Gravity (split from A change in Gravity killed the dinosaurs!)

Recommended Posts

I have similar theory explaining dinosaurs' extinction by gravity change. But I explain it by other way. I have hypothesis that gravity of planets has a relativity to solar gravity.

Thus, when gravity of Sun changes on the planet's orbit, it affects to planet's gravity function. Gravity potential doesn't change because planet's mass doesn't change. But the superposition of gravity function changes while the local gravity system of the planets changes its size. When gravity system change its size, but planet's size is constant, the gravity on the planet's surface changes its value.

For examle, if gravity of Sun on the Earth orbit will change with factor 2, the size of Earth's gravity system enlages by factor 1/2. The gravity correlate with orbit as function of 1/R^2. Therefore the gravity value on the planet's surface changes with factor 1/2^2 or 1/4.

I don't know exactly what called changes of Sun's gravity function about 65 ml. years ago, but I suggest that Earth increased its orbit. The decreasing Sun's gravity on the Earth's orbit made the increasing of gravity on th Earth surface.

Probably, the relativity of gravity what is cause of undefiniteness of gravitational constant.

Also probably the changes of length of comets' tail are called by such relative gravitational changes happens near to the comets' surface.

PS. Other possible causes made solar gravity weaker probably could be Sun's superburst with dropping its cover or similar relative changes but relatively to Galaxy's gravity when Solar system entering or exiting its sleeves.

Edited by kba

• Replies 60
• Created

Posted Images

I don't see any good reason for welcoming a new member inthis way so I am adding a reversal to the negative vote.

That does not mean in any way that I agree with kba's proposition.

21 minutes ago, kba said:

For examle, if gravity of Sun on the Earth orbit will change with factor 2, the size of Earth's gravity system enlages by factor 1/2. The gravity correlate with orbit as function of 1/R^2. Therefore the gravity value on the planet's surface changes with factor 1/2^2 or 1/4.

If is a very very big word.

Why should the gravity of the Sun have changed significantly, or indeed at all ?

Where is the evidence supporting this.

(Talk to a moderator and ask to split this off)

In suggesting this I am doing you the service of assuming you are amenable to rational discussion.

You will need to take into account that any change in gravity will have affected many things, not only the dinosaurs.
All of these things will have left an evidential trail.
And we have found no such evidence to date.
In fact proper evidence of the most probable sequence of events was released earlier this year from the Dakota dig and 15 year investigation.

Share on other sites

18 hours ago, studiot said:

Why should the gravity of the Sun have changed significantly, or indeed at all ?

Actually, the gravity of the Sun depends on distance from one.
I used the Sun's gravity to demonstate relativity of gravity. If I just say that Earth changed its orbit, and it caused the change its gravity noboby understand - how and why?

Above I listed 3 ways to change gravity of the Sun on Earth's orbit.

1) By changing Earth's orbit.
2) By dropping cover of the Sun during very big flash.
3) By changing external gravity (of the Galaxy).

Third scenario also uses hypothetical relativity of gravity. I prefer first one, because it explains the non-inversible climate's change on the Earth during last 65 mln years. But how it is possible - to increase Earth's orbit - I don't know. Probably by means of impact?

Only evidence for the gravity changes - are giant dinosaurs (and other giantic animals and plants), and their total extiction.

18 hours ago, studiot said:

I just meant to engage topicstarter's attention to my theory to participate discussion as like-minded person on dinosaurs' extinction causes.
But I'm ready to start new discussion.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kba said:

I just meant to engage topicstarter's attention to my theory to participate discussion as like-minded person on dinosaurs' extinction causes.
But I'm ready to start new discussion.

Topic goes back to 2011...

Share on other sites

23 hours ago, kba said:

I have hypothesis that gravity of planets has a relativity to solar gravity.

!

Moderator Note

Please provide a model and supporting evidence.

Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 4:13 PM, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Please provide a model and supporting evidence.

