Re: another gravity theory
Sue...
jedakiah wrote:
> ok i was lying in bed last night thinking about the universe and i
> thought to myself, what if evrything is going at the same speed and its
> just spacetime that changes.
>
> so evrything has its own sort of spacetime field and they can interfere
> with eachother. so we are on the earth and inside its spacetime field.
> therefore if we were to go into another spacetime proportion we would
> instantly be effected by the earths because its much bigger and be
> pulled back into the earths field, slowing us down or speeding us up to
> be on the earth again.
It is not that complicated.
Push a car and it will *instanty* behave as though it
is glued to the road.
Where is the glue? Just look under the car on
a foggy morning and you will see it.
<<Einstein published his theory of gravitation,
or general theory of relativity, in 1916. And so
a new paradigm, or set of beliefs, was established.
It was not until 1930 that Fritz London explained
the weak, attractive dipolar electric bonding force
(known as Van der Waals’ dispersion force or the
“London force”) that causes gas molecules to
condense and form liquids and solids. Like gravity,
the London force is always attractive and operates
between electrically neutral molecules.And that
precise property has been the most puzzling
distinction between gravity and the powerful
electromagnetic forces, which may repel as
well as attract.
So it seems the clue about the true nature of
gravity has been available to chemists – who are
not interested in gravity – and unavailable to
physicists – who are not interested in physical
chemistry (and view the world through Einstein’s
distorting spectacles). Look at any average general
physics textbook and you will find no reference to
Van der Waals’ or London forces. What a different
story might have been told if London’s insight had
come a few decades earlier? Physics could, by now,
have advanced by a century instead of being bogged
in a mire of metaphysics.
An excellent illustrated lesson on the London force,
or Van der Waals’ dispersion force is given at:
www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/bonding/vdw.html
The London force originates in fluctuating electric
dipoles caused by slight distortion of otherwise
electrically neutral atoms and molecules. The tiny
electric dipoles arise because the orbiting electrons,
at any given instant, cannot shield the positive charge
of the nucleus equally in all directions. The result,
amongst a group of similar atoms or molecules is
that the electric dipoles tend to resonate and line
up so that they attract each other.
Obviously, gravity is distinct from the London force.
It is much, much weaker. >>
The Origin of Gravity
--C. P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity
Sakharov's induced gravity: a modern perspective
--Matt Visser
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204062
Sue...
>
>
>
>
> --
> jedakiah
Sue...
frank...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for the reference. It includes an interesting quote, referring
to an electrical explanation for gravity:
"An immediate objection to this model is that the force between
dipoles falls off with the cube of the distance, while gravity
diminishes with the square of the distance. But Newton’s law operates
counter-intuitively as if the entire mass of the Earth were
concentrated at the center of the Earth. The electrical model must
take into account the real situation and integrate the effect of all
of the dipoles throughout the Earth. The result is the usual inverse
square relationship."
Does anyone have any more detail on this statement for how you would
show that dipole 1/r^3 forces integrated over the mass of the Earth
would result in a 1/r^2 force?
-fhugravity
Sue...
>
> Thanks for the reference. It includes an interesting quote, referring
> to an electrical explanation for gravity:
>
> "An immediate objection to this model is that the force between
> dipoles falls off with the cube of the distance, while gravity
> diminishes with the square of the distance.
London forces diminish by about 1/r^6
Magnetiam by about 1/r^3
The same argument can be used against light because
of magnetism's short range. The stars look pretty
bright (1/r^2) from where I sit so that seems a faulty
argument to me.
> But Newton’s law operates
> counter-intuitively as if the entire mass of the Earth were
> concentrated at the center of the Earth.
Permanent magnets, also induction mechanisms do the
same. Intuition doesn't make for a very strong
argument.
> The electrical model must
> take into account the real situation and integrate the effect of all
> of the dipoles throughout the Earth. The result is the usual inverse
> square relationship.
>
> Does anyone have any more detail on this statement for how you would
> show that dipole 1/r^3 forces integrated over the mass of the Earth
> would result in a 1/r^2 force?
The force diminishes for neither a magnet nor the
earth's interior by 1/r^2.
<< Figure 1: How gravity varies inside a planet.
Gravitational force shown increasing upwards,
distance from the center of the planet increasing
to the right. In a uniform planet, gravity decreases
uniformly, as you move inwards. In a real planet,
depending upon its variations in density, gravity
tends to decrease, but does so nonuniformly. >>
http://cseligman.com/text/planets/internalpressure.htm
Sue...
>
> -fhugravity