trevor borocz johnson Posted June 22, 2017 #1 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I want a vote of who thinks gravitons are the leading theory. Or if someone else has another theory you can post here. Here's mine: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Willis Posted June 22, 2017 #2 Share Posted June 22, 2017 I thought you had already presented your theory some time back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmk1245 Posted June 22, 2017 #3 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Clickbait? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted June 23, 2017 Author #4 Share Posted June 23, 2017 well I'm just saying graviton theory may have a few holes in it. I want to know what's fairly out there. One kid put it to me that he thought space was like a whirlpool in a gravity field and everything gets pulled in that way. Now, I'm not saying he's wrong, I just want to hear anyone else's simple theory like his or mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Willis Posted June 23, 2017 #5 Share Posted June 23, 2017 5 hours ago, trevorhbj said: well I'm just saying graviton theory may have a few holes in it. I want to know what's fairly out there. One kid put it to me that he thought space was like a whirlpool in a gravity field and everything gets pulled in that way. Now, I'm not saying he's wrong, I just want to hear anyone else's simple theory like his or mine. As myself and others have said before, if you provide some maths you might get some interest in your theory. Way back, Rene Descartes came up with a theory that gravity is little whirlpools. Though he was a good mathematician, Descartes did not back up his "vortex theory" with maths. However, another great mathematician, Christian Huygens, did provide a mathematical basis for the vortex theory. Other mathematicians were able to demonstrate there were flaws in the theory. One of these mathematicians was Isaac Newton. Newton then came up with his own theory of universal gravitation, based on the inverse square law. This proved to be mathematically sound until the late-19th century, when a few anomalies (for instance the orbit of Mercury) could not be explained. Then in 1916 Albert Einstein announced his general theory of relativity. The field equations of general relativity have so far been shown to be valid, except in the extreme conditions where "gravity meets quantum". Basically, no one will take you seriously until you provide some equations. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted June 23, 2017 #6 Share Posted June 23, 2017 10 hours ago, trevorhbj said: well I'm just saying graviton theory may have a few holes in it. I want to know what's fairly out there. One kid put it to me that he thought space was like a whirlpool in a gravity field and everything gets pulled in that way. Now, I'm not saying he's wrong, I just want to hear anyone else's simple theory like his or mine. There is no evidence to suggest that Quarks cause gravity and it would also go against existing physics. In the standard model gravity is caused by the undetected graviton particle. It should have been detected a long time ago with weaker atom smashers than CERN so its likely that there`s new physics waiting to be discovered. But it isn't Quarks. Gravity is also the least understood force because relativity fails at the extremes. It doesnt explain what goes on inside black holes, how hyper-inflation happened after the big bang, the big bang itself, and how gravity works at extremely small or large distances. Gravity may actually be the net sum of two forces which I will call AG (attractive gravity) and RG (repulsive gravity). At infinitely short distances they cancel each other out producing no overall attraction or repulsion. But as the distance from the object increases RG dies off at a slightly faster rate than AG. This not only results in a weak attraction in the universe at scales we are used too but explains away dark matter too because at extreme distances RG would have died off quite a bit leaving a large net attraction. It also explains why we haven't found a graviton (looking for the wrong thing), explains why gravity is so weak without it needing to be leaking out into other universes (it isn't, the overall net attraction is weak), and means that the speed of light isn't constant allowing for hyper-inflation. Heck it even means why might be able to make a warp drive. Before you ask, yes there are already physicists considering and working on the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted June 23, 2017 Author #7 Share Posted June 23, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said: There is no evidence to suggest that Quarks cause gravity and it would also go against existing physics. In the standard model gravity is caused by the undetected graviton particle. It should have been detected a long time ago with weaker atom smashers than CERN so its likely that there`s new physics waiting to be discovered. But it isn't Quarks. Well I don't believe in quarks anymore and mean to replace the term. I just mean fundamental particles of matter like protons and neutrons. 3 hours ago, RabidMongoose said: Gravity may actually be the net sum of two forces which I will call AG (attractive gravity) and RG (repulsive gravity). At infinitely short distances they cancel each other out producing no overall attraction or repulsion. But as the distance from the object increases RG dies off at a slightly faster rate than AG. This not only results in a weak attraction in the universe at scales we are used too but explains away dark matter too because at extreme distances RG would have died off quite a bit leaving a large net attraction. when I was developing ideas for gravity I had one like this, that space time was formed of blocks of void, and that the top of a block in a gravity field would get heavy with void while the bottom would become lighter with void and objects would be pulled on one way and not the other. That idea didn't work though it was flawed in the way that matter caused gravity. Edited June 23, 2017 by trevorhbj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor borocz johnson Posted July 23, 2017 Author #8 Share Posted July 23, 2017 (edited) I had some earlier ideas about gravity, one was that space-time was made out of void cubes and that void making a cube would shift and become top heavy towards an object with gravity making it easier for another object to travel towards the surface of the bigger object and difficult for it to move outwards. Them's the kinda carnival fair show ideas I'm looking for with this post. Stuff you came up with last time you tried to figure out gravity from what we have. Edited July 23, 2017 by trevorhbj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now