metacogitans

Just because two things look similar, doesn't make them the same thing.

 

And despite the picture, the 'boost', the 'big name', etc., you still haven't actually proposed a model, gotten predictions from it, and compared those predictions to actual data.

 

That is science. That is what we are waiting on. Anything less is more story telling. And while you may tell a bunch of stories, that isn't science.

 

If you are truly choosing the former above, then you need to propose a model that can then be represented by objective predictions. This almost surely involves math.

 

Again, can I ask that you start with a simple one, like describing a geostationary orbit. This is a straightforward example using the current model of attractive gravity.

 

If you seriously are proposing an alternative, show us how it works. Show us the predictions made by a 'repulsion' only gravity. Show us how a satellite stays in geostationary orbit with repulsion only. Show us something scientific.

I don't know how to write a tensor translating Euclidean space into fluidic space; actually, I don't know how to write tensors period - all I know is that they can be used to describe warping of Euclidean space. Aside from that, I already gave a mathematical explanation, but giving only conceptual variables and no real-life constants or values given by real measurements.

The variables in

can be as inclusive as you want.

Let me try tossing together some hackjob math for a geostationary orbit; I am worn out at this for tonight though.

You're really heading the wrong way now.

 

Firstly, you can't copyright an idea. What you can do is be the first to publish a new idea in a reputable scientific journal.

 

But, that journal is going to demand the same things people have been asking you in this thread, only 1000-fold more rigorously done. My questions, for example, if you ignore them will just result in your submission to the journal being ignored.

 

Look, science is not based on reputation, or copyrights, or history books. It is based almost completely and totally upon accuracy of prediction with measurement.

 

It is a human endeavour. It has some human failings. But it is far, far, far more objective than it used to be where people judged your ideas solely on your name, whether you were a church leader, or a king, or rich or etc.

 

Today, it is all about how useful your idea is, and usefulness is almost wholly based on how closely your predictions agree with measurements.

 

You have presented nothing of that in this thread, despite being repeatedly asked. I asked, for example, you to use you idea to make a prediction to describe a satellite in a geostationary orbit. This is a very straightforward example that can be easily done with the current mainstream ideas of gravity.

 

Yet, you have declared yourself correct. Despite presenting nothing but stories.

 

You are free to believe what you want, but you are going to receive no interest in the scientific community.

 

Yes, this forum is generally pretty tolerant, and it is our goal to help get you to think about your idea in a more scientific manner. But, you haven't done that yet, and if anything, you're regressed. Because you are declaring yourself right with no evidence.

 

So, you have a choice now. Are you actually truly interested in exploring your ideas in a scientific manner? Or are you just going to continue to declare yourself right and be done with it? You talk about 'advocating about why I could be right'... really this is very straightforward in science. Present us with some objective evidence that your idea makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream ideas. If you can do that, you will receive much interest from the scientific community. If you can't or won't do that, then expect to be ignored.

The former.

I gained a big boost in confidence (perhaps too much of a boost) in learning that a big name (Faraday) already stated something similar to my original question behind this thread. Though, he found application for his concept of 'lines of force' with electromagnetism -- but his proposal that there is only one-directional force seems similar to saying what I said that there is only 'repulsion' and no such thing as 'attraction'.

So what's the trouble in applying this to gravity? If 'attraction' doesn't exist, then how do we explain the 'attraction' with gravity? Well we just find some way of explaining the attraction in terms of repulsion instead, right?

Well?

Also, something interesting I noticed:

Lines of force look suspiciously similar to the effects of 'fluidic space' in GR, don't they?

 

I can't imagine who would think such a thing or why.

What exactly does it mean to be an 'exact solution' to the GR EFE? As far as I can tell, it just means that it remains consistent with GR while not violating any physical laws.

Being an 'exact solution', which is a man-made term, isn't some golden seal of authenticity validating something as some objective truth wholly immune to all forms of human error.

 

There are some very tiny anisotropies in the CMB. None are related the position of the Earth. as far as I know.

 

Does equipment even exist capable of mapping specific waves picked out in the cosmic background on different sides of the planet?

How would such waves not be dampened by the Earth itself? I'm literally talking about following one specific wave in the background radiation as it travels through the Earth along its diameter and then on the other side of the planet measuring how that affected the wave's intensity.

I'm not convinced there's any reason that I'm wrong; I just didn't do a good enough job advocating why I could be right. I need to get some big bad tensors and make a mean looking equation I think.. then it might get taken seriously.

Another thing is I doubt anyone would ever notice such fluctuations in the cosmic background unless they were already looking for them.

And really, think about it.. warped spacetime by itself isn't going to cause attraction, its just going to cause a curved path...

No, no.. the math is wrong.. why is 'attraction' just.. assumed.. in GR? Even in electromagnetism, 'attraction' isnt true attraction either, but just the result of lines of force.. You can't just say 'gravity attracts' and call it good.

