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


Since science is debate, I would like to debate what is the mechanism of gravity. let me propose a theory of what is the mechanism of gravity that I have not seen (that does not mean someone else has not seen it) We know in simple terms gravitational force equals, gravitational constant times the two masses of the object divided by the square of the distance between the two objects. This works in most cases and we have quantum mechanics to answer other cases and strings tries to answer more cases and more theories. I believe by knowing then mechanism it leads to greater understanding.

We know that gravity is a weak force vs. electromagnetic forces. We know that if we move electrons in a wire coil we can cause a magnetic field. In other words a moving electron induces a electromotive force. I.E. in a relative sense when a charged particle moves in spatial settings there is a resultant field/force in another dimension/domain.

So what is missing here is how is gravity generated. one explanation is, LeSage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_(LeSage) I have a problem with this from what I see he also does not take into account the electrons in motion around the nucleus. Again I have not heard of anyone connecting the spherical movement of these charged particles into a resultant force.

So my theory is simple, no where do we account for the electrons spinning around the nucleus. If an electron is in a coil induces a force because it is moving at the a high speed and we know that for every with a charged particle there is a electromotive field generated well that energy is of the electrons spinning around a nucleus needs to be accounted for. This would fit in with inverse square laws. By the right hand rule of electromotive force we will always have a second order of electromagnet force generated to the center, so in a spherical orbit a moving vector to the center of the atom. Because the force at all time is statistically out of sync compared to a coil of wire we end up with a very weak force which we know gravity is. I.E.still working/fitting Newtonian classical and Einstein’s general relativity, quantum mechanics and so on theories. These are the effects vs. this is the mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity at the bottom of this source lists several theories.


With this line of thinking we also do not take into effect the atoms (charged particles) of the earth rotating around the axis, generate the magnetic fields like the electrons in a coil of wire, though very weak because of the slow speed. The dynamo effects may be stronger fields in these cases. These magnetic fields should be cross products relative to other objects magnetic fields in the space continuum. Which could answer complete polar reversals earth has encountered.

Questions for the debate, “ 1, have we omitted/not connected this moving charged particle with any force or gravity?” 2, does this fit or make a unification theory between electromagnetic and gravitational forces?

I would go with Fatio's theory on this one. If there are gravity particles moving quickly throughout the Universe and they happen to be very far apart, the probably of any of those particles hitting the electron would be very slim indeed and thus would have no effect on the electromagnetic force between the electrons and protons.

Fist I am not getting into gravity particles, but the mechanism that makes them. I am simply stating the mechanism that makes gravity is a electron moving at high speed around the atom is a, or generates a force that we do not account for.

Fatio theory is basically LaSage who made Fatios theory more mainstream/clarified. I find fault in it that it is particles moving all over all directions through the universe. That does not easily result in a summing force. whereas particles or charged particles circling the atom are known to exist and they should be accounted for and are summable like resultant electromagnetic charged particles in a coil are as I have referenced, they are weak because the probability of being in syc at any one instantaneous time is extremely low. So I differentiate that they are not random all over but localized to the atom. But summable resultant force.

Here is a readable summary of Fatio/LaSage

http://www.answers.com/topic/le-sage-s-theory-of-gravitation
The basic theory




Here are some references with some very interesting on the history of Fatio, and mechanism of gravity. The last one lists some criteria that others have not met, that I believe this does meet.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath041/kmath041.htm
http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~peter/this-month/fatio-bio.html
http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part3/2.html
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath181/kmath181.htm
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

Read through the wikipedia link on LeSage Theory. This theory seems more like an early theoretical formation of the Casimir Effect. As a theory of gravity though, it doesn't work. The main problem is that it doesn't address accelerating reference frames and mass like Special Relativity does. For example, special relativity says that you cannot tell the difference between accelerating in, say, an elevator from a gravitational force exerting the same "pressure": there's been much experimental validation of this. Also, it does not address any of the well-proven predictions made by General Relativity (which should be the first place you look for a theory of gravity).

First of all before I say anything else you can make many systems with math but of course they do not have to work out when attempting to represent natural phenomena. Math is used because its a concise logical framework to work with, not because its the "universal" language or some other artistic prose. In fact math is not even considered a natural science. Trying to understand natural phenomena is complex, not only because you have many questions, but its simply difficult trying to get all of those questions to some point in which you can study them objectively, gravity for instance.

