Force of Sub-Atomic Particles with Des Chamberlain

[Chen]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
it would be nice if you could refrain from 'pulping' gravity, as a theory, as it has served humanity, very well, so far...so let's just stick to the facts please...and pulping it is just a waste of space...

That is just ridiculous. A few centuries ago people were executed for even suggesting that Earth is not the center of the solar system. Everyone believed the sun revolves around Earth, because that is what they were led to believe and no one could prove otherwise. Once the necessary tools were available we realized we were wrong.

Every generation of physicists wants to believe that their ideas and theories are the ultimate truth. It's the nature of man. But in 500 years, when we find the tools to really investigate gravity (or any other property of our world that currently cannot be examined), who knows what we might find?

I'm sorry but it is you that needs to be careful. Narrow mindedness is advancement's worst enemy. Do you think anyone would have dared to suggest 200 years ago that our world is made of tiny vibrating strings? How can you know for certain that in 200 years scientists will not look back and say "HAH! Pulling gravity... those fools"?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Push or pull? Is it a main question?
Result of action of any force it is a change (decrease or increase) of interval between objects.
More precisely, change of space is perceived as action of force.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by russ_watters
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)

Why must it have a finite limit? The strength of the gravitational field, according to this theory, depends on the mass of the shielding object (and the distance from that object). The larger the mass, the more "pushing particles" it absorbs. As long as there is no finite limit to mass, there is no finite limit to the amount of such particles that can be absorbed, and therefore no finite limit to the strength of the gravitational field.

(By the way, I am not trying to argue that the theory proposed by the thread author is indeed correct nor am I trying to support it. I am merely pointing out that the field still doesn't have to have a finite upper limit even by this theory.)

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by 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

Actually, even if the experiments show that your weight does decrease under Fort Knox, it wouldn't mean your theory is correct. The current theory of gravity also predicts, to the best of my knowledge, the same results. If you are beneath Fort Knox, the building will also pull you (or shield you, by your theory) with the force of G\frac{Mm}{d^2}, therefore decreasing your apparent weight.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Des Chamberlain
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.

I do have a question about your proposed theory. You seem to be describing the movement of such sub-atomic particles through the mass as random - some of them go through with no problems, and some of them collide with the atoms. But this cannot be true, since the force of gravity is constant and doesn't account for such random happenings (and while on average the difference would not be enormous, it would still exist), and modern experiements support this claim.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Chen the post directly above this one is back on track, (and asking the right question, in my opinion) as for my accusations of a pulping of gravity, read back somewhat and he is trying to, on the other hand I am not trying to force him to believe anything, yet he is the one 'denouncing' something fairly well established...I'd rather just rad the arguements/facts/ideas (as explained/expressed)...theories...I suppose, I have time restrictions, still, soooo...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be traveling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be traveling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?

It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.

Gravity is not instantaneous. If there are two massive objects far away from each other, and suddenly one of them begins to disappear, the other object will only notice a difference in the gravitational force after some time.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
Gravity is not instantaneous. If there are two massive objects far away from each other, and suddenly one of them begins to disappear, the other object will only notice a difference in the gravitational force after some time.

What do you mean under " begins to disappear"?
The massive object cannot simply disappear or suddenly appear.
What an experiment proves a delay of gravity action?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
It is impossible to provide interstellar and/or intergalactic interactions with the help of gravity propagating with c, especially below c. Gravity does not propagate at all. It operates in the all volume of the universe simultaneously and synchronously. Gravity and absolute time is one thing.
Therefore gravity cannot be provided with any particles.

I think you have missed my stance on this one, I am not argueing this...try explaining it along the lines of Des Chamberlain's postulate of 'Push not pull', that is the responce I was looking for...God's Grace I knew the other part...

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
What do you mean under " begins to disappear"?
The massive object cannot simply disappear or suddenly appear.
What an experiment proves a delay of gravity action?

I cannot explain this well enough myself, so why don't you just read this:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
I cannot explain this well enough myself, so why don't you just read this:
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

You also can find many other links on a theme “ speed of gravity” in the WEB . Most of these articles asserts the speed of gravity exceeds speed of light.

 

[Chen]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
You also can find many other links on a theme “ speed of gravity” in the WEB . Most of these articles asserts the speed of gravity exceeds speed of light.

Most? Have you read each and every single article and determined what most of them assert?

If the gravitational field did propagate faster than the speed of light, you could feel the effects of a mass at a certain point before you could see it at that point. And this contradicts general relativity according to which no information can travel faster than the speed of light. If gravity was indeed instantaneous, you could use it to transfer information over large distances with no delay whatsoever.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
Most? Have you read each and every single article and determined what most of them assert?

Did you do it?

If the gravitational field did propagate faster than the speed of light, you could feel the effects of a mass at a certain point before you could see it at that point.

Certainly!

And this contradicts general relativity according to which no information can travel faster than the speed of light.

General relativity deal with information? It is new. Gravity does not propagate. So this not contradicts GR.

If gravity was indeed instantaneous, you could use it to transfer information over large distances with no delay whatsoever.

Why no? Try out.
Only think up the corresponding gravitational detector.

