# Inverse Gavity? what the

• scott_sieger

#### scott_sieger

Inverse Gavity? what the...!

Inverse Gravity

A few days ago in response to some thing I wrote in an extract I was asked what I meant by inverse gravity. For me this is work in progress and I have yet to firm up my theory.

Conceptually this can be a little difficult to explain.
But I shall try,

Using magnets as an Example:

WE have two bar magnets that have the usual opposing poles. North and south. Between the poles we have an imaginary centre that can be known but not defined exactly I call this centre a “teeter point” or Moo in philosophical terms. This “teeter point “ is the centre of attraction between the poles along the plane of the bar that supports the poles.

Unfortunately I can’t show a drawing so words will have to suffice.

Now. We pole our magnets so that they are north to north therefore we have a sense of repulsion. We tend to think that poles are repelling each other but where I differ is that I feel that the poles are actually more attracted elsewhere to a “teeter point” than towards each other. The south poles are attracted outwards in any direction that is attractive to them so beyond our two magnets, that are in a not very attractive state is an attraction of a north pole that we can’t see but can determine if we make the use of more magnets.

"the closer we push out opposing poles together the greater the attraction to move away becomes"

So we have our two opposing magnets and beyond these we place another two magnets with the north pole facing the duelling contest

You release the two duelling magnets and of course they move towards the centre of their attraction ( the teeter point) being the other outer magnets.

So the action of repulsion is what I call inverse gravity.

The reasoning is based on the premise that there are always at least two forces at work and if one can not determine the other force then a little imagination helps thus leading eventually to a greater understanding. Sort of, from theory to fact process.

I would really like to work with someone on the development of this concept as I think our full understanding of gravity, magnetism etc may depend on it. The quest for a universal constant, the governing of attraction is essentially what it is about.

What keeps the stars apart?

What holds Earth in it’s orbit apart from centrifuge?

What is centrifuge in spatial warpage terms?

What stops reality from collapsing in on it self?

What keeps space “Flat”? or 3 dimensional?
What achieves the infinitely finite within the infinite?

Why doesn’t a magnet just collapse and keep collapsing without being broken?

So, guys/galls…..any ideas?
Any one want to help me with this?

Well, I don't know what to make of your theory, I don't see how it is any different than current ones other than that it explains less than them. But, I don't want to seem like I just come to this forum to debunk people's theories, I'm looking for new ideas. So could you explain the advantages of this theory over others? Does it make any new predictions? Or are you trying to unite electromagnetism with gravity? I'm afaid that if that is your goal, I don't see an explanation of the actual source of the 'electromagnetogravitic' interaction. I just sounds to me to be an usually complex analogy between gravity and magnetism.
On a slightly unrelated note, I have a vaguely unified theory of elecrtomagnetic and gravitational interactions (I would try and include nuclear stuff, but I don't know enough about nuclear phenomenon) (and it's testable!) if you're interested. If so, send me a PM and I'll tell you all about it.

Firstly,

I am not proposing a theory but possibly a direction in discussion that works towards a theory.

The discussion I have proposed is to try and eventually find answers to questions listed at the end of the thread that haven't been answered fully yet.

I suppose I am trying to generate a sort of combining of knowledge and understandings without boundaries so that we all can move towards a better understanding of what makes the universe tick.

Secondly, in the face of all the current evidence I am not convinced that electromagnetic waves of any sort including visible light actually take time to travel and I have the logic to show why I am not convinced. (only need to ask)

Funnilly enough this in part was inspired by the stories of ufo's

Do you think they would spend a million years trying to get here?

Obviously not. So I try to imagine how they would do it?

oops did I mention UFO's? Crop circles? oops did I mention crop circles?

Yes, I'd like to hear about this logic! Send it on over! Anyway, I think that the questions posed at the end of your first post are not yet answerable to any great degree, and I'm no astrophysics wiz, so I can't really help. Here's what I want to know:
Why did God make us smart enough to know that there is a meaning to life, but not smart/patient enough to find it?

Jonothan,

In a sort of good humour sense If God is as smart as I reckon he should be he would give you the curiosity to search for something that could never be found. The reason I feel quite seriously is that this curiosity or quest drives the entire universe forward so in essence our pursuit for meaning is in a way helping to keep the universe perpetual.

