Gravity

[h2ouniverse]

Interesting out-of-the-box idea but....<br /><br />If there was a screening effect, then why would gravitational pull be proportional to masses and not to volumes (or more exactly to the cross-sections perpendicularly to the line joining the two considered bodies)?

 

[themage]

<font color="yellow">I think it is possible to se the idea work on both cosmological and quantum scales. But then...how to prove or falsify.....very difficult it is indeed. </font><br /><br />I wasn't exactly thinking of the quantum level, I just mean everyday items like a keyboard a mouse or a monitor (to early in the morning to be creative <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />).<br /><br />Also Ranur i'm sorry you feel like your ideas may have been scrutinized in the past. And I would hope that we can still discuss new ideas with new and old posters as they come along and join us. Otherwise what’s the point of having a "discussion" board. Might as well call it a teaching board if new ideas aren't allowed <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />.<br />

 

[cazuke]

Hi<br /><br />I'm not going to argue too much for my 'theory' (which is more of a guess and the fact that I like the idea of merging the two. To me it seems like an elegant simple theory). And if it has to go to a different forum, I'll gladly continue my discussion there.<br /><br />I realised from the beginning that this force can't be acting on VOLUME but should rather be based on MASS - Just like gravity. Afterall, if gravity works on mass why can't my one not work on mass.<br /><br />Regarding the mouse and keyboard. For the same reason that your mouse and keybord don't show any measurable gravity towards eachother, their 'shadow' effect is also so small that you hardly witness the effect.<br /><br />So the way I see it. We have this expansion force/ether. And it is pushing all mass from all directions. Right on top of my mass, there's billions of kilometers of this stuff pushing me down. Same for left and right. But the earth below me 'shadows' me from the energy that should be pushing me away. So the NET EFFECT of this force is to push me towards earth. Because this force acts on mass, the incredible mass of the earth 'shields' me from the effect of the force right behind the earth.<br /><br />So you may say: So if this force push in all directions why is anything expanding then at all? In which direction will the expansion go?<br />I think it may be possible to translate this into two dimentions. If you think in flatland world: Lets say the universe is 2d and is on the surface of the baloon. This pressure that the creatures that live on my inflating baloon experience is a force in all directions. Everybody moves away from one another (in 2D). My 2D universe is expanding in 3 dimensions even if all my flatland citizens can see all neighbours are moving away in their 2D world.<br /><br />The baloon metaphor doesn't explain gravity though :-s<br /><br />My last thought is. Maybe gravity is not a force from within a mass or between two masses but rather the absence of such a fo

 

[funktastic]

Hi there,<br /><br />Dont worry bout being appropriate... LOL! I'm sure that the smartest people on this "mass" (earth - lol) all in one room argue the affects and theories of gravitational forces in its contradictory facets from small objects to the heavenly masses! <br />Might sound crazy, but every single thing is somehow interconnected by theory, forces or some phenomenon.<br /><br />We are now in the information age and the human race has not seen big inventions for a while! When Edison created the light bulb, it was "out of the box" and I'm pretty sure Hawkins was considered a nut at first... Now look at him - one of the planets most smartest people!<br /><br />So don't worry! I applaud you! Thats exactly what the world needs! <br /><br /><br />OUT OF THE BOX!!!

 

[majornature]

<font color="yellow">The expanding universe is like a ballon expanding. All points receding from each other.</font><br /><br />Okay speaking on that. A thought just popped into my head...how much further can a balloon expand before it burst or in this case, explode?" Now if the balloon theory in the universe, when will it burst or should it had already burst by now?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#14ea50"><strong><font size="1">We are born.  We live.  We experiment.  We rot.  We die.  and the whole process starts all over again!  Imagine That!</font><br /><br /><br /><img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /><br /></strong></font> </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I have seen this idea before.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Like this?<br /><br />Gravity is a Push

 

[cazuke]

Thanks, thanks thanks eburacum45. That's exactly what I meant! Didn't know the idea existed though. Will read up on what the guy proposed and why it turned out in the end to suck :-D<br /><br />

 

[weeman]

hmmm, I'm not a big fan of Le Sage's theory. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Anyone wondered if there could be a common cause for both gravity and cosmic expansion? </font><br /><br />I suppose it's hard to know for sure. I'm no astrophysicist, but I would say that the two forces don't share a common cause. But I can't say for sure. <br /><br />Expansion is the metric expansion of space. Gravity works in the opposite way of expansion, and in many cases, gravity overcomes the expansion (planets, stars, solar systems, etc.). <br /><br />I am a firm believer of Einstein's theory that gravity is simply a visual consequence of the warping of spacetime. While expansion is the metric fabric of space growing larger all the time. <br /><br />I think we have many great theories as to what causes gravity, yet we don't really know why space is expanding. I would say the next step is trying to come up with plausible theories of expansion, then seeing if the two forces relate to each other in any way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Anyone wondered if there could be a common cause for both gravity and cosmic expansion? </font><br /><br />How about gravitons and anti-gravitons. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[gammarayburst]

What about the push effect of a solar wind, which is nothing more than decay also noted that the decaying electrons of matter on earth travels opposite to gravity. If this were not right then it would be difficult to detect radiation from planets and moons. Possibly the pull force of gravity would overpower the push effect of decay when the object decaying is small like asteroids or dust but stronger on planets and moons and thus keep them from crashing into one another. And remember planets and stars decay from the inside out. This would mean that when the sun becomes larger the orbit of the planets will move further away and not be destroyed by the sun. I'm sorry, I know my idea contradicts current theories.<br /><br />I believe Andromeda is circling the Milky Way not heading for it in a collision.

