Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity explained!

  1. Feb 19, 2004 #1
    Heisenbergs relations pushes the particles together! (And not just neutrinos)

    This is a description of the second term in D(vr).

    That the ether particles moves causes all other particles to move aswell, But logically they move against eachother.

    My theory is that the higgsparticles crushes all particles held together with lower charge then themselves, and thereby makes electrones and protones move very rapidly. The higher speed the particles moves in, the quicker they push the particles moving slower together, illustrated in Micheal's flow pictures.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 19, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Dead link.

    In an case, what you describe is simply not supported by physical evidence.
  4. Feb 19, 2004 #3
    Rule number one: There is no ether.

    Rule number two: There is no ether.

    Rule number three: Don't get caught repeating yourself.

    *vulcan grin*

  5. Feb 19, 2004 #4
    We already had a "Push Force from Space" theorist, Nigel in Astronomy and Cosmology, the thread "Proof of the Cause of Gravity"...runs into problems when you turn the "surface area" of a flat piece of steel 90° (to perpendicular) as a push force would change, dramatically, the piece of steels weight...not something that happens, sooo...
  6. Feb 21, 2004 #5
    There is also the very simply question of; "How does a push force from space presssurize the interior of the planet" in a manner that correlates "depth and pressure" such that, pressure INCREASES with depth, which is something that an "exterior pressurizing force" ("push force from space") cannot do, even though you (apparently?) can fool(?) some theoreticians/mathematicians this way, you will NOT fool the poeple with "Mechanical" knowledge as they know (from the MATH!) That is is simply unachievable.

    The idea of the Center of the Earth being pressurized, and relativily proportional to increasing depth, is a well known, measured, tested, accepted, "presently (current) accepted theory", of Geo-physics, just slightly under 4 Mbars of pressure at the center....sooo "Push from Space" does NOT accomodate the observational facts of a pressurized center which alludes to (tells{?} us) that it is an "Attraction to a (common) Center" that is Gravity...

    Mysterious isn't it....(?)
  7. Feb 21, 2004 #6
    Why should I defend myself against fools?

    Heisenbergs relations are applicable to higgsparticles!
  8. Feb 21, 2004 #7
    Real scientists don't attack people trying to prove their theory wrong. They welcome it as the added scrutiny will one way or another help their understanding of universe.
  9. Feb 22, 2004 #8
    And from what you describe, you would NOT be able to achieve the compression, needed, to generate a neutron star's densities, cause Neutrons stars are real, provable as existent, things...aside from that,...the linked site is about "Neutrino gravity" right?
  10. Feb 22, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Real science is done by actively proving yourself to be correct. If you want to be a scientist, you have to follow the rules of the game.

    Your idea does not fit the existing body of physical evidence.
  11. Feb 23, 2004 #10
    If all particles were standing waves in which the in wave was generated by every other particle in the universe wouldn't such waves be compressed apon creating a large mass. In the center of a traditional gravitational field there would be zero gravity due to the equal force in all directions. This could be explained by a depletion in wave intensity as waves form particles. To my knowledge the center of our planet is melted rock which would mean that a portion of the energy making up the in wave is getting converted to heat (E=MC2) and the difference between the incoming pressure and the outgoing pressure of these waves would cleanly explain gravity (note: outgoing pressure would be less due to a portion of the incoming wave becoming heat).
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2004
  12. Feb 23, 2004 #11
    Sorry for expanding on a tangent but...
    Assuming this is true, wouldn't the out-wave also lose just as much energy? Besides, I believe the heat is a result of the pressure which is a result of gravity, not the other way around. As always, I could be wrong =) Remember that, when looked at from a relative viewpoint, heat is just kinetic energy. We don't perceive it as that because each particle is fighting against each other particle and the net force is zero, but each individual particle has an abundance of kinetic energy.
  13. Feb 23, 2004 #12
    My only possible explanation as to why the in wave loses energy in the form of heat is because it is being compressed and the standing waves (particles) would have an over-supply of energy which would be displayed as kinetic energy. The out wave would be undergoing expansion and wouldn't nessisarily reclaim the energy lost to heat, as is evident in the heat that exists in the center of the earth.

    As for gravity creating heat, or heat creating gravity, this does appear to be a perspective issue. The incoming waves being compressed and giving off heat matches your mental model, what I am stating is that kinetic energy had to come from somewhere, and an incoming wave is a coherant explanation. The outgoing wave, lacking the energy given off as kinetic energy would be less intense giving rise to gravity.
  14. Feb 23, 2004 #13
    How does a depletion in energy, create compression? (as particle formation would drive expansion, not compression)
  15. Feb 23, 2004 #14
    Ugh my head hurts... let me think about this for a minute...

    Ok, I've thought, and thought some more, and here is the question I arrived at:
    If gravity is a manifestation of lost energy in the form of heat during this cycle, how is energy introduced into the system in order to perpetuate itself?
  16. Feb 23, 2004 #15
    I believe Tanus is referring to something similar to a pressure differential across the incoming and outgoing waves. There is a net loss on the incoming waves versus the outgoing, thereby inducing a slight inbound force pulling other matter toward it. His reference to particle formation was a tangent to his primary postulation, suggesting that standing waves lose energy merely by existing in a particle state (because of gravity).
  17. Feb 23, 2004 #16
    I'm going to make some educated guesses here. First continuation of the energy cycle continues from the incoming waves from all the particles in the universe. To my knowledge the earth radiates some of its heat, either through valcanic activity or convection back to the universe. Thus maintaining the energy cycle. I have no idea at what point radiated kenetic energy would re-form into a free wave to become part of the in waves used for future incarnations of particles.

    For the other question about energy loss causing compression. First some portion (quanta) of the energy in a wave would be "used" in the formation of particles, ie. the "quanta" of energy can only be used once in a given instant. This was meant to demonstrate known behaviors of gravity, and not related to compression.

    The theory I came up with is based entirely on the principles of conservation of energy and what I know of the standing wave theory. An incoming "quanta" of a wave would have 2 important possible destinations, either becoming kenetic energy, or the in-wave of a particle. Each "quanta" used for the in-wave of a particle would become an out-wave on the next cycle. This process in a large particle concentration would have more "free" waves coming in, than "free" waves leaving. While kenetic energy would still escape the process would be much slower than the formation and reformatoin of standing waves. In viewable terms, if two waves were traveling towards you in the ocean from two different directions such that they would impact you at the same time. The bigger wave would "win" in that it would push you in the direction it is moving less whatever force it lost from the smaller wave.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2004
  18. Feb 23, 2004 #17
    To the Emboldened, Funny I thought that that was called 'attraction to a common center', NOT a push force from space....right?

    Oh yes, and aside from that, Particle formation is called Fusion, are you suggesting the the earth is fusion powered gravity, cause where is the created matter going, the earth would need to swell greatly over time...right?
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2004
  19. Feb 23, 2004 #18
    So, curiosity, 'push force from space' and a need of anisotrophic pressurization, Humm what you seem to be guessing at is telling of a mechanical pressure, ergo Isotrophic, but the observed is of an anisotrophic system, much greater pressure at the center...so How?
  20. Feb 24, 2004 #19
    For really massive objects, the gravity should be proportional to the surface area.

    I'm sorry I got out of hand by the way.

    And I don't blame gravity on neutrino flows, for your knowledge.

    Erik-Olof Wallman
  21. Feb 24, 2004 #20
    Don't think the rest of that applies to me, sooo....
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook