Gravity/anti-Gravity

[Jay-qu]

and no i didnt see it on a science fiction show, it was on a program called the elegant universe...

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Already a thread on this one here. I like to characterize this as the "it doesn't suck, it blows" theory. Makes no sense at all, but there are lots of people who are fervent believers in this one

Cute.

 

Buffy, there may be another thread on this 'blowing' theory already, but that's the nature of a 'theory of everything' theory. I see references to Einstein's theories immediately following the quote. So, are you saying that any theory that says gravity is just an effect and not a sucking phenomenon is by definition wrong? We don't measure gravity today with anything using a gravity standard. We infer it using a different unit of measure. So, isn't it just possible that it doesn't exist?

 

Since McCutcheon's theory directly plays into this discussion and being a reasonable guy who has actually read this theory, I'd say it makes way more sense than Einsteins. Einstein himself made the statement that it would be impossible to tell the difference between the effect of an acceleration from below (a blow) and a pull from below ( a suck).

[Buffy]

You're stretching the Einstein quote a bit, he did say accelleration from a push generated by energy is indistinguishable from accelleration induced by gravity, but he didn't say at all that gravity could be either "blowing" or "sucking" and you couldn't tell.

 

I have not read McCutcheon, but I have noticed that smart folks with a strong understanding of physics blows holes in his theories and are solely dismissed by saying they have closed minds rather than actually trying to refute the objections. As a student of the history of science, what I've noticed is that if theories ultimately prove valid, there's always some small subset of the "cognocenti" that *do* back the radical theories from the very start. McCutcheon appears to have none, which usually means its been invalidated on basic principles. When proponents say, "well, *all* the basic principles are wrong, we have to start over from scratch", but there's nothing to fill in the new model except conjecture that can't be proven one way or the other, its a big red warning flag of a crackpot theory: another perpetual motion machine. The beauty of such theories is that at a high level they make perfect sense: "why not blow rather than suck? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!" The devil is always in the details. I'm not the one to try to argue against McCutcheon--there's lots of other who have--but I long ago came to the conclusion it wasn't worth 40 bucks to read some dry science fiction...sorry!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Buffy, sorry if I stretched the Einstein thing a little. I was trying to figure out how to throw that sucking and blowing back at you. But, If I remember the quotes about the elevator analogy properly, Einstein did say that one couldn't tell the difference between being in an accelerating elevator and the 'pull' of gravity. If he never said that, then I've been lied to.

 

I have not read McCutcheon, but I have noticed that smart folks with a strong understanding of physics blows holes in his theories and are solely dismissed by saying they have closed minds rather than actually trying to refute the objections

lol. You might want to cinch your pants on a little tighter.

 

McCutcheon's basic premise is diametrically opposed to the basic premise underlying standard theory. They refute McCutcheon using standard theory which has holes in it that they seem very happy just ignoring. To me, that qualifies as not being very smart. And the amazing thing that I've seen is that they want McCutcheon to use their concept of gravity to prove his concept of gravity.

 

One glaring oversight has to do with the energy required for gravity. Where does that energy come from? Talk about perpetual motion, standard theory requires perpetual energy from an unknown source.

[quantum quack]

There is observable evidence to suggest that gravity is a fully governed force. In that free fall is not towards an ungoverened singularity.

I created this table a while ago in a discussion about what I thought was the paradoxical nature of gravity and other attractions including magnetic.

 

 

Essentially it is naked physics to note that to lower a weight to a position of greater attraction one has to decrease the force....so we end up with a >0< effect.

 

The end result is a scalloping of forces needed to maintain a smooth decent.

 

This suggests that in space time terms gravity is a very much goverened force and not just a freefall but a governed fall.

 

The above lead to the following representations that touch upon inertia:

 

 

When forces are balanced there is no movement , which is theoretically impossible. Back pressure eqials forward pressure.

 

[The red lines could be considered as space time curvature lines criss- crossing as a way of describing spacetime inertia and Newtons first law]

 

In some ways it can be compared to a back pressure existing in freefall, the back pressure being time. Thus an object has to fall with in the restraints of time.

 

Please accept this is pure speculation and is not founded by any thing other than thought abstraction.

 

BTW it is interesting to note that these ideas lead to the notion that magnetism is polarised space time. Electro magnetic fields are polarised time and Gravity itself isn't polarised time but goverened time.

 

Which if ever provable would unify all those forces IMO.

[Buffy]

Buffy, sorry if I stretched the Einstein thing a little. I was trying to figure out how to throw that sucking and blowing back at you. But, If I remember the quotes about the elevator analogy properly, Einstein did say that one couldn't tell the difference between being in an accelerating elevator and the 'pull' of gravity. If he never said that, then I've been lied to.

