Layman's attempt at gravity

Noted thanks

I agree I also not sure if Dark Matter can be explained away

As Dark Matter is being observed indirectly it would seem to be ANY proposition needs to account for this indirect observation

I'll try to sort out my idea a bit deeper with the ordinary stuff before getting to the exotic

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well you won't be any help I was hoping you could explain it to me.

Consider it this way, very simple and I know that is dangerous,....

(I will use every day objects to enable visualisation)

Take a string from on side of the room to the other, the string represents one trajectory of the billions in play in the reality I seek to create.
It can also represent the vast distances a particle (loose term for whatever travels along the trajectory) may travel before it becomes involved in the interaction I try and describe.

In the middle of the string imagine two pool balls or if you prefer billiards use the two billiard balls.

One white one red and set them say one foot apart with the string thru the center of each.

Hold that thought.

Along the string small balls travel, think small ball bearings.
They travel in both directions and travel almost uninterpreted thru each ball , in one side out the other and continue across the room to and past the end of the string..

Some ball bearings don't get thru the billard ball but remain trapped inside.
Later we can work out what happens.
From the north side of the room 200 ball bearings reach the first ball 10 pass thru and exit to reach the other Billard ball and pass thru it and 9 stay in that billard ball those that pass thru continue on to and past the end of the string.
From the north side the same.
My question at this point is would the two billiard balls be pushed together.
As to dark matter if such an effect was real the manifestion of gravity may be very different.
As to why I will leave for the moment for you to think about the simple picture and if the balls could respond by moving toward each other if not the idea ends here.
Thanks for thinking about it.
I hope it helps site traffic and draws in folk interested in this sort of thing ...we can set them straight after they have been here a while.

I suppose I think it would be easier to hold galaxies together from an outside force rather than an internal force and trying to determine if the could be hope in such a simple change in how we see things.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like that I can't get more simple and my exploration skill will be slower than most.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On my approach it may mean it is not there because if we deal with an external force that is different than attraction.
I feel like there is no point I can't imagine how math could describe what I see...
Alex

 

Not sure how that works so will definitely leave it to you to short out

I will say I think there is a leaking between threads

Just in this one you are without Dark Matter

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No not at all...there is very good evidence if our sums are being applied correctly.
I need funding, a research place, a car, residence close by, many helpers a personal assistant, a big book case, I had one but the fire took it, a maid cause I will be very busy thinking.

Anyways as with all ideas some one will steal it and raise it as their own.
I know it is not as credible as a lot of things but with good art work on the book cover who knows...include words alternate, ground breaking, nre science and free something if you send in the book reciept...

I would bring you in on this one but someone will have to concentrate on our new church...did you build the web site...what I thought you were doing that...

Alex

 

Dear Xelasnave,

With lots of love.

Few centuries ago when the earth was center of the universe and earth was flat too, then if Le sage came up with pressure gravity idea, he could be pardoned.

But circa 2017 with so much progress in physics, if we talk of neutrino particles bombarding objects and creating pressure gravity, thats kind of fairy tale.

 

I can not disagree.
Thank you for your kindness.
This post is designed to do many things.
Get Paddoboy back if he is watching.
Entertain myself.
Maybe entertain others.
Attract folk who google push gravity.
Provide a platform for comedy relief.
Promote discussion on dark matter.
Most of all demonstrate that being polite hopefully bring polite responces.
And remind myself of how once I was a crack pot.
But mainly lines one and two.
Alex

 

Have you explored, why two magnets attract or repel? OR, Why two electrical charges attract or repel? Do they also follow some sort of push mechanism as in your "push gravity"?

Attraction is also observed between two magnetic poles or between two electrical charges. Is this attraction any different from attraction between two masses, in terms of quality(not quantity)?

 

UOTE="hansda, post: 3450870, member: 151703"]Have you explored, why two magnets attract or repel? OR, Why two electrical charges attract or repel? Do they also follow some sort of push mechanism as in your "push gravity"?

Attraction is also observed between two magnetic poles or between two electrical charges. Is this attraction any different from attraction between two masses, in terms of quality(not quantity)?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea do you have any thoughts.
Forgive me if I can't get back to you.
Alex

 

Wow. A lot of gas this thread but nothing solid to latch on to. Le Sage style push gravity, at least in it's original form, has been long discredited for a number of reasons. One in particular - drag owing to the 'rain' effect, is discussed briefly by Feynman, beginning ~ 7:30 minute mark here:

continuing into ~ 2 minute mark here:

The unstated assumption is the push particle 'gas' has some absolute rest frame and any motion relative to it introduces an asymmetric force acting against such relative motion.

