PDA

View Full Version : Rebel's theory of gravity

rebel
2007-May-29, 02:26 AM
Jens,

But I think the answer is, there is no place in the universe where gravity is not affecting you, because gravity has infinite reach

I'm really not a big fan of the present model of the universe, and this is exactly why.

The present model says that gravity has a infinite reach, and it states that gravity is weaker as it gets farther from the center of mass.

Now using your own logic, once you get far enough from any mass then gravity should no longer affect you; yet it's suppose to have infinite reach.

These two situations contradict one another much like many other theories that are in the present model.

Could you explain how these two situations don't contradict each other?

rebel
2007-May-29, 02:37 AM
Markg85,

is there any place in this solar system where there is absolutely NO gravity that is affecting you?

No, because gravity is a displacement of mass and electrons. Therefore electrons are everywhere in the universe that mass is not. This displacement is always equal, much like dumping a pound of rocks in a bathtub halfway full. The displacement is still equal when you fill the tub, you still displace a pound of rocks. Thus you can see that it doesn't matter what size your tub is or how full you fill it, gravity (displacement) is always equal to the amount of mass in the equation.

Hornblower
2007-May-29, 03:11 AM
Jens,

But I think the answer is, there is no place in the universe where gravity is not affecting you, because gravity has infinite reach (except maybe in a black hole or something like that, but I don't understand that well enough).

I'm really not a big fan of the present model of the universe, and this is exactly why.

The present model says that gravity has a infinite reach, and it states that gravity is weaker as it gets farther from the center of mass.

Now using your own logic, once you get far enough from any mass then gravity should no longer affect you; yet it's suppose to have infinite reach.
These two situations contradict one another much like many other theories that are in the present model.

Could you explain how these two situations don't contradict each other?

Jens' sentence is in plain English, and it is logically consistent internally. Please reread every word. I think you misread a double negative in the second phrase.

I don't know enough about the current cosmic expansion theory to say whether gravity ceases to function on a scale of billions of light years, or whether it is still there but is overpowered by "dark energy" or whatever it is we choose to call it.

Hornblower
2007-May-29, 03:13 AM
Markg85,

No, because gravity is a displacement of mass and electrons. Therefore electrons are everywhere in the universe that mass is not. This displacement is always equal, much like dumping a pound of rocks in a bathtub halfway full. The displacement is still equal when you fill the tub, you still displace a pound of rocks. Thus you can see that it doesn't matter what size your tub is or how full you fill it, gravity (displacement) is always equal to the amount of mass in the equation.

In my opinion this remark belongs in ATM.

tofu
2007-May-29, 02:03 PM
Now using your own logic, once you get far enough from any mass then gravity should no longer affect you; yet it's suppose to have infinite reach.

These two situations contradict one another much like many other theories that are in the present model.

Could you explain how these two situations don't contradict each other?

It's because the force of gravity falls off with the square of the distance. That means that it gets very very weak, but never actually becomes zero. It gets so weak that no scientific instrument could measure it, but it's still not zero. Much like the wake of a ship far away gets lost in all the other waves, it gets lost in the ocean of forces from other objects.

Here is my quickie attempt to graph it:

http://www.maj.com/gallery/tofu/babb/sqrofdist.gif

Distance from the object is on the X axis and the force that you feel from gravity is on the Y axis. As you can see, the force falls off very quickly, BUT it never becomes zero. If you could keep zooming in you would see that it gets closer and closer to zero but never actually becomes zero.