Hey, look what I just found:

 

Lines of force originated with Michael Faraday, whose theory holds that all of reality is made up of force itself. His theory predicts that electricity, light, and gravity have finite propagation delays. The theories and experimental data of later scientific figures such as Maxwell, Hertz, Einstein, and others are in agreement with the ramifications of Faraday's theory. Nevertheless, Faraday's theory remains distinct. Unlike Faraday, Maxwell and others (e.g., J.J. Thomson) thought that light and electricity must propagate through an ether. In Einstein's relativity, there is no ether, yet the physical reality of force is much weaker than in the theories of Faraday.

Exactly the point I was originally trying to make with this thread.

I'm beginning to think that it doesn't matter whether my guesswork is right, wrong; true, untrue; accurate, inaccurate -- if what I lack is a reputation.

You know what; I'm right. What do I do now? Copyright it?

I bet this same theory has already had a patent put on it for 20+ years, but no one has heard of the holder or cares because in the history books, people hear about Einstein, and after that everyone pretends to already know the whole score.

People in modern times coming up with their own ideas??How do you sell that??

So what are we left with? The people who do know something are stuck upholding esoteric terminology -- if you have a new idea, then that means you obviously didn't learn the esoteric terminology used by people when your same idea was considered in the past. Not too big of an issue - esoteric terminology, I guess.. when it does become an issue, it usually means an ego or two have entered play.

This forum is actually incredibly open to discussion. I don't know if it's my Latin name or something, but thank you. Usually, wherever else physics is the official topic of discussion, a person is immediately ostracized the second they ask a question or propose an idea they've come up with on their own.

Alright here you go guys the first workings of the equation...

Where R(Λ) is electromagnetic repulsion exhibited on a particle by universal background radiation from a particular direction. Λ is a measured average or estimate of universal background radiation from a certain direction, and Λ(mitigated) is universal background radiation mitigated by the presence of a massive object.

What this will tell you is the level of repulsion from universal background radiation influencing a particle in the absence of other electromagnetic influences.

Since this repulsion is experienced from all directions, it becomes synonymous with resistance.

For spherical particles, R(Λ) is given as the intensity of electromagnetic repulsion exhibited on each region of the sphere's surface by universal background radiation. This requires greater than infinitesimal increments of time to be more than a 0-dimensional value, which I'll continue explaining later.

Λ can be made as precise as needed; an exact value of Λ would require knowing the location of all massive bodies in the universe with arbitrary precision, so it has to be an average and/or estimate.

Finding Λ(mitigated) must account for many things; it is found by adding the background radiation asborbed and radiation reflected by the massive object away from the particle, then subtracting both the background radiation which has curved around the object towards the particle due to the fluidic mechanics of space as well as the radiation reflected off the massive object back at the particle.

All of which require more than just the mass of the object to calculate - such as density, shape, and volume, as well as what materials make up the object, as certain materials may be more prone to reflecting or absorbing the cosmic background radiation. It just so happens that 'mass' gives a good approximation.

Now, back to how R(Λ) is given. The equation above will only give R(Λ) a value for one direction on the surface of a particle, and it is here we hit a major roadblock: if we try to calculate the value of R(Λ) at multiple locations on the surface of the particle, we only get a rough approximation of overall repulsion influencing the particle, and this wouldn't be of much practical use. If we were to assume regions of intensity determined by R(Λ) covering the surface of the sphere, we arrive at another problem: 'intensity' assumes an increment of time. If we were to hypothetically consider infinitesimal increments of time, only one point on the surface of the sphere would be experiencing repulsion at once. Over any increment of time greater than that, the surface of the sphere would have regions of fluctuating intensity over time. This leads us to an even bigger problem: the relativistic mass of the particle increases as the increment of time we use to approximate regions of intensity increases. We must once again make estimates.

So, to summarize this, before applying Λ(mitigated), we assume every region on the sphere to be experiencing repulsion by a factor of Λ - which is an average. With applying Λ(mitigated) to a point on the sphere, we are simply subtracting Λ(mitigated) from Λ. We must then go about trying to approximate regions of intensity on the surface of the sphere, but are unable to do so as the relativistic mass and therefore volume of the sphere increases with time. Why does this happen? Well, as the particle is acclerated by the universal background radiation, the rate at which it interacts with more universal background radiation increases, thus the energy of the particle would increase exponentially. At such a scale, mass, volume, velocity, heat, and frequency are indistinguishable, thus we can only consider relativistic mass, which can be equivocated to energy.

To sneak around this headache, we could consider R(Λ) as the level of repulsion from cosmic background radiation in a given region of space if a particle were there. R(Λ) then tells us the path of least resistance in a given region of space that an object would accelerate in. But R(Λ) does not complete the entire equation. The fluidic mechanics of space would distort that path of least resistance around the object, and this distortion would need to be accounted for, and this path of least resistance determined by R(Λ) would be telling an object how to move through fluidic space, not Euclidean space.

All of this is a vastly more difficult to calculate than the field equations in GR.

 

They are not an "improvement" on the EFE, they are a solution of the EFE.

It would seem that 'improvement' and being an 'exact solution' could be seen as the same thing.

There is no reason the FLRW metric should explain that. The FLRW metric only applies to a homogeneous distribution of mass.

 

 

On the other hand, simulations do predict the shape of clusters pretty well.