A song that will never be sung so beautiful so grand

A poem that will never be written so rhythmic so profound

A love that will never be felt so sweet and full of joy

A word that will never be written that can never be defined

An end with no beginning and a beginning without an end

A curiosity beyons compare that can never be confined.

Just thought I'd put this one in...

Last edited by a moderator:

Originally posted by scott_sieger
Inverse Gravity

A few days ago in response to some thing I wrote in an extract I was asked what I meant by inverse gravity. For me this is work in progress and I have yet to firm up my theory.

etc.

So, guys/galls…..any ideas?
Any one want to help me with this?

This actually has a lot to do with my thread that fell with a thud (no responses in 5 days!) about "negative mass." THe first time I heard about this speculation was over 20 years ago in conjunction with Kip Thorne's quantum foam idea where a negative form of energy would be necessary to open up a hole in the space-time fabric, etc, etc.

I'm not a proponant of his idea, nor a naysayer, I'm just watching it.
BUt I was thinking over the years about what "negative mass" would do if it was just like regular mass but, well, negative.

IF Nature loves symmetry, then perhaps the gravitational force can have an attraction and a repulsion the way that electromagnetism does. Only, where in E-M opposites attract and likes repel, in gravity, likes attract and opposites repel.

If this were true (and I have no evidence to support it) it would explain the acceleration of the expanding universe. IF it were true, then any "negative" form of mass would be repelled quickly from the earth, from the solar system, from the galaxy, and from the local group. Galaxies would clump in groups a like mass, and each clump would repel an opposite clump.

Negative mass is not the same as anti-matter: if a proton meets an antiproton, they annihilate each other and produce gamma rays. If matter meets negative matter, then they annihilate and produce nothing. It would require (I think) that all the fundamental particles with mass be doubled (groan).

Can I repeat again that this is speculation? THe only test I can currently think of is to see if all galaxies in a group show accelerations toward each other, and some groups show accelerations toward some other groups yet repulsion from yet other groups.

My BS was in astrophysics, so I already know that these measurements would require some pretty fancy thinking to drag them into the realm of possibility; along the lines of the observations of distant type II supernovas they did to measure the acceleration of the universe.

I've been looking forward to someone saying either "We've looked into it and here's what we found..." or "That's totally bogus and here's why," but all I've got was " ".

Didn't Mach have a theory along the lines of everything is repelled away from the edge of the universe - so expansion would be slowing - but that say, two stars would cause a "shadow" on each other from that repulsion and so the repulsion toward each other would be greater than the repulsion away from each other?
By the way, I have a thread that went "thud", more or less, in the abstract algebra part of mathematics, if anyone wants to take a look?
Aaron

This seems similar to my Single (vacuum) Force Proposal , it is not yet a full blown theory but my work is constantly updated and posted on the web (see members list for access).
Why do you need magnetism?, a force whose actions can be explained but whose existence cannot be defined or accounted for. It can all be explained in term of vacuum force actions without any need to invent another force. Vacuum being the force of nothing (empty space) does not raise any question of existence except the very fundamental "why does 'nothing' have a force" and that must be the only unanswerable question for all time.

Chi Meson: The only test I can currently think of is to see if all galaxies in a group show accelerations toward each other, and some groups show accelerations toward some other groups yet repulsion from yet other groups.
Wouldn't all the work done to find deviations from the Hubble flow - from the local (to 6 Mpc) Hubble flow to the Great Attractor and beyond - have already picked up something like this?

Anyway, most of the data is in the public domain, so anyone interested can perform their own analyses. This could be worthwhile; there is so much data that a weak signal wouldn't be detected unless you specifically look for it (an example: the inferred, averaged dark matter halo profile of galaxies - from SDSS data).

Originally posted by Nereid
Wouldn't all the work done to find deviations from the Hubble flow - from the local (to 6 Mpc) Hubble flow to the Great Attractor and beyond - have already picked up something like this?

Does this data include detection of galactic motion that is perpendicular to our line of sight? Not that I have the time to sift through it; I was hoping someone else already had!

