Science Forums

Gravity : down to earth model, that will knock your socks off.

Recommended Posts

Gravity : down to earth model, that will knock your socks off.

Why, down to earth model?

Because I have not allowed myself for making up dimensions and rejected all made up.
(I can explain in details on it, if needed.)

It will knock your socks off, because it is a part of unified theory and all is just byproduct off my trying to understand double slit experiments and not buying into reverse causality as explanation.

Yes, I understand that possibility that some random guy online cracked the puzzle, that Einstein and all brighest brains before and after could not, is slim, it is more likely that he is delusional about it.

So let me fight those odds and leve you owstrucked.

Down to earth model, but we will start with black holes just to make things more interesting and entertaining.

Sagittarius A*

0:52
"Previous research has detected dozen of stars moving around supermassive black hole on exceedingly peculiar orbits."

2:50
"How the stars developed a stable orbit under "extreme conditions" remains a mystery.

Let's solve that mystery.
First of all I would not call them orbits, and naming them "exceedingly peculiar orbits" is like naming Dolphin an exceedingly peculiar fish.

Let's do low resolution "patterns of movement" comparison and see where we have pattern match and where we do not.

S8:3 Stages

Stage 1

Distance between S8 and Sagittarius A* decreases, speed of S8 increases (a)(acceleration)
Distance (-)
Speed (+)

Stage 2

Force/trajectory redirection (no energy loss)
Distance between S8 and Sagittarius A* stays the same

Stage 3

Distance between S8 and Sagittarius A* increases, speed of S8 decreases (-a)(deceleration).
Distance (+)
Speed (-)

Oval shape of trajectory.

Clasical orbit

Distance (=)
Speed (=)

Circular shape of trajectory.

Ball bouncing up and down, from surface of planet Earth.
3 Stages

Stage 1

Distance between ball and plannet Earth  decreases, speed of ball increases (a)(acceleration)
Distance (-)
Speed (+)

Stage 2

Force/trajectory redirection (energy loss)
Distance between ball and planet Earth stays the same

Stage 3

Distance between ball and planet Earth  increases, speed of ball decreases (-a)(deceleration).
Distance (+)
Speed (-)

Linear shape of trajectory.

There is only partial pattern match between classical orbit nad S8 movement pattern around Sagittarius A*.
Circular shape of trajectory and Oval shape of trajectory.

There is strong pattern match between  Ball bouncing up and down, from surface of planet Earth and S8 movement pattern around Sagittarius A*.

And my model of gravity can explain small differences between both movement patterns in details. Linear shape of trajectory and Oval shape of trajectory. No energy loss and energy loss during force redirection stage.

Let's solve that mystery.

S8 bounce around off gravitational field surface of Sagittarius A* in Oval motion.

Stars are moving around supermassive black hole on exceedingly peculiar orbits. In same way Dolphin is an exceedingly peculiar fish. At first glance, oval shape of trajectory is somewhat like circular. Same way at first glance Dolphin is a fish.

My model can explain in detail, what is the source of gravity. Why Earth gravitational field surface is somewhere between Earth Core and Earth Crust and why Black Hole gravitational field surface is infront of Black Hole matter surface.
Gravitational field surface of black hole in details and its properties.
And ofcource difrence between bouncing of matterial surface and bouncing of gravitational field surface.

Ok. Key property of gravitational field. (Low Resolution)
Objects in this field accelerate towards center of that field.
Explosion: objects accelerate away from center of explosion.
Implosion: objects in field created by implosion accelerate towards center of the field created by implosion.
What is field made of and how properties of particles transfer energy of implosion to objects in that field in a way that they produce stable acceleration.
In my model it all makes perfect sens and can be explained in details.
That and more.

So if I got anyone interested, I will continue explaining my model in direction of their interest.

If not I will return to drawing board, because solving a puzzle is sometimes way easier than figuring out how to communicate that.

Especially if you have to challenge someone deeply rooted dogmas.
"It is very dificult to convey a complex idea"

And ofcourse if anyone thinks that my model is just incorect and they are willing to provide their critisism, it is more than welcomed, in any form.

If I have not convince you that there is something about my model worth your attention, hopefully I have at least entertained you for a while.

I have presented only partial details of my model, because it would be waste of mine and your time, to present detailed information if you are not interested.

Edited by grzegorzsz830402
Spelling mistakes

• Replies 90
• Created

Posted Images

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

So let me fight those odds and leve you owstrucked.