Another particularly severe prediction of original Le Sage type theory is that shadowing of notional push particles by material objects implies dissipative capture, which implies heat. Lots of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Energy
That entire Wikipedia article is maybe worth reading through.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, best to point out at least one character 'nige' has come up with a modern version that he claims overcomes all such objections:
https://electrogravity.blogspot.com/
https://nige.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/new-presentation-of-quantum-gravity/

I will just remark that modern gravity theories with any chance of viability are more than just about explaining matter gravitationally attracting other matter. If you can't figure what the hint is, not to worry.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm worried

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Does that follow after having watched/studied and thoughtfully digested all the references I supplied in #31? If not, and you just want a cheap shortcut answer, that would concern (not worry!) me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Think more worried I can't work out the hint

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And all my post are generated on a 5½ inch screen on a Huawei modem phone and it appears that the app which operates on this platform does not generate post numbers #31 etc on the post

So unless I start at the first post and physically scroll through and count post I have no idea which is post #31 and of course its contents

I have tried a few times in some threads but concluded it is phone battery intensive to do so

And I am way to lazy to to do so

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's 1:30 in the morning here and I am clearing some post and other stuff on the phone

I did get to watch the 2 black and white videos which I think I gleaned some knowledge thanks

Tomorrow (today) is a holiday (I'm retired so every day is a holiday) but I meant for those still working

So I won't go to the aircon shopping mall to have coffee with friends but stay home do housework and some thinking about what knowledge you have provided me and see if my puny thoughts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

can fit in with giant thoughts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One good clue there is I have made just two previous posts here, and #31 was the first one.

Ha ha ha - you underrate yourself and likely overrate me. But I will say based on your stubborn persistence with faulty cosmological perceptions re BB and 'exploding into the void' etc., you are far better off sticking to pontificating on biology/physiology where I am impressed with your inputs.

So anyway, that hint referred to in #31 can be almost encapsulated in a single word - redshift. More generally, any modern theory of gravity must account for the fact of gravitational time dilation, and the need for ruler lengths to be a function of gravity also. It need not be formally a metric theory per se but to be fully consistent, it will have to reduce to one in practice. Traditional Le Sage type approach can at best reproduce only the attractive nature of gravity but not it's broader effects. Maybe Nigel Cook's spin 1 graviton theory does offer to account for time dilation etc., but cannot recall coming across such.

The OP seems to have lost interest in his own thread - or maybe just AWOL.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Above not addressed to my post but

Yes

About a long time years ago my pet dinosaur ala Fred Flintstone ate one of my large collection of magnets

Gravity being a property of mass seems to stop in its tracks antigravity

Antigravity would seem to require negative mass (not antimass)

I know magnets have two poles but still not sure how the forces (attraction and repulsion) work at a distance

Although not exactly at a distance because while no physical contact is there the magnetic fields interact

I have no idea how you scored a bullseye with the word stubborn

Thanks for the compliment re medical

I guess over 40 years in a medical climate beats 4 years in a radio technical field

I'll stick to being stubborn because for some strange reason it quite often brings me to a point of understanding something

Even if it is 180° from my original position

My posting mobile phone will have to be pried out of my cold dead bony fingers even as they are still tapping the screen

How's that for stubborn?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmm....did I actually compliment you on knowledge of physiology? Let me think about that again in light of quoted 'gem'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Admirable. Enlightened would be an even better reason to compliment imho. But as they say - you can't have everything.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I do not know exactly why layman try to come up with alternative theories to physics. I guess it is around the fact that we all experience the basics of physics everyday (forces, gravity, pressure, etc.) so we think that it is possible to have some simple insight.
In truth though you might as well say here is a laymans design for the next generation CPU of GPU. It is like somebody went on the internet and read about football and then claims that they now should be able to play in the World Cup.

The best we layman can hope for is to gain some understanding of the discoveries of physics or understand the computing power of the CPUs and GPUs at the 40,000 ft level and play football in the backyard.

Layman theories are nothing but intelectual musing fraught with fatal errors large and small due to our ignorance of the incredibly complicated math and concepts. If the point is just intellectual gymnastics along the lines of science fiction then more power to you - if you think you are going to actually discover something new then you are simply deluding ourself.

 

Agree on both points

Sifi ideas can help in some minor understanding

Which I think most of us layman are happy with

Also most of us layman I am sure not guilty of deluding ourselves

However if a post contains comparisons with well known Scientist or the words main stream Science or I can't get my theory cheçked or publishing

Thems the ones who need the Tin Foil hat

Only so layman can identify and steer clear

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I remember years ago using this approach to gravity to show how mathematical proof does no always mean something is true. The example I used, was to assume gravity was due to the repulsion of matter by space, instead of the attraction of matter to matter. From a practical and applied POV, this reciprocal premise, with the correct math, could provide the same results as the current theory, because math does not lead, but follows.