If you could build a completely empty (and static) universe that contained only two feathers, a billion light years apart and absolutely stationary - they would eventually collide because they would attract each other. Of course, it would take trillions of years for you to be able to even measure the acceleration, but mathematics shows us it's there.

rebel
2007-May-30, 12:49 AM
Hornblower,

In my opinion this remark belongs in ATM

Do you actually think that Archimedes Principle belongs in ATM? Why don't you believe in this principle?

hhEb09'1
2007-May-30, 12:59 AM
Do you actually think that Archimedes Principle belongs in ATM? Why don't you believe in this principle?I think he was talking about this statement, or similar statements:
Therefore electrons are everywhere in the universe that mass is not. I don't think that that is Archimedes Principle :)

Hornblower
2007-May-30, 01:51 AM
Hornblower,

Do you actually think that Archimedes Principle belongs in ATM? Why don't you believe in this principle?
I understand and believe Archimedes' principle, which by the way is not clearly presented in your remarks, at least not in a way my feeble brain can grasp.

In my opinion it is your fundamental idea about the nature of gravity that is at odds with Einstein's theory, which is the best mainstream theory I know of. Let me qualify my previous remark. I would say it belongs in ATM if you can demonstrate some observed fact on which it outperforms Einstein, without any adverse side effects. If you cannot yet do that, I would say that your idea needs more work to firm it up before presenting it anywhere. Then we could have legitimate debates which are educational for all of us.

rebel
2007-Jun-01, 02:10 AM
Hornblower,

I understand and believe Archimedes' principle, which by the way is not clearly presented in your remarks, at least not in a way my feeble brain can grasp.

Don't be so hard on yourself. Not everyone can take the information that is given and apply it, so as to answer questions not already answered by the equations. There are may points made by Archimedes Principle concerning buoyancy and displacement that aren't stated up front, you just have to look harder.

One point is that no matter how big or deep the body of water is, that fact doesn't change any of the buoyancy equations. See equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy. You'll also note that gravity plays a big part of buoyancy.

Another point this principle makes is that "Displacement is the term used for the weight of the displaced fluid and, thus, is an equivalent term to buoyancy." Witch was also taken from the website.

In my opinion it is your fundamental idea about the nature of gravity that is at odds with Einstein's theory,

Yes, I know we have talked in the past and you have read some of my "opinions" on the creation of the universe and the nature of gravity. I'm sure you've notice in my model that gravity is a displacement of mass and expanding energy.

I would say it belongs in ATM if you can demonstrate some observed fact on which it outperforms Einstein, without any adverse side effects. If you cannot yet do that, I would say that your idea needs more work to firm it up before presenting it anywhere. Then we could have legitimate debates which are educational for all of us.

If you are asking me if my model outperforms Einstein without contradiction to any of my previous equations or explanations, then my answer is yes. The thread that I had posted was closed after 30 days and I can't get a moderator to respond to any of my private messages on reopening them. The thread was not finished, questions didn't get answered and equations didn't get posted. My model uses know facts, laws, and principles. Einstein's model uses theories and more theories, it also goes against some of the same laws. The equation Einstein came up with E=MC^2, the same equations for my model is Fe=Ce(Ep*Rc). Einstein's thoughts and mine are closer than you want to realize.

How does one, such as myself; go about starting a new thread?

rebel
2007-Jun-01, 02:25 AM
hhEb09'1,

I don't think that that is Archimedes Principle

His principle is about displacement and gravity, better know as buoyancy.

because gravity is a displacement of mass and electrons. Therefore electrons are everywhere in the universe that mass is not. This displacement is always equal, much like dumping a pound of rocks in a bathtub halfway full. The displacement is still equal when you fill the tub, you still displace a pound of rocks. Thus you can see that it doesn't matter what size your tub is or how full you fill it, gravity (displacement) is always equal to the amount of mass in the equation.

If you will look at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy, you will see that "Displacement is the term used for the weight of the displaced fluid and, thus, is an equivalent term to buoyancy." This is taken straight out of the buoyancy website. You'll also note that what I stated in the previous quote is the same thing Archimedes Principle is stating.

ToSeek
2007-Jun-01, 01:54 PM
Posts dealing with Rebel's theory of gravity have been moved into this thread from the Why does everything needs to fly arround earth? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=58905) thread. ATM rules now apply, and note that bringing up this subject (again) outside of this thread would be a violation of this forum's rules.

Nereid
2007-Jun-01, 03:39 PM
We already have one ATM thread on 'rebel's gravity': My theory of the creation of the universe. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=57621)

Why do we need another one?

rebel, what significantly new material do you have to present, that was not covered in the other ATM thread?

nutant gene 71
2007-Jun-01, 06:31 PM
Jens' sentence is in plain English, and it is logically consistent internally. Please reread every word. I think you misread a double negative in the second phrase.

I don't know enough about the current cosmic expansion theory to say whether gravity ceases to function on a scale of billions of light years, or whether it is still there but is overpowered by "dark energy" or whatever it is we choose to call it.

Excellent observation, Hornblower. At what point, or what distance, does the infinity regress of gravitational attraction, per inverse square law, become overwhelmed by space expansion? Is it at the half way mark towards 13.7 BYL? Further, closer? This is a mind bender! :lol:

Ps: Could this 'cut-off' point for gravity be at the distance where we observed space expansion to suddenly accelerate? Hmm...

RussT
2007-Jun-01, 10:34 PM
The intrinsic problem with all of this is using a 'perfect fluid' for 'space'!

a 'perfect fluid' allows for the straight-line motion of SR, BUT SR demands straight-line motion for light/photon progagation!

Now, if anyone can figure out why I would bring up SR in a gravity thread, then you might actually 'realize' something important about how our universe is working!

Clue; just because the Graviton is traveling at "c" to infinity in all/every direction (after all, it is inertially going right through all baryonic matter) does NOT mean that the 'gravity well' reaches to infinity!

grav
2007-Jun-02, 12:07 AM
Excellent observation, Hornblower. At what point, or what distance, does the infinity regress of gravitational attraction, per inverse square law, become overwhelmed by space expansion? Is it at the half way mark towards 13.7 BYL? Further, closer? This is a mind bender! :lol:That is an interesting question. John Hunter and I did some similar work on the acceleration of the expansion a while back and came up with exactly the same formula for it, although using different methods and with different conclusions. I had found the acceleration to be on the order of a/d=H^2/2. Now, a massive body produces an acceleration on another of a=GM/d^2, so we get a=GM/d^2=d*H^2/2, where the accelerations at 'd' would be equal but opposite, and so would cancel out at this distance, which becomes d^3=2GM/H^2. For one solar mass, I get a distance of only 415 light years. For gravity to be overwhelmed due to dark energy at a distance of more than 13.7 billion light years, the gravity would have to be concentrated in a mass of greater than 7.2*10^52 kg, which would be close to that of all of the mass in the universe according to the Big Bang theory, where the density of the universe would be D=H^2/(4pi/3)G, being pretty much the same as that formula used above, but only off by a factor of 2pi/3. For an electron, it appears that the cut-off point would be only about 3 centimeters for gravity, although electric charge far outweighs that anyway. A neutron, though, which is electrically neutral, would be cut off at about 37 centimeters according to this formula.

nutant gene 71
2007-Jun-02, 05:44 AM
For gravity to be overwhelmed due to dark energy at a distance of more than 13.7 billion light years, the gravity would have to be concentrated in a mass of greater than 7.2*10^52 kg, which would be close to that of all of the mass in the universe according to the Big Bang theory, where the density of the universe would be D=H^2/(4pi/3)G, being pretty much the same as that formula used above, but only off by a factor of 2pi/3.
Grav, are you saying that space expansion cancels out gravity at about the margins of the universe, at approx 13.7 billions light years, per your equation? Intuitively, this would fit, it seems, since that is the margin of the known (visible) universe, if we could see that far with infrared, though I don't believe we had achieved that yet. If so, then gravity is not really 'infinite', is it?

grav
2007-Jun-02, 03:27 PM
Grav, are you saying that space expansion cancels out gravity at about the margins of the universe, at approx 13.7 billions light years, per your equation? Intuitively, this would fit, it seems, since that is the margin of the known (visible) universe, if we could see that far with infrared, though I don't believe we had achieved that yet. If so, then gravity is not really 'infinite', is it?I've come to realize that what I'm saying may have some far-reaching consequences as far as gravity itself is concerned (no pun intended) that I'd like to discuss further and may go way off topic, so instead of hijacking this thread or anything, I'll start a new one.

rebel
2007-Jun-02, 05:28 PM
Nereid,

We already have one ATM thread on 'rebel's gravity': My theory of the creation of the universe.

Why do we need another one?

rebel, what significantly new material do you have to present, that was not covered in the other ATM thread?

Most of the material was covered, but to briefly to fully comprehend. Although there was still more equations to post and prove.

The biggest reason I wanted to continue with my model is because I know I'm right and need more time to help others understand. The last time I tried answering more advanced questions and need to stay on the basics for a longer amount of time. Skipping to the advanced equations is to hard for others wanting to learn.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-02, 06:14 PM
The biggest reason I wanted to continue with my model is because I know I'm right and need more time to help others understand. The last time I tried answering more advanced questions and need to stay on the basics for a longer amount of time. Skipping to the advanced equations is to hard for others wanting to learn.

I don't think you understand the point of this forum.

"I know I'm right" is not a reason to extend a thread here. You get 30 days to show you're right. Your thread is not an excuse to just sort of go on about your idea. You are to answer direct questions, no matter their complexity level; the point is not to educate those who don't understand but to convince those who do. (Let's face it. I, for one, will probably never understand any idea complex enough to actually be valid.)

jamini
2007-Jun-02, 08:26 PM
If you are asking me if my model outperforms Einstein without contradiction to any of my previous equations or explanations, then my answer is yes.

1. The (http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html)Precession of the perihelion of Mercury (http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html)

2. The bending of starlight (http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/g_lens_sun.htm) • Gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing)

3. Gravitational redshift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment)

4. The (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_delay_of_light)Shapiro delay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_delay_of_light)

My model uses know facts, laws, and principles.
Such as? What are your basic postulates? Specifically what known facts, laws and principals are you using and how precisely do they formulate into your predictions?

What exactly are the predictions of your model? How have you tested them? Please provide all the specific data.

Einstein's model uses theories and more theories, it also goes against some of the same laws. [emphasis added]
What laws does GR violate? Specifically, what aspect(s) of GR have you falsified? Please be specific and include all observational, mathematical and experimental data.

The equation Einstein came up with E=MC^2, the same equations for my model is Fe=Ce(Ep*Rc).
How is your equation a representation of Matter/Energy equivalence? What experimental data has proven your formula?

Einstein's thoughts and mine are closer than you want to realize.
Then you should have absolutely no difficulty in providing specific, detailed, proven, answers to all of my questions, along with the corresponding physics.

.

Tensor
2007-Jun-02, 09:09 PM
The equation Einstein came up with E=MC^2, the same equations for my model is Fe=Ce(Ep*Rc).

How is your equation a representation of Matter/Energy equivalence? What experimental data has proven your formula?

Since rebel's equations have motion, I'm still waiting for rebel to show how his equations matches Einstein's equation, when the mass is in motion. I'm willing to be that he isn't aware of Einstein's other equaton.

rebel
2007-Jun-02, 09:25 PM
Gillianren,

I don't think you understand the point of this forum.

"I know I'm right" is not a reason to extend a thread here. You get 30 days to show you're right. Your thread is not an excuse to just sort of go on about your idea. You are to answer direct questions, no matter their complexity level; the point is not to educate those who don't understand but to convince those who do. (Let's face it. I, for one, will probably never understand any idea complex enough to actually be valid.)

I'm afraid I didn't make my point clear enough. The creation of the universe is not a complicated formulation, I am trying not to use my next 30 days answering questions that are so complicated that the person asking the question wouldn't even understand the answer, for lack of the basics. I'd rather hit the basics better. You don't feed a newborn baby cheese burgers, you feed it liquids firsts!