That's correct, he did use that analogy, but you were twisting it to the point of unrecognizability...Slander! For shame!

McCutcheon's basic premise is diametrically opposed to the basic premise underlying standard theory. They refute McCutcheon using standard theory which has holes in it that they seem very happy just ignoring. One glaring oversight has to do with the energy required for gravity. Where does that energy come from? Talk about perpetual motion, standard theory requires perpetual energy from an unknown source.

Spoken like a true McCutcheonite! Any data that does not support his theory, he dimisses it by calling it "standard theory." General Relativity does *not* require energy, it is the warping of spacetime. OTOH, something has to be pushing to cause everything in the universe to be expanding at an accellerating rate continuously for 13 billion years, which he doesn't really explain from what I've heard. I'm not gonna debate you on it because I have not done any primary research, and I don't intend to. I do know he sounds like every quack I've ever heard and true revolutionaries always seem to find legitimate backing and don't have nothing but non-experts promoting the "new" concepts.

 

Quack!

Buffy

[quantum quack]

Quack!

Buffy

 

ha ....who's a Quack??

[Buffy]

ha ....who's a Quack??

Not sure you're worthy of the honorific yet! Keep trying though! Its like Rod McEuen once said, "Nobody's born a bas**rd, you have to work at it..." :)

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Quantum Quack, I am interested in your observations. Would you be so kind as to explain what you posted in more detail?

 

You use the term, 'governed'. Do you mean something that is being acted upon? That would imply an actor. But what if the actor is an illusion, literally.

 

If it's a cause and effect relationship, are you not assuming that the size of the things being measured remain the same throughout the time in question? What if they do not? Would not the effect of an expansion look the same?

 

We don't know the nature of the 'attraction', nor do we know the nature of an 'expansion', if that is the underlying phenomenon. But would you accept the possibility that the difference between the two possible causes results in a world of difference to our understanding?

[quantum quack]

 

We don't know the nature of the 'attraction', nor do we know the nature of an 'expansion', if that is the underlying phenomenon. But would you accept the possibility that the difference between the two possible causes results in a world of difference to our understanding?

could you clarify this question?

[quantum quack]

Whilse i wait for clarification:

My observation was thus:

 

1] i was holding two attracted magnets and noticed that it was near impossible to bring them together with uniform motion. The pull of the magnets appeared to be paradoxed.

2] i found that to allow the magnets to come together the force holding them apart had to reduce but immediately increase as the attraction became stronger due to the shorter distance between them.

3] This meant that the force needed to keep our magnets apart was paradoxed.

 

4] I realised that if we place our magnets in a jig, or reducable frame such as a vice or something similar, and reduced our distance uniformally with out acceleration the forces applied are actually convoluted. If the force is not increased as the magnets get closer they will accelerate towards each other. And the inverse is true when trying to pull our magnets apart.

 

5] this leads to the assessment that gravity like all attractive forces is both repelling and attracting simultaneously thus it can be considered as self governing.

 

6] Because it is space time we are referring to that governing influence must be time itself.

 

Now, the above is a simplified version of my logic train.

 

[i am working from the premise that magnetism is polarised space time]

 

Just as a matter of interest, grab two magnets and try the same experiments with the notion of force scalopping in mind, and i think you will come to similar coonclusions.

Apply the same paradox in absolute terms to gravity or any other attractions and you can see that this is why attractions are always self -governed.

[quantum quack]

one way to describe it is to imagine a two dimensional plane perpendicular to the attraction.

on one side of this zero width plane is a lesser force than the force on the other side of the zero width plane.

 

This means that both the lesser and greater force are being applied in zero moment in space.

thus gravity has both forces acting concurrently in a two dimensional plane at any given distance from the source of attraction. The intriguing thing though is that teh lesser force side appears to be on the side that would normally have the greater attraction and the greater force side is on the lesser side of attraction.

 

normally you would expect this

 

9 G / 10 G------>attraction source.

 

but what appears to be happening on our two dimensional plane is this

 

10 G / 9 G -------->Attraction source.

 

so essentially the lesser force is closer than the greater force to our center of attraction but by a zero distance amount. [2 dimensional plane]

Of course the figures i have used are exagerations as the two dimensional plane affords an infinitley small diffreence.[zero width]..and thus the attraction is paradoxed if you like.

 

if you can get your head around what I have just said I would be greatly impressed as it has taken me ages to fathom this concept......and BTW that doesn't make it true either.....

