A new theory on gravity |
Post Reply | Page <12345> |
Author | |||
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 07:25 | ||
Presumably the world of conventional cosmological academia has rejected the controversial theories of FrankG and we in PA, a humble music appreciation site are the dubious beneficiaries of this dubious parting off the ways?
Blow it out your ass baldies |
|||
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 07:35 | ||
That's a bit unkind isn't it? Hah...who am I to talk?
|
|||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:12 | ||
I laughed for about two minutes straight at this for some reason. Yes this is what I've been saying. |
|||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:23 | ||
This is directed at Frank at this point. If you suggest these as observations of your theory, then they're pretty weak associations. First off, you a priori set out to solve just these issues it would seem so its natural that your theory which developed would predict them. That's a rather weak criteria for verification. But this brings us to the entire point of physics. You have a classic A -> B statement. The issue though is that there's plenty of C->B, D->B, etc statements. To differentiate between these we would use experimental evidence. Until that point, there's little reason for me to prefer A over C. What little reason I have though would be the classic Occam's razor as I believe other theories propose far simpler solutions for Baryogenesis issues. In particular, it has already been shown, directly even, that CP symmetry can be violated. I apologize because Cosmology was never my thing, but it does seem plausible that the conditions for this existed in the very early stages of the Big Bang and would suggest the mechanism through with matter was "chosen" by the universe no? I will admit that I know little about the expansion rate of the universe. Of course your solutions would be more satisfying than dark energy, but I have no reason to believe it at this point. |
|||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:33 | ||
I'm sorry but this is the opposite of what occurred. The solutions to his field equations indicated that if we had a static universe, which Einstein so dearly wanted, then it would eventually contract. The cosmological constant was added to stop the universe from contracting (he did a poor job incidentally because he created an unstable equilibrium which would be destroyed by quantum effects). What he referred to as the greatest blunder was his inability to correct predict an expanding universe via his equations. |
|||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:44 | ||
And now if I make take the offensive for a moment.
If anti-gravity exists and accounts for the expansion of the universe, you would also be suggesting that its responsible for so called void areas in space. However, no anti-matter has ever been observed in these voids to account for necessary anti-gravity to cause them. How would you explain this? |
|||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
Slartibartfast
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29625 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:47 | ||
Just out of curiosity, because I haven't seen it mentioned yet or missed it through glazed over eyes , how does time factor into any of this, and if you got rid of it, would it make things simpler?
|
|||
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|||
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator Retired Admin & Razor Guru Joined: February 02 2004 Location: South England Status: Offline Points: 14693 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 09:09 | ||
|
|||
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
|||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 09:33 | ||
It kinda depends on what you mean by time. Essentially, you asked the equivalent of saying what happens if you take the third spatial dimension out of the picture. As I understand what you're asking, it would simplify the picture but remove the mechanism through which we can effectively talk about the interactions we're arguing over. |
|||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
FrankG
Forum Newbie Joined: June 14 2012 Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 10:00 | ||
Would you care to explain to me how you would tell matter from anti-matter? The violation of the CP-symmetry you refer to occurs in the beta decay. However, it iis only a violation if you do not tkke into account anti-matter. You should very well know that. Edited by FrankG - June 15 2012 at 10:01 |
|||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 10:40 | ||
I'm honestly not sure how that's determined from astronomical observations. I'm guessing the fact that no matter seems to be present at all. Or do they use gamma ray observations from predicted annihilation? It's inconsequential though. My knowledge of their abilities doesn't change the fact that none has been observed.
I'm not sure what you mean about the CP-symmetry. The violation can account for the universe's accumulation of matter over anti-matter. The lack of observation of anti-matter in our visible universe would just be accounted to the time in which it disappeared due to this effect after the Big Bang, thus being spread to the extremities via inflation. |
|||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 10 2010 Location: Barcelona Spain Status: Offline Points: 5128 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 14:12 | ||
That's right, his original equations predicted a collapsing universe and because he believed in a steady universe (expansion was not yet known) he introduced the cosmological constant to counteract the attractive gravity and maintain a steady-state universe.