 

[yevaud]

<i>...small like asteroids or dust but stronger on planets and moons and thus keep them from crashing into one another.</i><br /><br />Not supported by the Astrophysical record.<br /><br /><i>This would mean that when the sun becomes larger the orbit of the planets will move further away and not be destroyed by the sun. I'm sorry, I know my idea contradicts current theories.</i><br /><br />Not supported by the Astrophysical record.<br /><br /><i>I believe Andromeda is circling the Milky Way not heading for it in a collision.</i><br /><br />Not supported by the Astrophysical record. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[gammarayburst]

Yevaud, why is it then the moon was found to have originated from the earth and yet still has not returned? What is keeping it from falling back? Is there some unexplainable force of nature at work? Old theories say that the moon was captured and it's momentum keeps it from colliding with the earth yet it was found not to be captured. So why hasn’t it returned? What goes up must come down, not supported by the Astrophysical record, so maybe there is some missing data? Hmm, meteors and dust hit the earth but the moon doesn't? <br /><br />I did say I know my idea contradicts current theories, didn't I?<br /><br />Did you notice that Andromeda has lesser galaxies revolving around it? Can the Astrophysical records tell me why? Hmm, no they have no idea why. Please, enlighten us with your ideas of why and how they formed.

 

[MeteorWayne]

"Old theories say that the moon was captured and it's momentum keeps it from colliding with the earth yet it was found not to be captured"<br /><br />Correct, old theories have been discarded in light of new evidence.<br /><br />"it's momentum keeps it from colliding with the earth"<br /><br />Correct again. The material ejected from the collision has sufficient momentum (i.e. orbital velocity) to continue to orbit, just the same as a spacecraft.<br /><br />"So why hasn’t it returned?"<br /><br />Again, it has sufficient velocity parallel to the earth's surface to stay in orbit.<br /><br />"What goes up must come down"<br /><br />That is not true, if your orbital velocity is high enough, you continue in orbit.<br /><br />"Hmm, meteors and dust hit the earth but the moon doesn't? "<br /><br />Correct again. Those objects do not have enough speed relative to the earth's surface to stay in orbit.<br /><br />"I did say I know my idea contradicts current theories, didn't I? "<br /><br />That's really irrelevant, since you have some correct ideas, and some serious misconceptions which I have tried to straighten out.<br /><br />What is "your idea"?<br /><br />"Did you notice that Andromeda has lesser galaxies revolving around it? Can the Astrophysical records tell me why? "<br /><br />Yes, in a single word; GRAVITY.<br />It explains much of what we see, including everything I explained above.<br /><br />You have a problem with gravity, and Newton, Keplar and Einstein?<br /><br />If so , you need to state your theory in the same mathematical way so we can evaluate it.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">Old theories say that the moon was captured and it's momentum keeps it from colliding with the earth yet it was found not to be captured. So why hasn’t it returned?</font><br /><br />The presently accepted theory has a proto-planet the size of Mars obliquely hitting the proto-Earth while it's still mostly molten but differentiated. The collision ejects a lot of matter from the outer parts of both proto-planets to become the Moon. The rest collects itself together to become the Earth. The Moon is similar to the Earth (because it's from the outer layer) but poor in Iron because of the differentiation. Momentum and trajectory are such that the Moon orbits the Earth for the same reasons anything orbits something else. There needn't be any repulsive force. We know the Moon's mass and velocity and so can compute whether it's in orbit (yes) or being pushed away (no). Which leads me to your earlier post ...<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">What about the push effect of a solar wind, which is nothing more than decay also noted that the decaying electrons of matter on earth travels opposite to gravity. If this were not right then it would be difficult to detect radiation from planets and moons. Possibly the pull force of gravity would overpower the push effect of decay when the object decaying is small like asteroids or dust but stronger on planets and moons and thus keep them from crashing into one another. And remember planets and stars decay from the inside out. </font><br /><br /><br />What decay are you thinking of when you say "decaying electrons of earth" and "decay from the inside out" ? I'm not aware of any large quantities of electrons streaming from the Earth into space due to "decay" or anything else. What "decay" would cause electrons to break free from the Earth's core and radiate outward ? <br /><br />We detect other planets in our solar system by the sunlight they reflect, not by electrons they are somehow produc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>