# Gravity (split from Neutral elementary particles and electromagnetic waves)

## Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

The units don’t tell you anything about the magnitude, they just tell you the “type” of thing you are measuring. In the case of newtons that means force.

A tiny force or a large force can be measured in newtons.

I agree, having trouble determining the gravitational force at x=1...

##### Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Butch said:

I agree, having trouble determining the gravitational force at x=1...

1 what? Femtometer? Foot? Mile? Parsec?

And, of course, it depends on the mass.

##### Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Butch said:

So, it would not raise the temperature of atoms?

Atoms do not actually have “temperature” - but I know what you are trying to say. In a microwave oven, the microwaves get absorbed by water molecules, which as a result start to vibrate. That’s why stuff heats up in a microwave oven. This does not really happen with gravitational waves, because they only interact with matter very weakly, and in a different way.

However, what does happen is that the passing wave front induces tidal forces in extended bodies, meaning such bodies get stretched and squeezed in rhythmic patterns. Due to friction, this does indeed generate heat. But you need to remember that the amount of energy-momentum transferred in this manner is minuscule - which is one of the reasons gravitational waves were so difficult to detect in the first place.

Remember also that this is not the same mechanism as what happens in a microwave oven, which is why I answered “no” to the original question.

##### Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Butch said:

Newtons! Absolutely! Thank you! I had not thought about it, but since "normal" gravity is so weak in comparison to that in my graph... Newtons should work just fine! I just assumed the units would be to large!

Your graph is gravity, so gravity is weak compared to gravity?

Quote

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

My model is a particle that is isolated, but if it is influenced y might fall below 0.

You  haven't presented a model. What is this model?

Quote

Gravitational force at a distance could also be influenced to become much more attractive than the "norm".

Patience please sir? I am building ideas and taking critiques.

The rules, sir.

If you have questions, ask them. But do not make claims you can't back up. The rules forbid it.

Quote

I am not trying to convince or state fact that is not in evidence

Yes, you are. You claimed that gravitational phenomenon within the gravitational field might be shielded, but then did not back this up in any way. You said EM could be a subset of gravitation. Again, nothing to back this up. You said "phenomena such as those in em fields could be mimicked by gravitational phenomena" ditto, ditto.

Quote

... I am not an academic (perhaps I should have been), I do have a great abstract mind! I see things and investigate, however I cannot do it without the guidance of all of you... Einstein did not do it alone, he was in constant communication with colleagues.

Einstein learned the physics upon which he was building.

Quote

The wonderful folks on this forumn are the only colleagues I have and I do appreciate you greatly!

Einstein threw Euclid to the wind... Imagine what that was like for him!

Because that's where rigorous analysis took him. It was not whim.

13 hours ago, Butch said:

My positively charged particle:

My negatively charged particle:

My neutral particle:

Gravity does not have positive and negative charges.

Quote

I do apologise for the lack of units, I produced these charts with:

-1/x^2 + abs(1/x)

-1/x^2 - abs(1/x)

-1/x^2

Only the last equation is compatible with Coulomb's law (which is verified)

Quote

Perhaps someone could help me out with charge as applies to elementary particles?

I have chosen abs(1/x) as my charge because I believe it represents a quantum.

A quantum is a fixed value. Why would it depend on x?

Quote

Not sure what x=1 is in units of N, it should be a relatively large number as gravitational force at x=1 is very much greater than that at sea level on earth... Much greater!

If you had a complete equation, then you could tell. You need that equation. It is your model.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Butch your graphs will not work as your trying to apply them. The reason is simple Gravity is the geometry itself. You must apply a change of a coordinate axis ie the x axis with the length contraction so your units themselves are affected. Also under GR gravity is a freefall metric so you need to apply inertia under the vector addition rules and the relativistic vector addition rules. The methodology you are trying to use is simply wrong. Try studying spacetime diagrams under SR and learn how it models time dilation due to gravity before attempting to invent your own.

Currently your following a garden path through a maze of incorrect conjectures and methodologies.

For example and I know this may lose you but there is no choice a GW wave is represented by the following.

$g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}$ each term is a geometry in and of itself they have a defined length of each unit of a graph ie the x and y coordinates. A transformation is how one describes the change between one graph to another graph. Specifically how each coordinate axis and length between coordinate units vary due to gravity. It isn't a waveform that is applied to a graph because the graph coordinates itself that changes

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 2:22 AM, Markus Hanke said:

Atoms do not actually have “temperature” - but I know what you are trying to say. In a microwave oven, the microwaves get absorbed by water molecules, which as a result start to vibrate. That’s why stuff heats up in a microwave oven. This does not really happen with gravitational waves, because they only interact with matter very weakly, and in a different way.

However, what does happen is that the passing wave front induces tidal forces in extended bodies, meaning such bodies get stretched and squeezed in rhythmic patterns. Due to friction, this does indeed generate heat. But you need to remember that the amount of energy-momentum transferred in this manner is minuscule - which is one of the reasons gravitational waves were so difficult to detect in the first place.

Remember also that this is not the same mechanism as what happens in a microwave oven, which is why I answered “no” to the original question.