Every simulation I've seen has inconsistencies which had to be remedied by tweaking the equations entirely until they produced something resembling a stable model of the observed universe.

 

Then you had better come up with some maths and some evidence for this.

 

Hard proof of this would involve measuring waves coming from one direction in the background radiation out in space on one side of the planet, while having measuring devices on the other side of the planet mapping background radiation to see if those same waves are dampened by the planet itself. Simple as that.

Here's another prediction that would be true with this approach but not necessarily true with other approaches:

Matter would be more evenly distributed throughout space the further the distance is from the center of the universe, due to the force of gravity weakening into one-directional repulsion at greater distances; this would be significant enough that it would prevent the formation of galaxies and eventually stars at sufficient distances. Current theories of gravity would lead us to believe that star formation should be able to take place anywhere in the universe as long as there is enough mass.

There is a great deal of difference between viewing the cosmological constant as being independent of gravitational attraction and being the source of gravitational attraction.

Very strong claim here with no evidence presented to support it.

 

On the one hand, we have this http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 which clearly demonstrates how accurate GR is in comparison to observations made.

 

And on the other hand, we have someone who freely admits "I do not have a clue.. could sure use a knowledge of higher calculus right now." and therefore doesn't even understand what the current model has to say.

 

But yet, it "isn't accurate". Com'on man, you gotta do better than this on a science forum. If you're going to claim something like this, you need to present a ton of evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it is just hubris and Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

Alright, let me take a swing at this:

The FLRW solutions, although an improvement on Einstein's GR field equations still fail to explain the following:

- The shape of galactic superclusters (both the origin of their shape, how their shape changes, and what their future shape will be) and the broader shape of the entire cosmos - this is a big problem, considering that the force of gravity is meant to describe the influence massive objects have on the trajectories of other massive objects on a macroscopic scale, yet fails to do so. Although the equations as written can accurately predict the trajectory of massive objects at certain scales, how accurate they are when predicting trajectories at larger cosmological scales is, so far, purely hypothetical speculation. The inconsistency between theory and observation at such scale ends up being 'explained away' by proposing dark matter and dark energy.

- How gravity applies to particles at the subatomic level --this is not as big of a problem as the previous point, as most (if not all) theories for gravity which make accurate predictions do not attempt to provide such an explanation; their goal is merely to provide a mathematical description for the attraction between massive bodies.

Also, as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), no working theory for gravity explains how universal background radiation itself changes due to the presence of mass. All theories explain background radiation as constant at any point in space. Any warping in this background radiation is assumed to be the result of curved space-time, when in fact, nothing distinguishes that from being the other way around (with observations of 'curved space-time' actually resulting from a curvature in the distribution of background radiation).

What I propose is that universal background radiation itself (the 'cosmological constant') is what is 'warped' by the presence of mass -- not the underlying grid of 'spacetime'. Background radiation is blocked/absorbed/reflected by massive objects, resulting in a tendency for their to be less of it in the direction of massive objects, and hence, causing there to tend to be a 'path of least resistance' (in an ordinary electromagnetic sense) in the direction of a massive object.

The reason 'why' this approach would be superior to current and prevailing approaches is that this approach does not require us to assume new types of energy and matter (dark energy and dark matter) without anything else to suggest their existence; we would simply be re-working existing equations so that such phenomenon are already accounted for. Assuming the existence of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', could be considered as not very different from when scientists of the past assumed the existence of a fictitious 'aether'; especially when reevaluating and reworking what we already know would provide an explanation, without taking such liberties in violation of physical laws.

Let's review what we already know:

- When electromagnetic radiation interacts with a particle, the particle moves.

- Depending on variables such as frequency or intensity of the radiation, this movement might be observed as kinetic, thermal, or indeed any type of momentum or excited state of a particle.

Universal background radiation is not (and couldn't/shouldn't be) an exception, and would also produce movement in particles it interacts with.

In the near-vacuum of space, where background radiation might likely be the strongest influence on a particle, background radiation would be affecting the particle from all directions. If background radiation is the strongest influence a particle is currently experiencing, the particle will begin to accelerate in whichever direction it is influenced by background radiation the least.

Now, that's it right there; that's the main principle behind this approach to gravitation, and we can use it to readily explain all the phenomenon in the macroscopic cosmos which current theories of gravity fail to explain, and all inconsistencies in previous approaches can be resolved with keeping a few other things in mind:

- Levels of radiation in the cosmological background are dynamic; thus, the 'cosmological constant' would also be dynamic.

- Waves of radiation in the universal background have an origin which lead to their current trajectory; in accordance with the conservation of energy, the radiation in the universal background has, in a sense, been reflecting between massive bodies in the cosmos for however long the cosmos has existed, whatever the origin of the cosmos may be.

With that in mind, the perceived 'expansion of space' is simply the result of this repulsive force between massive objects across vast distances in the cosmos. This isn't really saying anything different from what the 'cosmological constant' is already proposed to do.