Well it does hurt to read this, so I guess I was warned.  The post seems to be better placed in alternative theories at best and probably better in 'strange claims'.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

"Previous research has detected dozen of stars moving around supermassive black hole on exceedingly peculiar orbits."

They didn't say what's peculiar about them. They seem fairly normal to me. Most are highly eccentric, but that's hardly peculiar.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

"How the stars developed a stable orbit under "extreme conditions" remains a mystery"

The exact cause for any specific star is not know. Some might have been disrupted binaries, and other deflected by objects already there. It's an n-body problem and orbital captures and ejections are common with n-body systems.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Distance between S8 and Sagittarius A* decreases, speed of S8 increases (a)(acceleration)

All of the S stars are always accelerating towards Sgr-A. You seem to not know the physics definition of acceleration. Yes, the speed relative to Sgr-A changes with distance, per energy conservation laws and Kepler's laws. Their motion, in the absence of encounters with nearby objects, is essentially Keplerian and thus not peculiar at all. You can compare them to say the motion of a comet about our sun.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Oval shape of trajectory.

They're all ellipses actually, not ovals.  A medicine capsule is oval shaped. Orbits are not.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Clasical orbit
Distance (=)
Speed (=)
Circular shape of trajectory.

This is wrong. Orbits are elliptical, not circular. I cannot think of a single object with a circular orbit even if the eccentricity of some objects are low enough that it gets close. Earth orbit for instance currently varies by 6 million km, being closest to the sun in January. Star S66 is fairly close to a circular orbit, which in itself is peculiar for that system.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

There is strong pattern match between  Ball bouncing up and down, from surface of planet Earth and S8 movement pattern around Sagittarius A*.

A bouncing ball has a trajectory very unlike an orbit. It looks like this:

The energy loss is due to friction. There generally is little friction in orbital motion.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

And my model of gravity can explain

You haven't actually presented any model. Not even the beginnings of one.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

S8 bounce around off gravitational field surface of Sagittarius A* in Oval motion.

It does no such thing. There is never repulsion. S8, like all the others, continuously accelerates towards Sgr-A.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Why Earth gravitational field surface is somewhere between Earth Core and Earth Crust

This seems to predict that gravity has a 'surface' somewhere below the crust. I don't have any clue what you might think that means, what exactly changes there.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

and why Black Hole gravitational field surface is infront of Black Hole matter surface.

Black holes have neither matter nor surface. If your idea posits something other than relativity theory, then there are no black holes at all since they are a product of relativity theory. There are valid alternate theories, but they don't suggest the existence of black holes.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Objects in this field accelerate towards center of that field.

A field is by definition everywhere, so there is no center. Furthermore, in an n-body system, objects tend not to accelerate exactly towards any particular objects. If the mass of one object dominates, then yes, all the other objects will accelerate towards it, but still not exactly towards it. Perhaps your hypothetical model suggests otherwise.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Explosion: objects accelerate away from center of explosion.

Only if there are forces other than gravity that are stronger than the gravitational attraction.

On 6/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Especially if you have to challenge someone deeply rooted dogmas.

They're dogmas only if they don't work. Your assertions appear not to work since you posit acceleration at times away from the primary mass, which violates empirical observation and thus falsifies your assertions.

Edited by Halc
Share on other sites

Thanks for bothering to reply to this Halc.

I usually wait to see if someone else will take this sort of thing on so as not to waste my time on it.

I agree that "Strange Claims" is the right place for it, or even Silly Claims if he comes back and makes things even worse.

I agree with all of your criticisms, with one nit pick on this:

20 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Objects in this field accelerate towards center of that field.

Halc siad: "A field is by definition everywhere, so there is no center. Furthermore, in an n-body system, objects tend not to accelerate exactly towards any particular objects. If the mass of one object dominates, then yes, all the other objects will accelerate towards it, but still not exactly towards it. Perhaps your hypothetical model suggests otherwise"

A field can definitely have a center. Just consider the gravitational field of the Earth. If the Earth was a single body, the g-field would be centered at the center of the Earth. However, because of the presence of the moon, and to a much lesser extent, the sun, the Center of Gravity of the Earth-Moon system actually lies within the body of the Earth; indeed, it is around 1700 km below the surface of the Earth.

This may be what our friend was referring to when he wrote:

20 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:
Quote

Why Earth gravitational field surface is somewhere between Earth Core and Earth Crust

But of course he didn't explain what he meant so nobody can be too sure.

In general, I do agree with your criticisms of grzgorz"s post but I will give him a chance to come back and clarify his remarks.

