|
Anyways I had I look at some links and still working my way thru but thezse are my initial thoughts.
Well there are no new ideas it seems.
From the wiki link….
Le Sage's theory of gravitation is the most common name for the kinetic theory of gravity originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. The theory offered a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force equation in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting on all material objects from all directions.
Well I must say I had not realised that Mr Le Sage had had this idea and must say that is very much my idea….er which is really his…. Thanks for pointing out his ideas to me.
Streams of particles coming from every where is the way I see it.
What these particles are I have no idea however I felt they may well be found within ..loosley…the electro magnetc spectrum or carried along within it.
Be they particles or energy I am not sure..
I like to think in particles as my mind managaes them better than “raw”energy. I can visualise a particle whereas I have no idea how to visualise energy.
If we go with this for a moment I can explain why gravity would act in a push fashion.
If one were to accept that there is a flow of particles from everywhere gravity could work (mechanically) by one body of mass shielding another body of mass from this flow. They would in effect be pushed to each other moving into the region where there be less flow of particles.
Two masses would in this environment have a region between them where, because each shields the other in a limited respect cause a region where some of this flow is less… on the assumption that each mass would cause loss of energy to those particles flowing through it… so this is where I formed the notion that between them there would be less pressure and that each would be pushed to occupy this region where the pressure…for the want of a better word… is less.
In this context I formed the view that gravity is a force resulting from the push action of the particles that had not loss energy acting against those that had loss energy due to their encounter with the mass they passed through.
A chap in the USA who subscibes to a similar idea as mine and I guess the idea of Mr Le Sage uses a blower and two foam balls to show this effect… one foam ball is blown in the direction of another because the other cuts the draft and offers a region where the foam ball is pushed.
Such a explaination to me on that level (mechanical) seems reasonable and that was where my thinking started.
When one looks at a galaxy I feel it could be only an external pushing force that could do the job of holding them together as I feel if we limit the notion that gravity works by attraction and add to that a top speed of C a message from one side of the galaxy to the other will simply take too long. Whereas an external pushing force will act all over even though the speed of the particles that makes it up are limited to C.
I was also taken by Dr. A’s “biggest blunder”… his cosmological constant which I interpreted as him seeing a need for an overall pushing force. I felt he may well have been on the right track at this stage but had to give up the idea when Mr Hubble made his historic observations that the Universe demonstrated to him it was expanding.
I felt that Dr A may have pulled his horns in upon hearing this news and did not follow up the implications ..in his view, that there needed to be a pushing force.
At this stage..and probably it is already apparent to you, I say that my understanding is limited..but then again such is the case with all humans…and that my explanations here are not intended to prove me right but rather to explain how and why I arrived at the position that I believe gravity must act as a pushing force… and the various pieces of information I have accumulated in a morosophic fashion to form my ideas.
To me they seem reasonable yet I know full well what I try to comment upon has the best brains stummped.
I looked to find all I could to explain how (mechanically) gravity could work.
As you know physics does not offer us much in this regard..or at least if it does I have yet to find it.
I raised my idea on a forum and was told that space time held the answer and that to understand space time was beyond “any man”..yet reading about space time it seems to me that it is a geometry that adds time into the mix of what is really simple geometry.
Time needs to be added to Newtons ideas because gravity is presumed to have a top speed of C…Newton assumed it was instant.
We don’t think of the implications of such a requirement and it seems to me that by leaving out this aspect Newton missed only one point in his work….locally it seems to work fine.
I had figured that there must be a reason why comets missed the Sun yet they had something in the order of 2 to 3 light years to “line up”the Sun..
Why did it miss I asked and my answer was well the message of gravity can not therefore be instant… the reason why the coment misses is it is always aiming at an object that has moved past where it was when it sent its message of gravity… the comet aims for a spot where the Sun was… it can not by virtue of the speed of the gravity message do otherwise..and so the result is a miss (in most cases I guess).
