Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 5 Apr 2010 13:09 On Apr 5, 12:15 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > apparent difficulty: > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > know its effects? > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > other, and not both... > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > appreciated! > > > Henry Norman > > I would say that your confusion stems from the fact that current > theories simply don't make any sense and are obviously self > contraditory. I'm sorry. What about the current theories don't make any sense? And where are they self-contradictory? Perhaps if you cleared up your confusion about the current theories, you wouldn't feel the need to produce a new one. > Therefore, there is nothing you can reference that can > ever make these issues clear. It is like saying, 1+1=3 and 1+1=2, how > can that be true. In simple fact, it cannot be true and no explanation > will make it true. My claim is that this stuff isn't difficult because > it contains hard to understand concepts, it is hard to understand > because it contains blatant nonsense as you have pointed out in your > post. > > Therefore, in order to understand gravity, you must not try to > understand current theory as it has gotten us absolutely nowhere in > the past 100 years. That would be like trying to understand a flat > Earth theory. If you don't believe me, then just ask any real > scientist and the answer will still come back "we really don't > understand gravity" if they are honest. > > For myself, I have attempted to come up with theories of gravity which > do make intuitive sense and do not require you to believe in weird > undefined concepts like spacetime. Rather, I believe, gravity is > nothing more than an electrostatic effect. The same thing that makes > your socks stick together in the dryer is making your feet stick to > the ground. Now I know that sounds too terribly simple, but would you > rather believe in "spacetime", "strings", "alternate dimensions", > "gravitons", etc. etc? > > For more information on how gravity is nothing more than an > electrostatic effect, see: > > http://franklinhu.com/whatisgravity.html > > So gravity is an electrostatic attractive force. Simple - no spacetime > geodesics or anything. > > Even if you don't like my theory, what I said about current theory > remains true - do not try to understand the un-understandable. Seek a > new theory. > > fhugravity
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 13:41 On Apr 5, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 12:15 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > > apparent difficulty: > > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > > know its effects? > > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > > other, and not both... > > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > > appreciated! > > > > Henry Norman > > > I would say that your confusion stems from the fact that current > > theories simply don't make any sense and are obviously self > > contraditory. > > I'm sorry. What about the current theories don't make any sense? And > where are they self-contradictory? > > Perhaps if you cleared up your confusion about the current theories, > you wouldn't feel the need to produce a new one. > This from the poster who chooses to believe matter causes space to be unflat but not move and cannot explain how matter causes space to be unflat and cannot explain how an unflat space causes gravity to occur physically. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: PD on 5 Apr 2010 14:14 On Apr 5, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 12:15 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > > > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > > > apparent difficulty: > > > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton. > > > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > > > know its effects? > > > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > > > other, and not both... > > > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > > > appreciated! > > > > > Henry Norman > > > > I would say that your confusion stems from the fact that current > > > theories simply don't make any sense and are obviously self > > > contraditory. > > > I'm sorry. What about the current theories don't make any sense? And > > where are they self-contradictory? > > > Perhaps if you cleared up your confusion about the current theories, > > you wouldn't feel the need to produce a new one. > > This from the poster who chooses to believe matter causes space to be > unflat but not move and cannot explain how matter causes space to be > unflat and cannot explain how an unflat space causes gravity to occur > physically. It's not at all about choosing anything. We don't choose how nature works. We discover that, by making models and testing them against experiment. And there's a big difference between being able to explain something and being willing to do it for you on your whining demand on a newsgroup. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter.
