sphere theory,a new theory on gravity

[tar]

Olvin,

 

Still see some geometrical issues with your model.

 

One, spheres aligned in the manner you describe are not close packed. You could take a whole layer, and shift it as one, into the "holes" provided by the layer beneath. THEN you would be close packed, but you would have the arrangement I took the pictures of, with each sphere surrounded by 12 others. You have to determine if such an arrangement can spin.

 

Two, the arrangement you show has all the spheres spinning so their equators are on the same plane, for each "layer", and the north and south poles touching the south poles of the layer above and the north poles of the layer below. Thus NO spin is imparted or felt up or down, only left and right and back and forth.

This would mean, if your model was true, that gravity would have the same directional components to it, and masses would slow down the spin of the constons to the left and right, and back and forth from it, but have little to no effect on the constons above and below it. We would observe a directionality (perpendicular to the described equatoral planes) to gravity, that we do not observe. Two dimensional layers, stacked to form three dimensional "space" would give themselves away to us. We would already realize that that was the way things worked. Since gravity does not appear to work that way, the model needs further modification.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Daedalus]

Olvin,

I never got to see your original documents. I will read through the one you posted, so I can understand what you are describing.

[olvin dsouza]

Olvin,

 

Still see some geometrical issues with your model.

 

One, spheres aligned in the manner you describe are not close packed. You could take a whole layer, and shift it as one, into the "holes" provided by the layer beneath. THEN you would be close packed, but you would have the arrangement I took the pictures of, with each sphere surrounded by 12 others. You have to determine if such an arrangement can spin.

 

Two, the arrangement you show has all the spheres spinning so their equators are on the same plane, for each "layer", and the north and south poles touching the south poles of the layer above and the north poles of the layer below. Thus NO spin is imparted or felt up or down, only left and right and back and forth.

This would mean, if your model was true, that gravity would have the same directional components to it, and masses would slow down the spin of the constons to the left and right, and back and forth from it, but have little to no effect on the constons above and below it. We would observe a directionality (perpendicular to the described equatoral planes) to gravity, that we do not observe. Two dimensional layers, stacked to form three dimensional "space" would give themselves away to us. We would already realize that that was the way things worked. Since gravity does not appear to work that way, the model needs further modification.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

It is not necessary that all the spheres should be so closed packed that there would be no gap in between them, gap is required is so that mass sphere would be placed . it doesn't require that all each sphere should get attached by all the neighboring spheres from all the sides. if attachment is there even on one of the side then that will do.

We have to consider one thing that the mass should imediately put the disturbance on all the spheres to reduce their speed, this could happen only if the spheres are atttach to gether on any of the sides if the spheres are not attach say they are seperate from each other having a distance then there would be no disturbance in spheres since they are not touch to gether.

My diagram shows that all spheres are attach from each other from any of the side so that disturbance produce by the mass would effect on each other.in short if spheres are attach to gether,the disturbance produce by mass would flow on all the spheres scince they are attach. if no attach means no flow of disturbance.

so attachment is necessary

Even my dig shows they are dense pack,like a solid state.not like gas state.if they where like a gas state then all spheres would have been far away from each other just as the gas state shows how matter is far away from each other.

 

As per my dig arrangement of spheres is in from all three dimension of space and the mass puts disturbance to reduce the speed from all the sides. from up & down, back & forth, left & right.

 

I belive that modification is required but right now we have to look that is this theory is realy a truth. so i wish that you could study the theory in detail if possible you could approach your colleagues physicist and show them about the theory.

 

Not with one but with together it is possible.

 

What advantages does your hypothesis offer over current conventional theories?

How would you go about falsifying it?

 

There is nothing to falsify any of the theory. what is false will stay falsewhet is truth will stay truth

Show me any theory that has the full explanation about gravity?

There no theory only one theory would be correct out of all.

We have to find that

we don't have to sit back and try to find which is false

but we have to find which one is original.

i wish you could go through the sphere theory and help me to find whether my theory is true or not.together we can find but alone we cannot.

[rigney]

olvine's sphere theory.docsphere theory mass proportion.dochi this olvin

look out at this theory that explains gravity a push force

it discribes an un seen particle out in space

 

 

Introduction

 

Space as we called it empty, is not empty, it’s full of conston( graviton particle).

 

Conston might could be a particle having spherical shape .but un seen

 

It could have diameter smaller than quarks.

 

It spins in its own axis.

