Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fred Champion

Push gravity (split from how gravity is created)

Recommended Posts

...

When Newton said apple is pulled down to earth it is simply assumption only. In my view apple is not

being pulled down but pushed down towards earth. This is the basic theory.

...

If we know what exactly gravity is, we can start thinking in this angle and methods of overcoming it.

...

psreddy.

Well now, at the risk of some criticism I will say that I agree with the above statements except for the bit about Newton making only an assumption; his idea was indeed based on observation.

 

I suggest to you that the only force we know and can explain really well is the "push" caused by one object attempting to displace another. It seams reasonable to me that both magnetism and gravity may be the manifestation of some sort of "push". The magnetic field especially seems to indicate a "pump" at the center of the magnet with a flow emitted at one pole and reentering at the other.

 

In the gravitational field "flow" appears to be in one direction only. I suggest that it may not be exactly so. It could be that the net effect is one directional but that there is bidirectional flow. We know gravity is a weak force. That weakness may be the result of bidirectional flow, perhaps a wide or general flow in and a narrow or focused flow outward with the focused flow impacting objects only momentarily and not always "head on".

 

Fodder for your fertile imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Push gravity has been considered oon and off for centuries. It is pretty much impossible to make it reproduce Newtonian gravity, never mind the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing that suggested the idea of gravity as a flow to me was when I watched an automatic swimming pool cleaner do its thing. It was connected to a small hose and powered by water pressure. It sucked in water and debris all around its perimeter at low velocity and moved about by emitting a higher speed very narrow stream offset just a bit from the hose connection. It wandered around the pool in an apparently random pattern.

 

If you will, imagine a number of these things in the pool at the same time. I think it possible that the low pressure area around each unit could cause them to tend to clump together as they came close to one another. If this clumping were to happen I expect the faster narrow streams could cause individual units, or even groups of units, to rotate and probably some random motion in the clump preventing a static state.

 

The second thing that suggested this idea was a picture of a black hole. It showed what appeared to be a very narrow stream of something being emitted from both poles. As i remember it, one explanation for the streams was that the black hole had reached some particular or critical size and/or couldn't continue to absorb material at the rate the material was presented. I don't remember whether this was thought to be a transient condition.

 

I have had some experience with pumps and fans of various types. The lines shown by iron filings in a magnetic field show exactly what one would expect for the field generated by pumping a fluid or a gas in an otherwise static environment.

 

The push, or displacement, seems to be the only force we understand well. I just don't see an objection, other than the source of the energy, to gravity and magnetism (and perhaps other forces) being manifestations of displacement. In fact the thing that gets our attention with both gravity and magnetism is displacement and/or the potential for displacement. This connection seems way too obvious to be ignored.

 

Happy New Year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two separate things here. Firstly, there are coordinate systems where gravity can be visualised as "flowing". For example, the Gullstrand-Painlevé description of a black hole: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

 

The second thing is the jets generated by a black hole. It is important to realise that these are generated outside the black hole and are driven by the infalling matter and the intense electrical and magnetic fields around the rotating black hole (or other dense object). I don't think the mechanisms are full understood yet. I don't know if it makes sense to compare this with any type of pump (a railgun might be a better analogy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet

 

 

The push, or displacement, seems to be the only force we understand well.

 

Well, we understand electric (and therefore magnetic) forces pretty well. This includes attraction (pull) and repulsion (push) on an equal basis. And your intuitive understanding of push, is entirely the result of electrostatic forces. (I don't think you can push hard enough for Pauli exclusion to become a factor!)

 

And I would say gravity is pretty well understood, even though we don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. Very interesting. My thoughts are not based on advanced study of physics. I just can't get interested in a an activity where I don't accept the basic premises.

 

I believe time is an artifact of memory, not a real thing. All the fancy math doesn't show me any evidence of a physical existence of time. Therefore, theories and "proofs" which are dependent upon acceptance of a connection to time don't interest me. I believe what Einstein was really saying was that no object and be seen moving faster than the speed of light. This is not the same thing as saying that no object can move faster than the speed of light.

 

I believe space is a thing, or rather a volume filled with things. I expect there is a smallest unit of some sort of stuff which can be something. I could accept that this smallest unit is a unit of space. I expect that everything we experience is a manifestation of the motion of these units of space or larger constructs formed by groups of those units moving together. Tornadoes are made of air.

 

The most interesting part about the jets at black holes is that both jets direct material away from the black hole. If this were some sort of pumping action similar to what I expect for magnetism then there should not be two outflows. Something different is happening, and I don't accept any sort of "other universe" theme. I have been interested in gyroscopes for most of my life. Very strange behavior and not particularly well explained either.

 

The notion of light as a particle is nuts to me. I accept it as a wave moving through the stuff of space. The notion that light could be produced inside a black hole doesn't seem right. If we accept the tearing apart of things entering a black hole wouldn't there be a point at which the dis-assembly was so complete that there would be no object capable of producing light? And of course, if the space stuff were being dragged into the black hole, that might prevent light from moving away. At the very least, wouldn't we see some sort of distortion?

 

-----

I don't think we do understand the mechanism of producing the electric force or magnetism. Sure we can produce electricity, but do we understand what makes a chunk of iron with many of its atoms aligned in a particular way behave as a magnet? There must be something at the molecular level, or lower, happening.

 

 

That's enough of speculations for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. Very interesting. My thoughts are not based on advanced study of physics. I just can't get interested in a an activity where I don't accept the basic premises.

 

The "basic premises" are observational and experimental data. The trouble with people who are too lazy to learn and therefore prefer to make stuff up (with the excuse that they are "free" from dogma or some such nonsense) is that their ideas are therefore divorced from reality.