Whatever, physics theories need to go through publication and peer review, I wish you good luck.
|
|||
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 10 2010 Location: Barcelona Spain Status: Offline Points: 5128 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 14:32 | ||
First of all I'm not a physicist so please forgive any misunderstandings, but as I understand it: gravity is a force which acts with a strenght proportional to the inverse square law on the distance between the masses at stake. The further away the masses they are apart, the weaker the force is. As the force gets weaker the acceleration will slow down which is basically just what you say "the acceleration slowly decreases", which is in conflict with the observations that cosmological expansion is accelerating.
[/QUOTE]
I said that myself.
|
|||
Slartibartfast
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29625 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 15:20 | ||
I was referring to something I stumbled upon while channel surfing. I don't remember the program name offhand but "No one has yet succeeded in using the Wheeler-DeWitt equation to integrate quantum theory with general relativity. Nevertheless, a sizable minority of physicists, Rovelli included, believe that any successful merger of the two great masterpieces of 20th-century physics will inevitably describe a universe in which, ultimately, there is no time." http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time Edited by Slartibartfast - June 15 2012 at 15:20 |
|||
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: June 15 2012 at 18:44 | ||
Edited by Dean - June 15 2012 at 18:47 |
|||
What?
|
|||
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer Joined: February 10 2010 Location: Barcelona Spain Status: Offline Points: 5128 |
Posted: June 16 2012 at 04:20 | ||
Indeed. Let's not forget that gravity is not an "attractive force" in the newtonian sense but it's the warping of spacetime by the presence of matter, and this warping creates the effect of gravitational lensing which is an experimentally confirmed fact.
If we call gravitational warping "inwards", anti-gravity would cause an "outwards warping" of spacetime with the opposite effect of gravitational lensing which should be easily detectable if concentrations of anti-matter did actually exist in the voids between matter galaxies in such abbundance as to be the cause of what we call dark energy.
Needless to say that such an effect has never been observed.
BTW there's an experiment planned at CERN, AEgIS, to measure the gravitational behaviour of antihydrogen:
This is a recent report on the status of the experiment preparation
In any case Frank, as I said this proposal was formally published last year by the theoretical physicist Massimo Villata so I give it some respectability even if the general consensus seems to be that antimatter and matter should attract eachother. Here's his paper in case you are interested
Edited by Gerinski - June 16 2012 at 06:29 |
|||
infocat
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: June 10 2011 Location: Colorado, USA Status: Offline Points: 4671 |
Posted: June 16 2012 at 08:09 | ||
You educated people make my brain hurt!
|
|||
--
Frank Swarbrick Belief is not Truth. |
|||
tamijo
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 06 2009 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 4287 |
Posted: June 16 2012 at 08:21 | ||
🚀 silence , hurts
|
|||
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|||
The Doctor
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: June 17 2012 at 20:04 | ||
I'm just a novice at this (quantum mechanics, relativity, astrophysics and cosmology are hobbies, not something I've studied in depth), so be gentle.
I have a few questions about your theory. At very small distances (the atomic level), electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravity, so at the subatomic level, it seems to me the attractive force of electromagnetics would be much stronger than the repellant force of anti-gravity between particles and their relevant anti-particles. So what would have been the initial cause of separation of particles and anti-particles at the subatomic level which would have given us the universe we see today? Would the effect of gravity on anti-particles be the same as the effect on regular particles? That is, would gravity tend to attract anti-particles together? If so, wouldn't we see an attraction between anti-particles that matches what we observe of the attraction between particles, i.e. wouldn't we see anti-galaxies, anti-clusters and anti-super-clusters? Would we not then see the universe splitting into two parts, matter and anti-matter, instead of the observed isotropic expansion of the universe? I think you've been asked this before, but how do you account for the observed increasing acceleration? Your theory would seem to indicate that there should be a dropping acceleration. I think vacuum energy and virtual particles requires less in the way of complications and needed additions. |
|||
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|||
Triceratopsoil
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 03 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 17995 |
Posted: June 17 2012 at 20:16 | ||
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <12345> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |