what I was saying.

This is not an excuse but all replies were rushed and sent off with out me reading them:eyepop:.
I was on the road and doing posts at cafes with someone hurrying me along:D...I was under pressure;)

I found reading the print out an effort so I can only wonder how anyone put up with me:shrug:.

I printed the thread out so as to identify all the things that present as problems and address them:whistle:.

When reading through the print out it became obvious that what was in print had lost much of its impact and in fact even lost sensible meaning.. I shudder at the thought of reading everything I have posted over the years:screwy:;):D:) ..it is no wonder folk may think me strange...heck when I read everything thats what I would think:lol::lol::lol:

I can only say thanks to all who indulged my poor postings in order to engage the matter:thumbsup:.

I sure hope this post at least is mainly correct:D


alex:):):)

[Jeff]

Don't feel too bad Alex. :) This is one of the most entertaining and informative threads I've seen on Ice In Space. Judging from the number of thread hits, plenty of other people found the hard science, fresh ideas, and open discussion well worth reading too. :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Thank you Jeff ...gravity is certainly the most interesting thing you can read about and I did let the Push Universe down somewhat I feel however there could be more one day:P

As I said perhaps as a general chat item so there is no offence to the real scientists (I admire and respect scientists immensly by the way and envy their luck and work to get to where they are) who, reasonably, find my approach difficult to accept in a science forum.

Thank you again I dont feel that bad as I am a humble inoccent person:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):)