It might turn out to be interesting. (one can only hope)

Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

Thanks for bothering to reply to this Halc.

Well since I have you on the horn, I clearly botched my attempt to post an image. How is it done here?

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

A field can definitely have a center.

I can see this position. Earth, especially in isolation, generates a gravitational field with symmetry centered only on its center of mass, despite the gravitational influence of that mass extending indefinitely.

I was referring to 'the gravitational field', of which there is only one, and has a (relative, not absolute) potential everywhere, and has an absolute strength (1st derivative of the potential) everywhere, and thus hasn't a preferred location.

Bottom line is, I know what one is talking about when speaking of 'the center of X's field' which is of course X, so I accept the criticism.

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

the Center of Gravity of the Earth-Moon system actually lies within the body of the Earth; indeed, it is around 1700 km below the surface of the Earth.

That's the barycenter of that system. If objects are put there in a vacuum, one say stationary relative to the barycenter, and another stationary relative to Earth CoM, both will accelerate away from the barycenter. I think grzgorz was suggesting that an object reaching the barycenter (if that's his 'gravitational surface') would somehow bounce off it. He called it a surface which suggests it's a fixed radius of some kind, not a point as is the barycenter, so I suspect he's made up something else.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Halc said:

Well since I have you on the horn, I clearly botched my attempt to post an image. How is it done here?

Sorry, I missed this question earlier.

In the lower right hand corner of your post you should see "Other Media" which leads to a drop down menu which allows you to insert an existing attachment from your device OR exert an image from a URL.

I am going to insert an image from this URL: https://cdn.britannica.com/90/106990-050-7D3C55E4/Earth-force-distance.jpg

The image can be also inserted automatically if you just paste the link into your post. If you don't want the image, you can select to paste the link only.

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

Well it does hurt to read this, so I guess I was warned.

I do appreciate criticism in any form so thanks, (No pain, no gain) 🙂
I meant awestruck, in positive connotation:)

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

They didn't say what's peculiar about them. They seem fairly normal to me. Most are highly eccentric, but that's hardly peculiar.

Humility advised. I think, those people spent a long time on it and they for sure chose their words carefully.
Peculiar :different to what is normal or expected; strange:

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

They seem fairly normal to me.

Hopefully I can help you to understand what is peculiar: different to what is normal or expected; strange: about them.
This sentence suggest that you have not put much thought to this, don't blame you:)

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

It's an n-body problem and orbital captures and ejections are common with n-body systems.

You suggest that like it would be in favour of your claims, yet it is other way around.
I suggest low resolution, meaning rejecting irrelevant so what we speak about do not become hazy and complex for no reason.
Just stating that the higher resolution (details) exist is not enough. It could easily support number of claims or none of them. If you do not provide detailed explanation how higher complexity approach explain what's peculiar about them or not, then it is empty- without merit.
So what are your prediction to orbit shape of S8 or S14 if their would be only bodies in that system. (looked at separately of course)?????

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

All of the S stars are always accelerating towards Sgr-A. You seem to not know the physics definition of acceleration. Yes, the speed relative to Sgr-A changes with distance, per energy conservation laws and Kepler's laws. Their motion, in the absence of encounters with nearby objects, is essentially Keplerian and thus not peculiar at all. You can compare them to say the motion of a comet about our sun.

Mercury has the greatest orbital eccentricity of any planet in the Solar System (e = 0.2056).
One of the most studied stars is S2, a relatively bright star that also passes close by Sgr A*Its orbital period is 12 years, but an extreme eccentricity of 0.985 gives it the close approach and high velocity.[2]
The greatest orbital eccentricity: S2 (e = 0.985 ), Mercury (e = 0.2056).
The astronomical unit (symbol: au,[1][2][3][4] or au or AU) is a unit of length, roughly the distance from Earth to the Sun and approximately equal to 150 million kilometres (93 million miles) or 8.3 light-minutes. The actual distance from Earth to the Sun varies by about 3% as Earth orbits the Sun, from a maximum (aphelion) to a minimum (perihelion) and back again once each year.

S2, also known as S0–2, is a star in the star cluster close to the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), orbiting it with a period of 16.0518 years, a semi-major axis of about 970 au, and a pericenter distance of 17 light hours (18 Tm or 120 au)

The semi-major (a) and semi-minor axis (b) of an ellipse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsis

The apsides refer to the farthest (1) and nearest (2) points reached by an orbiting planetary body (1 and 2) with respect to a primary, or host, body (3).