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 14:23 On Apr 5, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 12:15 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, MicroTech <henry.ko.nor...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Can someone in this forum please help me sort out a confusing issue? > > > > > > Many scientists (including Einstein) claim that gravity is not a > > > > > force, but the effect of mass on the "fabric of spacetime". Many other > > > > > scientists refer to gravity as one of the four fundamental > > > > > interactions (three, if one considers the unification of the weak and > > > > > electromagnetic interactions, the "electroweak" force). > > > > > > Adding to the confusion, some scientists use both concepts with no > > > > > apparent difficulty: > > > > > Stephen Hawking (in his "A Brief History Of Time") first says that > > > > > gravity is not a force, but "simply" the effect of mass on the > > > > > "spacetime fabric" (making it "curve"). However, later in the book, he > > > > > refers to gravity as a fundamental force, carried by the graviton.. > > > > > > So what is gravity, "really"? Does anybody really know? Or do we just > > > > > know its effects? > > > > > > Is it an attractive force "mutually pulling" the Earth towards the Sun > > > > > (and vice versa), "causing" the Earth to "fall" towards the Sun? And > > > > > due to the "forward motion" of the Earth, exactly matching the > > > > > "gravitational pull", it stays in orbit (just like any other > > > > > satellite, man-made or not); OR > > > > > > Is it the mass of the Sun that "curves spacetime", so no force is > > > > > interacting with the Earth, it is just moving in a "straight line" > > > > > along a "curved spacetime" geodesic? > > > > > > At my current level of understanding, gravity should be one or the > > > > > other, and not both... > > > > > > If Einstein's concept of "curved spacetime" is "correct," where does > > > > > the (hypothetical?) "graviton" (and/or "gravitino") enter the picture? > > > > > > References to published papers (accessible online) would be much > > > > > appreciated! > > > > > > Henry Norman > > > > > I would say that your confusion stems from the fact that current > > > > theories simply don't make any sense and are obviously self > > > > contraditory. > > > > I'm sorry. What about the current theories don't make any sense? And > > > where are they self-contradictory? > > > > Perhaps if you cleared up your confusion about the current theories, > > > you wouldn't feel the need to produce a new one. > > > This from the poster who chooses to believe matter causes space to be > > unflat but not move and cannot explain how matter causes space to be > > unflat and cannot explain how an unflat space causes gravity to occur > > physically. > > It's not at all about choosing anything. We don't choose how nature > works. We discover that, by making models and testing them against > experiment. > > And there's a big difference between being able to explain something > and being willing to do it for you on your whining demand on a > newsgroup. > Your model can not explain how matter causes space to be unflat but not move. Your model can not explain how matter causes space to be unflat. Your model can not explain how an unflat space causes gravity to physically exist. The poster you responded to was stating how gravity occurs physically is not able to be explained by currently accepted theories. You are making the point. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. You must have missed this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is located." de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of the wave. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. For example, in the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment There are waves propagating both the red and blue paths towards D0. One of the downgraded photon 'particles' is traveling either the red or blue path towards D0. The lens causes the waves to create interference which alters the direction the particle travels. One set of downgraded photons is creating one of the interference patterns at D0 and the other set of downgraded photons is creating the other. It's all very easy to understand once you realize 'delayed-choice', 'quantum eraser', and the future determining the past is simply misinterpreting what is occurring in nature. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which are evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you feign hypothesis: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: PD on 5 Apr 2010 14:39
On Apr 5, 1:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 12:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 1:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 12:15 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I would say that your confusion stems from the fact that current > > > > > theories simply don't make any sense and are obviously self > > > > > contraditory. > > > > > I'm sorry. What about the current theories don't make any sense? And > > > > where are they self-contradictory? > > > > > Perhaps if you cleared up your confusion about the current theories, > > > > you wouldn't feel the need to produce a new one. > > > > This from the poster who chooses to believe matter causes space to be > > > unflat but not move and cannot explain how matter causes space to be > > > unflat and cannot explain how an unflat space causes gravity to occur > > > physically. > > > It's not at all about choosing anything. We don't choose how nature > > works. We discover that, by making models and testing them against > > experiment. > > > And there's a big difference between being able to explain something > > and being willing to do it for you on your whining demand on a > > newsgroup. > > Your model can not explain how matter causes space to be unflat but > not move. Your model can not explain how matter causes space to be > unflat. Your model can not explain how an unflat space causes gravity > to physically exist. > > The poster you responded to was stating how gravity occurs physically > is not able to be explained by currently accepted theories. No, he did not state that. You should reread what he actually said, rather than applying your own reality-distortion field. He said the current theories don't make any sense. He said they were self- contradictory. I asked him what he thought did not make sense, and I asked him where he thought the contradictions were. He said nothing about "how gravity physically occurs". You did. You might think the world revolves around you. That is only because you've made yourself dizzy. |