 

[Chen]

General relativity deal with information? It is new. Gravity does not propagate. So this not contradicts GR.

"Gravity" does propagate. There is this thing called a gravitational field that every mass creates. This field, like the magnetic and electric fields, propagates through space at the speed of light.

http://www.essentialresults.com/article/Speed_of_gravity

In general relativity (GR), the field is elevated to the only real concern. The gravitational field is equated with the curvature of space-time, and propagations (including gravity waves) can be shown, according to this theory, to travel at a single speed, cg.

Measurements of various sorts, notably orbiting neutron stars, have shown that cg must be very close to c, the speed of light.

I repeat. c_g must be very close to[, but not above,] c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Newton's formulation of gravity is quite accurate for most practical purposes. It has a few problems with it though:

1. It assumes that changes in the gravitational force are transmitted instantaneously when positions of gravitating bodies change. However, this contradicts the fact that there exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted (speed of light in vacuum).

I repeat. [T]here exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummm, what was that I just read in a recent (older) copy of Discover magazine...Oh Yea, Pioneer has slowed down...is slowing down, has slowed down, the other one too, Voyager was it...seems as the are exiting(?) the Sun's influence, they are slowing down...gravity could be very different on galactic scale...

And the neutrino detector planted in the polar ice, recorded 1000 events in a year, even if off by several orders of magnitude that is not enough to pressurize this planet, not that I am aware of...and they are currently looking for the WIMPS...soooo, not to worry your assertions will be (dis?)proven(?) soon enough...

 

[Chen]

Sure, and Opportunity will also find little green Martians on Mars next week.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Chen
Sure, and Opportunity will also find little green Martians on Mars next week.

I thought that was last week...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW Chen it was the Oct 2003 issue of Discover Magazine, the cover story, on page 34, written by Tim Folger, in which it is mentioned about the Cold Dark Matter Search, (CDMS II) a detector in a (ballast) lead (+) lined room, in a mineshaft...looking for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS) and mentioned the Physicist Moti Milgrom and his Idea of MOND which is MOdified Newtonian Dynamics which postulates that gravity, outside of our solar system, (ergo galactic) might just behave in a manner that we had never thought of...heck why would we have thought that? we have never tested it...well, now we do have that lovely piece(s) of accidental happiness (that is discovery) that are the two probes sent out looooong ago that are noticed to be slowing down (for no apparent/obvious/known/thought of/tested and checked for by the systems operators/ reason(s)...OK?

But I would love to know more about why they are green, the Martians...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

For reference purpose only http://www.discover.com/issues/oct-03/cover/ the article in question...sorta...

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Chen
"Gravity" does propagate. There is this thing called a gravitational field that every mass creates. This field, like the magnetic and electric fields, propagates through space at the speed of light.

http://www.essentialresults.com/article/Speed_of_gravity


I repeat. c_g must be very close to[, but not above,] c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity


I repeat. [T]here exists a maximum velocity at which signals can be transmitted.

It is an easy way to repeat another's ideas. But it can lead up at a blind alley.
Try please to explain the following phenomena:

- All forces are subjected to 1/r^2 i.e.- there is a nonlinear dependence on distance between objects;

- The spiral form of galaxies and, seems, of all universe.

I wish you success.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
(SNIP)[/color] - All forces are subjected to 1/r^2 i.e.- there is a nonlinear dependence on distance between objects (SNoP)[/color]

Humm that is only locally proven to hold true...it might not 'reign' as such as it acts in galactic clusters, or clusterings..."we" don't have any real proof of that just yet...sorta...

 

[pallidin]

Interesting. I have read these posts as well as some of the links.
At least one link say's that it is currently technologically improbable to experimentally determine the "speed" of gravity.
I find that fascinating, because if anyone of us could actually design and implement an acceptable, verifiable experiment to ascertain the speed of gravity, I suppose it would bring "instant fame", and if conducted by a Phd. perhaps even a Nobel prize.
Recognition aside, it would seem that determining the "speed of gravity" is an important and worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Chen]

I wonder why it is so hard to measure the speed of gravity? Probably because gravity is so weak, but to measure great speeds you want great distance, and the two don't mix well together.

 

[Sariaht]

How strange the speed of gravity cannot change. Might this support pull theory?

GOT YOU! THERE IS A PULL! Else gravity could be bend, just like light.

 

[Chen]

How strange the speed of gravity cannot change. Might this support pull theory?

GOT YOU! THERE IS A PULL! Else gravity could be bend, just like light.

Why should the "pushing" particles be effected by other forces? Do you know what their properties are? How they behave in different situations?

 

[jdavel]

Des Chamberlain said: "The Idea that I want to set out here is so beautifully simple..."

You've got a lot to learn about what is and isn't considered "beautifully simple" in physics.

To get you started: F = Gm1m2/r^2 is, your idea isn't.

 

[Chen]

F = Gm1m2/r^2 may be "beautifully simple" but it is also incorrect.

 

[david firestar]

pushed not pulled

How strange the speed of gravity cannot change. Might this support pull theory?

GOT YOU! THERE IS A PULL! Else gravity could be bend, just like light.

whot is the speed of graverty?if nothing can escape a black hole then how can graverty escape and pull objects in ? it can not,just ecept the push FACTS,hip...

