View Poll Results: What do make of it?
It gets my vote for Crackpot Theory of the Year 5 41.67%
It's makes no sense 6 50.00%
It seems plausible but needs a lot of work 0 0%
It makes sense but is just a theory 1 8.33%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

The Ultimate Crackpot Theory Of Gravity


by jammieg
Tags: crackpot, gravity, theory, ultimate
jammieg
#1
Apr22-03, 08:31 PM
P: n/a
How does gravity work? It keeps my feet on the ground, what do I care.

A story about planet Q and W:

Imagine planet Q millions of light years away from planet W. Each planet has a core that is positively charged and a moon (negatively charged) that orbits the two planets in a perfectly random way. As planet Q's moon revolves around the core in sends out in all directions a kind of electromagnetic wave going from + to - depending on which way you are recieving it. Meanwhile back at planet W the wave finally reaches it and at this particular time the oriention of planet W's moon to the core relative to the wave polarity tells planet W to repel away.
And so it does, but the wave takes a long time to fully pass (about an hour before going +), so in the first half hour planet W moves
2ft in the opposite direction of planet Q, but in the next half hour the distance between planet W and planet Q is now 20 light years + 2 feet and since the distance determines the force planet W will only move
1.9999999999999999999999999 ft
in the next half hour, for a total of 4 ft away minus some really minute increment that seems meaningless.
Well after the hour is up planet W is now in some arrangement to start moving toward planet Q, and so it begins and in the first half hour moves 2 ft, and the next half hour it is now 20 light years + 2 ft closer to planet Q and the distance is dropping off and so the force is increasing inversely, and it moves 2.0000000000001 ft for a total of 4 ft and some tiny increment that so small it seems to be irrelevant but we now know it's slightly more than when it was decelerating away and so we can be sure that in a few billion billion billion years planet Q and planet W will come together,


I came up with a perfectly meaningless experiment to demonstrate the principle of attraction using magnets,
the results of the expirment prove nothing, but seem to defy common sense unless the principle of gravity is applied, or maybe just some obvious priciple I don't know of, it can by found in the physics catagory called, "a physics experiment with magnets in motion and a vote pole", give it your guess.
The most obvious reason it proves nothing is because magnets are not atoms, but what the have in common is
both are charges in motion.
Also the web math page that still needs updating is at bottom, and is updated as of 5/26


The way gravity would then fit into the
rest of the forces is that the other forces aren't 50/50 but perhaps 90/10 for electromagnetic forces and 99/1 for nuclear forces, the reason gravity would be 50/50 is because the atoms are so far apart they can't influence one another directly but would have to be probabably 10x the radius of the atom away before charge information could pass fast enough to directly influence one another like 51/49 then rapidly falling more into the atomic forces category. Light would not be affected by gravity at 50/50, but it's my guess that something moving at the same speed as charge orientaion information is moving would see virtually nothing, which is why the electron may be able to escape the pull of the proton and become light.
If this theory amounts to nothing it ought to at least win crackpot theory of the year.
Webpage link:
http://users.adelphia.net/~jammieg/html/_sgg/f10000.htm

Updated on last post on 7-19-03; this, if a sound hypothesis, is only a principle of attraction, that the main gravitational force comes from this principle applied to the subatomic particles so as to take into account other elements structures that are not diametrically or trimetrically charged as hydrogen or helium.

Why don't we call it electrogravimagnetic radiation(you have to say it fast though), I'll bet eventually that's what it will turn out to be when someone proves it.
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists design quantum switches which can be activated by single photons
'Dressed' laser aimed at clouds may be key to inducing rain, lightning
Higher-order nonlinear optical processes observed using the SACLA X-ray free-electron laser
ObsessiveMathsFreak
ObsessiveMathsFreak is offline
#2
Apr23-03, 06:28 AM
P: 406
So your saying that gravity is just a form of electromagnetic attraction.

That sounds interesting, but why attraction? How did you get two exactly symmetric objects to align so they attract?
jammieg
#3
Apr23-03, 08:52 AM
P: n/a
I didn't, on the web page it was the simplest configuration I could calculate and that took me 2 weeks.
You would probably like this math problem Obsessive, it's how do you calculate all the various permutaions of instantaneous force configurations of 2 hydrogen atoms seperated by a distance of 3 meters using Columb's law in 3 demensions?
I did this in a crude mathematical way that results in a force well over the original web page force and am stumped.
I used 2 pencils to get a visual of spinning atoms, and imagined one to be stationary and the other variable, going through all the various forces of the variable atom and that force being distributed from max to zero is proportional by 2/3 to the surface area, the reason there is a zero is because an atom straight up and down relative to an atom perfectly perpendicular and pointing directly to the middle of the stationary one would have no force, I should update the web page tonight to explain that with a drawing hard to do with words. Basically I just added up the net forces of the various stationary atoms variable net force of the variable atom to get a rough approximation of the total net force with most of the possible alignments.
Here's another question, if it can be imagines that the two atoms are stationary for a moment frozen in time and Columbs law applied to get a net result of some bit of attraction, then there has to be another cofiguration that is the opposite and just as often repulsive, however when they are attracting one another in a known attractive alignment they should be accelerating toward because the distance is reducing and force of attraction is increasing compoundly(by a very very small amout), so what would be the result of accelation versus deceleration- gravity or something else? It seems to favor the known force of gravity, but then I'm mathematically handicapped,one thing is sure there is an overall attraction that results here no matter how one tries to slice it.