Personally when I was young I always thought gravity was simply a product of mass and of course was relative to such, like say the difference between helium and iron in mass, or basically I thought gravity was a product relating to atomic structure or mass of course in a continuum type of sense or universal type of sense, I don’t think matter and energy are independent of one another overall, and I was glad to at least be somewhat right on that one. I know now such is not true of course, my idea of gravity that is, but its just goes to show you can guess all types of things, but it takes the desire to go out and get physical with it, not drawing numbers on a blackboard solely, to learn what something is. Knowledge is progressive, Its not as if computers just came from nowhere, or the knowledge that lead to them, what we know now factually will aid in understanding what we may know factually tomorrow and so on.

Most all of the studies we can do happen to be restricted in a grand sense. I mean we cannot go and study a blackhole directly, maybe its a new element or radical molecular structure that leads to a blackhole, but a guess is of course a guess.

I think the Bose-Einstein condensate would be something interesting to consider in your theory though and it was a very interesting read.

Thanks gordo, you are correct the Bose-Einstein condensate is a very good direction to go to support this. As cooling slows down the electron spin making it a weaker force so that it is approaching zero. that allows other forces to dominate the net force part of the equation. very interesting. thus making it slow down so much that it virtually "explodes" in a classical sense supports it also allowing for purely charged particle forces to act on it rather than the resulting spinning field of charged particles to be a balancing act. This experiment would also be interesting if one could do it at the edge of the matter in the universe. Many experiments would be interesting there.


I do not see the conflict you may see. Here is my perspective on these and welcome yours where you see the conflict.

As far as general relativity I think it fits perfectly if one assumes there is a boundary or edge to the last atoms/particles out there. If we are summing all forces that act on us if we were contiguous never ending them the bending would not occur. though space may be unlimited the mass in space seems to be limited to its dispersion. But if there is an edge these forces run into a boundary condition where in essence the forces are no longer uniform and have to bend to make up for this void.

In regards to special relativity it also fits, this is only the mechanism of gravity not the results of the effects or what we observe as a result of the force. And in no way differentiates on the effect of reference frames. With special relativity another question is when at the same space-time we have two electrons spinning around an atom 2 light years away from one another at what point do they actually have a effect on one another, this is a space-time phase condition.

In regards to the Casimir effect I think this is a great example of potentially this concept with the exception of their theoretical reversal they imply but have never achieved. This could be the simplest form of proof for this concept. Several assumptions though that no other forces are acting on the plates including gravity which is hard to be able to do without understanding what is the mechanism of gravity.. A vacuum is not removing gravity. metal shielding is not removing gravity. A balanced position at rest is not removing gravity. Can we remove gravity, I think so. Has it been done, I do not think so. can it be done by being in opposite phase or by spinning positively charged particles?

1, have we omitted/not connected this moving charged particle with any force or gravity?” 2, does this fit or make a unification theory between electromagnetic and gravitational forces?

This doesn't seem too promising to me. If charged particles (moving or not) were responsible for gravity, wouldn't you expect that gravitational mass would be proportional to only the charged particles? Why should deuterium have double the mass of normal hydrogen? They both have a single electron and a single proton.

How would you address this problem?

From wiki

"Deuterium, also called heavy hydrogen, is a stable isotope of hydrogen with a natural abundance in the oceans of planet Earth of approximately one atom in 6500 of hydrogen (~154 PPM). Deuterium thus accounts for approximately 0.015% (on a weight basis 0.030%) of all naturally occurring hydrogen (see VSMOW; the abundance changes slightly from one kind of natural water to another). The nucleus of deuterium, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, whereas the far more common hydrogen nucleus consists only of a proton and no neutrons. The isotope name is formed from the Greek deuteros meaning "two", to denote the two subatomic particles comprising the nucleus."

Edit to add: protons and neutrons are of relatively equal mass.

Its an isotope, or its structure is different then that of hydrogen. One thing that can be looked at in a hypothetical point of view is simply why do black holes have such high gravity? It would be nice to know the time space to the formation of different solar systems also and of course the elemental or chemical composition of such to see if the "wave" of formation if you will reproduces the same, such as lighter elements outside and heavier towards say the stars or stars, or the bodies with the most gravity, if not mass, the chemistry of how it played out would be nice to know too, with the whole relationship of matter and energy or what not. It would not give you gravity directly but it would be good indirect places to start, again its all complex and of course entangled currently, maybe more then in the past which might on its own leave evidence like physical processes can.

and one has a neutron, which I do not know the effect of having this makes, I will read up on neutrons. but it also proportional to speed and radius. note the Nuclear Spin Quantum number for Deuterium is 1 and Hydrogen in 1/2. http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/1.html

The point I was trying to make is that you will need to show how your theory has equivalent explanatory power to General Relativity. It will need to fit all the data currently on the table which General Relativity explains. However, this isn't enough. Your theory will need to make predictions that General Relativity does not and then those predictions must be tested in the real world to be proven true or false.