Originally posted by Chi Meson
Does this data include detection of galactic motion that is perpendicular to our line of sight? Not that I have the time to sift through it; I was hoping someone else already had!
No it doesn't; there's little or no such data (astrometry's not sensitive enough yet, and microlensing data is too sparce and too equivocal to be much use). Such motion is inferred, using a variety of techniques, and there's always the good old virial theorem. I don't know if anyone's done an analysis to see if there's a signal like the one you mention; I doubt it. Health warning: it'd take a big slice out of your life!

elas...elas...

YOU have just helped in a way that you couldn't prossibly imagine

Vacuum Is a force. therefore nothing is a force... by golly...

Vacuum (no pressure) can only be considered relatively with pressure

moderated Vacumm or low pressure is used everywhere in machines.

Vacuum is like absolute Zero degrees temperature. Thermatics used temperature differentials all the time.

So what is in the centre of all matter...Absolute Nothing

Why is absolute nothing so attractive (centre of fixed gravity)...because nothing is absolute vacuum.

What happens if you put absolute vacuum in a situation of pressure? It all just rushes into fill the vacuum.

Vacuum could be considered as inverse gravity or inverse attraction simply by default. not for any other reason. Vacuum is what is lacking or missing and needs to be filled with pressure but can't be.

again elsa thanks

So what is in the centre of all matter...Absolute Nothing

You are almost there, now go the rest of the way. A Zero Point has no dimensions and therefore does not exist in physical terms. Next recall that every force must have a force carrier, so each Zero Point is the centre of a partial vacuum field with the vacuum force carried by a vacuum force carrier.
This vacuum force is an extentension of the Zero Point; it follows that the Zero Point is a vacuum force well.
On my website there is an explanation of how this works on the particle and atomic scale that shows how the vacuum force is related to the volume of particles and atoms. To complete the explanation it is only necessary to realize the part electrons play in controlling the volume of atoms. This I will be explaining once I recover my files from a crashed hard drive.

The thing that annoys me most about this is Newton's failure to realize the importance of vacuum force. Given that he thought the universe ."is corpuscular in nature", he new that "for every force there is an opposing force" and at the centre of his gravity field diagram he has a Zero Point; Then why did he not realize that corpususcular vacuum fields create their own oppossing force and there was no need to invent a new force called gravity, no need for attractive or repulsive magnetic forces. He was in a position to predict universal expansion more accurately than it was later predicted by relativity. This failure by Newton to apply the Law of economy to his work is the cause of our inability to explain HOW the universe works. Newton was the first of many,to apply the wrong explanation to his mathematics and ever since we have been cursed with brilliant mathematics and lousy explanations.

Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by elas
Ehh, Netwon saw some interesting relationships in the physical world and made an attempt to mathematically model them. When the existing math wasn't up to the task, he invented a new branch of math to deal with the issue. Not an unimpressive feat. I think you are being a little hard on him.

Its also important to note that (IIRC) Newton was interested in mathematically modeling gravity but didn't make much of an attempt to explain where it came from. Maybe that's the next step, but he took so many giant leaps, I can't fault him for not taking another one.

You need to remember historical context. Things that may seem self-evident to us were profound discoveries in Newton's time.

Last edited:
he invented a new branch of math

I wholeheartedly agree, Brilliant maths - lousy explanation ould he have done better, well I think so but then I'm no Newton!

hey guys, maybe in this theory development forum that's what we are trying to do...develope a new branch of maths...that allows for inverse gravity, infinite variability, uncertainty, and randonimity that current thinking and maths seems to not cater for...hmmmmmmm

Originally posted by elas
he invented a new branch of math

I wholeheartedly agree, Brilliant maths - lousy explanation ould he have done better, well I think so but then I'm no Newton!
Well you can't agree because that wasn't my point. The explanation was irrelevant to what Newton was doing and he can't be faulted for not doing a better job of it.
hey guys, maybe in this theory development forum that's what we are trying to do...develope a new branch of maths...that allows for inverse gravity, infinite variability, uncertainty, and randonimity that current thinking and maths seems to not cater for...hmmmmmmm
Quick warning: You'll know nothing but failure if you continue to approach these issues backwards. Math is a reflection of physical reality, not the other way around. The math of inverse gravity is as simple as putting a negative sign in front of G. But that won't make it a physical reality.

