Psychology Of Newton's Declaration Of Gravity

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by common_sense_seeker, Apr 22, 2009.

  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    All our current scientific thinking has essentially developed from Newton's law of universal gravitation. But unbelievable as it may seem, there is a simple possible alternative to the 'every object attracts every other object equally depending on it's distance and mass'. Imagine that there was a super-high density inner core of the planets and stars, thousands of times denser than ordinary matter. Baryonic matter made up of neutrons and protons is mainly empty space due to the distance between the nucleus and bonding electrons.
    The emission of gravitons by a mass and their interaction with another body determines the gravitational attraction. The graviton particle flux density from a super-high density inner core would be considerably higher than the graviton flux density of everyday matter. When the gravity flux from everyday matter interacts with super-high density matter, not all of the mass interacts, since the incoming flux density is lower than the matter it has encountered. Newton's law doesn't apply in this case. It only applies when the gravity field is considerably more dense than the matter that is within it. If the matter is more dense, then it will be affected differently than if it was the familiar baryonic matter.
    The point I'm trying to make is that it could be a case of simple psychology that a man at the top of his profession has made a great leap forward in our understanding, but at the same time hasn't quite got it right. Because there was no alternative to his proposal, it was accepted with open arms, even by Einstein. I'm convinced that if a particle view of reality is taken, there is a simple logical argument which falsifies his law of universal gravitation! Imagine if it was all down to psychology and the wrong mental picture! (lol)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Yeah, I well remember the application of Newton's law to say, Hooke's Law, or Boyle's...
    Imagine if it was really invisible pixies.
    How does your scenario explain gravitational attraction between non-planetary/ stellar masses?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    The same as between a planet and the sun. The stars would have a super-high density inner core, presumably proportional to their luminosity and estimated mass. At a certain distance of separation, the gravitational field of the outer core and mantle would become less dense than the super-high density inner core of a neighbouring star. Hence Newton's law is compromised. The mass of the Earth calculated by the Cavendish experiment would also be incorrect. Hence the estimated mass of the sun and other stars would also be severely underestimated. The whole idea has the potential to solve the 'missing mass problem' as well as the rotational mystery of galaxies!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Note that I said NON-planetary/ stellar masses.
    For example two lead balls in a laboratory...
    (Of course, we'd have to carefully check that they are just lead and don't have neutronium cores).
     
  8. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Oh, sorry about that. The force would be as measured by the Cavendish experiment. The problem is that the experiment was originally intended to 'weigh the earth'. Cavendish has unwittingly made a HUGE assumption in his work, namely; that the entire Earth is composed of the same type of matter as surface lead balls! Think about it. I'm right. It is the psychology of the situation that has led to the automatic acceptance of Newton's law. This initial belief has led to it's discovery as a reality. The only problem is that modern day physics and cosmology has ended up in a muddle. Where's the quantum theory of gravity? The problem is located at the very beginning of this saga. Newton made a scientific conclusion that was simply wrong! Science was hard a few hundred years ago because nobody knew anything and they only had a piece of glass to look through. We can't make those excuses any more though! Science is easy, it's the psychological block which is the problem!
     
  9. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    What does the composition of the Earth have to do with the attraction measured between the two lead balls?
    I.e. their attraction to each other.
    Until you can come up with a viable (and testable and mathematical) explanation that holds up then Newton stands.
    It's that simple.
     
  10. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    The Cavendish experiment which used this idea to calculate the density of the Earth!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
    I've had contact with the ultra orthodox jewish scientist community of Manhatton, who are interested in developing the ideas. It's such a mind-boggling concept that Newton has made a simple mistake, that I'm still getting used to it. Mathematics itself needs to be rewritten! I've had an offer from Suzanne to do just that! How mad is that? And then to develop a computer simulation of creation! It's easy and mind-blowing at the same time! I just wanted to see whether I could convince any forum members first.
     
  11. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So what?
    YOU are the one that mentioned Cavendish - I was talking about the experiments showing gravitational attraction between two lead spheres.
    If you wish to go off at tangents, feel free to do so, it doesn't alter the fact that the lead spheres confirm the figures for gravity and they don't have neutronium cores.
    So you've found a group of people that share your misunderstanding?
    Given the size of the population of Earth that doesn't surprise me.
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    CSS:

    The Cavendish experiment is specifically designed so that the effects of Earth's gravity doesn't affect the outcome of the experiment. It proves that ordinary-sized masses (like lead balls) attract each other and are not just attracted to the Earth.

    Do you think everyday-sized objects like lead balls also have ultra-dense cores?
     
  13. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I need to draw a diagram to show what I mean. If you start with the premise that there is a super-high dense neutronium core, then the maths looks completely different to Newton's simple solution. A particle force carrier can occur in an objects field with a density which is less than the density of the secondary mass. This interaction isn't described with Newton. What I'm saying is; We should start again with a concept of a quantum theory of gravity. I need to draw a diagram!

    Edit - no I don't think there's neutronium in lead balls. Just the inner core!
     
  14. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Waiting...
     
  15. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I've already tried, but the scanned file didn't download for some reason. I'll try again tomorrow, due to the fact that I don't have a scanner where I am at the moment. Hopefully tomorrow.
     
  16. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I've thought about this a bit more. I think Cavendish was correct in his calculation of earth's density. It is the subsequent mass of the Sun which has the potential to be an underestimate. I believe that Newton's big mistake was to consider an object as a point mass. This is okay when considering a body's gravitational field potential; this can be considered to be the number of fundamental particles. BUT the force experienced by a body in a gravitational field potential has to be determined from the number and spacing of the fundamental particles i.e. it's density. When a subject body's density is greater than the incoming field density then the acceleration will be less than expected, due to the fact that not all object particles interact with the gravitons at a particular moment in time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2009
  17. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Isn't any solid mass always, by definition, of greater density than a field?
     
  18. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    How do you get to this conclusion?
     
  19. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Because density is defined as "mass per unit volume", no?
    And a solid, being solid, has more "stuff" per unit unit volume than a field.
     
  20. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    I think of a gravitational 'field' as the number of gravitons per unit volume of space. I thought the reason gravitons haven't been discovered is because they are so small. Is it not more likely that the density of gravitons near an object is going to be extremely high? At a very large distance from an object, this 'field density' will become increasingly small, tending towards zero. Therefore at close range, I would expect the 'graviton field density' to be much higher than everyday matter. This is the reason why Newton's law works; because every matter particle interacts with an incoming graviton.
     
  21. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623

Share This Page