Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Electron-Proton Asymmetry Hypothesis

Original theory

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#18 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 30 May 2020 - 01:58 AM

I prefer to think gravity as "side effect" than "force"

 

I can explain it simply: SPACE is kind of energy; nucleus consumes some SPACE; the SPACE out of nucleus move to nucleus to fill the VOID, the moving mode is similar with air filling vacuum. The movement of the SPACE is gravity.

 

I did get a equation at another post:

http://www.sciencefo...rgy-hypothesis/

It is very similar with Newton's, and the math is really simple, like middle school level.

I would think if space was energy and movement gravity, your equations would involve Planck's constant somehow. But that's more of a bending space energy constant. Which is why I stuck with a curvature force theory.

 

OK well we have much observation evidence of space curvatures as forces :

 

gravitational lens: https://en.wikipedia...vitational_lens

 

gravitational time dilation: https://en.wikipedia...l_time_dilation

 

I think it will be difficult to promote your idea without equations that match experiment measurements. You will need to demonstrate mathematically that measurements could be explained with your idea instead.

 

So how does your idea explain gravitational lens and time dilation? Space movements work at that?


Edited by devin553344, 30 May 2020 - 01:59 AM.


#19 Simon4159870717

Simon4159870717

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 30 May 2020 - 09:32 PM

 

So how does your idea explain gravitational lens and time dilation? Space movements work at that?

 

What I mean is: gravity is a phenomenon, not a force, it essentially is : SPACE carry stuffs and move to nucleus. It seems like stuffs are pulled to core, so people would think it as a kind of force naturally.

 

Gravitation Lens support my idea: when the light cross the space closeby a mass, the SPACE is moving to the mass, and the SPACE carry all things to the mass as well, including photon. So the direction of photon is changed, and that looks like bended. What we see through Gravitation Lens is the light which was running to another direction.

Photon has no mass, so if gravity is a force, gravity can NOT pull photon. Someone would say photon has less mass and the gravity is huge enough. In my idea, any mass can cause gravitation lens, don't have to be big. When someday we have the tecnology to detect such tiny bending, then can prove I am right or wrong.

 

I can NOT explain time dilation. My theory doesn't involve time. About time, I agree with Newton, so in my world, there are only 3 dimensions.

Besides, I don't think we have enough distance and accuracy to accomplish time experiment.



#20 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2880 posts

Posted 31 May 2020 - 12:13 AM


Besides, I don't think we have enough distance and accuracy to accomplish time experiment.

"GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes."
https://www.physicsc...riters/will.cfm

Time experiments, happening every second of every day, and in use by your cellphone to help you navigate with google maps trip planner.


  • devin553344 likes this

#21 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 31 May 2020 - 03:50 AM

What I mean is: gravity is a phenomenon, not a force, it essentially is : SPACE carry stuffs and move to nucleus. It seems like stuffs are pulled to core, so people would think it as a kind of force naturally.

 

Gravitation Lens support my idea: when the light cross the space closeby a mass, the SPACE is moving to the mass, and the SPACE carry all things to the mass as well, including photon. So the direction of photon is changed, and that looks like bended. What we see through Gravitation Lens is the light which was running to another direction.

Photon has no mass, so if gravity is a force, gravity can NOT pull photon. Someone would say photon has less mass and the gravity is huge enough. In my idea, any mass can cause gravitation lens, don't have to be big. When someday we have the tecnology to detect such tiny bending, then can prove I am right or wrong.

 

I can NOT explain time dilation. My theory doesn't involve time. About time, I agree with Newton, so in my world, there are only 3 dimensions.

Besides, I don't think we have enough distance and accuracy to accomplish time experiment.

I would like to see your calculations side by side against standard gravity equations and see if the accelerations (movements) match. Perhaps you could produce such an example? That might help people to partially accept your idea. I have seen others with similar ideas for the expanding universe.

 

Personally I don't like the idea of moving an object with mass without requiring a force since momentum must change. But I also like to stay open to new ideas.



