ILovePhilosophy.com

ok if you dont understand what im saying, then you are thinking too hard about it. this is a simple theory.

the current physical description of gravity involves messenger particles, little gravitons are shot out from every matter particle and they hit every single other matter particle, and they transmit a force through this graviton that, if it had mass, we would see 10^500th of all around us. right?

well thats crazy, first, why do we think gravity behaves like the other 3 fundamental forces? the other 3 are known to approximately become the same force. at about one million bi...a lot of degrees the electromagnetic and weak force become the same, they are now called the electroweak, and the strong force for some as yet unknown reason comes really close but not quite.

gravity is like 40 powers of 10 away from this beautiful symmetry. that alone should be a signal that there is someting different about it. first, scientists found messenger paticles like the photon and then since they didnt know any better and still dont, they went and ahead and theorized that gravity also was transfered by way of messenger particle. then when nobody ever saw a graviton, they theorized that it has no mass. what kind of particle has no mass? maybe one that exists, but certainly one that is vaguely a lot different than any other particle. right?

well imagine an ambient force pushing down from outside the solar system, as opposed to an invisible grappling hook shooting out from the sun and grabbing the earth. this outside force pushes in towards the sun from all directions. the earth is guided at the sun because, in the direction of pluto, it is being pushed on without a sun in the way, and in the direction of the sun, the sun blocks the force that is on the other side of it, therefore appearing to attract the earth, but in reality it is only interfering with the equilibrium that would hold the earth in place.

the grappling hook from the sun known as gravitons is so far undetected. there is however a thing called the zero point field. it is my understanding that we know absolutely zero about the behavior of this field on large scales. all we know is that there is a tremendous amount of energy blasting around the quantum landscape in such a way that our instruments have not been intended to measure at all, let alone the large scale behavior of.

the main thing here is shadows replace gravitons. imagine the solar system is surrounded by a sphere of light, the light is causing an inward force since the pressure outside the solar system is greater, and the pressure inside is less due to the presence of zero-point-field clogging mass. the sun casts a shadow on the earth, just like all the other planets do, and since the shadow from the sun is darkest and biggest, thats where we go.

heres why the light from the sun does not have the same repulsive effect as the ambient glow coming from outside the solar system: imagine matter is a blob of water floating in zero-gravity. sun photons would be the equivalent of shooting a bullet through the water: no effect on the motion of the entire body. this ambient difference in pressure im describing would be like a wall of bullets slowly pushing against the blob.

what do we know about the zero point field? how does that disprove this possibility? can dark matter be explained by this theory and the different ways that the ambient outside energy works when your in the middle of the 'outside' as opposed to surrounded closely by matter like in a solar system?

my theory on dark matter would somehow involve the fact that the repulsive effect of this force is stronger when out in wide open space, less congestion, more ambient force of expansion. large scale things like galaxy clusters are separated by a large space that is rapidly increasing because that open space allows for the force inside of it to have more freedom to increase the force pushing against the outside of those galaxies.

nobody has ever shown me conclusively why this wont work. or why there is dark matter otherwise. has anyone ever read the theory andrei sakharov had that was similar to this? what was deemed wrong with that one?

http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html seems to have somethign akin to yoru theory developed. sounds quite interesting.

I don't know about gravitons, but there is a theory that states that gravity is caused by the curvature of space-time. That theory makes the most sense to me. If we look at space-time as a surface upon which everything sits, the distortion of such a surface would result in a tendency to cause objects which sit on it to congeal. According to string theories, there are up to 7 other dimensions that exist, which are imperceptible to human senses, because they are " tightly curled ". This "curling" could be caused by spacial distortion. So it seems reasonable to me to hypothesize that the extra dimensions may be the cause of gravitational force. That to me seems like the reason why gravity is such a different force. Other forces are caused by reactions between elementary particles, namely quarks and gluons. Gravity on the other hand is more likely to be caused by dimensional curvature which would likely be dynamically different then forces which are the result of wave/particle reactions. This theory also explains why there is not any evidence for "particles of gravity".

Gravity, attraction between masses.

Sex, attraction between genders.

Magnetisim, attraction between poles.

Friendship, attraction between personalities.

Attraction, a principle law of the universe.

If we look at space-time as a surface upon which everything sits, the distortion of such a surface would result in a tendency to cause objects which sit on it to congeal.

exactly, except eintein had no idea what this 'surface' was.

whats a thing that fills three dimensional space and has enough enerby in a cubic meter to boil all of the oceans in the world?

the zero point field is it and its one thing we know nothing about on large scales.

i need to invent a machine soon.. any ideas? i think i want it to.. measure.. the zero point field. and its effect on the entire planet. quickly.