I'm not sure exactly what do you mean I have to provide as model - formulas or how it works.

I can represent relativity of gravity in 3 different ways:

1) By classic, I think we can imagine the gravitational field as some kind of substance. The Sun generates its volume of such substanse with gradient of density, Any planet of the Solar system generates its own too. When this planet (asteroid of comet) comes closer to the Sun its gravitational filed (which we imagine as a substanse) dissolve in the Sun's one, and its strength gets weaker for bodies placed near to it.

2) By space-time effects it looks like the strength of gravity force depends on a run of time. When planet comes closer to the Sun the time for it runs slower and slower and planet's gravity acts to near bodies as visually "weakering and weakering" force.

3) By geometry, gravity of Sun and Earth can be represented as their gravity systems. (see fig.1) The planet's gravity systems are placed inside the Solar gravity system.

The cone of proportionality demostrates us the border where gravitational acceleration to the Sun and to the planet, calculated by Neuton law, are equal. Therefore, the result acceleration is zero. If we accept that superposition of gravities on this border is zero and in the center of planet it have some constant value (aka gravity potential) while the total gravity function has simple form with only factor (supposably G) then the gravity on the same distance from the planet (e.g. on its surface) on the different orbit of planet should get different resulting value.

Only evidence I can provide for relative changing of gravity I can see above. It's a comets' tale which change its length while comet change its distance from the Sun.

As you can see, the relativity of Gravity isn't known and it doesn't considered in Neuton's Mechanics and in the General relativity. But if it have place, IMHO it could explaint dinosaurs' extiction by changing of Earth's gravity.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

I think you're trying to bite off much more than you can chew with the tools at hand here.

Extinction phenomena are too complex for a simple idea coming from fundamental physics to do anything useful for us in the way of an explanatory mechanism.

As to the physics, here's a rough list of some "concepts" you've sported here that are non-standard and demand a clear unambiguous definition in terms of things that can be measured:

Proportionality cone

Local gravity system

Total gravity function

Relativity of gravity (relativity with respect to what?)

(The list is not meant to be complete.)

If you cared to provide more details about those, maybe I and/or others would be able to provide more information about how your idea is probably wrong. As it stands, I can only tell you there's almost a 100 % chance that it's wrong.

Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kba said:

I'm not sure exactly what do you mean I have to provide as model - formulas or how it works.

Formulas, which allow for specific predictions. Explaining how it works is a start, but you need more detail.

4 hours ago, kba said:

I can represent relativity of gravity in 3 different ways:

1) By classic, I think we can imagine the gravitational field as some kind of substance. The Sun generates its volume of such substanse with gradient of density, Any planet of the Solar system generates its own too. When this planet (asteroid of comet) comes closer to the Sun its gravitational filed (which we imagine as a substanse) dissolve in the Sun's one, and its strength gets weaker for bodies placed near to it.

What are the details of how this substance gets from the sun to a planet? What happens when a body blocks the sun, or otherwise interrupts the flow of this substance?

4 hours ago, kba said:

2) By space-time effects it looks like the strength of gravity force depends on a run of time. When planet comes closer to the Sun the time for it runs slower and slower and planet's gravity acts to near bodies as visually "weakering and weakering" force.

We've done experiments on how time changes owing to gravitational effects. Can you come up with the same formula based on this approach?

4 hours ago, kba said:

3) By geometry, gravity of Sun and Earth can be represented as their gravity systems. (see fig.1) The planet's gravity systems are placed inside the Solar gravity system.

The cone of proportionality demostrates us the border where gravitational acceleration to the Sun and to the planet, calculated by Neuton law, are equal. Therefore, the result acceleration is zero. If we accept that superposition of gravities on this border is zero and in the center of planet it have some constant value (aka gravity potential) while the total gravity function has simple form with only factor (supposably G) then the gravity on the same distance from the planet (e.g. on its surface) on the different orbit of planet should get different resulting value.