 

[david firestar]

if Newton knew about newtrenos bombarding our atomic substance then he would have put 2 and 2 together ,and would have said"graverty is a side effect of kinnetic energy, caused by the constant atomic shower,the high tides are caused by the parshal shelds ie the moon and Earth ,the tides are pressed more on the unshelded sides than on the shelded,thus the warters would be deeper on the shelded side"then he may have done one of his experments maybe standing on a set of scales in a shower ,noted effect would be when he turns on the warter he seems heavier than before,kinetic energy is pushing down,and it is newtrenos that are pushing the warter,depending on there atomic number,the bigger the number the heaver the atom,its so simple to understand,i have understod it for years,the firestar effect fits all observations and experments to do with graverty,think about it, graverty is a side effect not a force, its kinnetic energy that made the apple fall,its parshal shelds like the Earth that cause the firestar effect, blocking some newtrenos from hitting me upwards, but because the amount hitting from above remain the same the effect is kinnetic towards the earth,the moon is a smaler mass thus a smaller parshal sheld,as for black holes or newtron stars they are full shelds, newtrenos push everything into them,newtrenos are not effected by them,uless they randomly hit into them well I am geting tired now and of to sleep,hope you can understand all thiss 25th centery info,littel birdy flying high droped his cargo from the sky,a farmer said wipeing his eye,its a good job cows can't fly.firestar.

 

[pallidin]

OK, well, besides the fact that you need some serious sleep, firestar... ummm... with your incredibly silly theory perhaps I should leave it with just that. Get A LOT of sleep.

 

[david firestar]

OK, well, besides the fact that you need some serious sleep, firestar... ummm... with your incredibly silly theory perhaps I should leave it with just that. Get A LOT of sleep.

firestar effect is not a theory,bet you can't prove it wrong,

 

[Nigel]

As proved (http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/), the outward motion of matter in the big bang causes an opposite reaction of the fabric of the continuum of space, flowing around it to fill in the vacated volume.

By analogy is the reaction of water to a moving underwater submarine, or the air displaced around a moving person filling in the vacated volume. The continuum of space flows around particles of matter like electrons, giving the very small waves of wave-particle duality.

Space pressure towards us from all directions is slightly shielded by the planet Earth and other masses. Hence, the net space pressure pushes people downwards, causing things to fall; gravity! This proof predicted that the furthest stars would not be gravitationally slowed; later observed from supernova red-shifts.

 

[mitchbicpu]

Des Chamberlain

You are so right. It is so simple, when you and I agree a neutrino has some mass.

A USPTO document at:

http://www.epimedia.com/gravitypush

teaches your push of gravity theory and has diagrams which may help you see the math is exactly
the same as our standard pull of gravity theory.

You can then lead yourself into the simple oppositely charged twin monopole theory of
everything as taught in USPTO document at:

http://www.epimedia.com/gravitypush/octm

How do we spread your theory faster?

mitchbicpu@aol.com

 

[Muddler]

Hi Des Chamberlain!

I have been wondering about the nature of gravity myself, but came to conclusions some different from yours.

( time to advertise my idea: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=33687)

I am speculating, that the real nature of gravity might be more an effect of mass and "antimass" being "insoluble" to each other.

So I am not involved in the discussion if gravity is pushing or pulling - I think it is more or less both...

 

[geistkiesel]

hope you can understand all thiss 25th centery info,littel birdy flying high droped his cargo from the sky,a farmer said wipeing his eye,its a good job cows can't fly.firestar.

I'm from Arizona, so I don't mind the occasional flying cow, it's a good job though that elephants don't want to fly, even if they do know how.
geistkiesel

 

[Des Chamberlain]

Sheres and 500 lb things

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.

Dear Paladin

I've been away for some time but I got to reflecting further on what you said in this quote.
Everything you state up until placing the object between the sphere and the 500 lb mass is easy to explain with the push/shield theory yes, they shield each other and so try to equalise the dearth of quantum particles between them.
When you introduce another body between the sphere and the 500 lb mass you indeed bring in another body that is absorbing particle energy and so the two bodies will be affected by the further reduction in available particles acting on them and will move together. Makes sense!

 

[Des Chamberlain]

The big bang

There is also the simple question of interstellar and/or galactic gravity, how do those particles travel those distances, (To push Galaxies) as they clearly MUST be traveling those distances below c, as they are particles, right? What is the source of those particulate emissions...intergalactically?

Thank you for your in put MRP

The big bang, Lots of energy, no mass!
At the point of the 'Big Bang' something corrupted the state of oneness, all that constitutes reality, the primordial energy, causing inbalance and ignighting the 'Big Bang. Energy takes the form of duality, Positive/negative.
This is the fundamental postulate.
This or these forms of energy that were complementary become opposites, this is the fundamental truth. That energy is in an ongoing process of being absorbed by mass. Black holes are the point at which the Mass become so dense as to not allow particles to escape and have unlimited attraction as the can not repulse. All will again be absorbed by 'Black Holes' which in turn will absorb each other in the fulness of time. then all will be one again!