Uniqor wrote:Gravity, attraction between masses.

Sex, attraction between genders.

Magnetisim, attraction between poles.

Friendship, attraction between personalities.

Attraction, a principle law of the universe.

You forgot about repulsion though. How does that come to play in this?

dont let uniqor waste too much of your time.

does anybody know anything about the zero point field?

Future Man wrote:

If we look at space-time as a surface upon which everything sits, the distortion of such a surface would result in a tendency to cause objects which sit on it to congeal.

exactly, except eintein had no idea what this 'surface' was.

whats a thing that fills three dimensional space and has enough enerby in a cubic meter to boil all of the oceans in the world?

the zero point field is it and its one thing we know nothing about on large scales.

i need to invent a machine soon.. any ideas? i think i want it to.. measure.. the zero point field. and its effect on the entire planet. quickly.

I have a theory that states that in areas of zero gravity and electromagnetism, perhaps the "other dimensions" become perceptible. I think perhaps the only reason that these dimensions are imperceptible in the first place is because bodies of matter distort and curl them so that they do not follow straight, easily detectable paths. It really makes sense that something that is a curled line would result in gravity, as gravity is well known to produce elliptical patterns characteristic of spirals. Even galaxies tend to arrange themselves in spirals. That is unlikely to be a mere coencidence.

It seems to me if you want to observe the effect of the zero point field on earth, then what you need isn't a machine, it is a really good telescope, and an object of the same mass as our planet in the least dense part of the universe you can find. By comparing and contrasting the two, you could come up with some sound research on the effects of the zero point field. The only problem is that any body the size of earth in the vacuum of space would be very unlikely to produce any light source of it's own. Maybe it might be easier to look for a star the same mass as the sun off all on it's own. In a galaxy cluster celestial bodies spiral around one another in elliptical patterns. If a body were alone in a quite vacant part of space, it would be quite interesting to see how it would behave. Perhaps it would spiral in a pattern tighter and tighter until it reached the center, and then what? Maybe it would continue to spiral a tighter and tighter pattern until it became so tight that the movement would be unnoticeable. If we could visit the vacuum of space ourselves, then it would be fairly easy to measure the zero point field. Until then, all we can hope for is a really good telescope that can detect objects that far out in the middle of nowhere. I think the smaller the object is, the more data you could achieve by observing it. So maybe a really isolated galaxy might be a good start. That shouldn't be too hard to find with modern telescopes as they are.

There is one more problem that I forgot to mention with that method, however. There are no standard candles in vacuous space to help take accurate measurements. There has to be some way around that though...

I should also add that if you could study the effects of the zero point field on individual celestial bodies, you could most likely come up with a formula that can accurately predict the effects of the zero point field on massive bodies. That formula would be the "machine" that you are looking for.

i think youve got your string theory and your relativity jumbled up.

the imperceptible curvy dimensions are impreceptible for geometric reasons, not einsteins 'space-time curvature'. for example, imagine the 3d universe is the surface of a 4d sphere in the same way that a 2d universe could exist on the surface of a 3d sphere. the people in flatland would never know there was a 3rd dimension, but if they went in a straight line they would end up back where they started someday, and then would know.

also, imagine a 1d worm inside his 1d hose universe. if he perceives things the mechanical way that we do, then he can only shoot a ball out that hits whatever is in front of him and then bounces back, giving him a 0d time value. like we see the 3d universe with 2d images, he sees his 1d universe with a 0d point value. now imagine anything is smaller than that ball the worm uses to see. that would be the same as something being smaller than the photons we see (or rather, smaller than our smallest basic unit of perception). while inside that '1d' hose, the smaller-than-photon particle can move around in all three dimensions or more and the worm will have no clue what you are talking about.

the 'curvature' described by einstein is really just a product of the bowling ball-trampoline analogy. if you assume that there is a force similar to gravity underneath the trampoline, then yes, a downhill slope on the trampoline wil 'cause' things to go down.

the big misconception here is that the mere fact that the thing is curved creates downward force. no it doesnt. the force of gravity that is assumed to be present underneath is what cretes that force. the fabric being curved allows for unequilibrium which is responded to by the motion we see.

einstein did not define what is the metaphorical equivalent of the force of gravity in the bowling ball trampoline analogy. thats what im trying to do. einstein said 'heres how future mans theory affects the motion of objects'. the big thing he discovered was that time is also ambiguously affected by gravity. thats all general relativity adds up to as far as i can see.

