Jump to content

How gravity works


trevorjohnson32

Recommended Posts

!

Moderator Note

I moved this to Speculations to give you a chance to explain this to those who won't watch videos. If you want feedback, members must be able to participate without watching videos. Please give a summary in text here. Use evidence to support your idea, and elevate it from guesswork to something we can talk about scientifically.

Right now, there's not enough here to keep a Speculations thread going. What else have you got?

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strange said:

That is not how gravity works.

oh?..........................................................................................................................................................................................why?

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

I moved this to Speculations to give you a chance to explain this to those who won't watch videos. If you want feedback, members must be able to participate without watching videos. Please give a summary in text here. Use evidence to support your idea, and elevate it from guesswork to something we can talk about scientifically.

Right now, there's not enough here to keep a Speculations thread going. What else have you got?

 

Then here, the text from the video:

  • A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time
  • Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in
  • The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark
  • A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet
  • When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge
  • This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field
  • The quark is continuously pulled in as the lavers of space time are denser the closer to the planet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

Then here, the text from the video:

  • A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time
  • Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in
  • The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark
  • A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet
  • When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge
  • This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field
  • The quark is continuously pulled in as the lavers of space time are denser the closer to the planet
!

Moderator Note

:)

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

Then here, the text from the video:

Do you have any mathematics for this model?

Can you show (mathematically) that your model produces Newton's inverse square law?

Can your model successfully replicate all the (tested and confirmed) predictions of General Relativity?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HallsofIvy said:

1.  What do you mean by space-time being "dense"?

2.  Since the gravity field of any object extends infinitely, what do you mean by the "edge" of a gravity field?

Image result for images gravity 3dImage result for images gravity 3d

 

I mean if you map space-time in a grid, the blocks of the grid become smaller in the denser regions of the gravity field rather then the grid 'bending' towards the middle like this photo which is up first when you search images gravity 3d. 

The edge of the gravity field is where it tapers off, but have they ever directly proven that a gravity field extends forever? and how did they do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

The edge of the gravity field is where it tapers off, but have they ever directly proven that a gravity field extends forever?

Firstly, nothing is ever "proven" in science.

And, no, obviously it hasn't been directly tested at infinity. It would be practically impossible to measure the Earth's gravitation field outside the solar system (and probably even within it). But the theories we have, which have been tested and confirmed, predict that it does in fact go on forever.

Which brings us to the point of this thread: it is not a place for you to question established science but to provide some support for your idea. So, what is the mathematical basis for gravitation field having an edge?

Quote

I mean if you map space-time in a grid, the blocks of the grid become smaller in the denser regions of the gravity field rather then the grid 'bending' towards the middle like this photo which is up first when you search images gravity 3d.

Please show us in appropriate mathematical detail that your model of "dense" space-time produces the same results as GR (in other words, the same results as experiments).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Firstly, nothing is ever "proven" in science.

And, no, obviously it hasn't been directly tested at infinity. It would be practically impossible to measure the Earth's gravitation field outside the solar system (and probably even within it). But the theories we have, which have been tested and confirmed, predict that it does in fact go on forever.

Which brings us to the point of this thread: it is not a place for you to question established science but to provide some support for your idea. So, what is the mathematical basis for gravitation field having an edge?

Please show us in appropriate mathematical detail that your model of "dense" space-time produces the same results as GR (in other words, the same results as experiments).

Uh huh mechelson and moorley and all that. A kind of person like you, which there are MANY of, goes along with the crowd if they were all pulling out there fingernails and hair because it was the trend to make you smarter. Anything thrown on your plate is completely bias to whether you have read it before or what someone else has already said. Do you have a single original thought in your head? It's the most obvious cliche of a person to only believe things that are provable like if turn my VCR on, then the control button will perform this function. So GR and the Michelson Moorley experiment is your solid proof then huh? Tell me, does the light returning along the same path that it was sent out on in the interferometer experiment cancel the momentum gained or lost being sent out, have no effect, or some effect?

By the way I do have an idea for an experiment using a femto camera to measure for the movement of space time. I didn't know I was REQUIRED to prove it to an idiot like you on the internet. SO SORRY!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

By the way I do have an idea for an experiment using a femto camera to measure for the movement of space time. I didn't know I was REQUIRED to prove it to an idiot like you on the internet. SO SORRY!!!

4

Strange is many things, idiot is not one of them.

Explain your experiment.

Your mathematics can be compared to current proofs supplied from experiments for things from gravitational waves, atomic clocks, etc.

If it matches all of those, then it might be true.

So, firstly, what does your mathematics predict is the speed of light?

 

Edit: Perhaps attempt to address the questions and points I raised rather then giving a downvote because I didn't agree with you.

 

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

Uh huh mechelson and moorley and all that.

What does that have to do with gravity?

