Gravitational wave theory

Hello! I think i solved how the gravity works, using theory of gravitational waves. Unlike Einstein, i understood, that like light and electrons, matter is affected with same gravitational waves, only in different wavelengths. Here's my theory:
http://gravitaatioaalto-teoria.blogspot.fi/
Can you help to tell me if there is wrong with my theory? =)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, there is wrong with your theory.

This seems quite familiar, are we a sockpuppet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something wrong, i was meant to say =)
Quite familiar with what exactly? =)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems similar to other conjectures about gravity by people without an adequate physics background. I read some of your conjecture (it is not a theory) and I see I mistook you for someone else.

The biggest problem is that you are simply making statements without evidence or mathematics to back it up.

 

Yep, I talked with my physics professor at my university, and one top cosmologist in Finland (via email), they said the same. Math part might come hard for me, I know where to start, but I haven't done math in this level before. I came with the centrifuge-test, so it can be tested with that (physics professor denied permission from me to go test it on my own with centrifuge, said there are safety things that need to be considered). So, I posted my theory to internet, maybe there are some smarter people here who might know where I went wrong, or if my theory could be correct. 550 people have read it so far, I haven't got a reply yet that would disprove it. I'm currently re-writing my theory, so it is more scientific. I just hope I get an answer to either way, this is quite tormenting to not get an answer. =)

 

One very important aspect of a theory is that it should make predictions that can be falsified. You made the following prediction based on your idea:

Gravity is caused by gravitational waves that occur between two same elements rotating around each other. This generates gravitational waves, which pulls same material towards itself (because it matches the same wavelength as the gravitational waves). So every element has it own gravity.

This prediction is false. Gravity between 2 masses depends only on the mass and not the composition of the mass. That falsifies your conjecture.

Your welcome.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmm, I'm saying that Newtons theory about gravity is wrong, that it doesn't depend only on the mass, but the spinning of the mass. And this is wrong, because Newton can't be wrong? This kind of falsification I would expect from a person of religion, but I would like a scientific explanation, not a one that just relies on the fact, that everything Newton says, is right.

 

Btw, Newtons theory needs hypothetical dark matter to work, this theory doesn't. That alone should be enough to even consider this possibility. I'm not saying my theory is perfect yet, but I think it is much more accurate than Newtons theory.

 

Huh? I didn't say anything about Newton. You clearly stated that that every element has it's own gravity and that is demonstrably wrong. It is just that simple, experimentation shows that you are wrong!

I think when you said, "I just hope I get an answer to either way", what you really meant was, "agree with me or do not answer".

 

Well, it was Newton who said that gravity depends only on the masses of two object (and distance between). And this is the thing I'm trying to disprove with my theory. How is my theory demonstrably wrong? Could you please explain. I'm not trying to offend , i would just like to get one example where my theory doesn't apply?

 

There is a large amount of iron in the earth and there is an exceeding small amount of U235.
According to your conjecture there should be a stronger graviational attraction of the earth to an iron atom than to an uranium-235 atom. However this is clearly not true. A mole of U235 is 235 gms and a mole of iron is 56 grams. That is because the wt is dependent only on the total number of protons and neutrons, not how those protons and neutrons are arranged.

There is almost no helium on earth, so according you your conjecture helium should feel essentially no gravitational attraction to earth. The problem is that helium does have mass and weight and it is exactly what is predicted with the current mainstream science.

The Cavendish experiment yields the same results whether it is done with lead balls or iron balls.

Edit to add: Sorry you have spent so much time on this. There comes a point in time when it is better to stop wasting your time and just admit you are wrong. There is no shame in admitting you are wrong, the shame is when you refuse to admit you are wrong!

 

Our solar system demonstrates your theory as wrong; in a number of ways. If gravity depended on elemental make up or even the spinning of the mass, then planets of different compositions and or rotation rates would have different attractions to the Sun (mostly hydrogen) and their orbits would be effected by this. In addition, all of the probes we send to the other planets are launched on trajectories that use calculations based on the fact that gravitational attraction is directly proportional to mass. If this were in error, none of our probes would get to where they are headed. In reality, they do and with very high precision.

 

We don't know what, earth for instance, exact composition is yet. Isn't it possible that there's uranium closer to the core of the earth, hence stronger gravitational pull?


[QUOTE="There is almost no helium on earth, so according you your conjecture helium should feel essentially no gravitational attraction to earth. The problem is that helium does have mass and weight and it is exactly what is predicted with the current mainstream science.[/QUOTE]

Helium, in gas form, rises on earth. Doesn't it prove more my point than mainstream sciences? According my theory, for this instance, helium loses it's gravitational pull from earths core in some point, and it starts to have stronger pull from outside sources (other planets or sun), and that's why it rises.

 

Why do you post here?
We do have a section for alternative hypothesis.
So many first up posters, all fantastically smart and claiming to invalidate current theory with their apparent new all encompassing model, and yet none are able to deduce that they should be posting elswhere.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I smell a rat.

 

If this would be the case, i wouldn't even start to think about my theory. There are a lot of things that doesn't seem to be correct with current theories. You mentioned about trajectories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly
How about this, current theories doesn't explain this, although you say that these are precise.

 

Well, I post here, and other forums like this, to get someone to tell me why my theory isn't correct. I can't figure out it my self, so I was hoping some help. =)
I don't know why everyone are so hostile towards me, I hear a lot of ridicule, but very few arguments. But to be honest, here people are at least started to question my theory, which I'm grateful btw. That's why I posted my theory to internet, to get response. =)

 

Are you freaking kidding me!?! You don't know the difference between bouyancy and gravity???? Do you think a balloon full of helium would rise in a room full of hydrogen? Hint: it wouldn't! So much for your 'theory'. The woo-woo train is picking up speed and heading out of the station.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You were told why it is not correct.

You were given help and ignored it because you did not like the answer.

You don't hear the arguments because you refuse to hear them. People are hostile because it is frustrating when someone refuses to listen.

Too bad you will only accept the positive responses from people too ignorant to see the glaring errors in your conjecture.

 

Why does this remind me of Theorist Constant...

Thread moved to Pseudoscience, as that's all this "theory" is

 

There are quite a few possible explanations to this and they are included in the article you linked to.
Considering that our present models have enabled us to rendezvous with four of the outer planets on one outing, [Voyager] and the accuracies needed for a myriad of other space endeavours [and all using Newtonian from memory] our present model is doing OK.