Future Man wrote:i think youve got your string theory and your relativity jumbled up.

the imperceptible curvy dimensions are impreceptible for geometric reasons, not einsteins 'space-time curvature'. for example, imagine the 3d universe is the surface of a 4d sphere in the same way that a 2d universe could exist on the surface of a 3d sphere. the people in flatland would never know there was a 3rd dimension, but if they went in a straight line they would end up back where they started someday, and then would know.

also, imagine a 1d worm inside his 1d hose universe. if he perceives things the mechanical way that we do, then he can only shoot a ball out that hits whatever is in front of him and then bounces back, giving him a 0d time value. like we see the 3d universe with 2d images, he sees his 1d universe with a 0d point value. now imagine anything is smaller than that ball the worm uses to see. that would be the same as something being smaller than the photons we see (or rather, smaller than our smallest basic unit of perception). while inside that '1d' hose, the smaller-than-photon particle can move around in all three dimensions or more and the worm will have no clue what you are talking about.

the 'curvature' described by einstein is really just a product of the bowling ball-trampoline analogy. if you assume that there is a force similar to gravity underneath the trampoline, then yes, a downhill slope on the trampoline wil 'cause' things to go down.

the big misconception here is that the mere fact that the thing is curved creates downward force. no it doesnt. the force of gravity that is assumed to be present underneath is what cretes that force. the fabric being curved allows for unequilibrium which is responded to by the motion we see.

einstein did not define what is the metaphorical equivalent of the force of gravity in the bowling ball trampoline analogy. thats what im trying to do. einstein said 'heres how future mans theory affects the motion of objects'. the big thing he discovered was that time is also ambiguously affected by gravity. thats all general relativity adds up to as far as i can see.

Well let's assume that the bowling ball cannot possibly roll on any surface other then the trampoline and there is no gravity. Any motion of the bowling ball period would still result in the bowling ball spirling towards the center of the trampoline. Since the one constant in the universe is motion, then we must assume that curvature of space does result in that gravitational effect. It is unnecessary to posit the existance of any force other then curvature and motion.

not quite...the bowling ball rolls to the center because the trampoline is suspended from the edge. In a totally empty space, the bowling ball could move around freely, moving the depression with it.

The bowling ball always wants to reach the lowest energy state. if there are two, then the lowest stae is when they are touching, because that creates the deepest depression. WHen they are seperated, the depressions overlap at the edges, i.e. space is slightly curved in the direction of each bowling ball. Each one follows the curvature to meet the other. The closer they get, the lower the rubber "space" between them gets, and the faster they roll until they meet.

Mass tells space how to curve, and space tells mass how to move.

Future man tells crack how to smoke, and crack tells Future man how to think.

same thing, really.

well what made the motion? and is there any other form this motion takes besides gravity?

well whatever you say about the 'fabric of space time' what is that thing?

is it necesarily impossible for us to see what the fabric is?

you guys are just reciting what youve heard. einstein has no idea what the fabric is, only that it is something.

The bowling ball always wants to reach the lowest energy state

this is the thing that we observe. have we ever observed what creates this effect?

Future Man wrote:well what made the motion? and is there any other form this motion takes besides gravity?

The big bang made the motion presumably, but regaurdless of what made it, you have to agree that motion is inevitable. Even at absolute zero particles are still moving. There is not a single known thing in the universe which does not move, so it is safe to assume that there is motion. What made or is making the motion is irrelevant to my point.

Now let's take a hypothetical. Let's say that the trampoline is an infinate line which is like a path on which things can travel. An object can move two ways on this line, back and forth. Until an object is actually added to the line, then there is no preferance which direction an object might travel. But as soon as an object is added to the line, that object would then distort the line making it curve. Since the line is now curved and has no beginning or end, it now forms a spiral. The added stress of the object to the line makes it so some places are more dense then others. The object now has a natural tendency to move toward the densest place on the line. Now if we add a second object, then that object would move towards the other object because of the density around the vicinity of that object. Any objects added to the line would each try to find the most dense part of the line, and in doing so, would all end up attracted to one another. The more objects and mass there are, the more the disruption of equilibrium of the line's density, thus the more the objects are pulled and attracted to one another.

Using the tranpoline as an example, when a bowling ball is placed on the trampoline, the outer part of the rubber on the trampoline spreads out, while the inner part of the rubber becomes more dense. Another good example of this is the surface of a body of water. When an object floats on the surface, the water becomes more dense underneath the object forming boyancy. Perhaps this is how it is with space-time or the zero point field as well. After all, doesn't space seem to display fluid properties? Zero gravity even feels like swimming. So it makes sense to hypothesize that in order for the zero point field to provide the boyancy needed to keep objects afloat in space, it would have to shift density and become more dense around the object. If space is more dense around an object, then it makes sense to hypothesize that extra density results in a distortion in the surface, and therefore an imbalance as well. That imbalance could be gravity.

