Force of Sub-Atomic Particles with Des Chamberlain

[Des Chamberlain]

Push! Not pull.
Des Chamberlain
The Idea that I want to set out here is so beautifully simple, it just feels right it fits with how we see our physical universe, read on and you’ll see what I mean.
A mass (lump of rock) is floating in the vacuum of space far far away from any other masses. Sub-atomic particles that are moving through space pass through our mass as they are so teeny weenie that they can pass through atoms with no problem at all. But, some particles do collide with atoms occasionally and there are a lot of sub-atomic particles whizzing about so it all adds up.
Our mass is unaffected as the colliding sub-atomic particles are quite uniform at least in this part of creation. Let us give our mass a trajectory and velocity and call it an asteroid for example. As our asteroid moves through space it eventually approaches another mass, say The Earth. The Earth is bigger and so our asteroid is attracted to this much larger mass...
Hmmm. Let’s stop here for a moment and take a 180 degree conceptual shift and try again!
As our asteroid moves closer to the Earth it is shielded from the effects of sub-atomic particles that were destined to hit it but were absorbed by the mass of Earth. Our asteroid is also shielding the Earth in the same fashion but to a lesser degree as it’s not a particularly large asteroid and the Earth is much bigger. There exists a dearth of sub-atomic particles in the space that separates our asteroid from the Earth. The asteroid wants to move closer to the Earth to regain equilibrium, balance. Like a balloon being pushed through the air by a breeze.
As the distance between the asteroid and the Earth decreases the Earth grows larger on the horizon of the approaching asteroid. Its also Shields it from even more particles, the sub-atomic pressure decreases on the shielded side but remains constant on the side open to unimpeded space. They try harder to balance the forces of sub-atomic pressure acting on them. They are pushed towards each other or even sucked if you like; they both feel good to me!
The asteroids initial trajectory and velocity is such that its course is changed just the right amount to move into an orbit around the Earth where the centrifugal force equals the dearth of sub-atomic pressure that exists between them. Phew that was close;
I thought it was ‘Independence Day’ for a minute!
Now as you read this imagine that the Earth beneath you is shielding you from the same amount of sub-atomic pressure as your weight! Yes! We are simply pressed to the Earth and not pulled by this stuff that we call gravity which doesn’t exists and is just an ego based concept of big attracting small.
Don’t worry it won’t change a thing apart from making more sense.
Oh by the way, Gold is a heavier than you because it has a structure that can block more sub-atomic particles and is therefore a more affective shield.
We are acted upon in the same way as in the observed physical world it’s just that the forces are too small for our bulky atom based instruments to measure. They say you weigh less at night is that the effect of the moon blocking particles?
It’s not rocket science, it’s quantum physics.
Push! Not pull.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Push! Not pull.

"Pushing gravity" is an erroneous concept that can easily and thoroughly be debunked by an umbrella.

 

[enigma]

I am recalling a full refutation of pushing gravity a few months back, but for the life of me I can't find it in the search feature and I don't remember the steps used to refute it...

(without using math that is... it's cake if you take numbers to it)

 

[enigma]

Hows about this:

If gravity pushes, and we're sticking to the Earth because the Earth gets in the way of the push coming from 'down', then why don't we float when we're in a building?

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

So Newton couldn't possibly have gotten hit in the head by a helium balloon after all?

 

[Des Chamberlain]

Hi Buddy
The reason we don't float in a building is because the particles blocked by the matter in the building is very small compared with the particles absorbed by earth. It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large particle shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve! experiments are being carried out in deep mines in the north of England away from interferance on the planets surface which might help support this idea

 

[Des Chamberlain]

Michael
The Hielium balloon would have a relatively low mass and thus be less effected by any shields in it's vicinity

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large particle shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve! experiments are being carried out in deep mines in the north of England away from interferance on the planets surface which might help support this idea

That's only one of the many flaws in "pushing gravity." The main thing is it requires many assumptions that the prevailing model does not, such as a vast sea of particles we can't detect.

