-
OK, it's on.
Hypothesis: Gravity is a downward force toward earth, not a pull.
- Thread starter INTPINTP
- Start date
Rook
enter text
It is a force enacted by both bodies.
The earth simply has a greater mass, thus triumphing.
Drink coffee or go to sleep, repitionist double facade.
The earth simply has a greater mass, thus triumphing.
Drink coffee or go to sleep, repitionist double facade.
ApostateAbe
Banned
Nobody knows what causes gravity, so I am not sure it can be debunked, and maybe any hypothesis ought to be considered. But, it does seem implausible. This is the Newtonian equation for gravitational force between two bodies:
M1 and M2 each represent the mass of a body, and r is the distance between the two centers of mass. If the source of the forces are not the two bodies, then there would be external pressure from the outside. But, why would it then be a function of the masses and distance?
M1 and M2 each represent the mass of a body, and r is the distance between the two centers of mass. If the source of the forces are not the two bodies, then there would be external pressure from the outside. But, why would it then be a function of the masses and distance?
Auburn
Luftschloss Schöpfer
- Local time
- Today 8:01 AM
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,298
Ex-User (9086)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 4:01 PM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,758
There is what we call the Higgs Field.
Higgs Field consists of Higgs particles, that upon interaction bestow objects with mass, you can think of it as objects acquiring mass and slowing down when entering such a field.
It being a field complements the idea proposed by general relativity, whereas space is distorted in a radius around an object with mass.
The more massive the object, the greater the influence of higgs particles around and inside of it, creating a slowing and stopping force that shifts other bodies from their original course upon entering.
You can think of it as similar to hitting a snowdrift with a side of your car, where the pressure in the front causes the vehicle to turn towards the snowdrift as one side of it is being slowed down more than the other.
Theory of gravity is not a comprehensive work yet, so what I'm saying here is my current understanding of the interactions described so far.
Video visualisation:
"Pushing" "Pulling" is semantics, but I'd call it falling towards the lowest coordinate of the 3 dimensional non-euclidean plane created by the gravitational influence of bodies in the vicinity.
Higgs Field consists of Higgs particles, that upon interaction bestow objects with mass, you can think of it as objects acquiring mass and slowing down when entering such a field.
It being a field complements the idea proposed by general relativity, whereas space is distorted in a radius around an object with mass.
The more massive the object, the greater the influence of higgs particles around and inside of it, creating a slowing and stopping force that shifts other bodies from their original course upon entering.
You can think of it as similar to hitting a snowdrift with a side of your car, where the pressure in the front causes the vehicle to turn towards the snowdrift as one side of it is being slowed down more than the other.
Theory of gravity is not a comprehensive work yet, so what I'm saying here is my current understanding of the interactions described so far.
Video visualisation:
"Pushing" "Pulling" is semantics, but I'd call it falling towards the lowest coordinate of the 3 dimensional non-euclidean plane created by the gravitational influence of bodies in the vicinity.
Grayman
Soul Shade
Gravity functions much like extroverts in a room.
What determines the direction of those forces? Why are things pushed towards the earth, and not, say, the moon? Or the sun? Clearly you haven't thought this through.
They're more attractive the more massive they are?
They're more attractive the more massive they are?
Auburn
Luftschloss Schöpfer
- Local time
- Today 8:01 AM
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,298
@Blarraun - If the higgs field was made out of a cloud of particles, how would that work? It's odd to think that those particles would be so evenly distributed across all space and not cluster.
I thought the higgs "particle" was simply "an excitation in the higgs field", one that even in conditions as hard to replicate as the LHC, only lasts for ten sextillions of a second. In other words, virtually in every other situation, the higgs field is a field, not bosons or a cloud of particles, if what I know is right.
But either way...
Going back to a concept in my gravity thread, lets say this space-fabric/higgs-field is being pushed out of the way by matter, and thus sortof being squeezed into a type of spherical accordion all around a planet or object. In this accordion-like effect, there's more space-fabric compacted into a smaller area. The gradient emenating from this blue ball represents this pressure/density, per se:
Now here's when this approach is different...
Imagine for a moment that the velocity of an object approaching another object is measured by how much space is travelled in a certain time frame. So lets say the yellow ball is going 1 unit of spacetime per billionth of a second. If we zoom in closer we see this:
Each of these squares represents the same distance, but not the same amount of spacetime. The black squares to the left side have a density of 1 unit of spacetime per square. The grey spaces to the left have a density of spacetime that is something like 1.2 units of spacetime each. What does this mean?