Future Man wrote:well whatever you say about the 'fabric of space time' what is that thing?

is it necesarily impossible for us to see what the fabric is?

you guys are just reciting what youve heard. einstein has no idea what the fabric is, only that it is something.

The bowling ball always wants to reach the lowest energy state

this is the thing that we observe. have we ever observed what creates this effect?

We (and you) know just as little of the fabric of space time as Einstein did. Yes we have observed what creates this effect, we observe it every day. It is the universe (or in my theories and philosophies, the multiverse), a living thing I like to call God.

the big bang made the motion presumably, but regaurdless of what made it, you have to agree that motion is inevitable. Even at absolute zero particles are still moving. There is not a single known thing in the universe which does not move, so it is safe to assume that there is motion. What made or is making the motion is irrelevant to my point.

i happened to read a book about the zero point field that talked a good deal about it, maybe thats our gap here, since physics doesnt have much to say about the zpf. your actually talking about it here, i believe its all the different kinds of messenger particles shooting around, switching back and forth between two matter-antimatter partners and 'pure energy' in every little space and thats what bumps around an atom at absolute zero, as well as all other atoms.

The more objects and mass there are, the more the disruption of equilibrium of (something's) density, thus the more the objects are pulled and attracted to one another.

couldnt have put it better myself. except id say zero point field instead of something

your analogy has the same problem as einsteins. the zero point field can possibly be inserted in the place of the trampoline.

If space is more dense around an object, then it makes sense to hypothesize that extra density results in a distortion in the surface, and therefore an imbalance as well. That imbalance could be gravity.

i would describe this as matter attracting the activity of the zpf particles by giving them something to bump around into, thus diverting their path and bouncing them somewhere they would not have otherwise gone. the direction they would have chosen to go would be the one the keeps the larger system in equilibrium, and the presence of mass disrupts it.


everybody, heres a simpler version:
imagine a graph where earth is at the origin and the moon is x=10. the earth is 4 units thick and the moon 2.

all around them an all encompassing mass of messenger particles like photons and gluons swirls in varying directions but is roughly static. in any tiny space humans can see with their eyes, there are millions of these particles going in all different directions, shooting forward until obstructed, right?

back to the graph, on the left side of the earth, contained within x+-2, there are 20googolplex photons travelling directly to the right.

on the right side of the moon, there are 10googolplex photons going to the left. if the earth were not there, then there would also be 10googolplex coming from the left and the moon would not move.

of all the photons that are on the other side of the earth frmo the moon and on an intercept course for both the earth and moon, pretty much all of them will bounce off the earth and not hit the moon.

this means when there is no earth there, many photons go from left to right and fully cancel out the effect of the photons hitting the other side of the moon. when the earth is there, all the ones that had to go through it did not, therefore creating less force on the earth side of the moon, leaving the stronger force on the other side of the moon to push the moon into the earth.

this seems pretty much invincible to me. whats the problem.[/b]

Mass tells space how to curve, and space tells mass how to move.

yeah but this is just the same as saying "space contains a force called gravity which is affected by mass" thats not a description of gravity, its a quantification.

i am wondering about water in zero gravity. if you have a pressurized little water chamber on your spaceship and two objects in it, will they float motionless or will they be attracted to eachother?

if an object is near the wall of the chamber, one inch away, and the chamber is ten feet across, wouldnt it be more peaceful to float over to the wall? so that only one side of the thing is being pushed around by the molecules?

if there is some distance where the effects of the molecules on one side are weaker than on the other side of the object, wont the object always go to the side where the force is weaker?

is there any reason to think that a sea of water molecules is any different from a sea of zpf particles? i think if objects in a zero g water chamber attract to eachother or a wall, this is proof that my theory is plausible. and gravitons are stupid, wheres one piece of non math evidence for their existence.

Interesting discussion. I have two things to say.

ONE

Future Man wrote:and gravitons are stupid, wheres one piece of non math evidence for their existence

I'd like to point out that the most succesfull theories ever constructed (theories which are verified by experiment to 9 decimal places) are completely non-intuitive: quantum mechanics and general relativity. Our biological senses allow us to perceive 3 spatial, macroscopic, perpendicular dimensions as well as the passage of time (although indirectly). Enough for everyday life, not enough to understand Nature.

Enter math.

Math allows us to study phenomena which we cannot intuitively comprehend in a logical way. Math is logic, intuition isn't. Math has enabled us to develop quantum mechanics and relativity. Both fields have made predictions which seemed completely ridiculous, but which have AFTERWARDS been confirmed by experiment with great accuracy.