 

[pallidin]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Michael
The Hielium balloon would have a relatively low mass and thus be less effected by any shields in it's vicinity

OK, Des, allow me to disprove your theory:

In the following example, the dimesions, materials or mass might not be correct, but, you should get the point...

Take a stiff, non-conducting rod, say, 2-feet long and weighing 2 pounds, and suspend it in the middle(of the rod) to a secure location on your ceiling with a kevlar string sufficient to support, say 100 pounds. OK, easy enough.
Now, attach to each end of this rod 2 non-conductive spheres weighing 25 lbs. each. Great. Now we have a horizontal rod with weights attached hanging from the ceiling with a kevlar string attached to the middle of this horizontal rod.
Close all doors and windows.
Move a 500 lb. mass on a cart, carefully and slowly, such to where the 500 lb. mass is at equal average level to the suspended weights, and towards the "rotational" side of one of the 25 lb. spheres.
Guess what happens? The 25 lb. sphere closest to the 500 lb. mass starts to move towards it.
The 500 lb. mass attracts the 25 lb. sphere(actually, both attract, of course) on a horizontal plane.
This, Des, is gravitational attraction, and the same effect will occur whether you do it on Earth or in deep space.
In addition, place any static object of any compostion between the 2 masses and note the effect: The attraction will always increase, never decrease.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

What seems to be the problem with our current model of gravity?

 

[Des Chamberlain]

pallidin

Thankyou for you post "disproveing my theory"

I think I have understood you correctly.
A free moving non-conductive dumbell ballanced and suspended by a kevlar string in a sealed enviroment.
When a mass is brought close to one end of the dumbell they attract each other.OK
What is occurring here is that the mass of the 500 lb is sheilding the dumbell from sub-atomic particles moveing on that same horizontal plane as is the dumbell shielding the 500 lb weight. This simply highlights that these particles move in all aspexts.

 

[Des Chamberlain]

russ_watters
Hi Russ

I like your description of a vast sea of particles. that's a fitting description of what I'm talking about.
Let's have a look at the current theory of Gravity.
Somethiong is coming from each and every mass that somehow holds on to other masses and draws them to it with a strength dependent on its size and proximity.
Nothing else behaves like this!
why is this unproven idea holding water?
It goes against all common sense!
The Victorians called it the Either!
Now we talk of dark matter!
What ever you want to call it we are along way from measuring it unless we change our point of view as our instruments are made of atoms and therefore to bulky.
We can only observe.
A substances ability to absorbe these particles can be measured by its wieght.

A sq metre of Gold and a sq metre of helium have different wieghts.
Gold is more able to absorbe sub-atomic particles than Helium; it is more affected by sub-atomic particles, ergo it is pressed to the Earth more strongly as it's catching more kinetic energy form sub-atomic particles coming from space.

We cling to a "law" as that's what we are brought up to believe!
Partical shielding makes more sense as it fits in with how the rest of physics works.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Let's have a look at the current theory of Gravity.
Somethiong is coming from each and every mass that somehow holds on to other masses and draws them to it with a strength dependent on its size and proximity.
Nothing else behaves like this!
why is this unproven idea holding water?
It goes against all common sense!

"Common sense" is not a concept that physics deals with in the way you think it does. You cannot start with a preconcieved notion of what 'makes sense' and exclude all that doesn't fit. That simply isn't the way science works, whether you accept it or not. The current model fits observations, makes accurate and testable predictions, and requires less assumptions than yours and thus it will remain the accepted one.

You'd do better if you worked within the framework of the scientific method.

A substances ability to absorbe these particles can be measured by its wieght.

How are weight and mass related in your model?

Partical shielding makes more sense as it fits in with how the rest of physics works.

Well in that case, tell me this: how is it mathematically different from Einstein's model and in what cases does it fit observations better?

Also, what is the maximum strength of a gravitational field? (unless you are saying there is an infinite density of these unobserved particles, gravity must have a finite upper limit)

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
It would be an interesting experiment to see if something wieghed less if it were placed under a large particle shild such as the fort knoxs gold reserve!

*Laughs out loud*
Whoo, you crack me up. That gold reserve has moved to a different location. Fort Knox has no more gold in it. Remember, "Goldfinger" wasn't the most reliable movie for scientific reference, especially since it's over thirty-some years old.

