Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A new theory on gravity
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

A new theory on gravity

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
Message
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 7636
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Snow Dog View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Errors & Omissions Team

Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Snow Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 07:35
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

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

That's a bit unkind isn't it?

Hah...who am I to talk?
Coldness doth get away with the badness.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:12
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Where's the paper?


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. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:23
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:


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."


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. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 08:33
Originally posted by FrankG FrankG wrote:


I don't know what you mean by that. He introduced the constant because his equations predicted the universe to expand, which he could not believe. When the red shift was detected he took that constant out of his equations.


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. "
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. "
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 27182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 Stern Smile, how does time factor into any of this, and if you got rid of it, would it make things simpler? 
Back to Top
Jim Garten View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin & Razor Guru

Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14549
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Garten Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 09:09
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

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



Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 09:33
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Just out of curiosity, because I haven't seen it mentioned yet or missed it through glazed over eyes Stern Smile, how does time factor into any of this, and if you got rid of it, would it make things simpler? 


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. "
Back to Top
FrankG View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie


Joined: June 14 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 8
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FrankG Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 10:00
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

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 th

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
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Equality 7-2521 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. "
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 14:12
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by FrankG FrankG wrote:


I don't know what you mean by that. He introduced the constant because his equations predicted the universe to expand, which he could not believe. When the red shift was detected he took that constant out of his equations.


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.
 
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.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 14:32
Originally posted by FrankG FrankG wrote:

Originally posted by Gerinski Gerinski wrote:

Dark energy is nothing new, it was predicted by Einstein and given the less fancy name of cosmological constant but he dropped the idea when Hubble confirmed that the universe is expanding.
 
The problem with the recently observed expansion data is that the expansion is accelerating. This does not seem compatible with your idea, if we assume that the big bang is correct all the stuff in the universe was closer to eachother in the past. If there was a proportional mix of matter and antimater and gravity between them was repulsive, the repulsion must have been stronger in the past and getting milder as the blobs of matter and antimatter get further apart. The expansion would be decelerating and not accelerating. Maybe your idea could be used to explain inflation but not the current accelerating expansion.
 

Wrong, it does confirm. It would only NOT accelerate if the forces suddenly stopped. Right? What we would expect though is that the acceleration slowly decreases. This is actually pretty basic; as long as there is a force there is an acceleration.
 
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]
Originally posted by FrankG FrankG wrote:

  Einstein, by the way, never spoke of "dark energies", he used the term "cosmological constant" and later called it the biggest error of his life.
 
I said that myself.
 
 
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 27182
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slartibartfast Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 15:20
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Just out of curiosity, because I haven't seen it mentioned yet or missed it through glazed over eyes Stern Smile, how does time factor into any of this, and if you got rid of it, would it make things simpler? 


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.



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
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Albion
Status: Offline
Points: 33165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dean Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 15 2012 at 18:44
Originally posted by FrankG FrankG wrote:

Would you care to explain to me how you would tell matter from anti-matter?
Measurement of anything involves comparison to a known standard, either directly or indirectly - indirect measurement is by effect - we measure the mass of an object by weighing it. Therefore to detect anti-matter we would need to measure it by effect, which the most obvious method would be by mutual annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairing, since we cannot observe any such annihilations (as gamma rays) we must assume that none are occurring and thus there is considerably more matter than anti-matter in the observable Universe. In the cosmos we cannot see matter, we can only see the radiations emanating from it (or reflected off it) - from that we can calculate size and mass. The other method by which we can "see" cosmological matter is by gravitational lensing - here we are not seeing the object but are making an indirect observation of the effect that object has on radiation passing by it - by this method we can "see" and therefore measure dark matter. If, as you are assuming, anti-matter repels matter then its anti-gravitational lensing would have different properties to gravitational lensing so therefore not only would anti-matter be readily observable, we would be able to tell it from normal matter.

Edited by Dean - June 15 2012 at 18:47


If you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise and then just behave like they would - Neil Gaiman
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 3438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gerinski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 16 2012 at 04:20
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by FrankG FrankG wrote:

Would you care to explain to me how you would tell matter from anti-matter?
Measurement of anything involves comparison to a known standard, either directly or indirectly - indirect measurement is by effect - we measure the mass of an object by weighing it. Therefore to detect anti-matter we would need to measure it by effect, which the most obvious method would be by mutual annihilation of matter/anti-matter pairing, since we cannot observe any such annihilations (as gamma rays) we must assume that none are occurring and thus there is considerably more matter than anti-matter in the observable Universe. In the cosmos we cannot see matter, we can only see the radiations emanating from it (or reflected off it) - from that we can calculate size and mass. The other method by which we can "see" cosmological matter is by gravitational lensing - here we are not seeing the object but are making an indirect observation of the effect that object has on radiation passing by it - by this method we can "see" and therefore measure dark matter. If, as you are assuming, anti-matter repels matter then its anti-gravitational lensing would have different properties to gravitational lensing so therefore not only would anti-matter be readily observable, we would be able to tell it from normal matter.
 
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
Back to Top
infocat View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Heavy Prog Team

Joined: June 10 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3645
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote infocat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 16 2012 at 08:09
You educated people make my brain hurt!
Confused
Frank Swarbrick

--

Belief is not Truth.

Back to Top
tamijo View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 3923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tamijo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 16 2012 at 08:21
🚀 silence , hurts
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8409
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Doctor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
Back to Top
Triceratopsoil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Deadmonton
Status: Offline
Points: 17423
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Triceratopsoil Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 17 2012 at 20:16
Originally posted by Jim Garten Jim Garten wrote:

Dammit!

Just came across after following the LDL debate on the 'Bacon' thread & misread this as a thread regarding a new theory on gravy...

...how disappointed am I?


LOL
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.