If the yellow ball is travelling at 1 unit per billionth of a second, then the left side of the ball will travel (lets say...) 5 spaces in 5 billionths of a second. Now, the right side will travel the same amount of spacetime in the same amount of time, but it will be at 4 spaces instead of 5.
So essentially, the yellow ball has shifted trajectories a little, just as you said, like a car. One of the front wheels traveled more than the other, and so it's further ahead, resulting in an overall slant toward the larger blue ball.
Except both 'wheels' actually traveled the same distance, but due to the density differences of spacetime, the overall effect is a falling trajectory.
I thought the higgs "particle" was simply "an excitation in the higgs field", one that even in conditions as hard to replicate as the LHC, only lasts for ten sextillions of a second. In other words, virtually in every other situation, the higgs field is a field, not bosons or a cloud of particles, if what I know is right.
But either way...
Lets take this a step further. Imagine for a moment that the higgs is indeed a field in all normal space conditions, and that it's actually a fundamental property of "space". In other words, "space" isn't "nothing", but this fabric that creates lag when matter moves through it.
Going back to a concept in my gravity thread, lets say this space-fabric/higgs-field is being pushed out of the way by matter, and thus sortof being squeezed into a type of spherical accordion all around a planet or object. In this accordion-like effect, there's more space-fabric compacted into a smaller area. The gradient emenating from this blue ball represents this pressure/density, per se:
Now here's when this approach is different...
Imagine for a moment that the velocity of an object approaching another object is measured by how much space is travelled in a certain time frame. So lets say the yellow ball is going 1 unit of spacetime per billionth of a second. If we zoom in closer we see this:
Each of these squares represents the same distance, but not the same amount of spacetime. The black squares to the left side have a density of 1 unit of spacetime per square. The grey spaces to the left have a density of spacetime that is something like 1.2 units of spacetime each. What does this mean?
If the yellow ball is travelling at 1 unit per billionth of a second, then the left side of the ball will travel (lets say...) 5 spaces in 5 billionths of a second. Now, the right side will travel the same amount of spacetime in the same amount of time, but it will be at 4 spaces instead of 5.
So essentially, the yellow ball has shifted trajectories a little, just as you said, like a car. One of the front wheels traveled more than the other, and so it's further ahead, resulting in an overall slant toward the larger blue ball.
Except both 'wheels' actually traveled the same distance, but due to the density differences of spacetime, the overall effect is a falling trajectory.
Grayman
Soul Shade
Grayman
Soul Shade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyvfDzRLsiU
Not saying that magnitic attraction is the same thing but this adds an interesting concept.
The center and outer magnets (look like an atom?) The polar opposites of the inner to teh outer (like an atom?)
Not saying that magnitic attraction is the same thing but this adds an interesting concept.
The center and outer magnets (look like an atom?) The polar opposites of the inner to teh outer (like an atom?)
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
I came to this thread thinking you'd put forth a hypothesis, maybe even a decent one. I was going to write something like "TL;DR, but you're wrong and dumb".
I don't see why I have to provide the argument to either side, but here's a question: As per the squared-cube law, why does the push become exponentially stronger the closer it gets to mass if it's powered by not-mass? Wouldn't it get stronger the closer it was to the source of the push, which is not-mass? Saying space pushes mass together makes no sense unless the push was stronger nearer to the source, which it's stronger nearer to mass... it's a friggin' law. It's observed constantly, with zero variance.
Also: Wouldn't this mean that a body in a hollow sphere would get pushed towards a wall, instead of floating in the center of gravity?
I don't see why I have to provide the argument to either side, but here's a question: As per the squared-cube law, why does the push become exponentially stronger the closer it gets to mass if it's powered by not-mass? Wouldn't it get stronger the closer it was to the source of the push, which is not-mass? Saying space pushes mass together makes no sense unless the push was stronger nearer to the source, which it's stronger nearer to mass... it's a friggin' law. It's observed constantly, with zero variance.
Also: Wouldn't this mean that a body in a hollow sphere would get pushed towards a wall, instead of floating in the center of gravity?
dark+matters
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 8:01 AM
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 463
The OP got some very well-written and clear answers here; props especially to Blarrun for bringing up theoretical elementary particles. 