Gold is more able to absorbe sub-atomic particles than Helium; it is more affected by sub-atomic particles, ergo it is pressed to the Earth more strongly as it's catching more kinetic energy form sub-atomic particles coming from space.

Gold stays on the ground because it's denser than this nitrogen-oxygen "ocean" of air. Helium is less dense, so it floats to the top of said atmosphere. It's that simple; No special kinetic interactions are in effect.

 

[Sariaht]

Gravity is a push force. Stopp enoying me.

 

[cookiemonster]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Gravity is a push force. Stopp enoying me.

Haha! I like the pun on e-noying! We get the little e-catchphrase for the e-web!

Sorry, lack of sleep...

cookiemonster

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

Des Chamberlain,
I'm not seeing how your theory makes any more sense than the current model. I don't mean to be argumentive, I have an open mind. I am just missing that part that "makes more sense". -Mike

 

[Des Chamberlain]

The current model of gravity hasn't been proven, because of insuficient data presumably, which means it is still open to speculation.
When we look at the physical nature of things, everything is where it is due to the forces acting upon it, at least in the observable universe. The theory of 'gravity' suggests that some power is attracting matter to matter by a force that reaches out and pulls back, or makes being closer a more desirable state, a bit like magnatisum which is entirly differant.
I'm suggesting that there are forces acting on us that we cannot measure with our current tech because they are so all pervasive that we cannot see them ( we tend to measure differances) and far smaller than the component atoms of our instuments.
so this is really a change in our concept.
We do know that there is some form of energy in the universe that is holding it all togeather. This idea is supported by all the experimentation that has gone on since we became aware of exsistance. everything has preasure acting on it. if you stuck a straw in the beach and through sand at it a few grains might hit it and it would tremble with the impact. If you stood an empty plastic bottle on the sand and through sand at it in the same way it would fall over as it absorbs more kinetic energy. The bigger the mass and indeed the denser it is the more sand it stops.
This isn't the best analogy but i'll think of something better when I'm more awake.
these particles that are passing through us and sometimes colliding with us hold us in place, we have to use energy to move! It's really that simple, like air preasure but as most of it passes through us and only a percentage hits.
If we change our perspective and then look at the acumilated data we have we will be able to measure this force easily. I wiegh 12 stone because that much force isn't reaching my from the south side.
Black holes are so dense that they absorb light which is also a particle form that we have evolved to observe; I'm suggesting that there are many more types of particles ie Nutrinos that are also acting in their own perculiar way and pressing us to the earth.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
The current model of gravity hasn't been proven, because of insuficient data presumably, which means it is still open to speculation.

Just because you haven't seen it (or can't understand it) doesn't mean it hasn't been done. The current theory has been proven. The current theory has been tested, both by Experiment and by Software simulation.

Unless you can produce a software simulation or experiment to prove another option which works just as well or better, it is not open to legitimate speculation.

And there are other forces besides gravity which pull... ever had a sock stuck to a sweater when you pulled it out of the dryer? Static electricity "pulls" as well.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

One last time? look at the pressure gradient of the interior of the Earth, it rises as you approach the center, greater pressure at the center, then immediately above, decreases all the way out from the center, how does your Push force do that? (It cannot, Gravity remains as it was always understood as behaving, "attraction to a common center")

Any push force from space will exert a mechanical pressurization of the planet and pressure will either, drop off, going in deeper, or be totally Isotropic, which, it is NOT!...(by measurement BTW)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
I'm suggesting that there are forces acting on us that we cannot measure with our current tech because they are so all pervasive that we cannot see them ( we tend to measure differances) and far smaller than the component atoms of our instuments.

That's a pretty massive assumption. Science does not allow such things.

I asked before if your hypothesis is mathematically identical to the current one: assuming it is, your hypothesis is rejected for requiring more assumptions than the accepted one. If its not, its rejected for not matching observations.

 

[Michael D. Sewell]

Russ is right.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Yikes! take a 'circle', pressurize the 'circle' explain to me how you can, using only exterior push force generate a higher pressure at the center of the circle, then you have halfway between the outer edge, and the center...(cannot be done!)

EDIT PS only two "force activities" in the universe, expansion and contraction...no push, no pull...

 

[Des Chamberlain]

Mr. Robin Parsons
Thank you for you input

A partial manages to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere which is not so difficult for the intrepid partial but it happens to hit an H atom in the Atlantic Ocean and imparts its energy which pushes the whole H2O molecule south. Many more partials are colliding with H2O all around it so he’s not alone. This combined pressure builds as the water is constantly absorbing partials that collide with its component parts. As we go down
10 metres the pressure doubles as all the mass above is absorbing particle energy. By the time we get to the centre of the Earth the combined pressure has increased massively as all that massive mass is pressed towards the centre. Also there will be % less partials passing through the centre as obviously a % have given up their energy in compressing the mass towards the Earth's centre. Easy peasy
Next

Thanks Russ for you well intentioned argument!

That's a pretty massive assumption. Science does not allow such things.

I asked before if your hypothesis is mathematically identical to the current one: assuming it is, your hypothesis is rejected for requiring more assumptions than the accepted one. If its not, it’s rejected for not matching observations.

I don’t really think it’s up to ‘science to allow such things’ as science is continually proving itself to be erroneous. Science is a view of reality based on observation and recorded data and at this quantum level some pretty out landish assumptions. Enough said on that.

What I’m suggesting is not so ‘far out’ considering Hawkins admits that there isn’t a solid proof that gravity exists. The top scientists talk a lot about some bonkers happenings at a quantum level to try and fit them into their mathematical models which are largely based on some dodgy assumptions about this force called gravity.
E.g. Space is curved. Yea sure. And can I have another $20 million to prove it to you!
I don’t believe space is curved, the partials themselves interact and want there own space, don’t we all, and so when they pass near a large mass like a star there will be less particle activity as the mass will be absorbing a % of the particles. The particles themselves will move over to maintain balance of the forces acting on them; there trajectory is altered and so from our perspective space seems curved.
Next

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
(SNIP) Mr. Robin Parsons
Thank you for you input
A partial manages to penetrate the earth’s atmosphere which is not so difficult for the intrepid partial but it happens to hit an H atom in the Atlantic Ocean and imparts its energy which pushes the whole H2O molecule south. Many more partials are colliding with H2O all around it so he’s not alone. This combined pressure builds as the water is constantly absorbing partials that collide with its component parts. As we go down
10 metres the pressure doubles as all the mass above is absorbing particle energy. By the time we get to the centre of the Earth the combined pressure has increased massively as all that massive mass is pressed towards the centre. Also there will be % less partials passing through the centre as obviously a % have given up their energy in compressing the mass towards the Earth's centre. Easy peasy
(SNoP)

Apparently you need to learn about mechanical compressions/pressurizations, "All the pressure above" arises only from Gravities activities.

So it must compress (according to you) differentially and increasing as it centers, as the pressure does increase (Proven/established/(or)/ accepted 'current' knowledge)...realize that in what I have emboldened, it is gravities activity that is causing what you are describing, but only when viewed as contraction, (attraction to a common center) not achievable by compression...not even by your explanation...try again pleasy

(exterior compressions/pressurizations/pressures generate uniform interior/isotropic pressures)

 

[Des Chamberlain]

Hi robin

Your reply is based on the assumption that there is a force called gravity!
This is what is being contested.
Q. Can gravity be proven to exist beyond doubt?
Q. Were subatomic particles know about when gravity was made LAW!?
Q. Does any other force attract apart from magnets and static electricity!?

We know about a few types of particle; light, xrays, gamma rays, nuetrinos, etc. is it possible that there are some more that we cannot detect? Did xrays exist before we could detect them?
All the arguments I hear are based on the concept of gravity.
Hmmmm!

 

[Des Chamberlain]

Yikes! take a 'circle', pressurize the 'circle' explain to me how you can, using only exterior push force generate a higher pressure at the center of the circle, then you have halfway between the outer edge, and the center...(cannot be done!)

