ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags physics , gravity

Reply
Old 5th June 2008, 08:27 AM   #1
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
What Gravity Is

Yep it’s grand claim time. I have read a lot of pop science physics recently and the other day realised I was picturing 3D space in a particular way. Thinking about it more it seemed to explain how things are influence by gravity.

My explanation is below though it may contain errors, I have a picture in my head what I mean but explaining it is difficult. It’s not rigorous physics (obviously) merely a way of explaining behaviour, similar to thinking about rubber sheets and billiard balls.

So is this plausible? Does it make any sense? Have I read it (or similar) somewhere and forgotten doing so? What doesn’t it explain? I’d appreciate your comments.


The Gravity Field - here is how to think of ‘empty’ space:

Imagine a 3D Grid and at each line intersection consider a particle

Each particle repels the other equally - think of an imaginary spring between each adjacent particle which can contract and expand caused by the particles repelling each other.

Anything that has mass is too big to fit between the gaps (where the imaginary springs are) so has to push the particles out of the way. Anything small enough can move between the particles and hence has no mass.

The denser the particles the higher the gravitational force – it’s harder for the atoms, for example, to push past.

Massless Particles:

Photons, for example, travel around the gravity particles as they are small enough to do so hence no mass.

As the gravity particles get denser it makes travelling through them harder

If the particles get dense enough the photon has nowhere to go and gets ‘trapped’ – a black hole.

Scenarios/Descriptions of behaviour:

Add a mass – consider an iron sphere. The sphere influences the position of the particles or, more accurately, the atoms take up space causing the particles to shift. This creates gravity – the particles push against each other creating gravity by also pushing on the atoms.

Consider a photon getting close to the iron sphere – the denser particles are closer to the sphere (as the atoms in the sphere are taking up some space) this directs the photon towards the sphere ‘bending’ light.

Not only do atoms ‘push’ the particles but the particles also ‘push’ the atoms, this is what creates the attractive force. Consider two iron spheres near each other – there are fewer particles, and hence less force, in the area between the masses hence they get pushed together.

Consider a human jumping on Earth – as you go up you contract the particles above you but eventually you run out of energy and can’t push the particles anymore so they push\spring back and you travel back to earth.

Consider the two split experiment – a particle as it got close to the barrier would be moving towards denser particles (caused by the atoms of the barrier) increasing the potential movement off a straight line. The particle field isn’t uniform hence the particle’s position can’t be predicted as each photon could pick a different path through the particles. This explains the wave\particle duality of light, some photons, a small amount, don’t take the ‘straight’ line (for example in a 2D plane it could go over first particle, under next, over, under etc) but can get moved off it (go over first particle, over the next, over the next, under next etc).

Dark Matter is merely areas where the particles are denser than usual, they are not spread uniformly. No matter at all.

Last edited by martu; 5th June 2008 at 08:33 AM. Reason: Spelling
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 08:38 AM   #2
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by martu View Post
Yep it’s grand claim t.....My explanation is below though it may contain errors.....,
S4it loads of em. Why not explain what gravity is not how it could give the same effect if different.

Last edited by Lothian; 5th June 2008 at 08:43 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 08:46 AM   #3
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
S4it loads of em. Why not explain what gravity is not how it could give the same effect if different.
Erm what? Could you elaborate please?
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 08:58 AM   #4
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 14,096
Originally Posted by martu View Post
Erm what? Could you elaborate please?
As gravity is the attraction I donít think an example suggesting it is caused by other particles repelling helps..........

but it might just be me.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 09:11 AM   #5
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
As gravity is the attraction I don’t think an example suggesting it is caused by other particles repelling helps..........

but it might just be me.

Pah no imagination some people... I feared this, I haven't explained it well enough, if only I could download the pictures in my head!

The particles that are repelling are only repelling each other - they do not repel atoms or photons they just get in the way of atoms and photons. But when an atom, say, pushes a particle to move it out of the way this pushes the particle closer to another particle which pushes back. This causes the attractive force - two objects near each other have fewer particles between them compared to everywhere else hence there is a greater force pushing them together or to put it another way less of a force (particles repelling each other) to keep them apart.

Does this help? Probably not....

Last edited by martu; 5th June 2008 at 09:18 AM. Reason: the ->they
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 09:55 AM   #6
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Nope. Among a bunch of particles, all pushing on one another, a test particle doesn't accelerate by bumping into them. Bumping into things slows you down.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 10:09 AM   #7
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,010
Why is it that people think they can forego the ten years of math and science courses and just skip right to theorizing about the universe?

If you don't understand exactly what it is that is know about the behavior of the universe today, you can't make any guesses about the causes of that behavior.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 10:19 AM   #8
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Why is it that people think they can forego the ten years of math and science courses and just skip right to theorizing about the universe?

If you don't understand exactly what it is that is know about the behavior of the universe today, you can't make any guesses about the causes of that behavior.
Nice attitude - did you miss the bit where I asked if I was right? If it made sense?

It's merely how I picture it in my mind and I was asking those who know more about it their opinion. No mathematics, no equations but the equivalent to the rubber sheet explanation for classical physics.

Thanks anyway.

Last edited by martu; 5th June 2008 at 10:20 AM.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 10:28 AM   #9
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Nope. Among a bunch of particles, all pushing on one another, a test particle doesn't accelerate by bumping into them. Bumping into things slows you down.
Hmm yes indeed let me think on this one, this could be the fundamental error in how I picture it.

I was thinking that acceleration being the equivalent to gravity could be explained by the fact that you have to push past more particles as you move hence they push back on you causing the same effect as the gravity of a mass.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 10:35 AM   #10
Dogdoctor
Canis Doctorius
 
Dogdoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,786
Sounds interesting. Now all you have to do is to prove the existance of "a 3D Grid and at each line intersection consider a particle "
Then we can discuss this more meaningfully.
__________________


Dogdoctor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 11:09 AM   #11
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by martu View Post
I was thinking that acceleration being the equivalent to gravity could be explained by
Are you saying that as acceleration is the same as gravity, acceleration can be explained by..., or that you can explain why acceleration is the same as gravity?

Quote:
the fact that you have to push past more particles as you move hence they push back on you causing the same effect as the gravity of a mass.
Wouldn't that, for example, make bigger things fall more slowly than smaller things?
Paul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 11:13 AM   #12
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Nope. Among a bunch of particles, all pushing on one another, a test particle doesn't accelerate by bumping into them. Bumping into things slows you down.
In physics terms, acceleration is any change in velocity. Therefore, changing direction or slowing down counts as acceleration.

That's why you experience just as much force slowing down or changing direction as you do speeding up -- force is mass times acceleration.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 11:14 AM   #13
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Dogdoctor View Post
Sounds interesting. Now all you have to do is to prove the existance of "a 3D Grid and at each line intersection consider a particle "
Then we can discuss this more meaningfully.
Isn't that the quantum vacuum?

...sort of?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 11:19 AM   #14
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by martu View Post
Add a mass Ė consider an iron sphere. The sphere influences the position of the particles or, more accurately, the atoms take up space causing the particles to shift. This creates gravity Ė the particles push against each other creating gravity by also pushing on the atoms.
Gravity moves at the speed of light. Can your model account for this?
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 12:46 PM   #15
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
Wouldn't that, for example, make bigger things fall more slowly than smaller things?
Yes that's why it's wrong, it's the opposite. My error. A dumb one.

The density is less, there are fewer particles therefore less 'resistance'. A photon travels better through the bigger 'gaps'.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 12:48 PM   #16
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Gravity moves at the speed of light. Can your model account for this?
Yes this is waves in the grid, 3D waves of course.

I think I may be in SF territory. Maybe I should write fiction. Badly.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 12:50 PM   #17
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Isn't that the quantum vacuum?

...sort of?
Yes.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 12:54 PM   #18
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Black Holes are caused by particles being so far apart that there is a hole in the grid.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 12:57 PM   #19
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by martu View Post
I was thinking that acceleration being the equivalent to gravity could be explained by the fact that you have to push past more particles as you move hence they push back on you causing the same effect as the gravity of a mass.
Hell's teeth that's almost timecube territory my apologies.

If you move through the grid you have to push past more partciles creating gravity.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 12:58 PM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
Newton's third law means that these hypothetical particles need a force to stop them moving.

Your gravitational force depends only on the density of the particles and not the mass of the object. Actual gravitational force depends on the mass of both objects.

Thus this is not even bad fiction.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 01:04 PM   #21
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Newton's third law means that these hypothetical particles need a force to stop them moving.

Your gravitational force depends only on the density of the particles and not the mass of the object. Actual gravitational force depends on the mass of both objects.

Thus this is not even bad fiction.
You're probably right but imagine for a second, what else would a uniform spread of particles in a volume look like if it did exist? Stationary particles right, why would they move?

