What makes gravity?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
The logic is spread out over 400 years of discourse. In summary, the universe is observed to behave in certain ways and 350 years ago Newton described most of these behaviors with a system of equations called Universal Gravitation. But those equations didn't account for the finite speed of light, the peculiarity of Mercury's orbit and other fast-moving objects.
In 1915, Einstein accounted for all of these including the never-before-measured bending of light rays that just barely miss the sun. Unlike Newton's equations that link masses directly, Einstein's equations link masses to a field that pervades all space and time and which describes the properties of space and time.
In 1915, Einstein accounted for all of these including the never-before-measured bending of light rays that just barely miss the sun. Unlike Newton's equations that link masses directly, Einstein's equations link masses to a field that pervades all space and time and which describes the properties of space and time.
This claim rests on no observational data or logical inference. It fails to account for why light is manipulated by mirrors and lenses while gravity is not.
This claim rests on no observational data or logical inference. It fails to account for why equal electrostatic charges repel while equal neutral bodies attract.
These claims were first made by Maxwell as a study of then-known behaviors of electric and magnetic phenomena. Maxwell was the first to conceive of a unification between electromagnetic phenomena and light phenomena.
These claim rests on no observational data or logical inference. They fail to account for the astounding and precise predictions of the theory of quantum electrodynamics and indeed, on details of photoelectric phenomena best accounted for in that light energy and momentum is quantized, which is also the theoretical basis of the black body spectrum.
You might want to reconsider you position in light of Exclusion of pseudoscientists from posting in the Science subforums which provides :
please show your observational data or logical inference about light, is it a particle or wave or both? mechanism?
More to the point, do you have a brain, period?
This is a science forum in tuned by most to science and the scientific method.
Your nonsensical childish anti science rants are rather boring.
You know what is bound to happen to those that have their heads stuck in the sand, and their arses stuck in the air, don't you?
This is science. Views, especially uneducated views means nothing in science, unless backed up with observational or experimental evidence, and the ability to make valid predictions. You know, just as Newtonian gravity makes with all our space shots....and GR makes near massive bodies and relativistic speeds.
You are the one making extraordinary claims contrary to accepted science, so the burden of proof is on you. Reference for all claims/statements rpenner made are easily accessible on the internet and generally understood to be acurate by the majority of this online community.
You seem to me to be trolling.
let's try this way. a thought experiment about gravity.
in a vacuum room, use thin wire to hang two balls 1 m apart, there is gravitation attraction force f=m1m2. now if you shake 1 of the ball, the other ball will feel the shake, at the same frequency. agree? I think so, you have to agree.
now if you give 2 balls some charge so they will repel each other, their distance now will be 1.1 m or so. if you shake 1 ball, does the other ball feel the shake at the same frequency? yes? then what's the difference between gravity and electrostatic force?
if you shake a tiny ball at 10^14 times per second, it will produce huge light and heat.
in a vacuum room, use thin wire to hang two balls 1 m apart, there is gravitation attraction force f=m1m2. now if you shake 1 of the ball, the other ball will feel the shake, at the same frequency. agree? I think so, you have to agree.
now if you give 2 balls some charge so they will repel each other, their distance now will be 1.1 m or so. if you shake 1 ball, does the other ball feel the shake at the same frequency? yes? then what's the difference between gravity and electrostatic force?
if you shake a tiny ball at 10^14 times per second, it will produce huge light and heat.
Why? Nothing you ask for would make your idea stronger. You are the one making extraordinary claims and therefore the burden of proof that you aren't an insane nutter who makes up stories is on you. Importantly, you don't win by default if I don't answer the questions you pose.
Light behaves like a quantum particle, which has a specific meaning that you haven't yet demonstrated education sufficient to understand. As a result, both double-slit interference and quantized transfers of energy and momentum are expected for both photons and electrons and other quantum particles.
Science isn't about metaphysical truth, only agreement between behaviors in reality and in theory. Questions about what something fundamental in theory "is" or what "mechanism" underlays specific fundamental behavior are unevidenced questions of metaphysics.
While some questions of metaphysics may simply remain to be asked in the future, there is no rational expectation that empirical epistemology will ever be able to answer questions about what fundamental objects in some future theory "really are" or about "mechanisms" more fundamental than the most fundamental physical theory, because if we had a way to get evidence of that true identity or mechanism then the most fundamental physical theory would not be the one we were discussing.
Then you need to support your claims with postive evidence, such as good agreement between reality and what you claim about reality.
"Theory", like "particle", doesn't mean what you think it means.
A scientific theory is a precise, communicable description of the behavior of phenomena over a wide field of related things.
What you have in post #63 is a collection of unevidenced claims about reality which run counter to three trivial observations known for a minimum of one hundred years. It is not a framework for predicting anything in reality because those counterexamples show it is inferior both to reality and leading physical theories.The intellectually honest thing for you to do is to explicitly acknowledge that each rebuttal or clarification in post #64 merits your full attention.
The forum rules require you to explicitly withdraw your claims, strongly support your claims in the face of all human observation including those mentioned in post #64, or face future moderator action for posting in the wrong section. Remember the first rule of holes is that when you are stuck in a hole, don't dig it deeper.
You are also misusing the term "thought experiment" -- where you have to fully specify which theoretical framework you are using, because the predictions of different theories are different. But even in your sloppy presentation, you have identified two major differences between gravity and electrostatics -- gravity is always attractive and differs in strength from electrostatic attraction. By moving the spheres you need a theory of electrodynamics, not electrostatics and thus you introduce the feature of the finite propagation speed of electromagnetic waves. That is not a feature of Newton's theory of gravity, but it is of Einstein's. And Einstein's theory differs qualitatively in how much moving gravitational sources radiate than Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics in a way that has been confirmed at matching reality by observation of binary neutron stars.
science hasn't get right about basic atomic structure, binary stars won't help.
if qm standard model is correct, atoms are mostly empty space, why atoms are not compressible? why there is no discharge within atom? there is NO wiki or book has answer. do you have 1?
if qm standard model is correct, atoms are mostly empty space, why atoms are not compressible? why there is no discharge within atom? there is NO wiki or book has answer. do you have 1?