JCJ Barnard Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I have my own theory how it’s created and how it works.The speed of an electron in an atom is key.Due to the field between the proton(s) and electron(s) in combination with the immense speed of the electron, it creates vortexes within its atom.These vortexes are expelled from the atom in any and every direction probably at about the speed of light.When a gravity vortex pass threw another atom the field between the proton(s) and electron(s) of that atom gets distorted a little.The best way to describe the distortion is to compare the gravity vortex with a tornado. A tornado sucks in air one side and expel it the other. The gravity vortex does the same with the field.This tiny distortion makes the atom shift the parts of the atom a little bit in the direction where the gravity vortex came fromNo speed is gained or lost of the gravity vortex when it passes threw the atom. I have no experience in science, for me it’s a kinda hobby. So be kind to me and don’t be too cruel in your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How do you explain gravity when the temperature was too hot to allow atoms to form. Say prior to the CMB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Or that gravity will affect the path of light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCJ Barnard Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 CMB as in the BigBang Cosmic Microwave Background?If so, I’m a strong NOT believer of the Big bang theory.In my view is a too easy solution to explain the un-explainable. “Or that gravity will affect the path of light?” No, don’t think so, maybe in extreme cases (extreme like black holes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If so, I’m a strong NOT believer of the Big bang theory. In my view is a too easy solution to explain the un-explainable. Perhaps you could show what is wrong with General Relativity, or specifically the FLRW metric? And explain the observed red-shift distance relationship? And the existence and spectrum of the CMB? And the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCJ Barnard Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) General Relativity? Ohw, I’m not going to argue with Einstein’s theory expect for one thing. Its not complete, it does give us many wonderful things but does not explain everything its missing something still.“The red-shift distance relationship” as I understand it has to do with light, not gravityEverything radiates something so CMB can have lots of causes. 1 atom not so much, a lot of atoms like the sun… very much, Black hole ……For all I know the CMB can be a distant second universe“And the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe?” don’t see what that has to do with my theory. Edited January 14, 2015 by JCJ Barnard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. Please review and follow the guidelines. Thus far I'm not seeing much in the way of predictions/falsifiability and no actual model. If you have anything along those lines, post them sooner rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 You evidently never heard of gravitational redshift. Gravity affects the light paths. You need to show how your model does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 General Relativity? Ohw, I’m not going to argue with Einstein’s theory expect for one thing. Its not complete, it does give us many wonderful things but does not explain everything its missing something still. Maybe. But it provides a very accurate model for both gravity and the expanding universe. All its predictions of the big bang have been confirmed (which is why the theory is accepted). “The red-shift distance relationship” as I understand it has to do with light, not gravity This has to do with the expansion of space as described by the big bang model (and predicted by GR). Everything radiates something so CMB can have lots of causes. 1 atom not so much, a lot of atoms like the sun… very much, Black hole ……For all I know the CMB can be a distant second universe 1. No other explanation has been able to explain the near-perfect black body spectrum or the temperature of the CMB. 2. It was exactly predicted by GR and the big bang model. (It was the conclusive bit of evidence that killed the staedy state models.) “And the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe?” don’t see what that has to do with my theory. Your theory needs to explain ALL the evidence, not just the bits you want it to. The big bang model predicts the quantities and hydrogen and helium in the universe. Another reason the theory is accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 CMB as in the BigBang Cosmic Microwave Background? If so, I’m a strong NOT believer of the Big bang theory. In my view is a too easy solution to explain the un-explainable. That sounds terribly like an argument from ignorance - ie "I have not spent the time to really understand the argument or the implications - but my gut instinct says no" - and they are pretty worthless on a science site. But regardless of that - gravity affects the sort of disassociated plasma which formed the universe before the era of last scattering and forms the basis of most stars. how does you idea cope with this? Guy - and I realise this is my fault to an extent - let's concentrate on the gravity idea and the ramifications rather than the argument with Big Bang Theory. If JCJB wants to speculate on that he can do so in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 ! Moderator Note Discussion between xyzt and michel split off to the trash. We have had numerous discussion on the treatment of non-mainstream science and we just don't need another one in this thread. I have already said mea culpa for going there and I understand both points of view but let's keep the discussion to the topic of a new idea of gravity. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) The speed of an electron in an atom is key... ... in combination with the immense speed of the electron, ... The "speed" of the electron is not well-defined in atoms because they are not in eigenstates of the velocity operator. The best you can really do is an order-of-magnitude calculation: [math]\frac{mv^2}{2} \sim \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r}[/math] [math]mv \sim \hbar / r[/math] so: [math]v \sim \frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c} \, c = \alpha c \approx \frac{c}{137}[/math] This is not a very large fraction of the speed of light. I.e. electrons do not really have "immense speed" in atoms, which is why non-relativistic quantum mechanics works so well. Due to the field between the proton(s) and electron(s) in combination with the immense speed of the electron, it creates vortexes within its atom. What field? What do you mean by "vortexes (sic)"? These vortexes are expelled from the atom in any and every direction probably at about the speed of light. What do you mean by "probably"? That sounds very vague. Vague theories are not scientific. When a gravity vortex pass threw another atom the field between the proton(s) and electron(s) of that atom gets distorted a little. The best way to describe the distortion is to compare the gravity vortex with a tornado. A tornado sucks in air one side and expel it the other. The gravity vortex does the same with the field. This tiny distortion makes the atom shift the parts of the atom a little bit in the direction where the gravity vortex came from No speed is gained or lost of the gravity vortex when it passes threw the atom. This is all rather vague as well. It's hard to comment on "theories" which are not well-defined or precise. This is why math is important. If so, I’m a strong NOT believer of the Big bang theory. In my view is a too easy solution to explain the un-explainable. Beliefs should be based on evidence. Apparently you don't agree? I can't argue with someone who does not take seriously the scientific method. “Or that gravity will affect the path of light?” No, don’t think so, maybe in extreme cases (extreme like black holes) Except we know for a fact that it does. This was demonstrated in 1919 with the original Eddington experiment to test General Relativity. Edited January 14, 2015 by elfmotat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 ! Moderator Note Posts by Banshii and JustinW have been moved to the trash. Using some elese's thread to promote your own pet theory is hijacking. You may bring up such discussion in a thread that you have introduced, but limit it to that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 “Or that gravity will affect the path of light?” No, don’t think so, maybe in extreme cases (extreme like black holes) light will fall to earth at the same rate as any thing else.(9.81m/s^2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now