Complexity Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 Gravity is a natural phenomenon that is best explained as forces as opposed to a unique singular force . Gravitational forces being the fundamental process of universal construction and additionally contributing to the natural momentum of matter in space , this inclusive of a photons momentum . Gravitational force can be most accurately explained as being two individual forces : 1) The linear force between masses 2) The linear force between matter and space The linear force between masses is the gravitational force that keeps us firmly footed on the ground and additionally the force that allows an apple to fall from a tree (Newton) ., gravity within an emitted gravitational field . The linear force between matter and space , being the gravitational linear force that curves space (Space-time curvature :Theory of relativity , Einstein 1915 ) . Additionally the linear force between matter and space contributes for the momentum of matter . All matter attracted to lesser energy geometrical spatial position(Thermodynamics) . The natural momentum of a photon = F<E where F is force and E is energy . With regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Complexity said: Gravitational force can be most accurately explained as being two individual forces : 1) The linear force between masses 2) The linear force between matter and space ! Moderator Note Please support this claim by showing the mathematics of these forces and how well they match observation (eg. that they produce the same results as GR) If your next post does not include this mathematical detail then the thread will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complexity Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, Strange said: ! Moderator Note Please support this claim by showing the mathematics of these forces and how well they match observation (eg. that they produce the same results as GR) If your next post does not include this mathematical detail then the thread will be closed. Quite harsh for a speculation section but I'll give it my best amateur efforts . 1. F=G=(-e + 1e)(-e + 1e)/r^2 2. F=G=(-e + 1e)/r^n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 13 minutes ago, Complexity said: Quite harsh for a speculation section ! Moderator Note This a science forum 13 minutes ago, Complexity said: 1. F=G=(-e + 1e)(-e + 1e)/r^2 2. F=G=(-e + 1e)/r^n ! Moderator Note What are F, G, e, r and n? How well do these equations match observations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complexity Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 Just now, Strange said: ! Moderator Note This a science forum My apologies for being so unprofessional with my comment ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Complexity said: The linear force between masses is the gravitational force that keeps us firmly footed on the ground and additionally the force that allows an apple to fall from a tree (Newton) ., gravity within an emitted gravitational field . The linear force between matter and space , being the gravitational linear force that curves space (Space-time curvature :Theory of relativity , Einstein 1915 ) . Hello. If there are two different forces, one holding me to the ground and another that curves space, how is that compatible with for instance the following experiment? The clock experiment experimentally show that, for a person firmly footed on the ground, feet and head age at slightly different rates. That does not require two different concepts, time dilation and the person standing firmly is predicted by GR / Einstein. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet That said, there are of course different models* for gravity, useful for different applications within their range of applicability. When calculating basic mechanics at low speeds i use Newton (your number 1 I guess). Other replications require General relativity (your no 2). The math presented in this thread so far does not look like useful alternative. *) Einsteins formulations leads to Newtons' at low speed etc. One could choose to always use GR and get the correct result but in my daily applications that precision is not necessary. Edited January 17, 2020 by Ghideon Clarified Newton vs Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Complexity said: Quite harsh for a speculation section ! Moderator Note Our expectations are laid out here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complexity Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ghideon said: Hello. If there are two different forces, one holding me to the ground and another that curves space, how is that compatible with for instance the following experiment? The clock experiment experimentally show that, for a person firmly footed on the ground, feet and head age at slightly different rates. That does not require two different concepts, time dilation and the person standing firmly is predicted by GR / Einstein. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet That said, there are of course different models* for gravity, useful for different applications within their range of applicability. When calculating basic mechanics at low speeds i use Newton (your number 1 I guess). Other replications require General relativity (your no 2). The math presented in this thread so far does not look like useful alternative. *) Einsteins formulations leads to Newtons' at low speed etc. One could choose to always use GR and get the correct result but in my daily applications that precision is not necessary. My apologies , after re-reading my post and your reply I feel I did not explain my speculation precise and well enough which may of lead to misunderstanding . 1. Explains the gravitational force between particle mass 2. Explains the gravitational force of quantum field mass Denser gravitational mass (1) , linearly attracting less dense gravitational field(s) mass (2) , a consequent result being the curvature of otherwise linear field lines . Additionally I'd like to speculate a third gravitational force that is somewhat peculiar . 3. Zero mass gravitational force A speculation that both 1 and 2 are both attracted to zero mass gravitational force , a speculative argument for the universal expansion and a 0 mass beyond . 