View Single Post
  #11  
Old 20-10-2007, 12:06 PM
KenGee's Avatar
KenGee (Kenith Gee)
Registered User

KenGee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Laura
Posts: 599
reply

To which unrelated facts do you refer???
Well you seem to be trying to infer a horizon problem on gravity. While this may be an issue on large scale structures within the early universe when it was expanding at a good fraction of the speed of light. It isn’t a problem on the scale and velocities we are talking about.

That was a quick introduction.
The inverse square law is not offended by what I say... no is the space time approach...I say it is this flow I envisage that "bends"the space time grid in effect
.
Well the space time approach is effected by the inverse square law, what I don’t understand is why you think your is isn’t. Newtons laws are still applicable here (relativity is more accurate I know but this purpose it’s fine) and they clearly show the inverse square feature of gravity just and the electromagnetic spectrum behaves in the same manner..

As to the darkened room thing gravity does change but because the light is out you can't read the meter to observe the change
Just kidding.

I suggest that the pressure is made up by a flow of particles and these particles for the most part pass thru matter with relatively little interruption.
What particles? if you mean Photons I’m sorry to say photons don’t fit the bill. Their energy levels mean the readily interact with just about anything you put in it’s path. If your trying to resurrect Le Sages theory of “Corpuscles” you really are on shaky ground. Have a look here for the problems with that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage...of_gravitation
So in my push Universe say in respect of the Earths gravity..there is a flow from above (and sides for that matter) and a flow from beneath..the flow from beneath is not as forceful as the flow from above (because it has loss energy having travelled thru the planet) so there is a greater pressure from above than there is from below...I say this is how gravity works..a push system which does not need any mythical force of attraction. Mythical force, you’re introducing one of your own!


Dont take the reference to light as relating to light but the electromagnetic spectrum.... I simply say that within it I suspect there is something that is relevant....

Still one thing at a time ... if you are prepared to take the time please point out how I have seized on facts that are unrelated.
There are lots of sources that would explain it clearer then me, go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity and look at the Historical Alternatives..

Thank you for at least considering my proposition and taking a position.
it does not worry me that you think I may be wrong and frankly if you can give me something to get me from thinking I am right I would welcome it for I have been thinking this way for so long ..unopposed.. if something can convince me I am off the mark that means I can leave it alone and move on...

If you can tell me how gravity works I would love to hear about it.... but to me nothing I have come across attempts to explain it... we have measurements ..inverse square law is great for measurements but it explains nothing as to the machinery..same with space time..it in fact says it is the mere relationship of mass and does not even recognise there is a force that causes mass to act upon space as space time indicates.
That last sentence is a bit confusing but I’ll deal with it below.


I do not believe attraction can do the job and if this system is invoked then one runs into the problem that messages of gravity has to go from a mass ..out to the other mass and back again...this means that gravity would work at half the speed of light..on the presumption that nothing can go faster than C..a message of gravity would if attraction is invoked have to do a round trip... which means it must travell faster than C..twice as fast in fact... and we are told than nothing can beat C.

Thanks for you comments

You are right in that the mechanics of gravity are still up in the air a bit. Spacetime needs to find gravity waves which they haven’t yet. The best working solution is Relativity and it is a hard concept to get your head around my people believe they do understand it and really don’t.
Field effect which describes how space-time is curve by matter is particularly difficult. I simply haven’t got the time to go into the however try this link http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q...hysics+Lecture
You must remember that any theory must at the very least fit the observations and relativity does that very well. So how does your theory account for the deflection of light around massive objects?
In the effort to bring gravity under a ToE the messenger particle for gravity has been purposed. While gravitons do have some issues though your idea that a messenger particle needs to go back and forth is incorrect. Photons are messenger particles and you are not proposing that in order to see a star the photons have to travel from the star to my eye and back again. Yes the is a two way flow of information however it’s not a call and answer arrangement.
Reply With Quote