#22 Simon4159870717

Simon4159870717

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:16 PM

Time experiments, happening every second of every day, and in use by your cellphone to help you navigate with google maps trip planner.

 

I knew the GPS example, it is written in each book about relativity.

 

I can NOT explain why the satellite set off 38 microseconds per day. It seems like only relativity provide an explanation. But I have an open mind to accept any other explanation, such like "How the electronic clock works".

 

If you want to use GPS example to prove relativity, the quantity of samples is not enough.

 

By the way, I hope let everybody know, even if there is no relativity theory, GPS can work as well. 



#23 Simon4159870717

Simon4159870717

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:56 PM

 I have seen others with similar ideas for the expanding universe.

 

My friend, you exactly understand what I mean. The gravity and universe expanding is the same nature. Universe expanding is SPACE moving to the VOID out of universe, Gravity is SPACE move to the VOID in the nucleus.

 

I made some calculation as below, it is really simple math. In conclusion, Gravity proportional to the mass of the object, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

91470337_721716971697041_980308989478699

91521394_721717028363702_785490353545910



#24 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 01 June 2020 - 02:17 AM

I knew the GPS example, it is written in each book about relativity.

 

I can NOT explain why the satellite set off 38 microseconds per day. It seems like only relativity provide an explanation. But I have an open mind to accept any other explanation, such like "How the electronic clock works".

 

If you want to use GPS example to prove relativity, the quantity of samples is not enough.

 

By the way, I hope let everybody know, even if there is no relativity theory, GPS can work as well. 

It's not just GPS, think about CERN and particle accelerator experiments, momentum increase and length contraction, time dilation. Those are highly precise experiments which prove towards relativity.


Edited by devin553344, 01 June 2020 - 02:19 AM.


#25 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 07:22 AM

 

My friend, you exactly understand what I mean. The gravity and universe expanding is the same nature. Universe expanding is SPACE moving to the VOID out of universe, Gravity is SPACE move to the VOID in the nucleus.

 

I made some calculation as below, it is really simple math. In conclusion, Gravity proportional to the mass of the object, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

91470337_721716971697041_980308989478699

91521394_721717028363702_785490353545910

 

I looked at your math. You are required to produce examples of equality between your idea and standard gravitation somehow. We know standard gravity calculates correctly, I don't see any relation to gravitation in your equations, and I'm not about to do your work for you. Without that, I doubt this idea actually works.

 

But you should be relating to acceleration or velocity:

 

a = Gm/r^2

 

We know objects accelerate at this value thru measurements. The space must be accelerating at that rate also?


Edited by devin553344, 02 June 2020 - 08:36 AM.


#26 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 04:44 PM

But not entirely flat it's like a fractal surface it can be graphed with conic sections

Let me guess: you're here to provide the entertainment?


Edited by devin553344, 02 June 2020 - 04:44 PM.


#27 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2880 posts

Posted 02 June 2020 - 09:44 PM

Let me guess: you're here to provide the entertainment?

Just a sad and lonely person who should be treated for paranoid schitzophrenia, who keeps coming back despite 20+ account bans for repeated rule violations.

Wiped clean again.


  • devin553344 likes this

#28 devin553344

devin553344

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 03 June 2020 - 11:14 AM

Just a sad and lonely person who should be treated for paranoid schitzophrenia, who keeps coming back despite 20+ account bans for repeated rule violations.

Wiped clean again.

Thank you! Back to Simon, and his idea....


Edited by devin553344, 03 June 2020 - 11:23 AM.


#29 Simon4159870717

Simon4159870717

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 03 June 2020 - 09:29 PM

I looked at your math. You are required to produce examples of equality between your idea and standard gravitation somehow. We know standard gravity calculates correctly, I don't see any relation to gravitation in your equations, and I'm not about to do your work for you. Without that, I doubt this idea actually works.

 

But you should be relating to acceleration or velocity:

 

 

Thanks, I'll work on that in future.


  • devin553344 likes this