3. F=G=-e+1e/M0 where M is mass . As for your question about time dilation , I assume that is contributed to quantum field density , proportional to the inverse . An atoms vibration frequency being at it's fastest at the center of gravity , the densest point . The spectral absorbing and spectral emissions of electromagnetic radiation by atoms being the contributing factor of the rate of time , vibration and frequency . Edited January 17, 2020 by Complexity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 24 minutes ago, Complexity said: 3. F=G=-e+1e/0m where m is mass . ! Moderator Note You still have not defined the terms in your equations (F, G, e, r and n). And what does "1e/0m" mean? It appears to result in division by zero. 5 hours ago, Complexity said: The natural momentum of a photon = F<E where F is force and E is energy . ! Moderator Note This makes no mathematical sense, either. How can F be less than E when they have different units? How can momentum be equal to either? ! Moderator Note I will give you one more chance to present (and explain) some coherent mathematics. And then show that it matches observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complexity Posted January 17, 2020 Author Share Posted January 17, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: ! Moderator Note You still have not defined the terms in your equations (F, G, e, r and n). And what does "1e/0m" mean? It appears to result in division by zero. G=gravity F=force e=electron 1e=proton R^n=real coordinate space My supposition in full is e + 1e = 1N where N is a formed Neutron point particle and neutral in electrical charge A Neutrons mass (1) is then attracted to the gravitational strong force of 0 mass (3) because 0 mass has E=0 and the point particle is being forced to make a transition . However , the strong bond between e and 1e has enough inertia to retain the point particles strong bond although the point particle gains dimensions because of the 0 mass gravitational force . A consequence of this process is that the Neutron energy is stretched by the tensor of the 0 mass gravitational force creating a quantum field (2) with a weaker gravitational force than the atomic bond and 0 mass gravitational force . e + 1e / M0 explains a singularity but in respect to number 2 and quantum fields . I thank you for your replies , this is my 5th post today , as forum first timer rules apply I will not be able to answer further communications today sorry . I wish you all good day , thanks . Edited January 17, 2020 by Complexity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 56 minutes ago, Complexity said: 1. Explains the gravitation mass between particles 2. Explains quantum field mass Denser gravitational mass (1) , linearly attracting less dense gravitational field(s) mass (2) , a consequent result being the curvature of otherwise linear field lines . Sorry, I fail to see an explanation of gravitation. What is the core purpose of the idea? What is the idea supposed to add to current models, theories and available analogies used to describe gravitation? What problems will I be able to solve? 6 hours ago, Complexity said: Gravitational force can be most accurately explained as being two individual forces Since you have added a third force the above is obviously a false statement in your model for gravitation? I think a lot more scientific rigor is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 17, 2020 Share Posted January 17, 2020 I am puzzled by your mixing up very tightly defined words in Physics into inappropriate equations and statements. In particular what do you mean by a linear force? What are you distinguishing this from? 7 hours ago, Complexity said: the natural momentum of a photon = F<E where F is force and E is energy . What exactly do you mean by this equation ? Is this your difficulty? 7 hours ago, Complexity said: but I'll give it my best amateur efforts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Complexity Posted January 18, 2020 Author Share Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, studiot said: I am puzzled by your mixing up very tightly defined words in Physics into inappropriate equations and statements. In particular what do you mean by a linear force? What are you distinguishing this from? What exactly do you mean by this equation ? Is this your difficulty? A linear force is straight line ! I am distinguishing the difference to a vortex . My equation means that lights speed is a product of gravitational force rather than a unique propulsion . The photon in the diagram is travelling left to right . Edited January 18, 2020 by Complexity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 hours ago, Complexity said: A linear force is straight line ! forces aren’t lines 3 hours ago, Complexity said: My equation means that lights speed is a product of gravitational force rather than a unique propulsion . Light speed isn’t propulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghideon Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 3 hours ago, Complexity said: A linear force is straight line ! I am distinguishing the difference to a vortex . My equation means that lights speed is a product of gravitational force rather than a unique propulsion . If light speed is a product of gravitational force, how do your model explain that light speed is invariant and that photons move at speed of light in absence of any gravity? You seem to suggest that in some context lightspeed is "a unique propulsion". What is that? Please also see my earlier questions above. An advice: Instead of trying to change physical models drastically why not try to learn more about the current physical models first? Asking questions in the mainstream sections may be a good start. Regarding speed of light, are you familiar with Maxwell's Equations*? *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 18, 2020 Share Posted January 18, 2020 ! Moderator Note OK. We are done here. Your "equations" are meaningless collections of symbols with no regard to dimensional analysis. How can "G=F=<E" even mean anything. Do not bring this up again. But, as Ghideon says, you seem to have a lot to learn so please feel free to use this forum as a resource by asking questions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts