Gravity: push, pull, or does not exist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter urtalkinstupid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Pull Push
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on a new hypothesis regarding gravity, proposing that it may not be a pulling force but rather a result of sub-atomic pressure exerted by particles, particularly neutrinos from the sun. The user suggests that when an object is thrown, it is not gravity pulling it down, but rather the pressure from surrounding sub-atomic particles that pushes it back to Earth. This theory challenges the conventional understanding of gravity and invites further exploration and experimentation to validate or refute its claims.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly gravity.
  • Familiarity with sub-atomic particles and their interactions.
  • Knowledge of neutrinos and their role in physics.
  • Basic grasp of gravitational theories, including Newtonian and Einsteinian frameworks.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of neutrinos in physics and their interactions with matter.
  • Explore alternative theories of gravity, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).
  • Investigate experimental methods to test the push theory of gravity.
  • Study the implications of sub-atomic pressure in quantum mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, researchers in theoretical physics, and anyone interested in exploring alternative models of gravity beyond traditional theories.

  • #271
I'm just trying to point you out to tell these people that other people are making unecessary comments.

oh, mine were completely necessary...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #272
GIVE ME SOURCES! terrabyte, insults are NEVER necessary.
 
  • #273
urtalkinstupid said:
ArmoSkater87, you still think gravity travels at the speed you mentioned? HAH, I'm sure everyone can agree with me for once on this one.

HUH?? When did i say anything about the speed gravity travels at??
 
  • #274
I DUNNO IM SEEING THINGS! :biggrin: I want sources though, so that you people can turn me into a believer. GIMME.
 
  • #275
urtalkinstupid said:
Yes, I agree no observational evidence Pluto is drifting. It should be drifting ever so slightly if space-time curvature were keeping it in place,
By how much?
but it isn't because its orbit is sustained by sub-atomic forces.
and what is the equation which describes that sustenance?
May I ask you what is the evidence of space-time curvature? Is it the bending of light?
The evidence is the many experimental and observational results which are consistent with General Relativity (and the lack of any which are inconsistent with it). The 'bending of light' is just one effect.
 
  • #276
haha, my sources are from physicists and my physics tecaher and a whole lot of research I've done myself in the past years, fortunatlly my physics teacher is the greatest teacher I've ever had.
 
  • #277
That provides me no source.

Have you people ever had doubts about the theories that are popular today? That question has an obvious answer. You people follow everything only if it is by some credited scientists. So, Hawking's redid his theory. It seems that I've always thought no information is lost. I also thought that no information is even falls in due to the fact I think black holes do not exist. A theory that you people have cherished so well for 29 years, turned around by the same person who proposed it...my, my, my.

Please, I want highly credited sources. You wanted sources from me; I want sources from you that are thorough enough, yet easy to interpret. Hopefully they can sway me, right?
 
Last edited:
  • #278
what specifically do u want sources for?? The whole thing about neutrinos not interacting?
 
  • #279
In case you are unaware what I have previously posted, here it is again:

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?
 
  • #280
urtalkinstupid said:
In case you are unaware what I have previously posted, here it is again:

Why is it uncertain what happens beyond an event horizon? Why is the cosmological constant still unsolved? Why is it that gravity is an attractive force, but the Universe is said to be expanding? How come there are black holes forming near the "beginning" of the Universe? Why is that when something gets more densed, there appears to be a more devestating effect of gravity? (Expert's opinion, like a highly credited site would be suffice. Since you people love math and experiments, provide me with some of those from a better source than Alkatran.) If nothing can move the speed of light, then how do neutrinos not have rest mass?

Alright, fine: Read a brief history of time by stephen hawking (honestly, I don't know if I got his name right)

In that book, it says something along the lines of: Since light can't escape a black hole, and nothing moves faster than light, and mass has no effect on the acceleration of gravity, nothing can escape the event horizon of a black hole. Therefor we can get no information from within.
His theory about black holes emitting hawking radiation goes against this, yes, but the emitions are unpredictable so no information is actually revealed.

I already explained why black holes act like they do, do a google search. Look, here's some random site I found:
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html

Personnaly, I thought the cosmological constant was abandoned once it was discovered the universe wasn't static, but expanding. The only purpose the thing had was to keep the universe stable.

Photons have no rest mass, they move the speed of light. If neutrinos have no rest mass it's likely they would act like photons and just blaze along at c. And "nothing can move at the speed of light" is an incorrect statement. Because, obviously, light moves at the speed of light. All you need to do is mimic the property(ies) that allow light to do this and you reach c.
 
  • #281
urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to the gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but let's see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sort of like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for the universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if I'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.
 
  • #282
I don't understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i don't see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I don't know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually don't "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I don't know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really don't know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects...thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.
 
  • #283
ArmoSkater87 said:
I don't understand why you want sources for these questions. It is irellivant to your theory, but i gave you answers to most of them...adn i don't see why you would need sources for some of there, some are just really obvious...No one has ever seen an event horizon, and no one knows if it really excists, i think that answers that. I don't know anything about what the cosmilogical constant is. Gravity is actually most likely a push force since there really is not such thing as "pull". When you pull something, you are actually don't "pull", you push in the opposite direction. The universe is accelerating for an unknown reason, right now scientists say its because of dark matter. I don't know about black holes forming in the biginning of the universe, i really don't know how much in the biginning you mean by that. If a star is massive enough its life can be cut down to only hundreds of thousands of years, which is very short compared to most stars. About the gravity of denser objects...thats pretty obvious from the gravity force equation.

I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.
 
  • #284
DeShiznit44 said:
urtalkinstupid has a really good point, sources need to be provided but the problem is these questions are questions that top scientists of our day don't have definite answers to. Now, as to the gravity being an attractive force and the universe still expanding. Now, i know it's not the greatest of theories but let's see what we know. It is conradictory to what we think when we see the universe is expanding but gravity should be pulling it back together. Now i think of it sort of like a "Conservation of Gravity". in order for the universe to balance itself out since i think the total energy of the universe is 0 (not to sure on that point, correct me if I'm wrong) I think of it like gravity negating itself. An unkown force, if u will, that acts against gravity pushing the universe (or pulling, lol) apart.

The "conservation of gravity" is the force on the opposite object. The change in inertia of each is equal. There's no reason for there to be, or not to be, an anti-gravity. (unless you count the universe ripping away from itself!)
 
  • #285
Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.
 
  • #286
Alkatran said:
I say that there is no pushing and merely pulling in the opposite direction!

Prove me wrong. Ya, that's what I thought.

Oh wait, we're both wrong. Consider an electron between an electron and a proton. The center electron is being pushed by the other electron and pulled by the proton.


lol...thats a good point. The universe is just such a weird and crazy place. Technically don't know anything.
 
  • #287
My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the only way to get there is 1+1+1+1. You can’t go faster than that.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equation.
 
  • #288
urtalkinstupid said:
Wow, you people take everything literally. You know what I meant by the statement nothing can travel at the speed of light. Yea, the site you provided me was one of the first sites I encountered. I want better. Neutrinos travel just below or at the speed of light. Neutrinos have a rest mass. They are also able to come close to traveling at the speed of light, but not exactly the speed of light

I want more indepth sources. Google do not provide definite sources. So, I want you to scope out the ones that you think are good and post them. I have no reason to believe in the current theories, if they aren't even logical. Mathematics is just a manifestation of logic. If the logic that lead to the math was illogical, then that math itself is illogical. Logic is the only thing that matters. The current theories do not practice logic.

Anything I give you won't be enough. It will either be too complicated to understand (so you'll dismiss it) or too simple (so you'll dismiss it).
 
  • #289
Arctic Fox said:
My 2 cents...

I want to get to the number 4. Einstein says the ony way to get there is either 1+1+1+1.

I’m looking at my own theories that say I can get there using 2*2. :)

Same destination, different/faster equation.

Yes, but you need to break down 2*2. Think, what did you actually do in your head to calculate it? You memorized it. Any calculation can take almost 0 time if you memorize it. To really calculate 2*2 you need to:

* is a series of +, so 2*2 is +2 twice
2+2
+ and - are series of numbers
a number is a series of increments (+1)
+1+1 + +1+1
++=+
+1+1+1+1
there, we broke it down all the way
4

2*2 = 2+2 = +1+1+1+1

Now, why was 2*2 faster, again?
 
  • #290
artic fox said the equation is shortened. if u know that adding 1+1+1+1 is the same as 2 doubled.. then that is indeed a short cut. if u have good understanding u can cut out the middle-man and just get straight to the answer. memorized or not. alkatran, i don't care how hard or easy ur sources are. I WANNA SEE THEM! i give u guys my sources all the time and i don't mind if u shoot them down.. so the least thing u can do is give the ppl on this thread the same respect and just let us see ur sources...
 
