Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles?

Feb 28, 2014

Perimeter researchers Natalia Toro and Philip Schuster are investigating whether long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles. They've found more than they bargained for.

Perimeter Faculty members Philip Schuster and Natalia Toro ventured down a dark alley expecting to reach a dead end.

Instead, they found a wide-open field.

The figurative dark alley was the study of continuous spin particles – a study Schuster and Toro believed was headed nowhere. "Our goal in the beginning was to prove that continuous spin particles don't make sense," says Toro.

"We wanted to write a paper entitled 'We Can Stop Thinking About Continuous Spin,'" adds Schuster. "We tried, but so far we've failed." What they discovered, in fact, made them think it's time to start taking continuous spin more seriously.

Continuous spin particles require a bit of backstory. There are four known forces in nature. Two, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force, work only over very short distances – we mostly see them inside atomic nuclei. The other two forces, electromagnetism and gravity, can reach across galaxies. This is because they're mediated by massless particles – the photon for electromagnetism, the as-yet-unobserved graviton for gravity.

Photons and gravitons (and many other particles) have an intrinsic quality called spin. It's an imperfect analogy, but you can think of spin as nature's smallest bar magnet: it gives the particles something like a north and a south pole, which can point in any direction.

In 1939, Eugene Wigner identified two distinct types of massless particle: those whose spin points straight along their direction of motion and those whose spin can be misaligned. When spin is aligned with momentum, it is also called helicity. Spin can have various magnitudes, and so helicity can too: particles can be helicity-1, helicity-2, helicity-3, and so on. They cannot be helicity-⅓ (for instance) because helicity is quantized.

The interesting bit is that the nature of forces mediated by is determined by the helicity of those particles. For instance, the fact that electric charges also feel magnetic forces falls naturally out of modelling it with helicity-1 particles. Gravity, meanwhile, is modelled using helicity-2, which predicts certain properties of gravity.

In the 1960s, Steven Weinberg showed that particles with higher helicities (helicity-3 and up) cannot mediate forces. Weinberg's work, however, left open the possibility that continuous spin particles could also mediate long-range forces.

So what are continuous spin particles? You can think of them either as particles whose spin is misaligned or particles whose helicity can have any (quantized) magnitude. These two approaches to continuous spin particles are mathematically related, but let's consider the second one for now.

Photons are now modelled as if they were all helicity-1. If photons were in fact continuous spin particles, then most would be helicity-1, but some would be helicity-2, and more rarely helicity-3, and -4, etc. These states would mix.

"Continuous spin is a terrible name for particles like that," says Schuster. "But we seem to be stuck with it." Researchers call them CSPs for short.

The possibility that CSPs could mediate long-range forces, while technically open, has never seemed very likely. Having these extra possibilities – these helicity-2 and -3 and -4 and -5 photons and gravitons – was thought to introduce all kinds of problems. Scattering amplitudes (the basic quantities that predict what happens when two particles interact) would diverge, giving nonsensical predictions. Stray high-helicity photons would carry off heat, causing hot things, including the sun, to cool rapidly. Since we don't observe such effects, it's been widely assumed that CSPs don't mediate long-range forces.

However well-founded an assumption that appears, though, it's still an assumption. Testing that assumption – peering into that dark alleyway – is where Toro and Schuster come in.

Starting from scratch – using only Lorentz invariance and unitarity as inputs – the pair began to develop a model of long-range forces mediated by CSPs. They hoped to quickly prove that CSPs made no sense as force carriers. Instead, the model began to produce results that, in Schuster's words, "felt like a series of miracles."

The scattering amplitudes turned out not only to exist, but to produce sensible predictions. The foreseen problems with thermodynamics didn't materialize. The new model began producing predictions that looked a lot like the physics we know, with only a few small differences.

These are initial results and they can only be applied to particular types of reactions involving CSPs. Toro and Schuster are working on developing a theory that would let them predict the results of any process involving CSPs.

"That's such a big step into the dark that it might turn up new inconsistencies," says Toro. "But if the similarity with known physics persists in this wider setting, it will raise an exciting possibility – that forces we think we understand might actually be mediated by continuous spin particles."

This would be a true breakthrough in our understanding of long-range forces. For instance, Toro and Schuster's research shows that if gravity were mediated by a continuous spin graviton, it would get weaker at large distances. Gravity, of course, is already weaker at large distances – two masses that are far apart feel less gravitational attraction than two that are close together. But a CSP model for gravity predicts that this effect would be more pronounced, and that the gravitational force would weaken faster than the famous inverse square law (1/r2) predicts.

This is a theory in its infancy and, like any infant, it's been challenging. But Toro and Schuster are pushing ahead. Schuster is passionate as he explains why: "The basic point is that the behaviour of long-range forces is determined by the spin of the particles that mediate them. There are solid theoretical descriptions for most possible spins, but we are only now scratching the surface for CSPs." It's a gap he's determined to fill.

