HOw to Explain Gravity - Page 6

bojan · #**101** 03-09-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

You show me yours first

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

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

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

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 · #**102** 03-09-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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

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 · #**103** 03-09-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · #**104** 04-09-2008, 02:03 AM

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 · #**105** 04-09-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

That's a very interesting line of thought Alex

. 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 · #**106** 04-09-2008, 10:32 AM

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 · #**107** 04-09-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #**108** 04-09-2008, 01:22 PM

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 · #**109** 04-09-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

xelasnave · #**110** 04-09-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #**111** 04-09-2008, 01:56 PM

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

alex

bojan · #**112** 04-09-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

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

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 · #**113** 04-09-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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..

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

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 · #**114** 04-09-2008, 02:41 PM

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

bojan · #**115** 04-09-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

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,

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 · #**116** 04-09-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bojan

I would not call those "gravitons".. because this will create confusion with proposed particles of gravity field

Good point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave;360483=

so how does attraction work

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 · #**117** 04-09-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.
alex

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 · #**118** 04-09-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

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..

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...ys-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 · #**119** 04-09-2008, 07:33 PM

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

bojan · #**120** 05-09-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bojan

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.

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.