 

All the fancy math doesn't show me any evidence of a physical existence of time.

 

Cause and effect (e.g. the sequence of posts and their responses in this thread) and the fact we can objectively measure time (e.g. the datestamps on those posts) demonstrate that you are wrong.

 

 

I believe what Einstein was really saying was that no object and be seen moving faster than the speed of light. This is not the same thing as saying that no object can move faster than the speed of light.

 

What you believe is hardly relevant. Especially when it is based on such gross ignorance. Or perhaps you would like to reformulate Einstein's Field Equations without time.

 

 

If this were some sort of pumping action similar to what I expect for magnetism then there should not be two outflows.

 

Please show the mathematics that allowed to to conclude this.

 

 

I have been interested in gyroscopes for most of my life. Very strange behavior and not particularly well explained either.

 

They are perfectly well explained.

 

 

The notion of light as a particle is nuts to me.

 

Why would anyone care?

 

 

That's enough of speculations for now.

 

Enough of your display of wilful ignorance, you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe time is an artifact of memory, not a real thing. All the fancy math doesn't show me any evidence of a physical existence of time.

I always find this idea to be very odd. How is it a artifact of memory (your, mine, anyone's) that Strange's reply can some time after this post, and my reply comes some time after both of them?

 

If time was not real, why not all simultaneously?

 

Here's another... if you boil a kettle for a cup of tea or coffee, and then let it sit out, after some _time_ it isn't as hot anymore. How is that just an 'artifact of memory'? If time wasn't real that cup would be hot, cold, all at the same time.

 

If there is no time, then you need to fix an awful lot of what we understand about the world.

 

All that said, it would be nice if the bank forgot about time on that new mortgage I just closed on. Do you think they will accept that 'monthly' payments are just an 'artifact of memory'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's enough of speculations for now.

!

Moderator Note

What you're presenting does not rise to what we call speculation, as outlined here. If you aren't up to a discussion at that level, then this will be closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always find this idea to be very odd. How is it a artifact of memory (your, mine, anyone's) that Strange's reply can some time after this post, and my reply comes some time after both of them?

 

If time was not real, why not all simultaneously?

...

We accept records of all kinds just as we accept our own memories. We seem to accept some records and "make sense" of them more readily than others. The time stamps on these posts make sense to us and give us the impression of the passage of time. Note that a first-time reader of the thread will have no way to determine whether or not the time stamps were posted correctly. Two pictures of an analog clock (the same or different clocks), whether or not they show the same "time", don't tell us much of anything other than what we may extrapolate from our memory of such clocks.

 

I suggest that the state of any object is dependent upon interactions with its surroundings not the passage of time. If we could isolate an object completely from its surroundings, there would be no change it its state. Isolating an object completely is physically impossible of course, but the "thought experiment" should demonstrate that there is no agent called "time" acting on the object. Do we not consider all reactions to be the result of some action? Where is the reaction from time? It is not there because there is no actor which we would call "time".

 

If we were to have no memory how could we have have any concept of the meaning of "simultaneous"? We would recognize only the current state, the present. A person with Alzheimer's disease may be the closest, albeit imperfect and probably unprovable, example I can think of. Non-sentient entities, objects, don't (as far as we know) have memory. It seems reasonable to me to believe that objects experience only their current state and thus time is not a factor in their existence. Is there any characteristic of any object which is dependent upon time and not upon interactions with the objects surroundings? Are not all increases in entropy the result of interactions among objects, and not the passage of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We accept records of all kinds just as we accept our own memories. We seem to accept some records and "make sense" of them more readily than others. The time stamps on these posts make sense to us and give us the impression of the passage of time. Note that a first-time reader of the thread will have no way to determine whether or not the time stamps were posted correctly. Two pictures of an analog clock (the same or different clocks), whether or not they show the same "time", don't tell us much of anything other than what we may extrapolate from our memory of such clocks.

 

I suggest that the state of any object is dependent upon interactions with its surroundings not the passage of time. If we could isolate an object completely from its surroundings, there would be no change it its state. Isolating an object completely is physically impossible of course, but the "thought experiment" should demonstrate that there is no agent called "time" acting on the object. Do we not consider all reactions to be the result of some action? Where is the reaction from time? It is not there because there is no actor which we would call "time".

 

If we were to have no memory how could we have have any concept of the meaning of "simultaneous"? We would recognize only the current state, the present. A person with Alzheimer's disease may be the closest, albeit imperfect and probably unprovable, example I can think of. Non-sentient entities, objects, don't (as far as we know) have memory. It seems reasonable to me to believe that objects experience only their current state and thus time is not a factor in their existence. Is there any characteristic of any object which is dependent upon time and not upon interactions with the objects surroundings? Are not all increases in entropy the result of interactions among objects, and not the passage of time?

!

Moderator Note

Not what I was hoping for; you're flailing. (and failing)

 

First of all, arguments about time can't rest on flawed/incomplete recording systems (time stamps and clocks that don't read the day and year)

 

Radioactive decay will proceed in isolation. Or simple de-excitation.

 

Memory falls under point 1. The effect of the passage of time did not begin when people sprang up with the ability to remember. "Interaction with surroundings" is not the same as memory. Further, "Are not all increases in entropy the result of interactions among objects, and not the passage of time?" implies that you think time is some sort of force or action, yet you have provided no evidence for this; that is not part of mainstream physics. (it can be two things)

 

You have no model, you have no evidence. To your credit, you did bring up a test, but unfortunately your idea fails that test, since radioactive decay/de-excitation is spontaneous. If you have questions about these ideas you are free to post them (new thread, please. No hijacking other discussions), but take care not to assert anything without supporting evidence. No more "I believe..." on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.