This is unclear to me. It suggests that gravity of a planet/body only depends on its distance from the sun

4 hours ago, kba said:

Only evidence I can provide for relative changing of gravity I can see above. It's a comets' tale which change its length while comet change its distance from the Sun.

Which is no evidence, since that's already explained by mainstream science.

4 hours ago, kba said:

As you can see, the relativity of Gravity isn't known and it doesn't considered in Neuton's Mechanics and in the General relativity. But if it have place, IMHO it could explaint dinosaurs' extiction by changing of Earth's gravity.

You're getting way ahead of yourself. You can't explain anything without the underlying hypothesis being demonstrated.

You have three different explanations here. Are they compatible with each other, or are you just using a shotgun approach, hoping that something in here is on target?

Share on other sites

3 hours ago, joigus said:

If you cared to provide more details about those, maybe I and/or others would be able to provide more information about how your idea is probably wrong. As it stands, I can only tell you there's almost a 100 % chance that it's wrong.

Thanks for you opinion. I know many reasons why my hypothesis cannot be admited by scientists.

Anyway it can explain many evidences by simple idea.
Increased volcano and tectonic activity and floods, highest transgression in the Earth's history, climate change, appearences of bony fishes, flowers, extinction of all giants, moving whales' and dolphins' ancestors to sea, etc. All these numerous things was happened together about 65 mln. years. As I see, no any other idea except of gravity change can combine them all.

And I only have found the (probably possible) way for changing gravity significally withous changing mass.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, kba said:

I know many reasons why my hypothesis cannot be admited by scientists.

"It's wrong" is the one that matters. All else is theatre

Quote

Increased volcano and tectonic activity and floods, highest transgression in the Earth's history, climate change, appearences of bony fishes, flowers, extinction of all giants, moving whales' and dolphins' ancestors to sea, etc. All these numerous things was happened together about 65 mln. years. As I see, no any other idea except of gravity change can combine them all.

As you see. But this requires expertise in geology and biology as well as physics. Are you, in fact, and expert in all of these fields? Or is it possible that you simply aren't aware of the mainstream science that accounts for each of these?

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Which is no evidence, since that's already explained by mainstream science.

The Gravitation was explained few times. And General relativity as I see, isn't final explanation?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can't explain anything without the underlying hypothesis being demonstrated.

The main hypothesis is that the gravity on the planets surface depends on external gravity of parent star. When the planet changes its orbit, the gravity on its surface changes too.

The factor of gravity changes I demonstrated above k=R^2. Where R - radius of planet's orbit. It works for planets only inside Sun's gravity system. Outside we must consider only Galaxy's gravity.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We've done experiments on how time changes owing to gravitational effects. Can you come up with the same formula based on this approach?

In that example I just imagine how time changes can correlate between with gravity of planets. I just suggest that it so.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What are the details of how this substance gets from the sun to a planet? What happens when a body blocks the sun, or otherwise interrupts the flow of this substance?

The gravity isn't a substance containing particles. But to represent gravitation relativity I should to use the term of dension to demonstrate its gradient. I can change the substance term to lines of fields (like electomagnetic ones). They do not interact with each other, but density of such lines correlate with gravity (aka space-time in General relativity). Thus, no flows, no particles in such substance. It is not an ether theory. It is just a correction to Neuton's law for the complex gravitational system, where body placed in the planets' gravity which already placed to solar's one.

Probably the red shift in the light spectrum of far galaxies also could be explained as gravitation's relativity (as its additional evidence).

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

Or is it possible that you simply aren't aware of the mainstream science that accounts for each of these

Mainstream isn't constant thing. What do you name "mainstream" - asteroid impact or Deccan Traps?

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

I don't get the point you are trying to make here. While the nature and mechanism of gravity is still to be nailed down, the modelling of it's effects is nailed down to a phenomenal degree of accuracy, so that the future course that asteroids take can be predicted to within very fine tolerances.