No, it doesn't fit. If a particle's spin (or coupled spin) creates a gravitational force, it does not explain why there's no physical difference between acceleration and gravity. But, I think Jobius has given a much more concrete example of the problems with your theory.

This is fun, so please don’t think I am trying to do something other then that. One thing I would like to say then is why does it take more to accelerate a heavier object? I mean the same energy in an air rifle per shot I doubt to be enough to propel a one ton object at the same speed of a BB from that rifle respective to occurring on earth for instance. The idea of a blackhole is it has an escape velocity that not even light can obtain, so its gravity must be rather strong to reach that point relatively There is the magic word for the debate again!

So would an object made of iron of a absolute mass have more gravity then an object comprised of helium in the same amount of mass, or would matching area but not mass have an impact on escape velocity? How would you test this Then we can attempt the experiment with those two objects in motion, or we can BEC both of em and see what occurs. The idea to me is that how do you get to a point in which you have a singular force I guess to study.

Let's not confuse weight with mass. Mass is a measurement of the quantity of matter. Weight is the effect of gravity on that mass. The reason it takes more energy to accelerate a more massive object is because there is more stuff to accelerate (aka more inertia).


This is correct.


By definition, the same mass of iron would be equal to the same mass of helium, thus the gravitational fields would be equal. The amount of mass would not have an impact on escape velocity, that is, escape velocity is independent of the mass of the escapee.


What you're talking about here is basic Newtonian Mechanics (which is a subset of Special/General Relativity). I'm not sure what you mean by a "singular force...to study".

Many such experiments have been done. What you call "absolute" mass is, if I follow you correctly, inertial mass. You can determine an object's inertial mass using Newton's formula F=ma. Apply a force (F) to an object, measure its acceleration (a), and divide F by a to find the mass.

The gravitational mass of an object can be measured using a balance scale, with known masses on the other side of the scale.

It turns out that the inertial mass of an object and its gravitational mass are identical -- at least within the margin of error of every experiment that has tried to compare them. This equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is what inspired Einstein's thought experiment about the accelerating elevator: there's no way to tell the difference between being in an accelerating elevator and a smooth gravitational field.

Wikipedia on mass.

I agree with logophage that any new gravitational theory has got to match General Relativity's success in explaining known phenomena (including the fact that neutrons have mass), and make additional, testible predictions that differ from GR. A year or so back, I read an interesting "correction" to GR from a guy named Alex Mayer that at least attempted to meet those criteria. I think his theory is probably wrong, but he's going about it the right way.

In response to the posters replying to my posts.

2. Physics. the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass.

This is the current definition for weight from dictionary.com. I will admit to have made a error though in use of the word mass.

What I mean is simply that. You don’t just have say acceleration laid out neatly in some place in the universe to view all by itself. I don’t know what it would look like but I imagine if you could get to some place in space where matter did not exist you might be able to conduct such with more ease, or might be able to view with 100% certainty say just acceleration or gravity coming from one source alone.

Going from the debate point the idea being put forth is that gravity may be a product of subatomic/atomic or even bulk of either structure or function. I find a lot of sense in this, but of course I know that such is just sense not fact, but I find no pain in talking about it.

Would you have gravity or any particular events to study in physics in the absence of matter? If the answer to this question is no then the reality of these physical functions in a cumulative effect of environment produced then by matter in its current form or any form overall, again its hard to prove these things past mathematical theory for the most part, though I know many times these theories come out to be right I follow of course the idea that nature or reality has its own fact that does not always have to agree with numbers on a blackboard.

So my point in bring up the bodies of fe or he with a specific mass is just that, or weight, I mean would the structure of those bodies then if equal in those regards have any difference in gravity? What about other changes even on a molecular level. I know in space shuttle missions by nasa that magnets will start to orbit each other as the attract, but what does that say overall?

