A new theory on gravity |
Post Reply | Page 123 5> |
Author | ||
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 02 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10261 |
Topic: A new theory on gravity Posted: June 14 2012 at 08:54 |
|
My brother, who is an absolute genius,, has come up with a new theory about gravity. It goes totally against the grain, but it is, contrary to the current theory,, totally in accordance with the facts. He has an explanation why there is so much more matter than antimatter (it only appears so, but it is not true) and also for the fact that the universe expands faster than we should expect from the big ban (a fact which was only recently discovered).. He has to slaughter a holy cow of physics for that though: That holy cow is the belief that gravity is only an attracting force (it is a repelling force between matter and antimatter in his theory). The common belief is that there is no repelling gravitational force because if there was we would measure it.. But he proves that the gravitational effect between matter and antimatter can not be measured directly and that we have to rely on circumstantial evidence for it, and all this evidence points to the fact that that force is indeed repelling..
He also shows that general relativity predicts the existence of antimatter., thus combining the theory of relativity and quantum theory. He explained it all to me, and though I don't fully understand it it sounds totally brilliant. |
||
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 08:59 | |
No offense to your brother, but these theories pop up all of the time. Plenty of people have hypothesized anti-gravity and used it to patch up lots of messy things in physics. The problem usually is that it requires them to break rather well established physical laws or present something as physics which is really just an exercise in pure mathematics.
Even if your brother's theory is correct, he has not proven anything. When I see some evidence, I'll consider it proved. Anyway with that said, has he published his hypothesis? |
||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: March 23 2005 Location: Caerdydd Status: Offline Points: 32995 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 09:00 | |
I always presumed anti matter was repelled from matter. Was I wrong?
|
||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 09:01 | |
The standard assumption is that anti-matter will exert an equal gravitational force on matter as an equivalent object of matter would exert on other matter.
Dissidents exist though who propose an anti-gravity repulsion, as well as a standard attraction at a different magnitude. Edited by Equality 7-2521 - June 14 2012 at 09:02 |
||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 02 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10261 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 09:15 | |
But there is evidence for it. that's the point. As I already said, he has proven that the gravitational effect between matter and anti-matter can not be measured directly.and that it is a fallacy to think it can be measured. We have to rely on circumstantial evidence. And this circumstantial evidence all points his way.
|
||
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
||
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 02 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10261 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 09:26 | |
How would you measure the effect of gravity between matter and anti-matter? It iss totally imposible. We only have anti-matter somewhere out in space, where we can not measure that effect, and in particle accelerators, where either the electromagnetic forces are too strong or the velocities of the particles are too high for the gravitational effect to be measured.
Edited by BaldFriede - June 14 2012 at 09:37 |
||
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 10:01 | |
It wasn't possible to measure the x-ray emissions of Cygnus X-1 2000 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. What does your point about the difficulties of measuring gravitational attraction between atomic particles show?
In any case, great you're saying he proved something. I haven't seen any of his work nor have you decided to show it. I proved that P=NP last night. Go ahead tell me I'm wrong. What's your point here? I simply expressed my skepticism. |
||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 02 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10261 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 10:46 | |
All of what my brother says is in accordance with what we observe, while the hypothesis that matter and anti-matter attract each other can not explain two phenomenons we observe. Onee is that there appears to be sol much more matter than anti-matter. If they attract we would expect them to mingle. The other effect that the universe exannds faster than we would expect from the big ban model (which the scientists currently try to explain with obscure "dark energies"). But both effects are predictions of my brother. |
||
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 11:13 | |
My proof of P=NP is in accordance with what we observe. Give me my $1,000,000 please. I proved it.
There's plenty of proposed solutions to the issues you have brought up. The reason that we don't have a solution is because we don't have evidence for any of the proposed theories. It's like talking to a serious Flat Earth Theorist. They can and do posit a slew of physical laws to show how the Earth can be flat in accordance with our expectations. However, the world still isn't flat. Physics isn't a deductive science. |
||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 13:22 | |
I'm with Pat on this one.
The idea that antimatter posesses negative (or anti) gravity is not new but since the gravitational reaction between matter and antimatter has not been observed nor has the effect of gravity on antimatter then any hypothesis that claims to be in accordance of what we observe does not imply accordance with what we can neither observe or even indirectly measure.
If this hypothesis has been published then it joins a long list of many.
|
||
What?
|
||
The Truth
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 19 2009 Location: Kansas Status: Offline Points: 21795 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 13:54 | |
Title made me think of this:
That was my two cents worth. Edited by The Truth - June 14 2012 at 13:54 |
||
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 02 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10261 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 14:49 | |
I phoned my brother about this, and he just said this: "There is not a single observation that points to gravity being an attracting force between matter and antimatter".. I have no idea if he is right, but perhaps you can say something to that.
|
||
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
||
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 14:57 | |
Gravity is an illusion planted in your minds by governments all around the globe...
|
||
|
||
Icarium
Forum Senior Member VIP Member Joined: March 21 2008 Location: Tigerstaden Status: Offline Points: 34050 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 14:58 | |
Gravity is God playing with his Yo-yo
|
||
|
||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 15:44 | |
As far as I know that is accurate. I'm not sure what that matters though. There is not a single observation that points to gravity being a repelling force between matter and antimatter. |
||
"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: 5093 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 15:45 | |
I'm afraid this is not new, unless your brother is italian
http://phys.org/news/2011-04-antimatter-gravity-universe-expansion.html
any ideas are worth checking but they must be formalized and they must pass rigurous testing, even if they are just theoretical and not testable with current technology. There are plenty of non-testable hypotesis in current physics and they are evaluated by how well they fit with everything else we do know.
|
||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15783 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 15:45 | |
You said governments as if there's more than one. Everyone knows that the NWO rules the globe. |
||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
||
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer Joined: June 02 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10261 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 16:10 | |
I phoned my brother again, and he said: "That is not true There are two observations for that. One is that matter and anti-matter appear to be segregated, which is in accordance with gravity being a repelling force between them but not if they attracted each other. The other is tha thef universe expands faster than it should be expected from the big bang theory, which is a prediction if matter and antimatter repel each other. The "classic" theory can not explain that without violating Occam's razor." Edited by BaldFriede - June 14 2012 at 16:11 |
||
BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue. |
||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 16:18 | |
??? "violating Occam's razor" ???
|
||
What?
|
||
FrankG
Forum Newbie Joined: June 14 2012 Status: Offline Points: 8 |
Posted: June 14 2012 at 16:37 | |
Hello, I am Friede's brother. I got tired of her calling me all the time, so I signed up. Are you not familiar with the principle of Occam's razor?
|
||
Post Reply | Page 123 5> |
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 |