climbhi
#4
Apr23-03, 05:56 PM
P: n/a

The Ultimate Crackpot Theory Of Gravity


Originally posted by jammieg
...My suspicion for this is although the 2 atoms which can be thought of as basically charges in perfectly random motion have no net charge, relative to each other they will attract and repel on occasion(assuming charge informatin moves at the speed of light) also at a 50/50 ratio, so they should all cancel out right, but it doesn't,...
I haven't taken the time to fully read through what you're saying but what you're talking about here to me sounds like what is called the London force. I might be misinterpreting what you're saying but if this is what you're describing London forces (or I think I've heard them called Van der Waal's forces) are extremely weak, and I doubt that if you did the calculations correctly on them that the force would come out to be several times that of gravity.
jammieg
#5
Apr23-03, 08:37 PM
P: n/a
I wish it were.
Van der Walls forces are forces that exist between molecules, there are three type,
dipole-dipole, dispersion forces, and hydrogen bonding, all of which are very weak molecular forces only. This theory isn't about Van der Walls forces although I'm amazed Van der Wall or whoever didn't take it a step further to encompass individual atoms and subatomic forces, maybe it was because at the time superpositioning theory was unknown... The forces I get are within gravity range but yes I doubt I did the math right, it's far more likely the math is wrong rather than I'm right, it's easy to jumble numbers up and come up with a close approximation to gravity, but it's hard to say that there is no overall resulting attraction of some sort.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mr. Robin Parsons is offline
#6
Apr26-03, 10:11 AM
P: 1,560
There is NO gravity the Earth sucks!

(Sorry, it's a really old joke!)

But it's a funny 'crackpot' theory...
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mr. Robin Parsons is offline
#7
Apr26-03, 10:11 AM
P: 1,560
-deleted double-
jammieg
#8
Apr26-03, 11:37 AM
P: n/a
I sometimes agree with that,
gravity may just be a force that exists
like the negative charge of an electron just exists, it can be broken down into smaller charges of + and -. There may be no reason for gravity but it just exists.
On the other hand magnetism and electricity and light were once thought to be totally different dynamics of no relation, like earth wind fire and water.
So any theory that attempts to explain something and is no where near the truth would be worthless at explaining anything else that is related to that thing-in a true mathematical way, and if there is no relation then a theory of gravity could be a simple as, it exists, or as complicated as GR.
jammieg
#9
Apr26-03, 11:44 AM
P: n/a
I posted the results of "a physics experiment with magnets and a vote pole", so far no one has guessed correctly what the outcome is. So far no one has given an explanation as to why it is so using known physics including myself, but I am hopeful there is a simple and known reason that it results like this,
because it seems to defy common sense.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mr. Robin Parsons is offline
#10
Apr26-03, 12:37 PM
P: 1,560
jammieg, try reading this page, or the rest of this thread, if you care to read some of what precedes, that page.

*HE*RE*
jammieg
#11
Apr26-03, 03:44 PM
P: n/a
I have to admit I can hardly grasp what Nigel is saying, except that he can get much more exact results. You must know a great deal about physics Mr. Parsons to be able to analyze what he is talking about. I would value your explanation to the magnet experiment. It could be that the crackpot theory is merely an extension of Van der Walls or magnetic theory and nothing more, that all I did was jumble numbers to get "close" approximation to gravity. I hope Nigel is right and I can forget about this big bag of craziness called theoretical physics.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Mr. Robin Parsons is offline
#12
Apr28-03, 07:52 AM
P: 1,560
Originally posted by jammieg
I have to admit I can hardly grasp what Nigel is saying, except that he can get much more exact results. You must know a great deal about physics Mr. Parsons to be able to analyze what he is talking about. I would value your explanation to the magnet experiment. It could be that the crackpot theory is merely an extension of Van der Walls or magnetic theory and nothing more, that all I did was jumble numbers to get "close" approximation to gravity. I hope Nigel is right and I can forget about this big bag of craziness called theoretical physics.
If you read it all, you will find that some of what I have told there is easier to read, and explanitory of the function of gravity, on several levels.

I had attempted to debunk some of Nigels work, as he had called space "superfluid" (no friction) then stated that it had "shadowing effects", (a DEFINITE Indication of friction!) contradictory statements, to say the least.