If mars core was not solidified would it have a stronger gravitational field? To me conducting experiments on earth have constraints to them is all, and when reading on them I have a difficult time finding where they took everything into account in being able to say that this particular experiment proves something that has no infliction made upon it by interactions of anything outside of it.

Simple point is like this. say we have an object, and we tip it to a point in which the object goes from potential to kinetic and tips itself over, now if you do this on the earth, then on the moon I would expect a difference in how this action occurred in regards to every variable attached to the process, but does these speak purely of the physical environment of the moon or the earth, and which ones alone does it speak of overall? What if the acceleration of the moon was growing at a rapid rate via the duration of the experiment?

So if you were to test then on this theory or any other, how can you contain and restrict all the various natural laws such as gravity to a point in which you know where they are coming from and going during the experiment to a perfect empirical level. This then to me would have a heavy hand on the deffination of gravity.

That's a deep question. You might be interested in reading about Mach's principle, which suggests that inertia is caused by all the other matter in the universe. In particular, an isolated body in an otherwise empty universe couldn't meaningfully be said to rotate.


Well, that's the art of experimental design. Maybe you can't screen out all other effects, but you can make them small enough to have confidence in the thing that you're measuring. Symmetry can be your friend here: if there's a force you're not interested in, but can't eliminate, you make sure it happens to both "halves" of the experiment (both sides of the scale, say), so it cancels out when you make your measurement. The Cavendish experiement is a famous example of this. This experiment measured the gravitational attraction between fairly small weights (a few hundred pounds). Of course, this force was very small compared with the Earth's gravitational attraction, but clever use of a torsion balance allowed Earth's gravity to be cancelled out, and the much smaller experimental effect measured.

Speaking of clever experimental design, the Gravity Probe B project may soon confirm one of Einstein's predictions from General Relativity. This ties in with Mach's principle, which I mentioned above. (Einstein actually coined the phrase "Mach's principle.") A satellite containing four gyroscopes, all nearly perfect spheres, circled the Earth for over a year in a nearly drag-free orbit. If Einstein was right, the axes of the gyros should have shifted slightly, as the Earth's rotation dragged space-time itself along with it.

The Gravity Probe B group at Stanford expects to release their first findings in April.

we know that atoms have a structure and mechanics, why again would it be off to suggest that a planet size lump of this mechanics would only be contained internally unto them. If you will be patient a lot of physics is sort of new to me, I spend most my time really reading on chem and biology, though I do respect reality as matter/energy and the relationship.

I believe these two answers, particularly the description of the rubber-sheet model, shed some light on the effect of gravity (pardon the pun). Weighty subject. Heavy.

“ 1, have we omitted/not connected this moving charged particle with any force or gravity?” 2, does this fit or make a unification theory between electromagnetic and gravitational forces?

IMHO, gravitation is not separate from the other fundamental forces, but an expression of their cumulative effect over a relatively large mass (one of the many GUTs-- similar to LaSage-Fatio, but without being confined to any particular (pardon the pun) class of motion; a complex combination of similar theories rather than just one). If this theory is true, you won't find a satisfying mechanism for gravity looking at small samples of subatomic motion: to find it, you have to increase the scale of the problem to the extent that considering every known form of molecular to subatomic behavior over a large enough sample becomes computationally expensive (currently impossible) to model with any accuracy, although some interesting astronomical phenomena could provide an opportunity. If LHC or a revived SSC finds the Higgs, a Standard Model GUT may help disprove my theory; but I'm sticking to it because it has the advantage of being easy to work with and "easy" to disprove, yet it hasn't been disproven. Furthermore, attempting to prove it would require huge investements in physics and supercomputers over a long period of time, which helps keeps physicists and engineers off the streets.

To be blunt we do not really know what gravity is or how the force is mediated. The reason it does not fit into a TOE Theory of Everything or Einstein’s never completed Unified Field is that it appears to be too weak. Today physicists are looking for the “gravitons” that mediate the force, or gravitational waves. Others have proposed multiple Universes so that the weaker gravitational force can be spread over more than one universe.

In short we have lots of work to do. And considering we really don’t know what gives particles “mass” we are far from the real truth. New theories like “loop Quantum Gravity” may replace String Theory but this remains to be seen and our best shot at new data may be the to be completed collider in Switzerland. Bottom line is we have no real clue at this time – only theories.

The reason I think the “spin” of the electron has nothing to do with it is – first the electron is essentially massless and second we are not sure it is a particle at all as it acts as a “wave” at times.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-77520/quantum-mechanics


To top it off we are “missing” about 96% of the Universe we can see and have only theories as to what the rest really is – that is “dark energy” and dark matter”.

http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemilio/a_...of_gravity.html

http://www.copples.clara.net/gravity.htm

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8631



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

Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”
by Ellery Schempp
All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm

I think what you're trying to say is that we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. We do have a theory of gravity: it's called General Relativity. It is one of the two most successful scientific theories...ever. The problem is that it is not reconciled with Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is the other most successful theory...ever.


No, we have a clue. This is what a "theory" is (a well tested description/explanation of physical phenomenon). I think the vocabulary word you're stretching for here is "hypothesis".


While the electron mass is small compared to the proton or neutron, it is not "essentially massless". Furthermore, quantum mechanics describes how all "particles" exhibit wave-like properties: this is not unique to an electron.


Sure, that's good. As soon as someone introduces a theory more successful than General Relativity, then we should indeed embrace it.


I'm not sure what this statement means but it sounds like someone's trying to play semantic games.


You know... This was such a nice debate on theories of gravity and then someone starts bringing religion into it. The above quote is so filled with analytical holes and scientific inaccuracies it reads like Deepak Chopra has found Jesus.

That is what I am trying to say (thanks). But the theory of gravity does not tell us how the force effects mass. Is it gravity waves or something else?




Regardless I have read some interesting ideas on gravity but assigning it to the spin of the electron is not one of them.

I agree on the religious thing in my post. That was not what I was trying to say.

The reality today seems to be that we have theories and "hypothesis". What we don’t have is a understanding of gravity and matter at the most fundamental level. We can predict how things will work (in an experiment) but we do not really know the fundamentals of “why” things are as they appear. What is mass and what is gravity – really? Gravity waves? the Higgs field? Only time will tell.

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

To be fair to Einstein, general relativity does discuss the curvature of space-time as the medium of gravity. What it doesn't do is use quantum mechanics (which is where ideas like gravitons come from).


Agreed.


I think we have a really good understanding of matter at a fundamental level up and to the point where we try to unify gravity with the other forces (strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electro-magnetic) under the rubric of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is an amazingly successful theory. All solid-state electronic technology owes its existence to quantum mechanics. Because quantum mechanics is so successful, physicists know that there must exist a quantum theory of gravity. However, such a theory must incorporate all the behaviors described by general relativity.

I would suggest that in the past it might have been a bit difficult to directly view the anatomy of an atom, and of course the anatomy of the various organs in some particular specie. This of course is being reduced as being a problem but nothing comes overnight.

Take evolution for example, it was just a neat theory for a bit of time, and guess what it still is, even though we can record it occurring in today’s world and force it to occur in labs and have countless sources of natural evidence to support this physical reality, science does not call it more then a theory because its not at 100% understanding, one of the reasons for this is simply working out what specie lead to what and so on.

I don’t hold much difference with a great majority of science. To reach the level in which something becomes theory means there is truth to it, after that point you pretty much don’t escape that realm until you have 100% understanding of it.

This is why I don’t like people that bash on science with faulty reasons usually derived from emotion or bias. Science does not preclude, it simply works to reduce towards the objective empirical of something, for instance gravity, science does not know everything about it yet, just like a great many things, but simply because there is still an x here and a y there in the equation does not mean they drop it all and just say anything. The natural sciences more so then other areas the use science do require for lack of better words absolute proof, this is complex and not easy to obtain. It does not mean that you either have 0% or 100% grasp of something factually, you could be at a level of say 44% or so on. I mean rocket science from day one could not take people to the moon right? This did not mean rockets did not work though.

I tend to not to agree that we understand the fundamentals of matter. The sad fact is that we are missing 96 % of the “universe” and depending on who you read about 24% of that is “dark matter” and the rest is “dark energy”.

When we look into the proton we see (or think we do) quarks which we think may be made up of tiny vibrating “strings” (defined as 11 dimension rolled up space/time) – but the jury is still out on that. Add to that the fact that we really have no idea what causes things like protons to have “mass” and you can see that on the cosmic or microcosmic scales we are still groping for answers.

I tend to agree with Einstein on quantum theory (not that I fully understand it). But my feeling is that it is successful because it has been built up from numerous observation and experiments that give power to its statistical basis. This if a hits b and produces c, d and f a certain % of the time we have a rule that can be extended etc. But nothing in quantum mechanics tells us what the most fundamental nature of matter is. Knowing how things “work” does not necessarily tell you what they “are” at the most basic level.

The only analogy I can come up with is that quantum mechanics is like working with the mechanics of matter without understanding what it really is. Sort of like learning to drive a car without the understanding of what makes it go.

This is indeed one of the great cosmological problems of our time. However, not knowing what "dark matter" or "dark energy" is doesn't mean we don't have a good grasp on the fundamentals of matter.


We have an idea of what gives mass: it's the Higg's boson -- at least according to the Standard Model. The Standard Model has been extremely successful so far. So, while the Higgs hasn't been detected, it seems to be the most likely candidate.


You mean the "God does not place dice with the Universe" quote? Einstein along with Podolsky and Rosen proposed the EPR paradox as a way of demonstrating that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory. Unfortunately for them, this paradox has been refuted by the whole "spooky action at a distance" thing. So, Einstein was wrong in this regard.


Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory. It may not incorporate gravity (or, rather, gravity hasn't incorporated quantum mechanics) but it does say some extremely fundamental things about the nature of the Universe. The wave-particle duality and uncertainty principles are pretty fundamental (even at the epistemological level). Let me give you a thought experiment.

What if the only way you could know about a "car" is by bouncing another "car" off of it? In other words, you can't "see" it because "seeing" would involve photons that are the same "mass" as the car. Anything you bounce off of the "car" would cause the "car" to change. Now, imagine that the Universe is seething with "cars" bouncing off of each other. Imagine that there is an inherent energy level to the Universe (called zero-point energy) where "cars" can emerge and be absorbed all the time. Moreover, there is no physical difference between in "car" of the same classification (electron "cars" are all alike). This is the epistemological problem presented by the Uncertainty Principle.

Yes so my point here is that the method here is to theorize a field or particle and then look for it. Since we have not found it we still have no full understanding of mass and with it gravity. The question below is what bothers me. Being non deterministic all we have is a probability equation and I don’t feel this is the ultimate reality. IMO ther must be a reality when when you look at it is as it is.


On the other hand, for the interpretation of quantum mechanics, things could not be more different. Since the theory of quantum mechanics has been formulated, the following question arises:
How can we interpret the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics?
This question leads to a discussion, in which people with different philosophical backgrounds give different answers. Quantum theory and quantum mechanics do not account for single measurement outcomes in a deterministic way. One accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen manifest argued that a measurement causes an instantaneous collapse of the wave function which describes the quantum system, the system after the collapse is random - pure chaos.



This is exactly my problem. We have a nice predictive (probability) system that tells us what happens when we bounce cars off one another. What we don’t know is what the cars really are. We don’t know what the cars are ultimately made of and how they work.

For example we know that “particles” can appear and disappear from seemingly empty space. So where do they “go” and come “from”. Since most “matter” (and energy) is “invisible” and beyond observation, and anything quantum mechanics can tell us, IMO our understanding of the universe is very limited. We have not uncovered the DNA of reality.

I think you need to realize your own statement, and where it leads us.

I will take a step back and point out that again any charged particle in motion creates a resultant force. As you point out no one has accounted for these spinning electrons.

So lets start from here, do you agree when a charged particle moves dx/dt there is a resultant force from said particle?

I am inferring you have agreed that no where/no other theory known to us, that we have taken the electron spin into account around a nucleus it has a or any resultant force.

This force is accounted for, but it's not gravity, it's magnetism:


Off the top of my head, I can think of two ways this isn't like gravity:

1) The magnitude of the force is proportional to the number of electrons, and should be completely unaffected by neutrons. In contrast, gravity is approximately proporitonal to the number of protons and neutrons, with electrons having a much smaller effect.

2) The magnetic dipole created by an orbiting electron can repel or attract another dipole, depending on how they are aligned. Gravity always attracts, and never repels.

Jobius I think this atomic polarization is a supporting fact,,, if the atomic magnet was this force then all atoms would be magnetic like iron..... All atoms have the electrons circling. so again we account for it as a magnet in a limited case. But this does show I am also correct if the orbit around the nucleus is aligned planer we do get a resultant force in this case a magnetic. again all atoms have electrons in motion where is this force which is strong when it is aligned planer.

your other two cases, as I mentioned I have to read up on Neutrons a bit more. But they may have the effect if changing the orbit speed or radius which would correspondingly effect the net force.