Now, the only place where it would start to get a bit tricky is when we try to explain how gravity could then affect massive bodies towards the outskirts of the universe. For this, I am thinking we need simply apply special relativity, and conceptualize the 'edge of the universe' in a similar manner to how we conceptualize objects in thought experiments used when explaining special relativity:

For starters, we could say that all radiation emitted into the empty space beyond the outskirts of the universe would not lead to an observed loss of energy for the rest of the universe, as 'work' is relative, depending on distance and time, and any 'leaked' radiation would not lead to an observed 'loss' of energy for the rest of the universe, and it would not appear as though less 'work' is being done.

Matter on the very outskirts of the universe would behave very strangely, and would be subject to phenomenon making it unsuitable for star formation. This region could be thought of as consisting of a cloud of 'lost matter' - matter which has gone too far to be able to gravitate back towards other matter, but still capable of causing repulsion back towards everything else in the universe-proper.

This 'cloud' of matter on the outskirts of the universe may be reacting violently with adjacent matter, churning endlessly; or it might simply be stagnant - a sort of shield which reflects radiation back into the universe-proper, preventing it from 'leaking' into the empty space beyond this region.

Something which I think might still require additional explanation is how our measurements of the universal background radiation would lead us to believe that it's constant at any point in space. Although, it might be as simple as that old saying - something like "not being able to see the forest for the trees" - in that our measurements of background radiation in one or a few locations would appear to be similar or the same, but would not lend an accurate representation of the distribution of background radiation at macroscopic scales. Not helping the fact would be that any 'curvature' detected in measurements might be attributed to warped 'space-time' instead. Perhaps someone else could give some insight as to how exactly universal background radiation has been measured.

Last but not least in this post, we need to be able to explain how gravity is capable of curving the path of light. This approach to gravity holds water so far (and anywhere it doesn't, please let me know), but collapses completely if it can't explain the curvature of light in a gravity well. This is where I believe we must actually re-consider the Einsteinian notion of 'space-time' itself actually being curved, but the cause of this curvature would not be directly caused by the presence of mass, but instead resulting from the fluid-like mechanics inherent to spacetime. For this, we must view space-time as not being independent of its contents. Spacetime is only measurable as the sum of its contents; and the sum of its contents do not sit with each other in a way that forms a perfect grid, as these contents may be oblong or sphere-like in shape, which would instead form a fluid-like medium.

As a result, when mass blocks/absorbs/reflects radiation coming from a certain direction, pressure in the fluidic medium of spacetime would result on the other side of the object, curving the path of light/radiation passing by the massive object, which would be traveling in a straight line through curved spacetime.

So, with my limited knowledge of mathematics concerning tensors, vectors, and scalars, let me try making a mathematical asssessment of this approach: there are two main tensors which would need to be considered - a fluidic space tensor and a curved background-radiation tensor: the fluidic space tensor would basically translate fluidic space into something resembling euclidean space so that it could be worked with mathematically; then, in the absence of other influences, a particle would move through this reformed-Euclidean space along a path of least resistance determined by the curvature in the distribution of background radiation caused by the presence of other massive bodies. This curvature in the distribution of background radiation would be defined as the cosmological average of radiation in space minus the radiation mitigated by a massive object in the direction of that massive object. The curvature of background radiation would also be subject to the fluid-like nature of space. Now, I'm going to go to work writing the actual equation. Wish me luck.

I would like to also mention that this approach to gravity, by itself, suggests nothing about the fate of our universe or the universe's origin; it merely re-assesses what we already know to provide an explanation for phenomenon already observed, where current approaches would otherwise fall short and experience inconsistencies.

 

Nope. The FLRW solution to the Einstein Field Equations requires that space expands or contracts (unless the density is balanced just-so).

The 'FLRW solution' isn't accurate.

 

That is horribly confused and garbled.

 

Eisntein included the cosmological constant because the equations of GR show that the universe should expand or contract (depending on density) and, at the time, the universe was assumed to be static. When it was found that the universe was expanding, the comsological constant was removed. It was later reinstated to account for accelerating expansion. The comsological constant is an energy density (hence the term "dark energy") and has a positive pressure.

 

None of this has anything to do with gravity (other than both are described by GR). And certainly not any magical push gravity.

 

Gravity is due to the local curvature of spacetime due to the presence of mass (no pushing involved). Expansion is what happens with a homogenous mass distribution (which is approximately true on very large scales). No pushing is required for expansion.

All the GR field equations explain without the cosmological constant is gravitational attraction. Just a few weeks ago I watched a 2 hour long tutorial video explaining each piece of the Einstein field equation in detail. giving a full explanation of the math behind each piece. The equation consists of the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and a few tensors and scalars - it says nothing about whether the universe should expand or contract, but given that gravity is an attractive force, one would assume that, if it was the only thing contributing to the universal shape of 'space-time', it would cause contraction.

And mass is what causes gravity; curvature of spacetime is a mathematical description of it. You could describe the path of any charged particle through a magnetic field and call it 'curved space-time' - the concept of 'spacetime' arises out of necessity since you can't measure time without distance/space or distance/space without time - hence, they are paired together. The real mystery if why gravity wells curve the path of light.

Whether the universe is expanding or not and whether that expansion is accelerating is still a matter of debate, although I do not disagree with the possibility whatsoever; it seems to be the general consensus of the scientific community - but I'm not going to shut out other possibilities for the sake of wishful thinking - I'm going to keep thinking and considering other possibilities until it is absolutely proven one way or the other (hence the name metacogitans - 'thinking about thinking').

Now, for the 'repulsive element' which is necessary to explain the broader shape of our universe, try just using electromagnetism. Residual electromagnetic radiation is what the universal background radiation is.

Then, if we assume that there is ONLY the existence of a 'repulsive element', and re-write the equation so that the tensors and scalars for curved space-time are found by approximating the extent that a massive body shields other objects in its gravity well from residual radiation, we could perhaps account for the alleged phenomenon of 'expansion' in the universe without 'dark energy'.

I want to do it but I need to know how to use tensors which I don't; I'm going to have to research it.

Using electromagnetism as the source of gravity, particles subject to gravity are really only following their electromagnetic path of least resistance - there tends to be less resistance in the direction of a massive body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/30064-why-push-gravity-does-not-work.html

 

Even if it could reproduce Newtonian gravity, it seems very unlikely it could be forced to match GR.

GR itself is an inverse push-gravity theory; without the cosmological constant, the field equation in GR as written would lead to a universe that contracted in upon itself - Einstein included the cosmological constant in his field equation hoping it would resolve this; the cosmological constant worked as a residual repulsive force in the universal background stopping gravity from causing the contents of the universe from contracting in upon themselves - it later turned out that he was wrong.

For 60 years it was simply left out of the equation; in the 1990s, it was eventually given an estimated value for GR based on measurements of the universal background radiation.

Basically, Einstein himself had to include some hypothetical 'pushing force' in his equations for them to make sense, without knowing if such a force existed or not.

I am simply assuming that the same 'pushing force' is responsible for gravity in the first place - which if it is, accounts for the expansion of space without the need for 'dark energy'.

This looks like "push gravity" which was falsified centuries ago. People do keep trying to add new ad-hoc excuses to try and make it work though.

How was it falsified?

Forgive the size:

The arrows represent background radiation influencing the particle; the 3 arrows above the 'massive object' represent background radiation traveling in the direction of the particle on the other side of the 'massive object' - the space between the dashed lines indicates that background radiation is being blocked/dampened from the direction of the other side of the massive object.

I think you are getting way ahead of yourself. Using the accepted version of gravity today, I can write the math that describes a geostationary orbit very straightforwardly. No reason to invoke GR or cosmological constant or anything like that.

 

I am asking you to do the same thing treating gravity as EM as you've claimed. No need to expand to cosmological scales if you can't even describe the local ones. I am hoping that you will clear up my question that I've asked several times now as to if gravity was EM based, why the sun doesn't repel the moon.

 

Again, I don't care if you call it a push, a pull, an attraction, a repulsion, or so on. We know that things with opposite charges behave differently than things with same charges. If gravity was EM based -- and thus objects would have charges -- it doesn't fit what we see.

 

This needs to be remedied before your idea goes any further. I have very little interest in an idea that doesn't match what we see.

But you can't explain the shape of the universe with your math without assuming things like "dark energy" and "dark matter"; with gravity explained as a result of net repulsion in the universe, the shape of our universe and the trajectory of the everything in it just so happens to be conveniently explained in the math.

The cosmological constant, the background radiation, would be written as dampened by mass; if you imagine the background radiation as the residual electromagnetic field from everything in the universe propagating through space, and imagine it being blocked by, say, a planet or a star - then the path of least resistance for objects around the planet or the star is going to tend to be in that direction.

The cosmological constant is already in the GR field equation; I guess a good question should be "does GR already do what I intend?" ...Okay, reading right now that the cosmological constant in GR was bunk. So why do they still use GR for gravity? And no one has come up with another theory of gravity since then? That's good news.

That would also give some new insight into particle physics; if we know how things got their shape so far, we know more about what events need to have taken place during the big-bang for them to have got the way they are now, and we can also throw out 'dark energy and dark matter' if the effects those were invented to explain turn out to be included in an explanation for gravity.

Am I just late to the 'punch'? I mean, they're able to keep spacecraft in orbit travelling several thousand meters per second around the Earth, they've got to know gravity fairly well.

So: background radiation forms a 'medium' consisting of repulsive waves of energy; these repulsive waves are blocked/absorbed by matter, giving rise to the phenomenon of gravity.

Taking a look at Einstein's Field Equation:

Nothing looks as though it needs to be changed except for the cosmological constant (lambda) and the metric tensor which need to be entirely re-written.The cosmological constant will have to be given as an average; and the metric tensor, oh boy, I do not have a clue.. could sure use a knowledge of higher calculus right now.

I'm about to make a diagram explaining how I think the cosmological constant would have an average value found for it

No, not really. Because the experts know that gravity is an attractive force not a repulsion, and is not the same as EM.

 

 

So you're saying [math]f_{gravity \ and \ EM}=\exp(something)?[/math]. what is that 'something'? You need to show me that this model makes better predictions than the models we have today. And this is not the functional form we see today which makes supremely accurate predictions.