  • #292
Yea, there is no push or pull. In order to provide more of a reality, I used push to emphasize my theory. What is really going on is emission and absorption.


P=Proton E=Electron \leftarrow or \rightarrow = energy emitted or absorbed

A proton can be denoted by \rightarrow P \leftarrow it absorbs.
An electron can be denoted by \leftarrow E \rightarrow it emitts energy.

That is not how it works, but that's what we will use. Density is the determing factor on what emitts or absorbs energy. Thats in quantum physics?

So, what you have is:

P \leftarrow \rightarrow P \leftarrow \leftarrow E \rightarrow \leftarrow E

So, what happens?

P \leftarrow \rightarrow PE \rightarrow \rightarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E

The outer E continues to push the E in the PE pair as it progresses towards the pair.

P \leftarrow \lefttarrow EP \leftarrow \leftarrowarrow \leftarrow \leftarrow E

The E in the PE pair orbits the PE and is being pushed by the other E allowing the E in the PE pair to pair up with the other P and the other E to pair up with the PEP pair. To get:

\rightarrow PEPE \rightarrow

This is just the jist. There is more going on. Point I'm trying to make is that everything is governed by emission and absorption which makes a pushing force.

I don't know if this is a good example. OH WELL! :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #293
and just so we're all clear:
urtalkinstupid isn't 15. i am. he never said anything about age. i did (after terrabyte got my age wrong) urtalkinstupid is 16.. about to be 17. i am 15 about to be 16. and what's so bad about being 15?? it's reasonable considering I'm going in the 11th grade...
 
  • #294
solving for p

Alkatran said:
Your equation is wrong.

Here's why:

E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = 0

Now, I'll start from your end equation and work backwards:
P^2 = E^2/(m^2*c^4+c^2) - 1
(m^2*c^4+c^2)(P^2+1) = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 = E^2
m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2 = 0
Now they both = 0, so:
m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4*P^2+c^2*P^2 + c^2 + m^2*c^2 - E^2

eliminate everything on the left from the right

m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 = m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2-E^2 + m^2*c^4*P^2 + c^2*P^2

0 = m^2*c^4*p^2+c^2*p^2
Divide by c^2*p^2

0 = m^2*c^2 + 1
m^2*c^2 = -1
(mc)^2 = -1
mc = sqr(-1)
mc = i

The speed of light times the object's mass is imaginary. That is why you're equation doesn't work.

Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.
 
  • #295
urtalkinstupid said:
Tell your beloved Einstein that.

BTW, 9.81m/s^2 is acceleration...

just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it? E=mc^2... i guess that's wrong too...
 
  • #296
beatrix kiddo (is not a girl, but is a boy), he was saying that the method i used to solve for p is wrong not the total energy equation. hehehe :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #297
oh ok.. nvm then.. sry alkatran.. i misread ur post... I CAN BE WRONG TOO YA KNOW!
 
  • #298
hey when i solved for p i got this:
p^2=E^2-mo^2c^4/c^2.. it's prob not right because it makes the answer imaginary (?)
 
  • #299
urtalkinstupid said:
Since you're so good at math, can you solve for p the correct way? I told you that I already thought mine was wrong, so I was wanting help.

E^2 = m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2
sqr((E^2 - m^2*c^4)/c^2) = p

You have to by level, move the addition, then the multiplication, then the square. Pretty basic algebra.
 
  • #300
beatrix kiddo said:
just so u know entropy, stupid was saying that alkatran could tell his beloved einstein that the equation was wrong.. he wasn't meaning the acceleration of gravity... and since, alkatran, u think this equation is wrong, what is ur opinion on SR, since that comes from it? E=mc^2... i guess that's wrong too...

If the equation is incorrect either it was found incorrectly or the base equation is also wrong.

In this case it was found incorrectly.

*edit* oh, you were told that by urtalking anyways.
 

Similar threads

Detecting Gravity Waves: An Exploration of Using Them for Communication
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Discussing Push vs Pull with My Boss
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
Undergrad What happens when an explosion occurs on the surface of the moon?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School How Does Gravity Influence Energy Production in Hydroelectric Generators?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School Does an orbiting mass exert force on what it is orbiting around?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
What are the accepted theories for the source of gravity?
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
High School What Causes Mass to Exert Gravitational Pull?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Gravity: Force or Acceleration?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
Undergrad Is dark energy pushing or is it a mirror concept of gravity?
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Undergrad How weather conditions affect a golf shot
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K