9 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

It's the most obvious cliche of a person to only believe things that are provable

Apart from the fact that science doesn't prove things, on what basis should we accept new ideas? Just because they sound good? Or should we look for evidence to confirm them? Personally, I think that looking for evidence is a much better way to make progress.

So all I am asking is that you provide some support for your idea. Otherwise why should anyone take it seriously? 

After all, if people should accept your idea just because you say so, then they also have accept all the other wacky personal theories that people come up with, "because they say so". 

That is why we rely on evidence to choose between theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

 A kind of person like you, which there are MANY of, goes along with the crowd ...

I think you will find that most regular members here, opposed to 'going along with the crowd', will make their own decisions on things based on the evidences they receive. Many here will change their views on almost any topic if you provide correct incontestable evidence. Quite the opposite from 'going along with crowd'. 

I have seen the person you are talking to here above change his views on a number of things when shown supported evidence of a claim. This usually comes with a 'thank you for correcting me' comment. No one here will take your word for your assumptions or musings without some testing, demonstration or proper maths. The field which you are speculating on is pretty well researched and modelled. If you want to change it you have to show you have a better model - not random musings based on guesses and assumptions.  No one will sheep like follow you into believing untested claims and nor should they.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

So GR and the Michelson Moorley experiment is your solid proof then huh?

There is no proof in science.

And the Michelson-Morley experiment has nothing to do with gravity or GR.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well I have heard of Michelson-Morley. Nothing to do with gravity, though. So perhaps you could explain.

Well uh I know there not as smart as you, Strange, but they think space time isn't made of something or anything because there experiments showed this and where GR came from. This would be contrary to the OP in that I imply that space-time IS made of something.

21 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Strange is many things, idiot is not one of them.

Explain your experiment.

Your mathematics can be compared to current proofs supplied from experiments for things from gravitational waves, atomic clocks, etc.

If it matches all of those, then it might be true.

So, firstly, what does your mathematics predict is the speed of light?

Why would we need a new prediction of the speed of light? 

can you figure out an experiment from watching this video? I did.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

Well uh I know there not as smart as you, Strange, but they think space time isn't made of something or anything because there experiments showed this and where GR came from.

The M-M experiment was about the medium that carries light (there isn't one) not space-time or gravity.

16 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

This would be contrary to the OP in that I imply that space-time IS made of something.

Then you need a mathematical model that makes testable predictions if you want this to be taken seriously.

16 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

can you figure out an experiment from watching this video? I did.

So what is your experiment and what is your predicted result? Not that this prediction needs to be quantified (i.e. a numerical value or range) in order to be testable.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

The M-M experiment was about the medium that carries light (there isn't one) not space-time or gravity.

Yes that medium being space-time.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Then you need a mathematical model that makes testable predictions if you want this to be taken seriously.

yeah well if I prove my theory hopefully it will be more then the underbelly of a internet science forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

Yes that medium being space-time.

I am not aware that anyone has proposed space-time as the medium for light. Ever since Maxwell's work it has been clear that the medium is the electromagnetic field.

41 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

yeah well if I prove my theory

Science doesn't prove theories.

42 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

hopefully it will be more then the underbelly of a internet science forum

Yep, this is not the best place to publish a new theory. But people could help you refine your ideas if you were willing to answer some questions and engage in a constructive discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Science doesn't prove theories.

alllllrighteyoh then

 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am not aware that anyone has proposed space-time as the medium for light. Ever since Maxwell's work it has been clear that the medium is the electromagnetic field.

I was not aware that maxwell proposed that there was a medium. I've heard people use the word field to describe gravity like it has some secret meaning. what is yours?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

 By the way I do have an idea for an experiment using a femto camera to measure for the movement of space time. I didn't know I was REQUIRED to prove it to an idiot like you on the internet. SO SORRY!!!

!

Moderator Note

You showed up on a science site making a claim. You do have an obligation to present a model and evidence that this model is correct, or a way to test it. Otherwise, what's the point?

You need to expect your idea to be challenged, and you need to provide clarification when asked. This is not negotiable.

 
54 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

yeah well if I prove my theory hopefully it will be more then the underbelly of a internet science forum.

!

Moderator Note

I can assure you that the scientific community at large is not going to be less forgiving or less rigorous than whatever vetting you get here.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways using the femto camera, from the film of the light moving out from a source, you pause the film when the light is at least partially illuminating the objects in the room. You then measure with a ruler on the frozen image itself the distance of illumination on several sides of the light source. If space IS and has properties like gravity, then the distances measured in the experiment will be all different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, trevorjohnson32 said:

Anyways using the femto camera, from the film of the light moving out from a source, you pause the film when the light is at least partially illuminating the objects in the room. You then measure with a ruler on the frozen image itself the distance of illumination on several sides of the light source. If space IS and has properties like gravity, then the distances measured in the experiment will be all different.

Calculate the magnitude of the effect you expect to measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.