 

Here is an easy one: using your model of gravity/EM, please show the math for a geostationary orbit.

I'll try to; Although even if I managed to with my very limited knowledge of mathematics, I have a suspicion it'd end up looking a lot like the GR field equation, since I think the 'residual repulsion' I was talking about would just be a variant of the cosmological constant.

I think maybe what I would be doing is re-writing the cosmological constant in the equation so that it's no longer a constant, but dynamic - and a product of electromagnetism.

 

OK I will have a go at a Hitchhiker’s Guide to Hamiltonian-Lagrangian mechanics.

If I spread too much jam on it I’m sure Bignose will apply the necessary corrections.

 

First a mathematical observation. I assume you know some elementary calculus.

So I will make the statement that every process that can be modelled mathematically by a differential equation can also be formulated as an integral equation.

 

Now Newton’s second law is a differential equation that models the motion of a body as it travels along some trajectory or path.

 

At any point on that path Newton’s Law provides a connection between external forces and the local conditions (at the point) by way of the time rate of change (differential coefficient), to enable us to determine the actual path traversed.

 

I stress this equation is local ie applies individually at each point, but each individual application may be different.

 

Now an alternative view is to ask

Is there a function that if applied to the whole path will define that path for us?

 

The answer is yes. There is such a function that we call ‘the action’.

If we integrate this action function along any entire proposed path it turns out that the action integral is minimised by using the actual path traversed.

 

This introduces our first Big Name is known as Hamilton’s principle, also called the

Principle of Least Action.

 

Now two things.

 

Firstly proving this is the province of some advanced mathematics.

Secondly deducing the actual path uses a process ( some more advanced calculus) known as the calculus of variations.

 

I will not attempt either here.

 

The function itself introduces our second Big Name, the Lagrangian.

 

 

[math]Action = \int_{{t_1}}^{{t_2}} {Ldt} [/math]

 

and for simple conservative fields like gravity the Lagrangian is simply the difference between the kinetic and potential energies

 

L = K – P

 

A parting thought in support of Bignose’ desire for agreement with real world observation.

 

 

 

 

So let us start back with Newton and his law of gravitation.

 

[math]{F_{grav}} = s\frac{{{M_1}{M_2}}}{{{r^2}}}[/math]

 

This states that for two masses there is a force between them proportional to each mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. s is the constant of proportionality to make this an equation.

 

After it became possible to measure this force, it was noticed that for certain objects there was an additional force in action over and above that given by the gravity equation.

 

This was found to follow the same form (Coulombs law)

 

 

[math]{F_{elec}} = t\frac{{{Q_1}{Q_2}}}{{{r^2}}}[/math]

 

Well physicists are lazy customers and like to recycle equations rather than introduce new ones.

So when magnetism was being investigated another additional force was proposed and the relationship experimentally verified by Michell in 1750.

 

[math]{F_{mag}} = u\frac{{{P_1}{P_2}}}{{{r^2}}}[/math]

 

 

A quantity known as the pole strength was introduced.

 

Do you notice any similarity?

 

Note I have only used some of the standard symbols for clarity of comparison.

Note also that all these three are experimental results. Observations on the physical world.

 

 

 

Thank you for that, I need to digest that for a while; I'm basically trying to jump into intermediate physics and calculus when the last math class I took was pre-calc in high school 7 years ago

But gravity being part of EM is trivially falsified. EM's attraction is between opposite charges. The moon is attracted to the earth. Ergo, the moon must have the opposite charge of the earth. The earth is attracted to the sun. Ergo, the earth must have the opposite sign of the sun. It them follows that the sun and the moon must have the same sign. Yet, in EM, the same charges are repelled, but the moon is not repelled by the sun.

 

This is just one of many, many reasons we know that gravity is not the same as EM. Many have tried to proposed this exact same idea, and none have been able to offer forth a model that agrees with observations. Until such a time -- and there very well may be a unified force description we discover some day -- the best model science has is treating gravity and EM as separate.

The main idea I was trying to make with the thread was speculating whether or not 'attraction' even exists, and instead trying to explain the phenomenon of 'attraction' as a result of particles following a path of least resistance. Consider that a charge does not attract its opposite, but instead dampens its opposite - and there is only repulsion, with the phenomenon of attraction resulting from a lack of repulsion in a particular direction.

When this is applied to a macroscopic scale, if we assume that mass in a sense 'blocks' residual EM repulsion (similar to how in the previous paragraph we proposed that an opposite charge dampens repulsion), then an object or particle's path of least resistance will tend to be in the direction of mass.

Also, when I said that gravity was a 'byproduct of electromagnetism', I meant that the electromagnetic activities taking place at the subatomic scale give rise to gravity on the macroscopic scale. When you say the 'moon is attracted to the Earth', I am proposing that it's not 'attracted' to the Earth, but the Earth's mass shields the moon from residual electromagnetic repulsion in the universe from that direction, causing the moon to have less resistance in the direction of the Earth.

metacogitans, you have the germ of a good idea so I am trying to steer you in the appriate direction, because others have trod this path before.

 

However you are trying to minimise the wrong thing, hence my reference to Hamiltonian - Lagrangian mechanics.

However I'm sorry to tell you that this approach requires some advanced mathematics and I do not know of a website or book that presents it in elementary terms.

 

Using H-M mechanics leads, amongst other things, to the Schrodinger equation.

I agree; I think the ideas I have make sense, and nothing jumps out at me as contradictory, but I think for me to get any more of an understanding, I'm going to have to learn how its expressed mathematically.

I enjoy trying to work out these ideas myself a little, so I can sort of feel like I did it a little independently. I don't know if I have an original idea, but I'm having fun putting the pieces together.

As for Hamiltonian Mechanics, take a swing at giving a little explanation if you feel like it.

I'm reading about Lagrangian mechanics right now, and one of the things it says is "Thus, instead of thinking about particles accelerating in response to applied forces, one might think of them picking out the path with a stationary action." which is weird because I was thinking of that just the other day.

You are working towards Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics.

 

But you need to think in energy terms not force terms.

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=hamiltonian+mechanics&gbv=2&oq=Hamiltonian&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.2.0l10.1453.3968.0.7953.11.6.0.5.5.0.125.671.0j6.6.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.11.905.0yx_xPQhI7U

If that's the case, I think I'm only working towards it conceptually in my mind, and not in a written-down mathematical sense (at least not yet).

Have you heard about Positronium?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium

 

or exotic atom made of antiproton-helium nucleus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium

 

Once electron collides with positron there is annihilation.

Once antiproton collides with nucleus there is annihilation.

Have you heard about "breaking radiation" Bremsstrahlung?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung

 

f.e. positive ion is attracting free electron, which is emitting photon and loses kinetic energy.. and it's slowed down, or intercepted by nucleus..

I haven't heard of those particles before in particular, but that's interesting since those are the types of particles I've been tossing around hypothetically in my own head while trying to figure it all out.

What do you guys think about gravity just being a byproduct of electromagnetic repulsion in the universal background, and the presence of mass dampening this electromagnetic repulsion causing the path of least resistance for a particle to tend to be in the direction of mass?

Do you think that explanation holds water?

Right off the bat, it would seem to help explain a few other things as well, like the mystery of dark energy. If gravity were a byproduct of electromagnetism, then all of the phenomenon we attribute to 'dark energy' could already be accounted for and need no further explanation. The expansion of the universe would merely be residual electromagnetic repulsion over great distances; which, despite the great distance, would still be influential on the trajectory of a particle. It readily explains the shape of our universe.

Gravity explained in this way would be indistinguishable in many aspects from General Relativity; objects following a 'path of least resistance' amidst residual electromagnetic repulsion in the universal background would look and act like 'curved space-time', but in this case, the 'invisible grid of spacetime' is made of tangible ingredients we have identified.

only path of least resistance. The reason an electron stays bound to a proton is because the least-negative direction is in the direction of the proton, and thus there is least resistance in the direction of the proton.

Basically, what I'm thinking is, only like-charges interact with each other; positive and negative never interact with each other, and what appears to be 'attraction' between a positive and negative charge is actually just the particles staying along the path of least resistance.

Would you guys say that's correct?

That isn't considering gravitational attraction, which according to GR isn't attraction either, but geodesics of space-time.

Although now that I think about it, a charged particle would follow a path of least resistance not only in the direction of opposite charged particles, but any mass in general (assuming mass itself is charge-less), since for any charged particle, there will be less resistance in the direction of any massive object, even if not of an opposite charge, as long as the mass is either charge-less or neutral.

This could explain gravity, assuming:
1. Charged particles only interact electromagnetically with particles of the same charge.
2. Mass itself shields charged particles from the electromagnetic field of other same-charged particles by being between the two.

One might then ask why light would be affected by gravity if gravity is just an extended effect of electromagnetism, but consider that light is itself not chargeless; photons are both positive and negative.

You may ask what electromagnetic repulsion could a charged particle out in space be experiencing? But keep in mind that an electromagnetic field is infinite with dwindling intensity; even if the charged particle out in space is only experiencing a miniscule amount of electromagnetic repulsion, it will still begin accelerating in the path of least resistance; If the presence of mass is shielding the particle from electromagnetic repulsion, then the path of least resistance will tend to be in the overall direction of the mass. Since the particle is being constantly accelerated in this manner, the rate at which its velocity increases along the path of least resistance will be exponential, as is the case with gravity.

How would I find the area shaded in blue below? (please forgive how big the image is)

I'm assuming you'd have to use calculus as there is no way to simply subtract the area of the circle from the area of a larger rectangle without ending up looking for a limit.

I guess I don't know how I'd go about finding the anti-derivative of a circle.

'Disrupted by electromagnetic fields' is very vague. Lighting has an electromagnetic field, and that will 'disrupt' just about anything.

What would a graviton be emitted from and when would it be emitted though? Would it be emitted from all mass constantly? What about a graviton emitted from a particle near the center of the sun; wouldn't the graviton be absorbed by other particles within the sun, never making it outside of the sun to produce the sun's gravitational field?