Robin

The reason that preasure can be applied at any point is that nutrinos for instance can pass though the Earth without hitting anything but they can also collide with any atom on that journey as well. Ergo preasure is not only applied on the suface but throughout the mass.

Exit night, enter light!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummm OK...so in responce to your questions Yes, Yes, and Yes again


...so long as it is "an attraction to a common center" all the rest...works for me!

As for the "Push, not pull" camp(s), the origin of the thread, "Push force from spaaaace" is a good intro to a movie, but not concurrent with what is currently measurable, in reality...so far...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
Robin Allthough that is my name you don't know me well enough to adress me that way, so please, either stop, or use MRP as everyone else does...thanks
The reason that preasure can be applied at any point is that nutrinos for instance can pass though the Earth without hitting anything but they can also collide with any atom on that journey as well. Ergo preasure is not only applied on the suface but throughout the mass.
Exit night, enter light!

Uhmmm, Yup, OK, How does it make the center Higher in pressurization, compared to the outer surface?

 

[russ_watters]

MRP, it may be possible to create a "pushing gravity" theory mathematically equal to GR, but I wouldn't bother trying to find out since even if it is mathematically equivalent, it still fails for reason #1: too many assumptions.

However, since Des Chaimberlain declined to answer whether it was mathematically equivalent, I am left to conclude either he doesn't know (in which case its not developed enough of an idea to bother with) or it is not (in which case it fails for reason #2: doesn't match observations). Neither would surprise me.

Or if you prefer, Des, give me a scientifically valid reason pushing gravity is superior to GR. And no, 'it makes more sense' is not a scientifically valid reason.

 

[Sariaht]

The force caused by gravity on a non massive object points to the middle. That's why the pressaure is at the highest in the middle.

Ofcourse, the theory that gravity is partly caused by neutrino flows could easily be controlled.

 

[Des Chamberlain]

How does it make the centre Higher in pressurization, compared to the outer surface?

MRP


This is an interesting question MRP

If planets are formed from lose matter one could predict that elements with a heaver build would absorbed more cosmic radiation than lighter ones, making them more effective as shields and therefore more attractive having a dearth of radiation in their vicinity. Heavier elements would tend to group together more readily that lighter ones and in time form the core of the planet.

This gives a model of the Earth having the heaviest elements forming the core with progressively lighter elements forming around it like the layers in an onion. Moving out from the core Each layer will be formed of progressively less absorbant elements trapping less energy until you reach cooler temperatures near the surface where the lighter elements are absorbing much less energy, eventually reaching the Earth's crust where there isn’t enough energy being absorbed to cause liquid states till we are on the surface where the gaseous elements act as an air cooling system.

Cosmic radiation hits the planet and passes through progressively more effective particle absorbing material on its path to the core with each layer taking it toll of energy as the particles collide with its elementary molecules. The energy absorbed takes the form movement, vibration. This vibration produces heat. The heat is trapped by the insulating layers of matter above and so increases until it reaches extreamly high temperatures like a preasure cooker, it boils. In this state the elemental molecules find movement easy and group together to form distinct layers.

This heat produces pressure which is ever increasing and released by volcanic activity. We are living on an old boiler.

This phenomenon is dubbed the “FIRESTAR EFFECT”

 

[Sariaht]

If you compared the Earth with an iron cylinder, you would easily find that gravity is at the highest in the cylinders middpoint.

The etherparticles exists in between the "normal" particles, that takes up practically no space at all.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Des Chamberlain, I would respectfully suggest you go out and study the Earth's interior structures, they are "known" and your expostulation sort of fails cause of it...How will a push force, from space, pressurize the interior? Higher at the center, then at the outsides...

 

[Des Chamberlain]

Albert Francis Birch:
Unwary readers should take warning that ordinary language undergoes modification to a high-pressure form when applied to the interior of the Earth. A few examples of equivalents follow:
High Pressure Form/Ordinary Meaning
Certain/Dubious
Undoubtedly/Perhaps
Positive proof/Vague suggestion
Unanswerable argument/Trivial objection
Pure iron/Uncertain mixture of all the elements

MRP
Birchs’ findings depend on the herein contested presumption that there is a force of gravity!