A new theory on gravity

I have my own theory of gravity:

It is susceptible to alcohol.

The proportion is direct to, as consumption increases so does the distortions to gravity.

JJLehto wrote: I have my own theory of gravity: It is susceptible to alcohol. The proportion is direct to, as consumption increases so does the distortions to gravity.

 

Gerinski wrote: The Doctor wrote: 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.      Given that the OP is a bit silent I should not be throwing wood to this fire, but may I say that: The general consensus is that matter attracts matter (in a more appropiate terminology, it causes a positive curvature or spacetime), antimatter attracts antimatter, and matter and antimatter attract eachother, even if there is no proof that this is so. And that antimatter should emmit and reflect radiation in the same way matter does, so indeed if antimatter galaxies exist we should see them in the same way as we see matter galaxies. This is a key problem with Frank's or Villata's idea: if antimatter abounds in the voids between the matter galaxies we see, why don't we see it?   As getaways there are several proposals. Theoretically, antimatter is equivalent to matter travelling backwards in time. One theory says that when matter and antimatter formed, antimatter de-coupled from matter by evolving backwards in time, effectively creating another universe "before" the big-bang, actually meaning that it's a perfectly normal universe just that it evolved towards the negative side of our time coordinate. Any beings in that universe would feel perfectly normal but they would regard our positive time coordinate as negative.   Another proposal is that antimatter galaxies do exist in our "positive time coordinate" in the voids between matter galaxies, but that because they are "normal matter travelling backwards in time", they also emit / reflect radiation backwards in time. In this idea, instead of we receiving radiation from the past as for usual galaxies, for antimatter bodies we receive their radiation from their future. If their future is "dead", completely diluted particles due to the cosmological expansion, that's why we see nothing right now, we see their future instead of their past.   Personally I don't think so but it was just to throw up some light on the subject. Fundamental physics and cosmology interest me even if I know very little about it.

Now that's an interesting theory about anti-matter moving backwards through time, but then how do you account for the warp drive in Star Trek if matter and anti-matter are out of sync in the space-time continuum? 

I'm not sure how an opposite electrical charge (the only difference between a particle and its anti-particle) would result in a backward movement in time.  That would also have required time to have split in to two parts (the end of the universe and the beginning of the universe would have had to occur at the big bang). 

As a mathematical construct I can understand that, sort of.  As I said, my level at this is definitely at the novice level.  But, for antimatter to be moving backwards in time, it would have had to move from one of two points, either backward from the point of the big bang, which would have resulted in an alternate universe "before" the big bang and would render the anti-gravity theory null as antimatter would be residing in a separate universe altogether.  Or it would have had to move back in time from a point in time after the big bang (possibly the end of the universe), which would have required at least two points of time to have come into existence simultaneously.  I'm not saying this isn't possible, but it would certainly require an additional assumption and sort of defeat the Occam's Razor statement earlier on in this thread. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I don't mean to disagree with Gerinski, but as I said it's not actually thought of like that outside of a mathematical formality. It's not even clear physically what it would mean to be traveling backwards in time.

I was having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around that myself. 

 

Gerinski wrote: JJLehto wrote: I have my own theory of gravity: It is susceptible to alcohol. The proportion is direct to, as consumption increases so does the distortions to gravity.     Not only the distortions, it does increase the strenght of gravity, you are more likely to fall down and hit your nose to the ground.   Mushrooms on the other hand can cancel gravity and make you levitate

Quite true! But what can I say? I'm just getting my feet wet exploring this theory I've come up. I mean....just an amateur I'm not a self proclaimed genius or anything like that!


I wouldn't know about the latter but if you wanna collab I'd be willing to experiment, purely for science.

Edited by Ancient Tree - June 20 2012 at 13:27

Ancient Tree wrote: well this ideas come and go,but you need an formula that proves this theory.  something like E=cm2

Formulas don't prove a theory. That's like saying a sentence proves history.

I didn't even make an argument. I said it's a purely mathematical thing and physicists don't think of it in a physical way. I never said that it will never be thought of that way or that a mechanism for physical reversal of time won't exist. I'm commenting on the current state of thinking.

Physics and Math go back and forth with one being in front of the other at different times. When the Calculus was invented, Physics was ahead of Math. Recently, mathematics predated the physics. I'm not sure where the lead is now. I don't have much faith in string theory being anything.