Is There a New Theory of Gravity?

[dpeters]

I have a new theory of gravity that I would like to present. My theory goes like this:

Imagine that there is a field of some kind that exists throughout the Universe. Let's give this field a magnitude of 1 for simplicity. This field existed before matter condensed out of the expanding Universe. Now when matter finally did condense it interacted with the field. The interaction reduces the strength of the field, but does not eliminate it, within the vicinity of the matter to a value less than 1 but greater than 0, such that there is a net resultant force that acts in the direction of the matter. This net resultant force is what we call gravity. See diagram one in the attachment.

Now if two masses come close enough such that their fields overlap then the field strength in the area of overlap will be weaker than even the strength of the field in the vicinity of the two masses and the two masses will be drawn together. See diagram two in the attachment. This would apply to any number of masses. When there is no other mass nearby then objects float in the field without being drawn in one direction or another because the field gradient is equal all around the object.

In the vicinity of field overlap there would be a slight bulging of the masses because the strength of the field is not equal all around the masses as seen when the Moon pulls on the Earth and creates the tides.

 

[masudr]

This is wrong. Firstly, if there was no interaction before "matter condensed" in the universe, then matter would never condense.

Secondly, you have made no possibility for quantitative prediction. Newton's gravitation was the that a force proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them provides us with a mathematical relation. We can plug in the numbers and see if it works.

Thirdly, you have not defined how your field interacts with matter, apart from saying that it reduces the strength of the field.

What you have done is (wrongly) given a re-hash of Newtonian gravitation. Instead of saying that the field starts of at 1, we say it starts of at 0. Any masses provide a negative influence, which dwindles as we get further away from the mass (i.e. inverse square). Any other masses couple to the field, and we get attraction.

Finally, you have not incoroporated the equivalence principle, so even if we could get some formulas out of your new "theory" your predictions would disagree in the relativistic domain. For example, the precession of mercury wouldn't agree with your theoretical data.

I think you have failed to see what a theory requires to be valid. We must have a set of quantitative predictions, from which we can calculate numerical predictions. Then we must be able to set up an experiment that can test if the numerical predictions agree with observed data. If they do in many cases, then the theory is vindicated. If not, we throw it away.

You cannot learn physics from popular science books. You need to have a firm grasp and understanding of several mathematical principles. Do you understand calculus? If someone could formulate ANYTHING to do with physics without recourse to calculus, I would quit my course at Oxford. Calculus is a basic necessity, since the world around is all about change, and it is easier to describe change, or changes in change as opposed to the situation itself.

What does your field do? Does it react to mass? What is the equation of motion. You must address these issues. What happens if two masses come in touch with each other? Do we get infinite force? You must explain these questions, and address the several issues raised above, if you want the world to take notice of you.