The existence or not of a graviton particle doesn't change that, nor does the current lack of a theory combining general relativity with quantum physics.

So there's no mystery concerning the effects of gravity on the surface of bodies, or how to model a gravitational field. None that I'm aware of anyway.

Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kba said:

The main hypothesis is that the gravity on the planets surface depends on external gravity of parent star. When the planet changes its orbit, the gravity on its surface changes too.

That's one equation you need to show; the gravity on the moon is not the same as on earth. The trend of gravity varying from one planet to another is not obvious, other than being proportional to its mass.

If you can't show this, then the notion of it varying is moot.

Quote

The gravity isn't a substance containing particles.

Telling us what it isn't, isn't particularly helpful. Especially when "substance" typically means it is made of particles. Is there any other substance that isn't?

Quote

Thus, no flows, no particles in such substance. It is not an ether theory. It is just a correction to Neuton's law for the complex gravitational system, where body placed in the planets' gravity which already placed to solar's one.

So it's 1/r^2, which is what Newton's law already says. And Newtonian gravity explains almost all of what we observe (GR explains the small deviations from Newtonian gravity). So what does your conjecture bring to the table? If this is a correction, you should be able to point to phenomena that don't fit with Newtonian gravity.

Quote

Mainstream isn't constant thing. What do you name "mainstream" - asteroid impact or Deccan Traps?

Same comment as above - what about these are unexplained, and how exactly (i.e. not hand-waving) does your idea fix this?

This all seems consistent with the fallacy of personal incredulity - that because you don't understand something, nobody does.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Telling us what it isn't, isn't particularly helpful. Especially when "substance" typically means it is made of particles. Is there any other substance that isn't?

In the language I speak the "substance" term which came from English without translation, defines something continuous without defining is it contains particles or not.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So it's 1/r^2, which is what Newton's law already says.

k=R^2. Newton's factor 1/r^2 is for own gravity on the distance from central mass of own gravitational system. But my R in the equation of gravity is a distance from central mass of external system (Sun).

F=[k1/k2•G]•M•m/r^2. Where, k1 is for R1, k2 for R2.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Same comment as above - what about these are unexplained, and how exactly (i.e. not hand-waving) does your idea fix this?

My idea explains how it is possible for sauropods reach to 100tn of mass (not 1kN of weight!), 13 m of height without 1,5bar of blood pressure, and for ptherosaurs reach 12 m of wing sizes and 200 kg of mass and be able to rise up and for active flying.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kba said:

Thanks for you opinion. I know many reasons why my hypothesis cannot be admited by scientists.

Anyway it can explain many evidences by simple idea.
Increased volcano and tectonic activity and floods, highest transgression in the Earth's history, climate change, appearences of bony fishes, flowers, extinction of all giants, moving whales' and dolphins' ancestors to sea, etc. All these numerous things was happened together about 65 mln. years. As I see, no any other idea except of gravity change can combine them all.

And I only have found the (probably possible) way for changing gravity significally withous changing mass.

What I said is not my opinion; it's my informed opinion.

I'm sorry, you're not making any sense at all to me. Let alone check with experimental data and known standard scientific theories.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kba said:

k=R^2. Newton's factor 1/r^2 is for own gravity on the distance from central mass of own gravitational system. But my R in the equation of gravity is a distance from central mass of external system (Sun).

F=[k1/k2•G]•M•m/r^2. Where, k1 is for R1, k2 for R2.

What are the values of k1 and k2? How are they determined?

How would you determine the force the sun exerts on the earth, and on the moon?

1 hour ago, kba said:

My idea explains how it is possible for sauropods reach to 100tn of mass (not 1kN of weight!), 13 m of height without 1,5bar of blood pressure, and for ptherosaurs reach 12 m of wing sizes and 200 kg of mass and be able to rise up and for active flying.

Neither of these are asteroid impact or Deccan Traps. If you would answer questions instead of moving the goalposts, this might go better.

Share on other sites

Any change in the arth's orbit, even a doubling of the orbital radius, would have minimal effect on the surface gravity of the Earth.

The changes in climate, however would be catastrophic for life.
And the mechanism for increasing the orbital radius, whether by impact or other means, would be even more catastrophic.

Have you heard of Occam's razor or the KISS principle ?

Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kba said:

I know many reasons why my hypothesis cannot be admited by scientists.

Can you please tell me what a few of them are? I truly am curious.

Share on other sites

• 3 weeks later...
On 7/7/2022 at 9:12 PM, MigL said:

Any change in the arth's orbit, even a doubling of the orbital radius, would have minimal effect on the surface gravity of the Earth.

Where the proofs?

I didn't checked that. Did you?

I have found theoretical possibility for relativity of gravity.

If the time in the test space-time volume will get much slower (e.g. near to Black Hole) then how we should consider the physical laws there? The quantity of matter remain constant, but speeds of actions will decrease, or in other words the time spends for them will grow.

The space-time looks like a liquid with tension which slowers any actions, including Gravity. Nearer to Sun - stronger tension of space-time (and slower own gravity of bodies).

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kba said:

If the time in the test space-time volume will get much slower

It doesn’t. What happens is that the relationship in spacetime between clocks nearer to the black hole and reference clocks far away changes. Time dilation is a relationship between frames, not something that happens locally.

30 minutes ago, kba said:

then how we should consider the physical laws there?

They are the exact same as everywhere else in the universe, because nothing changes locally. This is why all classical laws of physics can be written in a form that remains the same irrespective of the geometry of the underlying spacetime.

Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It doesn’t.

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

They are the exact same as everywhere else in the universe, because nothing changes locally

Ok, basic principles do not change. But what about conditions? Can you say that nothing changes for Earth on different orbits? I can't.

And I found why.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kba said:

Can you say that nothing changes for Earth on different orbits?

The amount of sunlight the Earth receives will vary if you vary the orbit, which would of course have an impact. Exactly what those impacts are in detail is a question better asked to someone dealing with the Earth sciences (not my area of expertise).

Share on other sites

On 7/24/2022 at 3:01 AM, kba said:

Where the proofs?

There are a number of experiments that confirm that our understanding of gravity is correct, to the level of precision it can be tested.

On 7/24/2022 at 3:01 AM, kba said:

I didn't checked that. Did you?

I have found theoretical possibility for relativity of gravity.

If the time in the test space-time volume will get much slower (e.g. near to Black Hole) then how we should consider the physical laws there? The quantity of matter remain constant, but speeds of actions will decrease, or in other words the time spends for them will grow.

The space-time looks like a liquid with tension which slowers any actions, including Gravity. Nearer to Sun - stronger tension of space-time (and slower own gravity of bodies).

If this is contrary to general relativity, then why does the theory work so well? If it's not, then what does your idea bring to the table?

Share on other sites

10 hours ago, swansont said:

our understanding of gravity

How do you understand the gravity?

Could you answer, why an electromagnetic field (which represented inside particles as mass) in its "free form" (outside of particles) doesn't generate the gravity?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

what does your idea bring to the table?

Accordingly to a subject of this thread it "bring to the table" many answers to paleobiological and geophysical questions.

I'm sure that many specialists in paleo- and geo- sciences would like to correlate many known evidencies with changes of the Earth's gravity.

Edited by kba
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kba said:

How do you understand the gravity?

Could you answer, why an electromagnetic field (which represented inside particles as mass) in its "free form" (outside of particles) doesn't generate the gravity?

Even if I could understand what you mean by 'electromagnetic field represented inside particles as mass', I don't need to answer why a 'free-form' electromagnatic field doesn't generate gravity.
Because it DOES !

Create an account

Register a new account

×
×
• Create New...