 

They are un bond but are in touch with each other just like the solid states of matter are close to each other.

 

They all spins together

 

This theory gives

 

 

 

 

 

The challenge of this theory is to prove that gravity is a PUSH FORCE BY UN SEEN PARTICLE

 

 

 

 

 

Olvin, no offense meant; but what is a "graviton particle"? As of this very moment we can do little other than speculate and theorize gravity itself. Edited July 20, 2011 by rigney

[olvin dsouza]

Hi to every one,

No one knows how the virtual plane effect take place out in the astronomical space

where all the astro body orbits in the given virtual plane. there are many theory

that trying to explain the gravity at astronomical scale,about the atoms at subatomic scale

but there is no standard model that could explain the plane effect in perfect way.

reason, only that theory, the correct theory could xeplain this little wonder &phenomenal effect.

 

My theory(sphere theory) trys to explain such phenomenal effect in a purely machanical way.

see attachment.plane effect sphere theory.doc

[olvin dsouza]

There has been some correction made.

 

As explained in the plane effect theory(attachment)

note that the force is created from all three dimension of space

but mass experience the force only from one dimension i.e up&down

forces from other two dimension is cancelled out due to gravity force.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Merged again. Don't start any new threads on this subject. Post additional comments here

[tar]

Olvin,

 

Relaytons?

 

I read through your amended considerations. You "added' this particle to your model. I was having trouble with the "constan" arrangement. I don't know where to "put" these newly imagined particles within the "constan" arrangement. In fact, I did not know where to "put" mass in the "constan" arrangement.

 

Does mass displace constans in any given space (made up of these constans)? Or do the constans continue to exists, touching each other, thoughout the mass (which would tend to "push apart" the mass, if that where to be indeed what constans did to mass). In either case there seems to be a problem, because we have to wind up with reality, if the explanation is to be of it. And what particles is this mass made up of?

 

Relaytons smell like epicycles to me.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

By the way, I am not a physicist, just a layman, that "uses" the facts about the universe that physicist have discovered. I do not think that physicists would have any reason yet, to "look at" your theory, team together and study its implications and so on, because it is not complete, not consistent, and does not "explain" anything that isn't already being looked at and is not already, in great detail, described and studied and agreed upon, to be true. It is not anybody elses job to repair your model, but yours.

 

Remember, a physicist has no way to test your model in your mind. They can only test it where you tell them to look for it in reality. But first you have to find it there. Reality is not required to fit your model. Your model is required to fit reality.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Ophiolite]

I believe your "by the way" comments are an elegant and accurate assessment of the situation. They could usefully be copy and pasted into a hundred or more threads on the forum. Unfortunately the forum system only allows me to give the post a single + vote, so you'll have to make do with that and this smiley.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

Thank you for your comment. It made me feel like I made a small contribution to the effort.

 

"By the way" my comment to Olvin, was also addressed to me. Too often I am in such a hurry to share an insight that I have had about the world, that I forget that other people, (in most if not all cases) have already had the insight, already shared the insight, and already "checked" it out against reality to see if it "holds" against it. If it does it is retained and new insights are built upon it. If it doesn't it is discarded.

 

What is difficult to know is "if" others have had an insight of yours. Even though the probability is that it has already been had, and most likely been had yesterday, last year, 20 years ago, hundreds or thousands of years ago, it still feels good to have a "new" (to you) insight, and the impulse to share it is strong.

 

Incumbent upon anybody therefore is to share your "new" insights with the world, but understand that, if true, they are most likely held by somebody already, and the sharing is a "teaching" about the world.

If "not true" they are an indication that you have something more to learn, and need to increase your knowledge, not only of the world, but of what others collectively have already determined about it.

 

Incumbent upon everybody is to know that the world is already true. Its ALWAYS our model of it that has room for additions and corrections.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited July 25, 2011 by tar

[tar]

Olvin,

 

I was wondering however, if something about what you are saying might be sensible. For instance, although there are galaxies of all different shapes, there do seem to be a number that are like the MilkyWay, sort of "flattened" out, with a bulge in the middle. And the voids of space, with strands of galaxies around them, sort of like the galaxies being the soap and water and the voids being the air in a bucket of suds. And the picture I remember of a simulated black hole, with high energy particles shooting out, top and bottom.

 

Not "agreeing" with your model. Just offering suggestions as to what I meant by "showing physicists where to look". Show how it explains something, that can be observed. (In all cases.)

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited July 26, 2011 by tar