An Alternative Theory Of Gravity

[rstormview]

______________An Aternative Definition of Gravity?____________

 

_Preface_

 

Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? black holes, bent space/time, dark matter, string-theory, multi-verses and the search for a ‘God particle’? Are the answers more simple, more logical than that?

Below is a proposition that postulates what gravity is, and therefore, by association, what black holes probably are.

 

Wikipedia has only a strange speculation for what gravity actually is.

 

Quote: - ‘Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly at a lower (stronger) gravitational potential‘.

 

Einstein’s proposal that gravity ‘is not a force’ seems a contradiction of an obvious fact and so remains a hypothesis, not a scientific truth. Some of the world seems confident gravity is actually a primal force, but Einstein’s theory ensures gravity remains a debatable definition.

 

An Alternative Definition of Gravity

 

The hypothesis below proposes an inversion of an accepted and unchallenged assumption, but overall it is elegantly and provocatively logical. If this proposed inversion ‘carries’, our understanding adjusts.

 

The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences many theories and assumptions and everything seemed to fall into logical place.

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. However, if protons attract electrons why do they not ultimately absorbed? What is not well defined is how this proton attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

 

The proposal for consideration is that it is electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it is electrons that do the moving. Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits to create hydrogen, the basic element in the Universe.

The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass of electrons, modest in the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.

 

The above proposal further suggests, by association, that ‘black-holes’ may be concentrations of protons repelling all matter, only, over the distance of billions of light years, appearing to consume matter.

 

Unfortunately the author of this proposal no longer has access to the means of experimentally confirming this inversion of an assumption and would welcome any opinion and assistance.

 

 

[email protected]

[exchemist]

______________An Aternative Definition of Gravity?____________

 

_Preface_

 

Is science today blinkering itself with complexity? black holes, bent space/time, dark matter, string-theory, multi-verses and the search for a ‘God particle’? Are the answers more simple, more logical than that?

Below is a proposition that postulates what gravity is, and therefore, by association, what black holes probably are.

 

Wikipedia has only a strange speculation for what gravity actually is.

 

Quote: - ‘Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly at a lower (stronger) gravitational potential‘.

 

Einstein’s proposal that gravity ‘is not a force’ seems a contradiction of an obvious fact and so remains a hypothesis, not a scientific truth. Some of the world seems confident gravity is actually a primal force, but Einstein’s theory ensures gravity remains a debatable definition.

 

An Alternative Definition of Gravity

 

The hypothesis below proposes an inversion of an accepted and unchallenged assumption, but overall it is elegantly and provocatively logical. If this proposed inversion ‘carries’, our understanding adjusts.

 

The Eureka moment came from an inversion of one of sciences many theories and assumptions and everything seemed to fall into logical place.

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract. However, if protons attract electrons why do they not ultimately absorbed? What is not well defined is how this proton attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

 

The proposal for consideration is that it is electrons that attract, but with relatively insignificant mass, it is electrons that do the moving. Therefore the proposal is, in close proximity homing electrons are repelled by protons into circulatory orbits to create hydrogen, the basic element in the Universe.

The above inversion leads logically to the proposal that gravity is the attractive force of a mass of electrons, modest in the molten interior of Earth, massive in our Sun.

 

The above proposal further suggests, by association, that ‘black-holes’ may be concentrations of protons repelling all matter, only, over the distance of billions of light years, appearing to consume matter.

 

Unfortunately the author of this proposal no longer has access to the means of experimentally confirming this inversion of an assumption and would welcome any opinion and assistance.

 

 

[email protected]

Suggest learning a bit of quantum theory. This was developed largely to account for why electrons do not normally fall into the nucleus of an atom. No short-range repulsion between the electron and the nucleus is required.  

 

Alternatively, "the author" could make a brief study of ordinary Newtonian orbital mechanics. This explains why planets and comets similarly do not generally fall into the sun. (In fact, if you launch a rocket from Earth with the object of making it fall into the sun, you have to expend a lot of energy to decelerate it, before this can possibly occur.)

 

So a bit of study should sort all this out for "the author" and enable him to realise that his hypothesis does not solve any imagined problems with current physics.  

Edited March 18, 2018 by exchemist

[DaveC426913]

 

Observation noted electrons streaming towards protons and the obvious conclusion is that protons attract.

This would be an incorrect conclusion.

 

Electrons are attracted to protons just as protons are attracted to electrons. It's a two-way street.

(And another result being that electrons, being the same charge, repel each other, as do protons.)

 

The only reason electrons appear to move toward protons more than protons move toward electrons is because protons are 1,837 times more massive.

 

 

Am also wondering if the OP is confusing  gravity with electrical attraction. OP hypothesis seems to conflate the two.