The actual distance from S-2 to the Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), varies by about 1500% as S2 orbits the Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), (please correct my calculations are off)
In 2018, S2 made its closest approach to Sgr A*, reaching 7650 km/s or almost 3% of the speed of light, while passing the black hole at a distance of just 120 AU.

Simplifying from 0 to 7650 km/s, that is rather not ignorable fluctuation.
The orbital speed of Earth averages about 29.78 km/s (107,200 km/h; 66,600 mph),
I couldn't find any data about speed fluctuation, so I will assume it is ignorable.

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

They're all ellipses actually, not ovals.  A medicine capsule is oval shaped. Orbits are not.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
"What Shape Is an Orbit?
Orbits come in different shapes. All orbits are elliptical, which means they are an ellipse, similar to an oval. For the planets, the orbits are almost circular. The orbits of comets have a different shape."
So I guess I was not that far off, let's not get peake on words, english is not my native language.

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

This is wrong. Orbits are elliptical, not circular. I cannot think of a single object with a circular orbit even if the eccentricity of some objects are low enough that it gets close. Earth orbit for instance currently varies by 6 million km, being closest to the sun in January. Star S66 is fairly close to a circular orbit, which in itself is peculiar for that system.

As above:)
"For the planets, the orbits are almost circular"
The actual distance from Earth to the Sun varies by about 3% "Earth orbit for instance currently varies by 6 million km"
Yet, than 6 million kilometers, representation of the same, was chosen to favor not so good arguments of the choosing one.

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

Star S66 is fairly close to a circular orbit, which in itself is peculiar for that system.

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

They didn't say what's peculiar about them

And so did you. LOL:)

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

A bouncing ball has a trajectory very unlike an orbit. It looks like this:

Just make correct assumption and it will go up and down following linear trajectory. Yet, I think I covered that already. Key focus was on distance speed relation, and differences in trajectory shape and energy loss was also highlighted, and can be addressed, if needed.

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

You haven't actually presented any model. Not even the beginnings of one.

First things first, nothing attracts more attention than black hole and *** kicking LOL.

Me:
S8 bounce around off gravitational field surface of Sagittarius A* in Oval motion.
You:.
It does no such thing.

Ok. S8 slingshot around off, gravitational field surface of Sagittarius A* in Elliptical motion.

Armageddon - Slinghot Around the Moon

If you are not awestruck yet, then I bet you laughed a little or at least smirked.
Gravitational field surface, where gravitational field starts, because it do not start at point in centre of Earth Core, or Black Hole centre.
And for practical purpose in my model gravitational field have beginning that is quite defined and end that is dependable on object it question in that field. (can provide more details if interested)

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

Black holes have neither matter nor surface. If your idea posits something other than relativity theory, then there are no black holes at all since they are a product of relativity theory. There are valid alternate theories, but they don't suggest the existence of black holes.

Maybe in your model they don't in my they definitely do.

"Their result gives an overall angular size for the source of 51.8±2.3 μas.[17] At a distance of 26,000 light-years (8,000 parsecs), this yields a diameter of 51.8 million kilometres (32.2 million miles)"
"The current value of its mass is 4.154 ± 0.014 million solar masses."

Black Hole is just a name, and no I do not agree with many things in relativity theory or quantum physics, how could I claim to have unified theory, if I did.
If it is your choice to believe, that something have mass and diameter and actually have a location yet it is none material, there is not much I can do for you. And on other hand you probably subscribe to believe in massless, wave function (location less) particles, and made up 4th dimension and God knows how many more, and He actually knows because he is in one of those dimensions.
For me it is no different than religion.
Like I mentioned before I can provide more detailed description in direction of ones interest. In this particular context how my model differs from general relativity or quantum physics, and why it actually makes it superior.

Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

A field is by definition everywhere, so there is no center. Furthermore, in an n-body system, objects tend not to accelerate exactly towards any particular objects. If the mass of one object dominates, then yes, all the other objects will accelerate towards it, but still not exactly towards it. Perhaps your hypothetical model suggests otherwise.

Yes my model suggest otherwise, first of all planets, stars, pulsars, and black holes will differ in complexity of implosion.
I will provide hypothetical example that may help you grasp the idea. Strip Planet Earth of it's crust and leave only core.
Implosion happens underneath small layer of core matter, that is hold by particles binding forces (applies to whole matter of the core). So field generated by implosion starts in front of surface of the Earth Core, and you can define its outer edge for any object, and it's gone be distant from which it won't affect that body. It is object dependent.
So I think you can understand how implosion at the edges of spherical core will produce spherical field that will propagate outwards and it's gone have hypothetical center.