I suppose, I too, should recheck what is there, as I suspect he has changed his webpage's content to reflect that, and some other items.

Try starting reading from this page, and read only what I have posted since there. (plaese don't think me arrogant for it, it is simply the reality, not my "fault", in a way)

"Gravity"

EDIT: SP!!!!!!!!!!!!+
jammieg
#13
Apr28-03, 09:09 AM
P: n/a
I don't think you're being arrogant at all,
I think you're right heat is one of the main ingredients to gravity.
Heat is a factor in this crackpot theory that is beyond me to add into the calculations, when I got the acceleration I had to know how many cycles per second the electron might go around the proton like the magnets spinning because the faster they spin the less the force of attraction, but I couldn't so I just assumed it was fast enough to be disregarded as irrelevant- another mistake.
However it is a fact that as light passes through a Bose-Einstein condensate it slows to around 30mph, weird huh, I thought light wasn't really affected by gravity, unless you have a really cool or slow moving object by it like this instance. I find a striking similarity between a magnet spinning very slowly and having a very strong force of attraction (like in cooled atoms) to a Bose-Einstein condensate.
I think you may be right about the black hole temperature, so at extremely high temperature things would weigh less, and at extremely low temperature more. I asked those Nasa guys about it, they said that a Condensate also has to be stabilized with magnetic traps to keep it from moving around, I wonder if it's moving in responde to the Earth's polarity.
jammieg
#14
Apr28-03, 08:45 PM
P: n/a
Heat is motion, motion is a defining part of matter, matter has charges in motion,
matter has gravity and electrodynamic properties, heat is a definer of gravity and electodynamic properties.
I don't think anyone is even curious about some spinning magnets on a string.
You know what...
I reread my first note, it doesn't make sense, I'm just typing a lot of words.
I'm going to remake it.
jammieg
#15
May26-03, 01:50 PM
P: n/a
Updated the web page as of 5/26 and changed site name so it could be accessed by netscape. Contains new diagrams of the magnet expirement and a way to get a rough calculation of all the various alignments.
http://users.adelphia.net/~jammieg<b...sgg/f10000.htm
.
einsteinian77
einsteinian77 is offline
#16
Jun16-03, 11:56 AM
P: 204
To put it simply, this theory is way too complicated to be a description of nature. This is just my opinion.
jammieg
#17
Jun16-03, 11:25 PM
P: n/a
I somewhat agree, besides it's a hypothesis really, utterly untested, and what good is it anyway I have no clue.
...maybe a slight clue, but without highier math and without the years of knowledge and study of phyics, this is basically a weak hypothesis. If the conceptual logic of something isn't communicated through the more precise forms of math, then it is subjective, it is basically vague words, everyday life may not require that but real physicists and scientists do.

Gravity is a resulting attraction of an indirect electromagnetic interaction from charges in motion over a specific distance(greater than atomic forces which are direct interaction) as to be half attracting half repelling but resulting in net attraction- as the difference between accelerating and decellerating results in net acceleration.
jammieg
#18
Jul18-03, 09:31 PM
P: n/a
I made a mistake here, I was talking about Van der Walls forces, it's no wonder the forces of this don't come out to gravity I've only been considering this one aspect. If in a solar system formation there were hardly any high points of gravitational attraction yet formed it would be Van der Walls forces that gave the lightest elements the strongest gravititational attractive per mass, so that the Sun should be mostly hydrogen and helium and the farther out planets would be elements that have less diametric charge properties per mass.
This, if a sound theory, is only a principle of attraction, like the priciple of least action, that matter is made up of charges in motion of generally plus and minus moving about each other it is on various levels that gravity would work, not just the atomic level but mainly the subatomic level then the atomic level then perhaps even the molecular level then also on the level of planetary polarity so that a planet with a stronger magentic core would seem to have more mass or gravititational force to the sun.
On the subatomic level things are much more diametrically charged like the hydrogen atom itself, I didn't really stop and think about
the other heavier elements and that they are increasingly less diametrically charged like hydrogen or helium but the subatomic particle are. In other words the subatomic particle would have their own gravity and be the primary source of gravitational effect then add any atomic diametrically charged gravity then any additional molecule gravity but that the smaller things tend to govern the effects of the larger things.
I can't apologize for further complicating this because it is human nature to seek simple explanations and trite sayings to make the complex more manageble, often they work, but the real truth is often based on simple rules that can lead to as much complexity as we wish to look into, but this is dependent on the soundness and accuracy of those simple rules.
In hypothesis gravity is merely long range and so indirect electromagnetic charge operations on a variety of levels not just the atomic as with hydrogen, but mainly the subatomic in that most elements are magnetically net neutral on the atomic scale.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
The Ultimate Aether Theory Re-revealed! General Physics 2
[SOLVED] The ultimate Jack Pot theory... General Physics 0