So I wondered how could a message of gravity work… could the message make a round trip..my answer was no..on the basis that I accepted C was the top speed known in the Universe.. if gravity worked by attraction a message would have to go out and back and this would mean that the gravity message woul need to be twice C.. I felt that this did not fit the notion that C was the speed limit for the Universe…and from what I read it was clear that all accepted gravity acted at C.. a round trip could not work so attraction seemed to be ruled out by the notion needing a trip out to and back from objects.
I considered what is space really what is there…and considered a remote part of space..empty was all the impression I had but I though what of the light (electromagnetic spectrum really) ..in any part of space thru it races some evidence of pretty much all that is…we see stars as points of light but that point will be seen everywhere.
So in empty space I could see there must be billions of “particles” racing by in every direction..almost limitless.
Could all these particles exert a force. I formed the belief that they must and that this would translate into the force we call gravity acting via push.
If one placed two masses in this empty region of space what would happen?..
I first wondered how they could communicate working via an attraction approach.. I could not come up with a mechanical view as how attraction could work but if one saw these particles pushed there was no need for a two way message and that the shielding against this flow of particles (on the assumption they carried some force of some degree) the masses would move to each other because there would be a region between them ėmptier than the surrounding space …
I presented this idea on a forum and was told that light would not do this as it did not have the energy…I suggested a particle and was told a particle can not travel at C. I later heard about neutrinos that were a particle which travelled at or very near C and later still that they indeed had mass. So I continued.
So I thought there may well be a particle contained in or carried along with the electro magnetic spectrum that offers the flow of which I speak and I guess the neutrino very much fit the notion originally as I now find presented by Mr LeSage. There may be other particles similar that will do this job.
When I say the idea does not offend what is there at the moment I say this meaning that I offer only an idea as to how the mechanics may work assuming that all that we know now does not deal with the mechanics but merely records in effect the numbers …. Newton does not say why the apple falls nor does space time suggest why mass in effect bends space…in fact I was told ..we don’t need to know why it is… we simply know the relationships..my quest has always been to come up with what forces are at play.. a mechanical expalnation which fits the numbers already avaiable.
And in my simple approach (having been told to use the razor on any idea) the notion of push seemed the most simple and would not offend the numbers and the formulea in place.
It is true I offer a force for consideration but that only came about because as far as I could see from my reading about gravity no one had come up with any mechanical explaination so as to say this force is “such and such”” and it works by this partcle interacting with that particle”.
The space time grid distorts toward a mass… not as the ball on the blanket example suggests which says the opposite to what the space time concept says.
I say it is the flow of these mystical and un discovered and unquantified particles that push space toward a mass… because it cuts off the flow in effect.
I have indeed introduced a force but only because as I said neither Newton or Dr A did so.
As to gravity waves.
I have great difficulty in the general concept of the wave notion.
I feel it is a method of recording what is in effect a disturbance in the flow I talk about…
If we throw a rock into a pond we see waves but it is really the movement of particles that are already there.. when the wave passes the particles remain and in this regard I see man’s use of the wave notion much the same way..a wave is our explaination of the movement of particles… however I feel all we now see is the theory describing the movement of the particles.
The gravity waves they seek are from major events which cause a disruption in the particle flow ..a greater pressure due the an event like a super nova such that gravity changes..I agree the space time grid will distort but it really reflects,in my view, a higher activity in the particles.
As to gravity generally been seen as a wave I think that as this flow is universal and there would be no general disruption that could be measured in the same sence that we can measure radio waves for example.
Light passing a mass must follow the distortions of space I agree I only say the space is in effect pushed by this flow… I, for the most part, agree with gravitational lensing as set out…however artists and I guess scientists who talk about gravitational lensing have in mind the ball on the rubber sheet example and show the path of light which fits this incorrect example…look at any artist impression ..they show light bends around mass they do not show it is bent in towards mass as space time tells us.
Sorry to be so long winded and I confess this is off the top of my head as I have still to really take in all you have written.
I will add more later in direct response to the propositions you ask me to consider.
But thank you again I will look to see what errors I may have made from the links you provide.
Best wishes
alex
|