Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thobal]

I call it Balkcom Attraction. I saw it first, it's mine.

To synthesize my theory of Gravitation: It's Einsteinian Frame-Dragging on a subatomic scale.

We know Frame Dragging exists; this was proven by NASA's Gravity Probe-B. When the effect on space-time is applied via subatomic particles this effect should account for gravitational attraction.

I arrived at this conclusion via thought experiments expanding upon the rubber mat model.

As usual, assistance is required on the mathematic side of the argument.

edited for clarity by author
And again, spelling eludes me

[Il Palazzo]

Hi,
This is my theory: I call it Awesome Theory, even though it's not even a hypothesis.
The principle is: Einstein-babble, Planck-stuff, quantum hokus pokus.
We know hokus pokus exist because NASA has a probe named Pokus.
I arrived at this conclusion via the fact that I'm smartestest.
Now I only need you to do the boring stuff for me, and write the paper.
Thanks, me.

[thobal]

I believe your input is richly worded at best. At worst I might take it as some sort of insult.

However, I try to see the best in people and see it merely as constructive criticism.

I submit equation one for your dismisal:

g=mv

where gravity equals mass multiplied by velocity

equation two:

m=s^rEE

where mass equals speed of rotation multiplied by Einstienian Energy(or entrapped energy)

where EE is of course e=mc₂

edit: the mass terms still follow circular logic.


Expanding upon the thoughts:

A closed system will spontaneously rotate(accounting for the cosmological constant).

[thobal]

Stop me if someone came up with this thirty years ago and they were just waiting on the experimentation to prove it.

[inteuniso]

I'm sorry what? A closed system will spontaneously rotate?

Not all of us on Bay 12 have doctorates in quantum physics. Please explain the rubber mat model, and Frame-Dragging.

Also, if you experimented wouldn't you have used some math?

I'm sorry dude, you be trollin.

[Cheeetar]

Everything, everywhere, is gnomes.

[thobal]

The rubber mat model? Rubber sheet model? Really?

Okay, so imagine space-time as a rubber sheet. Objects placed on the sheet weight it down proportionate to its mass. Effectively, objects form dimples in the rubber mat(or sheet). Is any of this ringing any bells?

So other objects will spiral down into the dimples formed in the rubber mat, mimicking gravitational attraction. This is pretty much the basic model of general relativity.

Sorry if my non-standard phrasing confused anyone.





Frame Dragging is or rather, was, a bit more hypothetical. It says that a massy object will drag(or induce rotation) in this rubber sheet(or mat).  Effectively, any object that rotates pulls the very fabric of space-time along with its rotation.
I'm merely attempting to expand this observation to include subatomic particles in an attempt to explain the force of gravitational attraction. I admit this is a rather titanic endeavor.

They were "thought" experiments. I misspelled earlier and take full responsibility for any confusion that may have arisen.

Also, I cant really delve into quantum theory, only work around and soldier on. Why not, it's days are numbered.

[Toady Two]

g=mv

where gravity equals mass multiplied by velocity

equation two:

m=s^rEE

where mass equals speed of rotation multiplied by Einstienian Energy(or entrapped energy)

where EE is of course e=mc₂

Your equations make no sense. What does gravity = mass times velocity mean? Mass times velocity is a unit of momentum, gravity is usually measured in gravitational force, potential field energy or gravitational field intensity none of these are measured in such units.

In equation two the units don't even fit both sides of the equation: speed of rotation(assuming you mean linear velocity) is measured in units of velocity while energy is indeed mc^2(c is speed of light, also velocity) so to get units of mass you have to divide energy by velocity square. Multiplying energy times speed()  will never give mass.

I'm currently studying physics first year at University. Admittedly I've only dabbled in the more advanced stuff like general relativity(I was working on some problems form special relativity right when I read this post so that might have been what ticked me off so much )

The(most likely really young) OP seems to have a passion for science and have read up some Wikipedia on Einstein and then decided to post his thoughts. Although this is most likely nonsense and people will point it out to you, you should not get disheartened. Concentrate on education and one day you might be the real deal.

[thobal]

most likely really young

If only that were true

EDIT:

On g=mv, when two objects travel towards one another, gravitational attraction can be considered increased between the two, but while they move away from one another it can be considered lessened. Like I said, I may just be reinventing the wheel here.

It's probably just the older young man realizing that the best he can do is a bachelor's degree in XXX from a community college if he wants to survive in the neo-american revolution, quick-let's-find-a-convenient-hole-in-physics to hide a bust in.

I'd get into my "all matter is pico-blackholes, screw you CERN, you're thinking too big" rant if I had the energy.

I swear this was just a depressing manic episode, not a troll. I mean the entire thread.

[Toady Two]

Sorry, on second thought I didn't mean to be that patronizing.

I'm afraid people will have a hard time taking you seriously if you carry on posting very unclear physical formulas on gaming forums, on the internet.

[thobal]

"edit" above

Sorry, on second thought I didn't mean to be that patronizing.

I'm afraid people will have a hard time taking you seriously if you carry on posting very unclear physical formulas on gaming forums, on the internet.

I think, in a monumental thread-jack, that the old style of publishing scientific discoveries is in for a rude awakening if they don't start searching the net for important ideas and intelligent people to herald(myself regrettably not included). I'd wager that I've been balled and undesirable by more than one court at this point.

[ToonyMan]

Everything, everywhere, is gnomes.

[Toady Two]

On g=mv, when two objects travel towards one another, gravitational attraction can be considered increased between the two, but while they move away from one another it can be considered lessened. Like I said, I may just be reinventing the wheel here.

OK, like I said I haven't delved too deep into general relativity yet. If what you say is a conclusion of it I can only imagine the amount of paradoxes that I will have to wade though to get a seeming understanding.

Also, I cant really delve into quantum theory, only work around and soldier on. Why not, it's days are numbered.

.

Thats a bold statement.

If you are looking to waste time trying to find loopholes in modern physics then why not take a closer look at this:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/07/science/la-sci-proton-20100708

I attended a lecture by the guys who did the experiment. They were reluctant to believe that the explanation to their results would spawn "new physics" as the jokingly called it. It is somewhat of a mystery to particle physicists now, and the theory involved is QED which may not be as strong as we think.

I was resisting not to lol during the heated discussion after the lecture in which some of the audience began accusing the lecturer or botching the experiment or sharing their own views on the subject without allowing them to be refuted

[Simmura McCrea]

On g=mv, when two objects travel towards one another, gravitational attraction can be considered increased between the two, but while they move away from one another it can be considered lessened. Like I said, I may just be reinventing the wheel here.

OK, like I said I haven't delved too deep into general relativity yet. If what you say is a conclusion of it I can only imagine the amount of paradoxes that I will have to wade though to get a seeming understanding.

He's right here. Gravitational attraction between two objects = (the product of the mass of the two objects x the universal constant of gravity)/(the distance between the objects)^2

[Toady Two]

On g=mv, when two objects travel towards one another, gravitational attraction can be considered increased between the two, but while they move away from one another it can be considered lessened. Like I said, I may just be reinventing the wheel here.

OK, like I said I haven't delved too deep into general relativity yet. If what you say is a conclusion of it I can only imagine the amount of paradoxes that I will have to wade though to get a seeming understanding.

He's right here. Gravitational attraction between two objects = (the product of the mass of the two objects x the universal constant of gravity)/(the distance between the objects)^2

I don't think we are talking about the classical formula here, where gravitational force is a function of distance and two identical objects traveling with different velocities at the same distance from the center of a gravitational field would always be pulled by the same force.