"CSPs are the only potential force mediator that's not understood – and understanding things like that is written into our job descriptions as physicists. It's on line one."

Explore further: New measurement of electron–quark scattering

More information: Read "A Gauge Field Theory of Continuous Spin Particles" on arXiv: arxiv.org/pdf/1302.3225.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New measurement of electron–quark scattering

Feb 05, 2014

From matching wings on butterflies to the repeating six-point pattern of snowflakes, symmetries echo through nature, even down to the smallest building blocks of matter. Since the discovery of quarks, the ...

Researchers take magnetic waves for a spin

Jan 29, 2014

Researchers at New York University have developed a method for creating and directing fast moving waves in magnetic fields that have the potential to enhance communication and information processing in computer chips and ...

How fast do black holes spin?

Feb 14, 2014

There is nothing in the Universe more awe inspiring or mysterious than a black hole. Because of their massive gravity and ability to absorb even light, they defy our attempts to understand them. All their ...

Recommended for you

First in-situ images of void collapse in explosives

Jul 25, 2014

While creating the first-ever images of explosives using an x-ray free electron laser in California, Los Alamos researchers and collaborators demonstrated a crucial diagnostic for studying how voids affect ...

New approach to form non-equilibrium structures

Jul 24, 2014

Although most natural and synthetic processes prefer to settle into equilibrium—a state of unchanging balance without potential or energy—it is within the realm of non-equilibrium conditions where new possibilities lie. ...

Nike krypton laser achieves spot in Guinness World Records

Jul 24, 2014

A set of experiments conducted on the Nike krypton fluoride (KrF) laser at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) nearly five years ago has, at long last, earned the coveted Guinness World Records title for achieving "Highest ...

User comments : 126

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2014
Wow, just Wow!
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2014
Wow, just Wow!

You apparently did forget, it was Thompson's/Kelvin's (i.e. aetherist) original idea....;-) If I would present it at some PhysOrg or PhysicsWorld forume before few months, I would be banned for it.
They cannot be helicity-⅓ (for instance) because helicity is quantized. Well, not quite as the fractional charge of quarks indicates...


Didn't forget. Just excited to see this completing the loop...:-)
shavera
5 / 5 (17) Feb 28, 2014
This is the kind of article I wish every crackpot and crank would read. Scientist: "hey, we're pretty sure theory X doesn't work. Let's check to make sure, and then we can close the book on it." "Oh wow, the problem is more complicated than we expected, let's look more."

Scientists are an inquisitive bunch, out to overturn established theory. Not some dogmatic band of priests who can't publish outside of established bounds.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2014
"The other two forces, electromagnetism and gravity, can reach across galaxies. This is because they're mediated by massless particles – the photon for electromagnetism, the as-yet-unobserved graviton for gravity."

To clarify, EM isn't the force. Magnetism is the force, manifests as a field and has no "carrier". Electromagnetism manifests as quanta of energy at varying frequencies and is used to determine the nature of an interaction between particles and fields. Gravity is also a field, hence no observed "force carrier", no waves, no radiation...no graviton. Both forces interact with matter/energy, their field strength determined by knowing the energy (magnetism) or mass (gravity) of what they are interacting with and measuring the interaction produced.

IMO this discrepancy in understanding is at the heart of most unresolved issues in physics.


shavera
5 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2014
I don't follow what you mean by "magnetism is the force." There is an electromagnetic tensor field. Separating out electric and magnetic forces is just a matter of reference frame. There is only electromagnetism. Yes, that tensor field only contains quantized solutions, but the classical approximation holds good too, with a classical tensor field arising from the quantized solution.

Gravitation, on the other hand, is not a field. Not directly at least. There's a *curvature* field of space-time, a description of how measures of lengths and times change with location. And when we perform physics in such a space-time, we find terms *like a* force or potential appear. But gravitation itself is not a force, not directly anyway.
Bonia
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2014
"The other two forces, electromagnetism and gravity, can reach across galaxies. This is because they're mediated by massless particles – the photon for electromagnetism, the as-yet-unobserved graviton for gravity."

To clarify, EM isn't the force. Magnetism is the force, manifests as a field and has no "carrier". Electromagnetism manifests as quanta of energy at varying frequencies and is used to determine the nature of an interaction between particles and fields. Gravity is also a field, hence no observed "force carrier", no waves, no radiation...no graviton. Both forces interact with matter/energy, their field strength determined by knowing the energy (magnetism) or mass (gravity) of what they are interacting with and measuring the interaction produced.

IMO this discrepancy in understanding is at the heart of most unresolved issues in physics.