Last edited by martu; 5th June 2008 at 01:05 PM.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 01:10 PM   #22
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your gravitational force depends only on the density of the particles and not the mass of the object. Actual gravitational force depends on the mass of both objects.
Mass is stuff - things that take up space pushing apart the particles.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 01:36 PM   #23
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
Originally Posted by martu View Post
Mass is stuff - things that take up space pushing apart the particles.
Your force does not depend on the mass of the object doing the pushing. It depends on the size of the object. So 2 objects of the same mass but different density will experience different 'gravitational' forces. There are quite sensitive experiments that show that gravity does not depend on the density (or composition) of the object.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 01:38 PM   #24
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
Originally Posted by martu View Post
You're probably right but imagine for a second, what else would a uniform spread of particles in a volume look like if it did exist? Stationary particles right, why would they move?
What is the force that stops them moving as soon as another object coomes into your 'empty' space? As you state in your posts - this object pushes the particles. What pushes back?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 10:18 PM   #25
zosima
Muse
 
zosima's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 536
Originally Posted by martu View Post
You're probably right but imagine for a second, what else would a uniform spread of particles in a volume look like if it did exist? Stationary particles right, why would they move?
Also, your model ignores relativity. Mass-Energy equivalence means that even though a photon is massless it has energy and thus should be expected to exert a tiny force on the objects around it. If light falls into a black hole, it increases the energy of the hole and therefore increases the gravitational pull of the black hole.

This same objection applies to energy from the motion of objects in your model.

If you ask me, the bending of 4-dimensional spacetime is probably as easy as it is going to get. That model doesn't postulate the existence of some crazy grid. Just smooth curves of geometric structures.

Also, your two-slit example doesn't explain how a particle could appear to travel through both slits. It posits only one or the other.

So I think I have to agree with reality(check), it doesn't even have utility as an educational model, and it doesn't have one or two little flaws. The best educational tool would be a physics textbook.

ETA: actually this fixed particle grid seems a lot like the aether model which has been widely discredited.

Last edited by zosima; 5th June 2008 at 10:22 PM.
zosima is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 10:59 PM   #26
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,506
You leave out one critical dimension in your analysis, time. As zosima mentioned the bending of 4-dimensional spacetime is the most accurate way we currently have of describing gravity. Since we live in a perceptually 4-dimentional universe (3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension) any concept that does not involve all of those dimensions can not accurately describe gravity. Please see Spacetime and General Relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2008, 11:49 PM   #27
chran
Muse
 
chran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Denmark, yo
Posts: 629
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Why is it that people think they can forego the ten years of math and science courses and just skip right to theorizing about the universe?

If you don't understand exactly what it is that is know about the behavior of the universe today, you can't make any guesses about the causes of that behavior.
This needs to be quoted again.
chran is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 01:11 AM   #28
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by chran View Post
This needs to be quoted again.
How much physics and maths do I have to do before I can ask other people, people who probably know a lot more than me about the physics hence I am asking a question and not just stating "I am right", their opinion on how I am picturing something in my head exactly?

I only have 3 years of maths I'm afraid, my apologies.

To put it another way if you were thinking about something out of your area of expertise how would you go about finding out if your thoughts were absolute nonsense or not?

Why the attitude? I am asking questions, nothing more.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 01:35 AM   #29
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your force does not depend on the mass of the object doing the pushing. It depends on the size of the object. So 2 objects of the same mass but different density will experience different 'gravitational' forces. There are quite sensitive experiments that show that gravity does not depend on the density (or composition) of the object.
Can you send me a link to write ups of these experiments?

Thank you btw for answering how I had hoped people would, I am merely trying to learn here.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 01:49 AM   #30
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
What is the force that stops them moving as soon as another object coomes into your 'empty' space? As you state in your posts - this object pushes the particles. What pushes back?
The other gravity particles - consider just a simple 2D plane like a page of maths paper where the lines can bend. As you push a gravity particle (at the intersection of two lines) in one direction it gets closer to other gravity particles which push back.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 02:18 AM   #31
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by zosima View Post
Also, your model ignores relativity. Mass-Energy equivalence means that even though a photon is massless it has energy and thus should be expected to exert a tiny force on the objects around it. If light falls into a black hole, it increases the energy of the hole and therefore increases the gravitational pull of the black hole.