The repel or attract when in a third polar dimension does not work for me. But if we could as I postulated do a proton in sa spin like an electron in sync this may be the repel or if the election can be put out of sync that too is a possible anti to the norm gravity.

This is exactly my problem. We have a nice predictive (probability) system that tells us what happens when we bounce cars off one another. What we don’t know is what the cars really are. We don’t know what the cars are ultimately made of and how they work.

For example we know that “particles” can appear and disappear from seemingly empty space. So where do they “go” and come “from”. Since most “matter” (and energy) is “invisible” and beyond observation, and anything quantum mechanics can tell us, IMO our understanding of the universe is very limited. We have not uncovered the DNA of reality.

So subtracting anything that has to do with human activity, why are some elements like iron simply more magnetic then say the element oxygen. They are both respectively made of the same subatomic particles right?

It just seems to me some elements are intrinsically more magnetic then others, while at the same time being constituted of the same subatomic particles, is it the amount of such that makes the difference, maybe the formation of such or the orbital formation, that s,p,d, and f stuff. I know that magnetism can make items hover, but is there a relation of how strong a magnetic field must be to overcome gravity in such a case, and would this relate to the mass of the object the field is attempting to make hover?

inventor and gordo, the link provided by Jobius explains magnetism. In particular, the discussion of ferromagnetism should explain your questions gordo as to why some substances seem more "magnetic" than others. In a nutshell, a ferromagnetic material's electrons are aligned in the same direction thus creating a net macroscopic magnetic field. Not all materials create conditions that will naturally cause such an effect.

logophage exactly what my reply was to. Again what happens when the spin is not planer so to speak, lined up in a plane. My point is it supports my contention that we have moving electrons and as we know in dx/dt a charged particle moving has a resultant force, and as we see when they are planer we have electromagnetism, I contend when not planer we have to account for the resultant force generated. Very simple. So I say that magnetism is/or atom magnetism supported my contention.

Now, not that I want to put words into gordos last post but I see a very good conceptual question posed. As he states we have the same exact subatomic particles in these magnetic vs non magnetic acting parts yet a completely different effect. The power that these electrons have as he points out to overcome gravity on their own is strong. And then these same electrons stop being in sync and we have NO resultant force??? anywhere? come on...

I think you're saying that electron spin exhibits magnetism if electrons are in a plane but does not if they are not in a plane. This is simply not the case. I strongly suggest you read up on the various experimental confirmations of magnetism and its relationship to quantum mechanics.


No, the force cancels itself out. Remember magnetism is a dipole.

Thank you, I did not even notice that is what I said but do go on. I also would like to point out that gravity seems to act as a constant for instance on the earth, though I guess some spots might be different though I don’t know of any offhand it just seems as if gravity is stable. So if something is a constant and stable such as a naturally occurring magnetic field in a giving environment like say a chunk of iron then gravity then too I would guess to be coming from somewhere similar. During a supernova I would imagine that various "forces" might be tweaked for a bit, or I guess what I am trying to say is that a force such as magnetism would vary from what it was, and I would guess gravity also. I guess what I am trying to say is just that. Gravity on the moon is different from gravity on the earth, but it does not shift I would imagine from more gravity to less gravity all to often if ever unless you apply more matter, or less matter or maybe apply more energy or less energy, though I don’t know how you would test such a guess. Moreover if we were to say remove 25% of the matter from out planet I imagine the resultant physical reality experienced on earth would change, I would imagine this would also impact on gravity. So then going with my moon to earth example in comparison would the gravity of the moon be more or less if it was closer or farther from other bodies in space?

So to me again the two questions I would like to have answered is simply what physical reality do you have in the absence of matter, and subsequently if none exists then the physical forces simply have to be then mechanics of matter producing an environment or physical forces/reality such as acting upon each other. The periodic table is a collection of atomic variance overall and subsequently these atoms behave differently even though they happen to be composed of the same three sub atomic particles in different quantities/formations. Thus for instance iron has a high melting point compared to say helium. I would also say simply that working the environment can change how matter behaves such as in the volcanic vents around sea vent communities the water can be greatly over the point in which it would shift from being a liquid to a gas but remains a liquid because of pressure. The same happens to H2O in carbon nanotubes for the same reasons.