The graviton is such a prediction of the theory. It has not been experimentally verified that it exists. That might happen one day. Then again, it might not. The assumption that it exists allows the theory to offer an explanation for many phenomena that HAVE been experimentally confirmed.

TWO

Future Man and some others seem to have "picked" certain elements from relativity and/or the Standard Model of particle physics that they DO seem to agree with. Those elements are pretty darn non-intuitive, too ("matter curves space - the curvature of space induces gravity"). Aren't you guys cherry picking just a bit here...? Not that there's anything wrong with cherry picking, provided you're making a conscious choice to accept some things and reject others within the same theory.

Math has enabled us to develop quantum mechanics and relativity. Both fields have made predictions which seemed completely ridiculous

well my problem with the graviton isnt so much that it doesnt correlate with my everyday experience and intuition, but that it is an occams razor defying deviance from the observed pattern.

the electromagnetic force uses a messenger particle that shoots out from a positive guy to interact with the negative guy and this sucks them together. the weak force also requires two different types of particles and has an observable messenger. i believe the strong force also requires two different types of particles, i mean, is it possible to bind a proton to another one? or do you need a neutron too?

but either way, when you make the universe really hot, the electromag and weak force become the same, their effect on the universe is the same. scientists now technically call them the one 'electroweak force'. the strong force almost becomes the same. on the graph of the situation it really looks unavoidable that they are all one electrostrongoweak force, and somebody forgot to carry the y somewhere, or an experiment fails to take into account and unknown effect inside nuclei.

then you look at gravity. all matter is affected equally, no dichotomies. the messenger particle apparently has no mass, unlike everything ever. and more importantly, when you make the universe hot and combine the other three, gravity is nowhere to be found on that graph, hes like 10^40 graphs away. this seems to me to be the breaking point, the sign that says 'gravity is different'

that said, i think 'massless messenger particle' is a pretty much accurate, but roundabout way of describing what im talking about. imagine you had a block of something massive, and you could turn its mass on and off like a switch.

so imagine its off, and zpf particles freely flow all around, like the experiment is inside a sphere whose inner surface is one big lightbulb. a beach ball floats motionless twenty feet away from the block, inside the sphere. then you turn on the mass and then turn it off again real quick. imagine the light moving in slow motion, or rather, imagine the shadow moving in slow motion as it is created and then filled up again. its like a wave travelling from the block to the ball.

draw it on a graph, the block is at (0,0), and the ball is at (5,0). block has no mass, light flows freely and holds the ball in place. 600 photons per minute hit the ball on its right and 600 on its left. turn the block on and it blocks all photons from hitting the ball on its left.

imagine in super slow motion, the photons to the immediate right of the block as it turned on slowly move towards the ball, and right behind those last photons is darkness. at the speed of light, this 'shadow wave', which has no mass, moves at the ball. immediately after the block is turned on, there are still photons hitting the ball on its left side, but at the speed of light, a 'massless messenger particle' waves its way over to 'give' the ball a lack of photons on its left side. when that shadow wave hits it, it will have more photons pushing on its right and less on its left and therefore will move to its left, towards the block.

isnt this exactly what einstein said would happen? the only thing ive failed to do is say why the zpf causes time dilation.

the only thing that would hurt this theory is some reason why zpf particles dont push objects around.
'why dont the photons from the sun blast the earth out of the solar system?' imagine trying to move a blob of water in zero-gravity. if you shot bullets at it, they would fly through and not move the overall blob. if you had a wall of bullets slowly ebbing at it, then you could move it.

i want to bring this thread back, its so right.

The assumption that it exists allows the theory to offer an explanation for many phenomena that HAVE been experimentally confirmed.

im interested in hearing an example simply so i can try to explain it using my ideas

Alien Corpuscle Bath, still there pal?

repulsion is the anti-attraction - it is the "attraction" between two like bodies.

Duality of things

rephrase that

do it for me papa, i depend on you here in the forums... eha, eha... i wana milkie

repulsion is the anti-attraction - it is the "attraction" between two like bodies.

well the repulsion created in the large open spaces only acts as an attractive force because massive objects have the property of repelling this repulsive force.

so repulsions is the anti-attraction in that it is the opposite of attract. if you look the zpf particles in the face, they will push you away from where they were/are.

and it is the thing that causes the attraction between two 'like' bodies if the bodies are alike in that they have mass.

but 'repulsion itself' is not going to attract any two given 'like bodies'. two piece of cheese on opposite sides of a bomb exploding will repulse although alike.

what do you mean by 'duality of things'

fm, i consider you a valuable and potential own-sider, that's my stand, full stop