Jump to content

Gravity is limited to a range extendable with the speed of light c


Recommended Posts

So nothing new to add to well-established physics, and idea based on misunderstandings.
But misunderstandings and/or lack of knowledge is possible to fix, start by opening a new thread with some relevant question in the cosmology section!

On 4/11/2019 at 7:06 PM, Strange said:

Should we close this thread now?

I vote "yes".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This one? http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/empulse.html  

Good point. Probably the mixing of static and dynamic situations* for both gravity and electromagnetism is the main reason behind the proposals made by OP. I asked you to analyse your prop

There is no “moment of mass existence” Energy is conserved, so mass does not just pop into being.  However, in a very basic sense, gravity behaves as you describe, despite your dubious mathematic

Posted Images

In my thread here and according to this quote" 

"When an object moves  , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object"  logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .Exerting force continuously will result in displacing space continuously and making non-existence in space continuously .The two forces " force exerted on an object and  resistance force by space will make energy creation "as energy and mass are interchangeable then the process actually creates new mass amount"

I can predict and test my theory as follows:

instead of mass popping out from nowhere we have energy or mass/energy coming  from original energy transferred by force , when an object moves its mass increases causing new curvature in space-time doubling the curvature already there .I can predict that new range of gravity will start from time t equals zero and extend this also could be tested

Edited by awaterpon
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

I can predict and test my theory as follows:

You need quantitative (numerical) predictions to be testable.

That means you need a mathematical model.

10 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

instead of mass popping out from nowhere

Why do you think mass pops out from nowhere? What evidence is there for this?

13 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

when an object moves its mass increases causing new curvature in space-time doubling the curvature already there .

What evidence do you have for this?

13 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

I can predict that new range of gravity will start from time t equals zero and extend this also could be tested

You need to show the numbers: how much will the mass increase? What is the range of gravity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

I can predict and test my theory as follows:

instead of mass popping out from nowhere we have energy or mass/energy coming  from original energy transferred by force , when an object moves its mass increases causing new curvature in space-time doubling the curvature already there .I can predict that new range of gravity will start from time t equals zero and extend this also could be tested

Which theory is that? Movement of mass and curvature makes your description sound like detection of gravity waves, currently part of established science.

 

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/press-release/

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, awaterpon said:

In my thread here and according to this quote" 

"When an object moves  , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object"  logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .Exerting force continuously will result in displacing space continuously and making non-existence in space continuously .The two forces " force exerted on an object and  resistance force by space will make energy creation "as energy and mass are interchangeable then the process actually creates new mass amount"

So you're claiming that Newton's first law is wrong. That an object in uniform motion will not remain in uniform motion in the absence of an external force. It will instead come to rest as it displaces space, which exerts a force on it.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swansont said:

So you're claiming that Newton's first law is wrong. That an object in uniform motion will not remain in uniform motion in the absence of an external force. It will instead come to rest as it displaces space, which exerts a force on it.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

An object at uniform motion is different from accelerated object my idea applies to accelerated objects gravitational waves also appears for accelerated objects

12 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Which theory is that? Movement of mass and curvature makes your description sound like detection of gravity waves, currently part of established science.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/press-release/

New range caused by a rotating mass is different from gravitational waves this is a prediction for my theory and now it could be tested

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, awaterpon said:

New range caused by a rotating mass is different from gravitational waves this is a prediction for my theory and now it could be tested

Are you saying that the gravity for a rotating object is different than a non-rotating one?

If so, you need to quantify this so it can be tested. How large a difference does rotation make? Actual numbers required.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, awaterpon said:

New range caused by a rotating mass is different from gravitational waves this is a prediction for my theory and now it could be tested

Rotation is included in GR, have you studied frame draging? For instance rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity in the vicinity of rotating massive objects*.

Here is a paper showing experimental confirmation: https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3456

How does your idea differ?

 

*) see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, awaterpon said:

An object at uniform motion is different from accelerated object my idea applies to accelerated objects gravitational waves also appears for accelerated objects

What you claimed was "When an object moves   , it tries to displace space in front of it " and "space will resist its motion"

There is no mention of acceleration, only motion. But then, you have not presented a model, or any tests of your idea. Just hand-waving, and that's not enough.

!

Moderator Note

Do not bring up any other models of gravity. You've demonstrated that you are not willing/able to discuss science with enough rigor to make it worthwhile.

 

 

Link to post
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.