Yeah I don't have money for books; I've been sneaking in lectures on youtube from Caltech, MIT, and Stanford, and downloading any free PDFs on the subject I find

 

 

The simple answer is signal interpretation. The impulse travels through very specific channels and nerve bundles and pathways arrives to the brain with a specific "signature." Those pathways differ slightly based on where in the body the stimulus occurred. It is through time that we learn to differentiate those signals and become able to associate the signal with a specific stimulus and specific location.

Where did you get the idea of a "signature"? I'm pretty sure that the "all or nothing" nature of action potentials implies that either a signal is sent or it isn't - it's either firing along the axon or the stimulus wasn't strong enough to trigger an action potential. The signal carries no other information or 'signature'. Now, there are other things to consider, like how frequently repeated signals are sent, levels of neurotransmitters already present in the synapse, etc. You also have to consider every other neuron connected to the process.

Also, when you say 'through time' it is actually almost instantaneous, and when you say "we learn", the stimulus is actually processed subconsciously; it is not as if we need to consciously guess, test, and revise to try and figure out which sensations correspond to which locations on our body; it's all done without even thinking about it. Think of If you felt a bug crawling on your shoulder - without even looking you'll likely swing your hand from your other arm over to brush it off with a high level of precision and no visual feedback required. For different types of stimulus (feeling heat versus feeling something pushing up against you, for example), these have different nerves with dedicated roles for detecting particular types of stimuli. A neuron which detects heat would not also detect a sharp object poking the skin.

 

 

 

 

good article however its too bad you didn't pay attention to the details....

 

look at equation 1

 

here is the quote describing equation 1

 

"where G is the Einstein curvature tensor,T is the stress-energy tensor,G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light. The Einstein tcnsor

describes the curvature of space-time; the stress-energy tensor describes the density of mass-energy. This equation therefore concisely describes the curvature

of space-time that results from the presence of mass-energy. This curvature in turn determines the motion of freely falling objects"

 

please note the stress energy tensor is the density of mass energy, in other words if you take the mass of the Earth and reduce its volume below its Schwartzchild radius it will become a black hole. Or if you have an object with the same volume as the Earth but higher density it will exert a greater gravitational influence.

 

this wiki page gives the Schwartzchild radius for the Earth roughly the size of a peanut 9 mm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

 

here is some more information on the stress energy tenser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor

 

please note line

"In general relativity, the symmetric stress–energy tensor acts as the source of space-time curvature"

 

by the way your fluid analogy isn't a bad idea, its just a bit more complicated than mere volume. (its due to energy-density relations) You will notice the terms perfect fluid being used numerous times on the stress energy tenser page.

 

see the last link for the fluid solutions of the Einstein field equations

"In general relativity, a fluid solution is an exact solution of the Einstein field equation in which the gravitational field is produced entirely by the mass, momentum, and stress density of a fluid."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution

 

by the way welcome to the forum

 

here this reference will help you learn GR, careful though its 927 pages long (page 167 covers the fluid dynamics)

 

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf

 

here is another reference for GR fluid dynamics

http://www.nikhef.nl/~t32/relhyd.pdf Relativistic fluid dynamics

Thanks; didn't want to try giving a technically accurate explanation - what I know about the math of Einstein's field equation comes from what I remember from this video:

To be honest, the math involving the tensors in Einstein's field equations is a little bit over my head; I understand the role each piece of the equation has and can follow a person as they work through it, but I wouldn't be able to use it myself. I actually just started trying to learn the math of GR just a few days ago. The last math class I took was precalc and since then I've had to teach myself calculus and trig, so my knowledge of mathematics probably isn't as comprehensive as it should be before dabbling in things like General Relativity - but, it interests me, so I'm taking a swing at it.

Do define gravity as a force, the boson it would need is the graviton. So far we haven not detected the boson. However that does not mean it doesn't exist. We just recently detected the Higg's particles (we may have not found all the predicted Higg's particles yet). The problem is the extreme energies required. The graviton is considered to be one of the hardest to detect and it would take higher energy levels than we can currently achieve.

 

Our understanding of gravity is far from complete in all its workings, we still do not know how to apply gravity to obtain Unification of the forces. Its hoped that quantum gravity, QFT or string theory will be able to one day integrate GR completely into the quantum.

However keep in mind GR is a well tested model of gravity, much of what it says it does has yet to be disproved.

 

a line from Introduction to particle Physics by David Griffith describes it well.

 

"In general the heavier the particle you want to produce, the higher the energy of the collision must be" In general the lighter particles are discovered first with the heavier particles coming later..

Not true. Gravity needs no boson to explain it; it's geodesics of curved space-time. An object travels faster and farther in the direction of mass because there is literally "more space" in the direction of mass due to the presence of mass dilating spacetime.

And besides all that, gravity being mediated by a force carrier would completely fail to explain how gravity bends light. If it were mediated by a boson, it should not interact with other bosons, and would not curve the path of photons.

You could of course start making exceptions for your hypothetical boson, but before you know it what you're going to be describing is nothing more than the curvature of space-time already described in general relativity.