I think my naming it planer is not the best. Parallel planer is a better term. from the wikipedia source


[logophage] this may be a way of looking at it the glass is half full or half empty. that is certainly a possibility but not a probability. tell me how a atom with one electron is able to dipole and cancel itself? simply not possible.

A single electron will exhibit a "magnetic field". It's called "spin". Lots of "spin"s lined up in one direction will aggregate that effect. Lots of "spin"s lined up in different directions will not aggregate that effect.

I think you're going to have to do better than "does not work for me" here. A moving charge generates a magnetic field, which may either attract or repel another magnetic field, depending their alignment. That's a well established fact. How does it not work for you?


Putting a proton into an electron orbital sounds impossible, but physicists have produced antihydrogen atoms (a positron orbiting an anti-proton). Would your theory predict anti-gravity for antihydrogen? That would be a bold prediction, and as far as I know it hasn't been empirically disproven. I'd bet against it, though.


Exactly. This is a basic difference between the inverse-square forces (electromagnetism and gravity). At the small scale, electromagnetic forces dominate because they're inherently stronger than gravity by many orders of magnitude. But at the large scale, electromagnetic attractions and repulsions tend to cancel each other out; gravity dominates at the large scale because it always attracts.

so which are you arguing, the aggregate or the non perfect sync that negates? or are you debating both sides of the coin here.

So yes but then that would apply that gravity is a physical force so then it has to be coming from somewhere. Is it that gravity may not have to do with directly coming from matter or may simply be the product of matter existing then? I don’t buy into the idea of "invisible" forces or nether or that if it is indeed physical we will be able to find it, maybe not now but eventually.

If you had to label gravity from words currently used in physics would it be tensor possibly? I mean what words would you use, for it would simply imply then the path towards its understanding, for if not then the words are being used incorrectly would they not.

I was reading earlier today on some experiment to measure the effects of radiation over gravity in Jupiter’s lower atmosphere effecting Jupiter’s atmosphere in total, and they use the terms gravity waves. Now I am what you would call a layman overall in respects to physics but as far as I know gravity seems to operate somewhat as a constant on earth, so what do they mean then by wave in such a use. I mean I understand in basic what a wave is and how it is judged but a wave has a crest and so on and is generated and propagates does it not?

So I guess what I am trying to say then is that if gravity can change, then is its change related to say the mass of the object and its velocity or what not. So changing whatever variables that cause a shift in gravity should give you would causes gravity indirectly simply because its able to act upon it.

They use the term waves because gravity has been observed to affect mass in waves not at a constant. When a wave passes through it effects the objects position. By measuring the position of objects we can tell if there is a gravitational wave passing at that moment. Say we stretched the waves out and moved them apart further so they are no longer within the atomic scale but rather 10 feet apart and 10 feet wide, you would float or move in some random direction until the next wave passed to push you back. Currently any change in position on earth between gravitational waves is only 1 in 10 to the -20th so it takes very precise measurements to detect them, such as devices using lasers because they are constant.

The only problem with describing gravitational pull as a wave is Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which btw nothing could be omnipotent if it's true, so it would really be a wave-particle duality, but unless you are doing quantum measurements it's really just semantics.

No one knows exactly what mass, gravity, space and time or the rocks on the ground really are. All we can do is observe, manipulate it, and give them names. We don't know exactly how a speaker works, we just know when we do "THIS" it does "THAT". We have just barely tipped the iceberg in quantum mechanics and once we really do know the exact "mechanism" that makes stuff go then we may as well be gods ourselves.

OK let move up the periodic table. Here is another case that it is virtually impossible for the dipoles to erase itself. With one I think we agreed it is impossible. and your reply is spin. which hydrogen does seem to have a propensity to a magnetic effect. But to me this would make nearly all cases of Hydrogen magnetic. So Lets use He with two electrons. I can not think of a single case where a helium atom can be erasing its magnetic moment, this would require two electrons to spin the opposite direction in exactly the same inverse path to cancel one another. So it is spin, well it is always in spin and this force is not evident as a resultant force of spin as apparent as hydrogen. and only when the spin is sum perpendicular to one another is it a zero negating effect. The probability of that is happening is very small. Thus I again say this backs up the spin in non identical patterns results in a sync that is a resultant attraction. that is the mechanism. I will grant you that it is just as probable that it could be of the repulsion as attraction probability in theory. so do the neutrons absorb the the other end of the field as a black hole would would be my contention. and are limited as to how much they can absorb at any instantaneous time.