Last edited:
Quick warning: You'll know nothing but failure if you continue to approach these issues backwards. Math is a reflection of physical reality, not the other way around. The math of inverse gravity is as simple as putting a negative sign in front of G. But that won't make it a physical reality.

This is the whole point, every book that attempts to explain Particle and/or Quantum physics to the layman begins with a statement that scientists do not know what particles, mass, waves or anything attributed to them, really are. All they have is a brilliant prediction theory. Look at the answer Tom gave on an old forum

Science doesn’t deal with “why” it deals with .“What? When? How”. For instance, I can tell you how strong a magnetic field will be generated by a given current. I can also tell how it depends on the distance from the source. But I can’t tell you “why” it happens.

Actually in including the word How Tom is claiming more than the authors of any of the books I have read. One of the simple attributes that physicist do not know is the relationship between mass and radius. I have gone some way towards showing that simply by placing a negative sign in fron of the mass number, it is possible to see this relationship (the rest of the solution will follow after I have solved some hard drive problems).
There is no explanation as to the cause of magnetism although there is a mathematical formula that shows how it arises; but that is not to say that we understand what it is. I have started to show that the basic magnetic actions (attractive and repulsive) can be explained using vacuum force and hope to continue developing this explanation.
A similar explanation can be appplied to gravity, this has the advantage of explaining the gravity fields of galaxies, (something that cannot be explained using Relativity).
To be brief, I have yet to find any action that cannot be explained using vacuum force. Surely then it is reverse maths that give the best description of reality in that reverse maths allows a simple easily understood explanation as to the cause of existence

Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by elas
This is the whole point, every book that attempts to explain Particle and/or Quantum physics to the layman begins with a statement that scientists do not know what particles, mass, waves or anything attributed to them, really are. All they have is a brilliant prediction theory.
You're jumping to an unwarranted conclusion here. The things that the theories say they can predict, they CAN predict. Just because scientists don't know everything does NOT mean that they don't know anything.

You're jumping to an unwarranted conclusion here. The things that the theories say they can predict, they CAN predict. Just because scientists don't know everything does NOT mean that they don't know anything.

That is exactly what the experts say and I have not written any thing that refutes their claim. If you read my reply with a little more care you will grasp that what I am saying is that in order to explain those things that cannot be explained at present, all one has to do is reverse the mathematical symbol.
The simplest case is the question of mass and actual volume (i.e. calculated using atomic radii). Current mass figures cannot be matched to radii. But negative mass figures produce a graph that exactly overlays an atomic volume graph, with breaks occurring at each complete electron layer. The conclusion is obvious, the atomic nucleous always shrinks (vacuum force; the completion of each electron layer allows the nucleus vacuum force and the external vacuum force (i.e. vacuum fields of external particles), to expand the weaker electron vacuum fields creating an expanded atomic radius.

As the Zero Point is dimensionless it can contain an increases in vacuum force but it cannot contain any force carrier (i.e. 'nothing' cannot contain 'something'). So each reduction in atomic radii increases the density of the force carrier around the ZP making it impossible to create stable atoms beyond a certain density.

Now give me your explanation of why atomic radii changes in the manner it is observed so to do.

Last edited by a moderator:
With regards to the first post trying to equate magnetism with gravity/anitgravity or antigravity with the mathematical inversion of space/time. GEEZ people, this is basic kids stuff. Magnetism and gravity are two completely different forces within this spatial/tempral reference. AND I agree with the mentor, in that even though you may believe in a certain mathematical conviction, the universe may not reflect your belief.

With regards to "Vacuum Force"? Again here is a case of thinking without understanding. The definition of COLD is simply the absence of HEAT. OR the differential between two thermal energy states. While space/time is anything but empty, you may think of vacuum as simply the absence of matter. As such, in and of itself it has no actual attractive force, it is null.

Natural Antigravity is an attractive illusion of Science Fiction writers. Seeing polar opposites in nature it was surmised that gravity must also have an opposite. Unfortunately for them they did not realize the true nature of gravity.