If you will observe the plot of my gravity well particle not that in the proximity of the particle, gravitational force is much greater than what we would expect from experience.

For those of you who took notice of my charged particle plots and say that this does not demonstrate charge... You are correct. I plotted my "charged" particles as they relate to one another in proximity. I found that the positive repelled the positive, the negative attracted the negative and unlike charges had no influence. I do believe that my particles could be perturbed in this way, however it certainly does not represent charge... perhaps color?

At any rate it has lead me to some ideas on spin as relates to my particle, I will present this in a new topic, when I can.

I do not think you people realize what a great help you are to me, I know I thank you all the time, I am not trying to placate you... You really are that helpful! Thank you... again and again!

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Butch said:

If you will observe the plot of my gravity well particle not that in the proximity of the particle, gravitational force is much greater than what we would expect from experience.

How can we observe this? You don't have a meaningful scale on your graph, and no units are indicated. Your equations are not consistent dimensionally, and do not indicate anything physical.

1 minute ago, Butch said:

For those of you who took notice of my charged particle plots and say that this does not demonstrate charge... You are correct. I plotted my "charged" particles as they relate to one another in proximity. I found that the positive repelled the positive, the negative attracted the negative and unlike charges had no influence. I do believe that my particles could be perturbed in this way, however it certainly does not represent charge... perhaps color?

How did you "find" this? You need to share the analysis with us, because I don't see anything that calls out an interaction in your posts.

##### Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 7:14 AM, swansont said:

Your graph is gravity, so gravity is weak compared to gravity?

You  haven't presented a model. What is this model?

The rules, sir.

If you have questions, ask them. But do not make claims you can't back up. The rules forbid it.

Yes, you are. You claimed that gravitational phenomenon within the gravitational field might be shielded, but then did not back this up in any way. You said EM could be a subset of gravitation. Again, nothing to back this up. You said "phenomena such as those in em fields could be mimicked by gravitational phenomena" ditto, ditto.

Einstein learned the physics upon which he was building.

Because that's where rigorous analysis took him. It was not whim.

Gravity does not have positive and negative charges.

Only the last equation is compatible with Coulomb's law (which is verified)

A quantum is a fixed value. Why would it depend on x?

If you had a complete equation, then you could tell. You need that equation. It is your model.

My statements are speculations, that is why they are prepositioned with words like "might be", "could be" and "if".

As far as gravity is weaker than gravity...

I am saying that gravitational force at very close proximity to x=1 or within that horizon is much stronger than in our normal experience. I am working on what x=1 is, I will need to do a comparison of mass densities between the Earth and a particle.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

How can we observe this? You don't have a meaningful scale on your graph, and no units are indicated. Your equations are not consistent dimensionally, and do not indicate anything physical.

How did you "find" this? You need to share the analysis with us, because I don't see anything that calls out an interaction in your posts.

Give me a few minutes and I will post the charts.

##### Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Butch said:

gravitational force is much greater than what we would expect from experience.

That would appear to disprove your model.

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Strange said:

That would appear to disprove your model.

How so?

Here is a chart showing that if my particles were perturbed as shown in my earlier charts, the perturbation would not represent charge of the particle. This is a representation of two "positively charged" particles.

Note that the gravitational force between them is above 0 on the y axis, this would represent negative g, a repulsive force... Ergo this cannot represent charge.

OOPS!!! They should repel... Just a moment and I will post the chart for 2 negative particles...

Here the gravitational force between them is amplified and attractive, two negatively charged particles should repel.

Edited by Butch

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butch said:

How so?

Because you are predicting gravity to be less than we observe. It isn't. It IS what we observe.

Or at least, that is what you appeared to be saying. But like most of your comments it was so vague and unquantified, who knows what it means.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Here the gravitational force between them is amplified and attractive, two negatively charged particles should repel.

What does this mean? There is gravitational force attracting them? They should repel but don't? What does gravity have to do with charge?

I think you should drop all this until you can post something that(a) makes sense and (b) corresponds to reality. You are a long, long way from either of those at the moment.

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because you are predicting gravity to be less than we observe. It isn't. It IS what we observe.

Or at least, that is what you appeared to be saying. But like most of your comments it was so vague and unquantified, who knows what it means.

What does this mean? There is gravitational force attracting them? They should repel but don't? What does gravity have to do with charge?

I think you should drop all this until you can post something that(a) makes sense and (b) corresponds to reality. You are a long, long way from either of those at the moment.

X=distance Y=gravitation

I am speculating that very near a particle gravity could be a much stronger force than we have given credit. 1 in terms of Newtons would be close to the gravitational force at the event horizon of a black hole, actually, it could be much stronger... And as the value of x falls below 1 it is very much stronger. At these levels gravity would be a very strong force rivaling the other known forces, even perhaps unifying them.

The real problem I am having with this model, is describing charge in terms of gravitational force. This was an attempt at doing so, it failed and so I move on. The tasks in front of me now are resolving my units and determining how a particle as a gravity well can exhibit charge. You are correct, I will drop this until I have made progress on those tasks. Thank you, Strange! Thank you all!