This same objection applies to energy from the motion of objects in your model.
Another good point, thank you. How I picture it, and again I am just trying to relate what I see in my head, is sometimes a photon could influence the position of the gravity particles by lightly grazing it as it goes past. This could explain the tiny force exerted, gravity particles being pushed just a little bit.

As to how the light falling into a black hole increases the gravitational pull - the more stuff you have the bigger the gap between particles (as stuff is taking up volume the particles canít occupy) and therefore the larger the acceleration\gravity.

Originally Posted by zosima View Post
If you ask me, the bending of 4-dimensional spacetime is probably as easy as it is going to get. That model doesn't postulate the existence of some crazy grid. Just smooth curves of geometric structures.
I picture it as smooth geometric structures in a way, consider an atom moving towards a mass then it travels down a sort of funnel where the gaps between the gravity particles are further apart closer you get to the mass hence the atom can travel further without being influenced by the gravity particles.

Originally Posted by zosima View Post
Also, your two-slit example doesn't explain how a particle could appear to travel through both slits. It posits only one or the other.
Ah this is probably the bit of the two split experiment I donít completely understand then, again thank you. Can you explain briefly, or point me to a source that does, why it is considered an individual photon goes through both slits?

Originally Posted by zosima View Post
So I think I have to agree with reality(check), it doesn't even have utility as an educational model, and it doesn't have one or two little flaws. The best educational tool would be a physics textbook.
Thanks again.

Originally Posted by zosima View Post
ETA: actually this fixed particle grid seems a lot like the aether model which has been widely discredited.
No itís not like the aether model, the aether model relied on a medium through which things travel the grid is a medium which things travel around.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 02:36 AM   #32
Zeno
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Why is it that people think they can forego the ten years of math and science courses and just skip right to theorizing about the universe?

If you don't understand exactly what it is that is know about the behavior of the universe today, you can't make any guesses about the causes of that behavior.
He is brainstorming here and never once passed off his ideas as facts. You have no business oppressing fellow members of the forum and if you didn't notice, this would be a perfect opportunity to do some instruction.
__________________
Adam Romeo
surfGTR@gmail.com

Last edited by Zeno; 6th June 2008 at 02:38 AM.
Zeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 02:36 AM   #33
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
Basically you are replacing gravity with 2 forces - the force between your particles that keeps them on the grid and the force between the particles and an object. Now you are stating that photons can "graze" the particles.
This seems too ornate when General Relativity is much simpler, works and is much easier to understand.

One prediction of your model that can be tested:
Make 2 balls, one made of lead and another of iron. Let them have the same mass. The lead ball will be smaller then the iron ball (lead is denser than iron). The lead ball will push past fewer particles than the iron ball. Thus the gravitatinal force on the lead ball will be less than that of the iron ball.
This is not observed. Therefore the grid of particles does not exist.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 02:43 AM   #34
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You leave out one critical dimension in your analysis, time. As zosima mentioned the bending of 4-dimensional spacetime is the most accurate way we currently have of describing gravity. Since we live in a perceptually 4-dimentional universe (3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension) any concept that does not involve all of those dimensions can not accurately describe gravity. Please see Spacetime and General Relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
I know what these are but thank you - why do you think this doesn't explain it? Or what specifically isn't explained by it?
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 02:48 AM   #35
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Zeno View Post
He is brainstorming here and never once passed off his ideas as facts. You have no business oppressing fellow members of the forum and if you didn't notice, this would be a perfect opportunity to do some instruction.
Thank you for getting to the crux of the OP, I want a discussion with people more knowledgeable than me on this subject.

I have been a member here for a long time, I can understand the initial feelings of 'Sweet FSM here comes another kook who thinks he has all the answers' but think it's unwarranted here.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 03:24 AM   #36
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Basically you are replacing gravity with 2 forces - the force between your particles that keeps them on the grid and the force between the particles and an object. Now you are stating that photons can "graze" the particles.
This seems too ornate when General Relativity is much simpler, works and is much easier to understand.
No itís just one force, the repelling of the gravity particles. The gravity particles do not exert a force on the object they get in the way. But is that what you mean Ė when I say getting in the way this assumes a force that acts between them?

Thanks very good point.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
One prediction of your model that can be tested:
Make 2 balls, one made of lead and another of iron. Let them have the same mass. The lead ball will be smaller then the iron ball (lead is denser than iron). The lead ball will push past fewer particles than the iron ball. Thus the gravitatinal force on the lead ball will be less than that of the iron ball.
This is not observed. Therefore the grid of particles does not exist.
I think I can answer this one believe it or not, both balls will hit the same number of particles. Though the lead ball is smaller it contains more stuff therefore more particles are being hit. So the way to think of mass is that itís the number of particles displaced by something Ė though the lead ball is smaller as itís denser more particles are displaced in a smaller volume.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 04:09 AM   #37
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
I think I can sort of see what you're getting at, but a lot of what you're describing doesn't jive with general relativity. For starters, the whole mesh thing implies some kind of granularity to space-time, which just isn't the case (within our measurement capabilities). Also, it implies some kind of universal frame of reference, which doesn't match up with special relativity.

The double slit experiment is a bad example - scattering of light is caused by the electromagnetic force, not gravity.
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 04:58 AM   #38
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
I think I can sort of see what you're getting at, but a lot of what you're describing doesn't jive with general relativity. For starters, the whole mesh thing implies some kind of granularity to space-time, which just isn't the case (within our measurement capabilities). Also, it implies some kind of universal frame of reference, which doesn't match up with special relativity.
Why does it imply a universal frame of reference do you think, could you elaborate for me?

OK slightly moving into fantasy territory here but stick with me - The LHC could find the Higgs boson and in turn we could find out that the Higgs field is created by the Higgs bosons all repelling each other to form the grid. Completely nuts do you think?

Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
The double slit experiment is a bad example - scattering of light is caused by the electromagnetic force, not gravity.
Again can you elaborate for me please, how do we know this? Apologies if I'm asking you to do a thesis on a forum, if so can you suggest a source I should read?
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 05:28 AM   #39
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by martu View Post
Why does it imply a universal frame of reference do you think, could you elaborate for me?
Your description is about things moving within a 'grid', so something moving with a constant velocity through space would be moving relative to these hypothetical particles (if I understand you right). This was the line of thinking when people were theorising about the aether, which turned out to be a load of rubbish. I'm not sure what would be a good reference for this. I did it when I did my degree and I doubt that material is what you're after. However, the key phrase is 'Lorentz invariance', which is a key part of special relativity.

Originally Posted by martu View Post
OK slightly moving into fantasy territory here but stick with me - The LHC could find the Higgs boson and in turn we could find out that the Higgs field is created by the Higgs bosons all repelling each other to form the grid. Completely nuts do you think?
Yes, that is completely nuts. That isn't how the Higgs boson is theorised to behave at all.

Originally Posted by martu View Post
Again can you elaborate for me please, how do we know this? Apologies if I'm asking you to do a thesis on a forum, if so can you suggest a source I should read?
The photon is the force carrier for electromagnetism and all their behaviour regarding scattering etc. can be explained with classical wave theory and on a finer scale, QED. Given that electromagnetism is a much stronger force than gravity, it'd be daft to even suspect that gravity would somehow be responsible. Still, we've got not grand unified theory yet, so you never know...
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th June 2008, 06:35 AM   #40
martu
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,003
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Your description is about things moving within a 'grid', so something moving with a constant velocity through space would be moving relative to these hypothetical particles (if I understand you right). This was the line of thinking when people were theorising about the aether, which turned out to be a load of rubbish. I'm not sure what would be a good reference for this. I did it when I did my degree and I doubt that material is what you're after. However, the key phrase is 'Lorentz invariance', which is a key part of special relativity.
But wasnít aether a medium for light to travel through like sound needs a medium to travel through? I am thinking the grid is things to avoid, without the grid a photon could travel no problem, in fact this is what happens when the gaps between the gravity particles gets stretched by a mass, the photon travels with less of a hindrance from the gravity particles.

Iíll read up on aether and get back to you, I probably misunderstand that as well.

Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Thought so.

Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
The photon is the force carrier for electromagnetism and all their behaviour regarding scattering etc. can be explained with classical wave theory and on a finer scale, QED. Given that electromagnetism is a much stronger force than gravity, it'd be daft to even suspect that gravity would somehow be responsible. Still, we've got not grand unified theory yet, so you never know...
I donít see it as gravity as being responsible per se Ė itís more that the photons have to travel around the particles which is causing the photon to travel in a wave which can be explained by classical wave theory. So we have a force carrying photon avoiding the gravity particles as it travels causing an unpredictable path.

Thank you for your input I think this is the level of detail that I lack and that I need to somehow understand so I can picture it differently and, hopefully, more accurately.
martu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.