The OP might want to check out gravitons too if gravity is a topic that interests him or her.
http://io9.com/what-are-gravitons-and-why-cant-we-see-them-1643904640
And if you want more, Brian Green is a string theorist who has a lot of amazing things to say. He describes the Higgs ocean too. I think he mentioned cosmic inflation as a possible reason for the even spread of the Higgs ocean, but definitely don't quote me on that. His books are available at most bookstores and libraries and he writes for the layman. I read The Fabric of the Cosmos this summer and it was amazing for me as someone who hasn't learned the math necessary to understand why we believe most of the concepts we do in most areas of physics.
@Auburn
If the universe is immersed in a Higgs-boson ocean, then interaction with that ocean would create mass. Bosons can apparently coexist in the same space as fermions, and fermions are the carriers of mass according to Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson So the Higgs particles wouldn't necessarily clump up due to gravitational attraction... if that was one of the reasons you were thinking of for the clumping. Or if the bosons and fermions competing for space was a problem. I'm not sure why the Higgs-ocean particles would have to clump or be more inclined to clump. Meh?
Also, I don't see where the controversy, problem or question is with the chart, but I'm sort of butting on on Blarrun's question. Meh? Just curious.
A Higgs particle that a particle collider found would be an excitation of the Higgs ocean if I recall correctly from The Fabric of the Cosmos, but that excitation wouldn't necessarily be what a Higgs particle is. Aren't all fields composed of particles? Photons create the electromagenetic field, yes? And photons are bosons too.
I don't have nearly enough knowledge to comment further, unfortunately. It's going to be years before I have enough background learning to even take an intro to quantum mechanics class. I know there are people with quantum physics backgrounds lurking around here somewhere though...
The OP might want to check out gravitons too if gravity is a topic that interests him or her.
http://io9.com/what-are-gravitons-and-why-cant-we-see-them-1643904640
And if you want more, Brian Green is a string theorist who has a lot of amazing things to say. He describes the Higgs ocean too. I think he mentioned cosmic inflation as a possible reason for the even spread of the Higgs ocean, but definitely don't quote me on that. His books are available at most bookstores and libraries and he writes for the layman. I read The Fabric of the Cosmos this summer and it was amazing for me as someone who hasn't learned the math necessary to understand why we believe most of the concepts we do in most areas of physics.
@Auburn
If the universe is immersed in a Higgs-boson ocean, then interaction with that ocean would create mass. Bosons can apparently coexist in the same space as fermions, and fermions are the carriers of mass according to Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson So the Higgs particles wouldn't necessarily clump up due to gravitational attraction... if that was one of the reasons you were thinking of for the clumping. Or if the bosons and fermions competing for space was a problem. I'm not sure why the Higgs-ocean particles would have to clump or be more inclined to clump. Meh?
Also, I don't see where the controversy, problem or question is with the chart, but I'm sort of butting on on Blarrun's question. Meh? Just curious.
A Higgs particle that a particle collider found would be an excitation of the Higgs ocean if I recall correctly from The Fabric of the Cosmos, but that excitation wouldn't necessarily be what a Higgs particle is. Aren't all fields composed of particles? Photons create the electromagenetic field, yes? And photons are bosons too.
I don't have nearly enough knowledge to comment further, unfortunately. It's going to be years before I have enough background learning to even take an intro to quantum mechanics class. I know there are people with quantum physics backgrounds lurking around here somewhere though...
Auburn
Luftschloss Schöpfer
- Local time
- Today 8:01 AM
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,298
@Dark+Matters - I'm on the same ignorance-boat as you. =P But I enjoy throwing ideas around. Basically, at my current knowledge level I tend to think that modern physics focuses too much on calling just about everything a particle, (compartmentalized/reductionist) and I think that may be limiting the field of study.
What if gravity isn't a particle, or even a 'thing', but instead a sort of geometric result of the interplay between the universe and what's inside of it? That's sortof what my graphs are trying to describe. There's no graviton in this model, there's no particles. And instead the "fall down" of matter to other matter is due to the geometric and mechanical result of the contours of space.
This traces back to an even deeper underlying pet theory I have about how space is actually entirely geometric. That matter is two packets of space swirling endlessly into each other, and that things like rotation, revolution, attraction, repulsion, etc... are mechanical in explanation - rather than based on 'properties'. That all 'properties' self-emerge out of the geometric necessities of three-dimensional space.
But I'm just a crazy, armchair subjective sensationalist.