[hazelm]

Ah, and I thought black holes were a "factory" for the re-creation of old, dead stars and dark matter into universes.  No, rstormview, I am not being facetious.  It's my theory and I am stuck with it.  You have your theory and you are stuck with it.  I am not qualified to criticize and will not.  It's just that it somehow doesn't seem to work in my mind.  But science doesn't work on intuition.  Just wanted to say:

 

All the time I was reading your theory, I was thinking of what I was reading last night.  A bit late in life for an education, I agree, but I was up half the night reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", chapter three.  Part of your theory rings bells except that Stephen Hawking is explaining Einstein's two relativity theories (along with a possible third).  He talks of the expansion of the universe and how three ways it might work to the universe's benefit or not.  One of the ways is an inversion of the universe.  But Einstein (via Hawking) is speaking of a possible inversion of the universe as one way to explain the expansion.  He is doing the big picture.  You are doing the small picture.  And there is where Hawking takes us - the small picture.  He ends that chapter with a promise of quantum mechanics to come.

 

I do not know where quantum mechanics will take it but the above replies come from well-informed people.  This I know from previous exchanges.  Since they agree that more knowledge is called for and suggest delving into quantum mechanics - a field I've avoided like the plague - maybe it's a good idea?

 

Quoting the gentleman who shot down my theory of what black holes do:  "Never stop dreaming".   But do keep an open mind and cogitating on all sides of the multiple theories that are fast becoming what you, yourself, called "blinkering into complexity".  I do agree with you totally on that.

[JMJones0424]

This thread should be deleted as it was opened with a **** post by a blinkered moron.

 

 

 

Einstein’s proposal that gravity ‘is not a force’ seems a contradiction of an obvious fact and so remains a hypothesis, not a scientific truth. Some of the world seems confident gravity is actually a primal force, but Einstein’s theory ensures gravity remains a debatable definition.

 

You have failed to exhibit a basic understanding of what a hypothesis is.  I am sure that since you have quoted wikipedia articles in your idiotic screed, you can use wikipedia to correct your misunderstanding.  Add to that the fact that there can not be a "scientific truth", whatever that means.

 

While you're at it, you might investigate the observational verifications of General Relativity, rather than spewing idiocy.

 

 

 

However, if protons attract electrons why do they not ultimately absorbed? What is not well defined is how this proton attraction somehow reverses into repulsion in close proximity and directs electrons into orbiting protons to create hydrogen.

 

Your first question here is a good question, and the answer to that question led to quantum mechanics.  Your second statement, like the rest of your proposition, is entirely ignorant. The problem with your model is that is does not at all describe the interaction of electrons with protons in the nucleus.  http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/08/08/why-dont-electrons-in-the-atom-enter-the-nucleus/

 

Might I suggest, rather than assuming everyone that has preceded you is a blabbering idiot and has missed an obvious point, it might be the case that you do not know what you are talking about.

Edited May 19, 2018 by JMJones0424

[OldBill]

I have a simpler version of Gravity. that goes along this line: 

 

That very same energy field that fills our galaxy, while providing a pro-active dense barrier which retards all energy velocities  (primarily to control the reaction rate inside each star,) also.re-actively provides the 'containment vessel' for that same star.

 

That 'second, reactive' characteristic can best be described as a "reflex to being displaced by mass"  It simply doesn't like that,... It pushes back.

The more mass, the stronger the reaction, as it surrounds and attempts to compact the mass all possible.

 

i.e.The more mass a particular weight has, the more it is pushed down onto the scale in an attempt to join that larger mass:... Earth. ... And it's why you and your chair aren't floating around in the room right now.

 

In the simplest wording: Gravity is our Galactic Field's perforce response to being displaced by mass.

Edited June 19, 2018 by OldBill

[hazelm]

I have a simpler version of Gravity. that goes along this line: 

 

That very same energy field that fills our galaxy, while providing a pro-active dense barrier which retards all energy velocities  (primarily to control the reaction rate inside each star,) also.re-actively provides the 'containment vessel' for that same star.

 

That 'second, reactive' characteristic can best be described as a "reflex to being displaced by mass"  It simply doesn't like that,... It pushes back.

The more mass, the stronger the reaction, as it surrounds and attempts to compact the mass all possible.

 

i.e.The more mass a particular weight has, the more it is pushed down onto the scale in an attempt to join that larger mass:... Earth. ... And it's why you and your chair aren't floating around in the room right now.

 

In the simplest wording: Gravity is our Galactic Field's perforce response to being displaced by mass.

Well, that last line fits the "simpler version".  It says it all.  Makes perfect sense, too.