Since Gravity is nothing more that the constriction/compression of space/time and is determined by the relationship between the amount energy in the primary body and spatial density surrounding it.

Since all objects in our universe are constucted of Energy. All objects are affected by space/time and therefore Natural Gravitational effect. This is an inescapable natural law of our universe.

Now having noted reality, and the natural way of things. It does not mean that the universe cannot be fooled. Since gravity is a derivation of the field effect of energy, it is possible to create two artificial energy fields around an object, the difference between the two interpreted energy states will define its universal interaction. The PERFECT calibration of which would negate not only an objects natural inertia, but external gravimetric constraints as well.

Magnetism and gravity are two completely different forces within this spatial/tempral reference

Just recovered from major crash, delighted with replies. A snap answer for now, will consider deeper answer tomorrow.

Neither magnetism nor gravity have been defined by current theory, they are both variations on the Inverse Square Law so the question should be "why are there two variations on the same base?". This is the question that Reverse Mathematics answers by claiming that it is the same force acting on different densities of the same force carrier.

Wow, this is the funniest thread I've ever seen

What a unbelievable collection of idiots. Guys who probably serve french fries for a living actually ragging on the greatest scientist who ever lived, based on a bunch of psuedo-scientific, meaningless babble!

markci

ragging on the greatest scientist who ever lived, based on a bunch of psuedo-scientific, meaningless babble!

Are you saying Newton is beyond criticism?. Does he not state that the lowest energy state is 'zero' and does this not dissagree with QF prediction of a minimum state. Are we wrong to try and explain the cause of this difference? Are not some of the world's leading physicists trying to find new theories based on either string theory or vacuum theory? Are we prohibited from joining in? Isn't this the Theory Developement Forum? And in my own case I would ask why is a concept developed wholly from a standard 'Table Of Elements' describe as psuedo-scientific, meaningless babble? Can you offer some constructive criticism?, or is that beyond your obviously meager talents.

Where did I say Newton was beyond criticism? I just said it was amusing when such criticism was attempted by morons.

He're a constructive suggestion: take a physics class sometime. I looked at your web site, and it's pretty obvious you haven't got a clue.

Your theoryon the radii of atoms was particularly hilarious. Riddle me this, idiot: why do different isotopes of the same element have the same atomic radius, when their nuclei have different masses? Sort of blows your little theory there, doesn't it?

you have a weird sense of humour.why do different isotopes of the same element have the same atomic radius,

They do not. If you look at all the answers to my question on atomic radii you will find that the formula for finding Isotope radii (as differeing from Atomic radii) was submitted by two contributors, at least one of the two is a professional researcher; but it appears to be so complicated that no one has ever bothered too build a table.
If you take the known data on mass and radii it can be laid out so that the column difference is caused by one proton plus one neutron plus one electron, and the row difference is caused by one neutron plus one electron. This should allow a degree of intrpretation; unfortunately (as I explain on my site) the available data lacks the accuracy needed to make interpretations. If that is particularly hilarious

Markci,

Morons! I personally take offense with that. While I have no fear of going toe-to-toe on an intellectual battleground with anyone, anywhere, since I also rate rather high on the brain-power scale. I would gratfully submit to acolytism to the greater intellect.

So, oh enlightened one, perhaps you would be so kind as to grace us with your monstrously cerebral insights. And perhaps, given a few extra centuries of concerted intellectual endeavor by the combined mental accuity of the entire global scientific community as a whole, we the deficient may yet live another day in hopes of gleaning even the smallest mote of insight into your awesome powers of intuitive communion with the mind of a god.

-Mr.E Man

Markci

What I failed to point out in my quick reply is that my work clearly shows thatwithin each group of elements there is a direct relationship between mass and radii i.e. the magnetic force is not required in order to find the radius.
Secondly that there is a direct relationship between vacuum force and mass.
Given data of sufficient accuracy it would be a simple matter to demonstrate the relationship betweemVacuum force, Mass and Isotope radius

Contact

Mr.E Man, I need to send you a private message or email. Send me a private message with some contact or allow pm. Thanks.