What if gravity isn't a particle, or even a 'thing', but instead a sort of geometric result of the interplay between the universe and what's inside of it? That's sortof what my graphs are trying to describe. There's no graviton in this model, there's no particles. And instead the "fall down" of matter to other matter is due to the geometric and mechanical result of the contours of space.
This traces back to an even deeper underlying pet theory I have about how space is actually entirely geometric. That matter is two packets of space swirling endlessly into each other, and that things like rotation, revolution, attraction, repulsion, etc... are mechanical in explanation - rather than based on 'properties'. That all 'properties' self-emerge out of the geometric necessities of three-dimensional space.
But I'm just a crazy, armchair subjective sensationalist.
So you meant to say they're more attractive the denser they are? I see...
Seriously though, I'm pretty sure that at interplanetary distances, density is not particularly relevant, and that a massive, large body can be considered equal to a massive tiny body at the center of mass. There must be a threshold point involving distance and a significant scale difference between bodies where the uneven mass distribution of the larger body begins to matter to the overall magnitude and direction of the attraction.
Also Auburn, I'm pretty sure the general relativity theory established gravity as a geometric consequence of matter curving space-time. (I have, however, never taken a serious dive into understanding quantum fields and subatomic particles, so...).
Physics
Pizzabeak
Banned
- Local time
- Today 8:01 AM
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,667
Source?
Gravity is generally regarded as what you have described. It is the result of distortions in space time. Well, that's what relativity says about it anyway. Gravity though is basically a force, albeit apparently a superweak one, and like the other forces it should be mediated by a particle counterpart.
Gravity waves or gravitons are virtual particles because they couldn't be observed although effects were apparent. They just imagined that as gravitationally bound objects interacted they exchanged "gravity particles" or "gravity waves" in order to further explain the behaviors (although they were undetectable). Gravity may have seemed fine without all that but they basically had to treat it as such, similar to EM radiation in that it is due to particles/waves, because it is a force (an apparent force?). And, due to the Big Bang, for a short time afterwards all forces were one, ie the Grand Unified Theory. And since gravity was a part of that it helped if it could be described as a "graviton", before the temperature dropped and the forces separated. But, as we all can attest, the traditional gravity model helps us grasp it well, where it acts as a seemingly instantaneous phenomena, affecting matter from vast distances away via the distorting of space fabric is decent - the gravitons are just theoretical for the purposes of "quantum gravity" and hasn't actually been done yet, as this paints quite a different picture from that of Einstein's initial gravity...
The LISA was supposed to be launched in 2015 and search for gravity waves but the project has been in development hell: http://www.space.com/11426-nasa-gravity-wave-lisa-mission-cancelled.html
The LIGO was the ground based version and it has found NOTHING, no gravity waves, when it was operational.
Two packets of space?
I'm sorry man, but this doesn't really seem that different from what everyone has been saying before.
Hm, properties? Look up scalar fields
Ex-User (9086)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 4:01 PM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2013
- Messages
- 4,758
The basic idea is that the higgs field has the potential energy that is never 0, bodies entering it are encumbered depending on their composition of particles. A field that doesn't move, isn't significantly influenced externally and is included in the fabric of space itself.
I didn't explain things clearly, or accurately enough, yes neither the higgs particle does flock around massive objects nor is the Higgs boson that important in considering gravity and mass.
Here's quite a comprehensive link to theories about mass and the basic division on gravity free and gravity including models.
Yes, gravity (in a general sense) doesn't need to exist for attraction to occur, it may be particles are moving via interactions with the higgs field, gauge interactions, quark interactions, etc.
dark+matters
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 8:01 AM
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2014
- Messages
- 463
But I'm just a crazy, armchair subjective sensationalist.
Meh. Aren't we all.
But you're curious! That's great. I can't really talk about this stuff anywhere but online, myself. People's eyes glaze over and they ask why I don't want to become a nurse or a kindergarten teacher or start a face painting business or something. But anyways, my dad always said, "You have to know the rules before you can break them." (He was definitely not an INTP!)
I thought about it for a while and I definitely agree though. I don't know if you will or not, but considering that idea was a major turning point in my life as an INxP. Suddenly, the little thingies I made didn't constantly fall apart.
If you're interested, I think you'd really enjoy getting a textbook about "mechanics." Doing a lot of the problems and the examples might help you out with some of the ideas you're curious about. I'm of the (most commonly accepted) opinion that physics can't truly be understood without numerical models. Non-numeric analysis alone doesn't fully explain how the universe operates.
It really is strange to stretch that implication a bit further and realize that... everything is probably math.