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Butch said:

1 in terms of Newtons would be close to the gravitational force at the event horizon of a black hole, actually, it could be much stronger...

That is meaningless in so many ways: You are saying the force on a body at the even horizon is 1 newton (*). But you are ignoring both the size of the black hole and the mass of the body. And then you say "it could be much stronger". So it might not be 1 newton.

It is 1 newton. Unless it is more.

(*) The unit of force is newtons (lower case n). Or N (upper case N). But never Newtons.

3 hours ago, Butch said:

The real problem I am having with this model, is describing charge in terms of gravitational force.

That is because there is no connection between these. You might as well try defining your weight in terms of the number of octaves on a piano keyboard.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is meaningless in so many ways: You are saying the force on a body at the even horizon is 1 newton (*). But you are ignoring both the size of the black hole and the mass of the body. And then you say "it could be much stronger". So it might not be 1 newton.

It is 1 newton. Unless it is more.

(*) The unit of force is newtons (lower case n). Or N (upper case N). But never Newtons.

That is because there is no connection between these. You might as well try defining your weight in terms of the number of octaves on a piano keyboard.

Sorry you misunderstood, I am saying that x=1 on my chart is a very large number in terms of n.

I think there may be a connection... Do you recall my statement in another topic "photons are wave packets in a gravitational field."? Swansont said I would have to show that, that is my endeavor.

Just keep beating on me Strange, you are one of my favorite guideposts!

##### Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Butch said:

Sorry you misunderstood, I am saying that x=1 on my chart is a very large number in terms of n.

Yet you are still ignoring the size of the black hole and the mass of the object the force is exerted on. And you haven’t quantised “very large”. You haven’t even quantified “1”; that is completely meaningless.

##### Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Strange said:

Yet you are still ignoring the size of the black hole and the mass of the object the force is exerted on. And you haven’t quantised “very large”. You haven’t even quantified “1”; that is completely meaningless.

Working on it...

##### Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Butch said:

My statements are speculations, that is why they are prepositioned with words like "might be", "could be" and "if".

Rule 1 of the speculations forum:

Quote

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

What testable predictions are you making?

##### Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, swansont said:

Rule 1 of the speculations forum:

What testable predictions are you making?

You are correct sir! I began this thread with an inquiry and let things get out of hand. When I make such inquiries in the future, I will be more careful.

Thank you.

On 7/4/2018 at 8:42 AM, Mordred said:

Butch your graphs will not work as your trying to apply them. The reason is simple Gravity is the geometry itself. You must apply a change of a coordinate axis ie the x axis with the length contraction so your units themselves are affected. Also under GR gravity is a freefall metric so you need to apply inertia under the vector addition rules and the relativistic vector addition rules. The methodology you are trying to use is simply wrong. Try studying spacetime diagrams under SR and learn how it models time dilation due to gravity before attempting to invent your own.

Currently your following a garden path through a maze of incorrect conjectures and methodologies.

For example and I know this may lose you but there is no choice a GW wave is represented by the following.

gμν=ημν+Hμν each term is a geometry in and of itself they have a defined length of each unit of a graph ie the x and y coordinates. A transformation is how one describes the change between one graph to another graph. Specifically how each coordinate axis and length between coordinate units vary due to gravity. It isn't a waveform that is applied to a graph because the graph coordinates itself that changes

Thank you, actually I am aware of this, however awarness is not competence... I may need some help.

Right now I need to resolve the issue of scale. How "big" is my particle... That is to say how does the gravitational profile of this point particle compare to the earth or a black hole??

##### Share on other sites
On 7/4/2018 at 8:42 AM, Mordred said:

Butch your graphs will not work as your trying to apply them. The reason is simple Gravity is the geometry itself. You must apply a change of a coordinate axis ie the x axis with the length contraction so your units themselves are affected. Also under GR gravity is a freefall metric so you need to apply inertia under the vector addition rules and the relativistic vector addition rules. The methodology you are trying to use is simply wrong. Try studying spacetime diagrams under SR and learn how it models time dilation due to gravity before attempting to invent your own.

Currently your following a garden path through a maze of incorrect conjectures and methodologies.

For example and I know this may lose you but there is no choice a GW wave is represented by the following.

gμν=ημν+Hμν each term is a geometry in and of itself they have a defined length of each unit of a graph ie the x and y coordinates. A transformation is how one describes the change between one graph to another graph. Specifically how each coordinate axis and length between coordinate units vary due to gravity. It isn't a waveform that is applied to a graph because the graph coordinates itself that changes

I believe what I need to address first is this... Since the particle actually extends to infinity, with its mass spread to infinity, any point at any distance relative to the origin point falls within the particle. Ignoring space/time dilation for the moment, how would I modify 1/x^2? I realize at a large distance this effect would be negligible, however I need to work close to the origin for now.

##### Share on other sites

In the manner your describing a particle, I have absolutely no idea. In QFT the particle is described by the Compton wavelength or Debroglie wavelength for the pointlike  and wave characteristics. These have boundary conditions set my IR and UV cutoffs.