My new theory offering new view on inertia/gravity/relativity

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Ultron, Sep 25, 2016.

  1. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yeah, you entirely misunderstood my comments on force and energy because you don't want to understand physics. Ignore me all you want, since you don't want to learn anything anyway.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    I understand what do you mean, I have spended long time to make sure it is not in conflict with my theory. Photons carry inertia and are influenced by gravity despite having theoretical zero invariant mass. But in reality there is no photon without momentum and without relativistic mass. It is quite complicated topic which was discussed in these two threads started by me:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/about-effective-relativistic-mass-of-photon.156719/
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is...onfirmation-of-curvature-of-spacetime.156561/

    When I looked for experimental confirmation, the jury is still out if photons with higher energy are bended more than photons with less energy.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Additional link showing, that photon and inertia is not easy topic:
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/do-photons-have-inertia.113162/page-2
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Actually for example Einstein got his only Nobel price for explanation of photoelectric effect, so an explanation can be also handy.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae24.cfm
    Einstein (1905) successfully resolved this paradox by proposing that the incident light consisted of individual quanta, called photons, that interacted with the electrons in the metal like discrete particles, rather than as continuous waves. For a given frequency, or 'color,' of the incident radiation, each photon carried the energy E = hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency. Increasing the intensity of the light corresponded, in Einstein's model, to increasing the number of incident photons per unit time (flux), while the energy of each photon remained the same (as long as the frequency of the radiation was held constant).

    Clearly, in Einstein's model, increasing the intensity of the incident radiation would cause greater numbers of electrons to be ejected, but each electron would carry the same average energy because each incident photon carried the same energy. [This assumes that the dominant process consists of individual photons being absorbed by and resulting in the ejection of a single electron.] Likewise, in Einstein's model, increasing the frequency f, rather than the intensity, of the incident radiation would increase the average energy of the emitted electrons.

    Both of these predictions were confirmed experimentally. Moreover, the rate of increase of the energy of the ejected electrons with increasing frequency, which can be measured, enables one to determine the value of Planck's constant h.

    The photoelectric effect is perhaps the most direct and convincing evidence of the existence of photons and the 'corpuscular' nature of light and electromagnetic radiation. That is, it provides undeniable evidence of the quantization of the electromagnetic field and the limitations of the classical field equations of Maxwell.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2016
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I suggest you take the time to look at that particular explanation and how it relates to empirical evidence, describing physical systems, and creating physical applications.
     
  10. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    You know, for example accelerating expansion of Universe was confirmed by several observations, and I have better explanation than to call it Dark energy.
     
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Well, no, you don't. Your vague idea doesn't actually relate in any way to the evidence, you merely say that you have an explanation. In order to have an explanation in any way as effective as the dark energy explanation currently in use in astrophysics, you would have to show how we can use the evidence of expansion to measure features of your idea. Currently, the closest you come to measurement is to assume that 1% of force (vaguely defined) is converted in to something else (vaguely defined) that does something (vaguely defined). That is nice for a science fiction novel, I guess, but it doesn't come anywhere near the actual work that cosmologists and astronomers have done in turning data into evidence.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  12. Ultron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    My ideas are vague on the same level as when Newton defined gravity law without knowing the Gravitational constant, which he simply could not calculate, because it had to be find out by experiment done by Cavendish long after death of Newton.
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...over-universal-gravitational-constant.792961/

    I will certainly develop my theory into less vague version and add more testable predictions, but I miss some observational data to develop kind of exact version with exact calculations. It seems now, that until I get the data, approximate calculations will have to be sufficient.
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    No. Not even close. With the system that Newton developed, one could, in many different ways, measure properties of physical systems, like mass. It was these measurements that provided evidence for the theory. For example, Newton was able to demonstrate that the same force keeping the Moon in orbit had the same measurable force and terrestrial gravity.
    Your idea cannot do any physics. Try to use the data available for ordinary collisions. Try to calculate one orbit. New observations are not going to help.
     
    origin likes this.
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,950
    This is another purely mechanical theory of gravity, similar in some respects to Yaldon theory.