Notes:

I tend to think that if correct this leads the way to understanding the nature of inertia and why Newtons first law holds true.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I'll try. And as soon as I finish this response I will contemplate the posts you sent whilst your were waiting. :friday:

 

I've seen two explanations for gravity: a pulling force (Newton) and an expansion process (McCutcheon).

 

We have built models to explain celestial phenomena such as the observable behavior of satelites, planets, stars, galaxies and terrestrial phenomena such as weight using an implied idea of the pull of gravity. This becomes a building block for other concepts. Using the idea of this pulling concept, we then identify relationships with respect to the behaviors we wish to understand and express those relationships with mathematics. Implied in any formula that builds upon the equations that represent those relationships is the concept of gravity as a pulling phenomena.

 

If there is no such thing as a gravitational pull, all formulas based upon that phenomena become questionable. They aren't necessarily nullified, but they wouldn't be as solid as we'd like them to be. We use them. They seem to work. It wouldn't be the first time we made the right conclusions using false premises.

 

Now, if we consider the possibility that gravity is a simple effect and not an actual metaphysical phenomenon, we run into the problem of how to rebuild or at least modify the formulas that express terrestrial and celestial behaviors.

 

In the work that you posted you mentioned time. Time and the behaviors you graphed were very much interconnected. Here's the problem: if gravity is an effect of expansion, any use of the idea of time has to be reconsidered in light of the possibility that time as we know it might also be a simple effect of expansion. Any formula that treats time as a fundamental phenomenon should also be reconsidered with that in mind.

[coldcreation]

You guys are funny.

If electromagnetism is gravity then there's no need to unite them. You can't unite something that has never been separated. Or can you?

 

I have news for all of you: gravity is not an attractive force, nor is it related to expansion. Einstein was correct. It is a curved space-time phenomenon. GR has passed every test, albeit the prediction about gravity waves is inconclusive, hitherto.

 

I forgot what I wanted to say, so I'll just reiterate:

There is effectively 'something' ponderable, something real, in the universe that allows systems to maintain a near equillibrium configuration (sory for the huge words). That equillibrium is observable on all scales: from atomic nuclei to superclusters.

 

Antigravity is not responsible. Neither is centrifugal force, and certainly not any kind of expansion conjecture. The unifcation of gravity into a coherent theory of everything is impossible without first understanding what that something is that keeps systems together, and what prevents them from flying apart.

 

Here is a clue. One mechanism is operational that regulates stability.

 

Oh, by the way, there is nothing synthetic about it.

 

Here is my question: what is it?

 

a.m. aka coldcreation

[coldcreation]

OK now I remember what I wanted to say.

 

First, there is no such thing as anti-gravity. The cosmological constant is certainly not an anti-gravitational force.

 

You all have good points about it though.

 

How can I be so sure? If indeed gravity is curved spacetime, adding an anti- in front of that gives anti-curvature.

 

Anti-curvature is simply flat. I repeat, flat is not curved.

 

Curvature is not positive of negative, attractive or repulsive.

 

Here is what a well known physicist says about gravity:

 

“Gravity sucks. The gravitational attraction of matter is universally attractive. Gravity only pulls, it never pushes.” (Krauss, of Case Western Reserve University, the inventor of “quintessence” 2000 p. 103).

 

If gravity sucks, the cosmological constant blows

 

Are you shocked yet? There’s more. Stephen Hawking has the answer: “the correct approach…is to consider the finite situation, in which the stars all fall in on each other…we now know it is impossible to have an infinite static model of the universe in which gravity is always attractive” (1988 p. 5). The only ugly problem with this theory is that it’s wrong.

 

With astonishing versatility, Hawking was able to indulge at the same time in prudently constructed views harking back to the past. A humid feeling of dull gloom emanates from his words. Recall, Newton had cleverly reasoned that an infinite universe has no center-point at which stars would collapse. Thus the nostalgic reveries and apocryphal problem to which Hawking makes allusion had already been posed and solved in the 17th century: one year before the Salem witch trials of 1692.

 

Steph...

 

You can give your heart to jesus, but your *** belongs to science. (don't know where that came from)

[Jay-qu]

i like that, thanks. and for the most part it makes sense...

[coldcreation]

i like that, thanks. and for the most part it makes sense...

 

Hey Jay Qu,

 

Thanks. My conclusion just to clarify further is: there exists no such thing as antigravity.

Lambda certainly doesn't qualify. Quintessence by the way does not either qualify.

 

Question to anyone out there then is: what is causing the expansion to accelerate if not some form of antigravity, or antigraviton?