Van Rijn
2007-Jun-02, 11:20 PM
So, this means you aren't going to even try to answer jamini and Tensor? You say you want questions, but you seem reluctant to answer when questions are asked. This apparent reluctance to provide substance to your claims doesn't help your case.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-03, 05:28 AM
I'm afraid I didn't make my point clear enough. The creation of the universe is not a complicated formulation, I am trying not to use my next 30 days answering questions that are so complicated that the person asking the question wouldn't even understand the answer, for lack of the basics. I'd rather hit the basics better. You don't feed a newborn baby cheese burgers, you feed it liquids firsts!

Perhaps I didn't make mine clear. Your intention is not as important as the rules of the board. If you are given questions, you must, by those rules, answer them.

jamini
2007-Jun-03, 12:42 PM
Since rebel's equations have motion, I'm still waiting for rebel to show how his equations matches Einstein's equation, when the mass is in motion. I'm willing to be that he isn't aware of Einstein's other equaton.

But surely anyone making such grandiose claims as the OP can easily demonstrate mass in motion.

Let's give him a little help - just in case, in the interest of facilitating expeditious answers to our direct pertinent questions.

Rebel – What is your equivalent equation for Einstein’s solution when the system is not at rest:

E2 = (m2c4) + (p2c2)

.

Nereid
2007-Jun-03, 03:03 PM
Nereid,

We already have one ATM thread on 'rebel's gravity': My theory of the creation of the universe.

Why do we need another one?

rebel, what significantly new material do you have to present, that was not covered in the other ATM thread?
Most of the material was covered, but to briefly to fully comprehend. Although there was still more equations to post and prove.

The biggest reason I wanted to continue with my model is because I know I'm right and need more time to help others understand. The last time I tried answering more advanced questions and need to stay on the basics for a longer amount of time. Skipping to the advanced equations is to hard for others wanting to learn.(my bold)

You may, of course, choose to present your ATM idea in any way you wish* ... that's what this ATM section of BAUT is for.

However, you must answer direct questions pertinent to the ATM idea you have presented, as presented.

"I don't know", and similar, is, of course a perfectly valid answer.

So is "I am not able to answer that question at this time, I shall answer it {estimated date/time}", or similar.

Also "I do not understand the question; could you please clarify?" (and similar).

On 1 March, 2007, Fraser announced a New Policy Regarding Against the Mainstream section (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=54741), which was implemented on 6 March, 2007.

This policy is pretty clear:
New ATM theories will remain open for 30 days, and then they'll be closed by the moderation staff. In other words, if you've got an interesting new theory about the Universe, you've got 30 days to deal with objections, and then we'll seal it up - preserved for all eternity. Any new topics started up by the ATM theorist will be shut down immediately, and/or deleted.... and Fraser clarified this part of the new policy, in several posts in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=54740). Of direct relevance here:

"We've been having a discussion about what kinds of new evidence would open up a closed ATM for discussion. One idea would be a new relevant paper on Arxiv, or something published in a journal." (post #45 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=938877&postcount=45))

"any reason to re-open threads or start up new threads on topics already presented would require some kind of objective rationale." (post #152 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=949686&postcount=152) in The Future of ATM thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=55184))

"if you want to revisit your old idea [...], then sorry, we already covered that." (post #247 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=950886&postcount=247) in that thread). You might also find posts #248, #251, #326, #335, #348, and #368 quite interesting, if not directly pertinent to the new ATM policy.

"What we're trying to prevent is promotion of a specific theory. If the ATM has a brand new, unconnected theory, we'd love to hear it." (post #483 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=958801&postcount=483)).

So, "I want[] to continue with my model is because I know I'm right and need more time to help others understand" is not, as far as I can see, a sufficient reason to have this second ATM thread on your ATM idea.

If you can present a sufficiently powerful, objective rationale for keeping this second thread going, please PM me or another mod, and we may consider re-opening this thread.

For now at least, thread closed.

*Within the usual constraints of the overall BAUT rules, copyright, language, and so on.