# Creation of gravity; a theory

• itallcomestoenergy
In summary, this person is proposing a theory that does not appear to be based in reality. They ask for proof, but do not offer any. Their ideas may be suitable for short science fiction novels, but are not credible for anything more.

#### itallcomestoenergy

I have this theory; gravitation is a result of the right composition and amount of elements, combined with the right temperature with a flux of course. This means there are many possibilities to create gravity, and anti-gravity if switched 180 degrees. Am I far out? what's your thoughts?

strangerep and davenn
You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Per Newton's work, gravity is something that is "generated" by bodies that have mass.

nuuskur said:
You are going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Per Newton's work, gravity is something that is generated by bodies that have mass.
Atoms have mass

Well, arbitrary collection of elements produces gravity independently of temperature. I don't see how the initial idea is plausible.

Yes atoms have mass. What is the purpose of that statement?

itallcomestoenergy said:
I have this theory; gravitation is a result of the right composition and amount of elements, combined with the right temperature with a flux of course. This means there are many possibilities to create gravity, and anti-gravity if switched 180 degrees. Am I far out? what's your thoughts?

Please read PF rules regarding personal/non-mainstream theories. In short, they aren't generally allowed.

Apparently we're going to discuss this one.

itallcomestoenergy said:
I have this theory

No you don't. You have a collection of scientific-sounding words strung together. If you have a theory, make some quantitative testable predictions.

Wrichik Basu, CalcNerd and itallcomestoenergy
Apparently we're going to discuss this one.
No you don't. You have a collection of scientific-sounding words strung together. If you have a theory, make some quantitative testable predictions.
How is it possible to prove this theory?

nuuskur said:
Well, arbitrary collection of elements produces gravity independently of temperature. I don't see how the initial idea is plausible.

Yes atoms have mass. What is the purpose of that statement?
The sun, Earth and our moon

Your theory requires YOUR proof. Until then it should be moved to the Science fiction section.

Are you not listening to me? You don't have a theory. You have a collection of scientific-sounding words strung together. If you have a theory, make some quantitative testable predictions.

Klystron
CalcNerd said:
Your theory requires YOUR proof. Until then it should be moved to the Science fiction section.
But doesn't it start with a thought? I really need inspiration and help to figure this out!

Are you not listening to me? You don't have a theory. You have a collection of scientific-sounding words strung together. If you have a theory, make some quantitative testable predictions.
I understand, but I don't have the background or knowledge to know where to begin...

itallcomestoenergy said:
I understand, but I don't have the background or knowledge to know where to begin...

Then go to school and get a physics degree. Or spend a few thousand hours learning modern physics on your own. There is no other way if you want to be taken seriously.

davenn
Sure. But if you are proposing something that is to be taken seriously (not science fiction), then you need to be prepared to offer proof. And that proof needs to hold up to tests.

Offer some proof to your ideas or the ideas are merely ideas for short science fiction novels (at best). As[U] Vanadium 50[/U] stated, you simply strung together some technobabble.

Just as a note to everyone, he posted EXACTLY this same nonsense previously and that post was deleted. Why this one was not deleted as well is beyond me.

CalcNerd and itallcomestoenergy
CalcNerd said:
Sure. But if you are proposing something that is to be taken seriously (not science fiction), then you need to be prepared to offer proof. And that proof needs to hold up to tests.

To clarify to the OP, theories in science are a collection of rules, methods, and math that are consistent and make useful and observable predictions about the real world.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Drakkith said:
To clarify to the OP, theories in science are a collection of rules, methods, and math that are consistent and make useful and observable predictions about the real world.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
First: How can you prove me wrong? Arent you a scientist trying to figure out whatever is on your mind?

Second: Who are you to say that this is nonsense? I am here to find out where to go from here? ISnt this a general discussion forum?

Since we do not discuss such personal speculation, this thread will be closed.

strangerep and jbriggs444