    I suppose we should blame the standard model, for not including a boson responsible for purely mechanical force exchange.

    Mechanical forces might work to explain gravitation if gravitation only needed SURFACES of gravitating bodies to explain the mechanism. Unfortunately, gravity goes a wee bit deeper.
     
  15. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526

    I also have the idea (and that is ALL it is. An idea. No working out stuff with calculations blah blah blah. An idea. Get it?) that gravity is a push force.

    My reason is I have trouble thinking of a force which extends out, grabs hold of something ie moon, reverses direction to pull said moon inwards.

    The push idea (my thinking) goes like this.

    Think of gravity along the lines of the atmosphere. Heavier nearest earth (any body) weakening as extending outwards.

    Lets keep it simple with two bodies earth and moon.

    These two bodies are close enough such that their gravity fields interact.

    Here is my idea of how the interaction goes. The area where the fields touch (interact) becomes neutral. More exactly (? exactly? really for a vague idea

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    This flat spot causes both bodies to fall towards each other causing the flat spot to enlarge. The bodies would only fall inwards if the flat spot (neutral zone) becomes large enough to overcome the inertial force momentum of the moon (seems easier to just think of the moon falling).

    At the moment I understand the moon is winning moving away from earth s l o o w l y.

    If two bodies do merge, under my model idea, the gravity of the merged body becomes larger and extends further out as soon as the smaller bodies gravity field is completely inside the larger field.

    The idea of the universe increasing its expansion rate also fits with the idea that at the moment of the Big Bang nothing (ie NOTHING) was outside of what went Bang.

    I think it must still be the case that nothing is outside the leading edge of the universe so the impetus of the Bang is still in operation.

    Hence the leading edge has no impediment to its continuing acceleration.

    The enlarging space between bodies gives gravity more space to expand into.

    This leads to gravity at the surface of the body becoming weaker.

    Combined with the entropy of the universe we finish with a large number of bodies forever moving away from each other.

    Isn't god doing anything about this?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,030
    I formed the belief that the force of attraction probably does not exist.
    Alex
     
  17. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526

    Well I don't think gravity exist as an attraction force.

    But to explain falling apples I am thinking of gravity like atmosphere, getting weaker the further from parent body.

    All bodies within a larger gravity field have their field blended, hence trapped, making it impossible for the apple to fall upwards.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    What does " gravity field blending " mean exactly ?
     
  19. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526

    Ummmm

    Best I can think of is a comparison with magnets. No I have not worked out magnets.

    I'm taking a punt here. Do you remember the magnets under a sheet of paper and the fine iron fillings sprinkled onto the paper?

    Remember how the fillings formed a pattern outlining the magnetic field?

    Remember the pattern which formed over the ends of two magnets close to each other but not touching?

    Magnetic field blending.

    Think gravity field blending would be much the same.

    Or forget gravity for the moment.

    Two bodies with different atmospheres.

    Push them together slowly. As the atmospheres contact each other they blend. When the bodies themselves touch the atmospheres blend to become one.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    What of lone atmosphere though . How does your theory work with our planet , Earth ?
     
  21. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526

    Ummm ummmm deep.

    Two planets, one atmosphere.

    Ummm let me think.

    Ummm heavy.

    Got it! two planets, one atmosphere. The one atmosphere would spread around both worlds.

    But I only gave atmosphere as example of how to imagine a gravity field.

    Two worlds, one gravity field. When the surface of the planets touch one planet one gravity field.

    Not exactly the same as blending atmospheres as you correctly state one planet may very well have no atmosphere.

    Don't know any planets without gravity.

    Anybody out there know one?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    What other planet is Earth's atmosphere in touch with ?
     
  23. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526

    I presume I am being wound up.

    Currently none.

    Gravity field wise the moon.

    The ideas are thought bubble experiments.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page