Exactly. Monopole to anapole to dipole to field.
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2014
[oh - and lastly - repeat...
Whydening Gyre
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2014
I don't follow what you mean by "magnetism is the force." There is an electromagnetic tensor field. Separating out electric and magnetic forces is just a matter of reference frame. There is only electromagnetism. Yes, that tensor field only contains quantized solutions, but the classical approximation holds good too, with a classical tensor field arising from the quantized solution.

can you generate electricity without magnetics? Bet you can't.

Gravitation, on the other hand, is not a field. Not directly at least. There's a *curvature* field of space-time, a description of how measures of lengths and times change with location. And when we perform physics in such a space-time, we find terms *like a* force or potential appear. But gravitation itself is not a force, not directly anyway.

Gravity is property of immense magnetic field.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
11791
not rated yet Mar 01, 2014
very interesting- continuous spin theory. the gravity problem might scuttle it. or if refined it might explain why galaxies seem to have dark matter affecting their spin.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
can you generate electricity without magnetics? Bet you can't
The first two thousands of years it was generated so nearly exclusively: just with friction.
Gravity is property of immense magnetic field
But it's a property of many other energetic fields too. IMO in this discussion it has no meaning to discuss the priority of magnetic field over gravity, just because the understanding of the above topic just requires the thorough understanding of their mutual connections.

However, you must remember that it was WITHIN the magnetic field of earth. And friction being magnetic in nature, at the very heart of it...
baudrunner
not rated yet Mar 01, 2014
Can long-range forces can be mediated by continuous spin particles?
True, why outsource when you can do it all online? Pray tell, what's the difference? Why this unacceptable oversight by the editing department? Oh, yeah, they cheated on their Toefl exams.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
very interesting- continuous spin theory. the gravity problem might scuttle it. or if refined it might explain why galaxies seem to have dark matter affecting their spin.

It's not dark matter. It's "mostly empty" space. Charged space, if you will.
richardwenzel987
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
It's a bit difficult for me to connect the ideas of curved spacetime, the higgs field (does the field have geometric properties? an analog of spacetime?) and force carriers (how do they fit into the higgs/geometric picture?)-- it was my "understanding" that in gravity we are not dealing with a force at all, but an inertial property of matter in curved space. We are a long way from Einstein's goal of geometrizing the classical forces...
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
It's "mostly empty" space. Charged space, if you will
It may not be even charged - it manifest magnetically only. In AWT the dark matter is the analogy of the turbulent water surface. It's more intensive than the Brownian noise (which corresponds the gravitational waves at the human scale and Higgs field at the quantum scale), but still less intensive, than for example http://www.youtub...wZ39EDmw (which correspond the lightest well defined charged particles in vacuum, i.e. the neutrinos in this analogy). Apparently, the turbulent water can scatter the surface waves a lot, but still without permanent charged particles in it.

Bonia. I used "charge" as a loose descriptor of electrics, magnetics, kinetics or whatever. what makes our universe possible is the difference in charges in these various states.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
"I don't follow what you mean by "magnetism is the force."

That repulsion not caused by interacting particles when you try to push the north or south poles of magnets together? That is the force.

" There is only electromagnetism." Well, yes. But "electromagnetism" is not the word for force description unless describing a magnetic field generated by energy flow.

"There's a *curvature* field of space-time" - There is motion of massive bodies and interaction of massive bodies in space which the curved metric describes well, It is a misinterpretation that space is curved, as opposed to permeated by a medium (magnetic flux, not electromagnetic flux, just magnetic flux) which "curves" under the influence of mass.

"Yes, that tensor field only contains quantized solutions, but the classical approximation holds good too, with a classical tensor field arising from the quantized solution."

If it was correct, you guys (mainstream) wouldn't be looking for the answers you still are.


Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
Shavera - The approach that draws these conclusions is unbiased scientific analysis of up to date data, measurements and observations. When you work backwards, starting with these 3 tools and the body of information available provided by 50 years of launching instruments into space, groundbased observations, chemistry, and understanding the quantum world of stable SA particles and the way they behave when influenced by the forces that influence them - - The inevitable conclusion is that gravity does not drive structure, does not form structure, and is only a contributing factor in any local (solar system) frame of reference.

You have had it driven into your head that conclusions drawn on information that was current hundreds of years ago is still valid. Our instruments tell us otherwise. Modelling the universe to work based on gravity has led to impossible physics, but because it can be mathmetically described this somehow makes it physically possible? Not in reality.
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
"IMO it has no meaning to dispute, what the force of field is"

Fields of force form all structure, if you don't get it right you spend billions of dollars and waste decades chasing your tail. Our instruments repeatedly tell us that Higgs anything, DM and BH's are fruitless searches for non existent human constructs and as you are so fond of pointing out the reaction to the failure to produce, is to up the funding for the search. If you want to see a devout mainstream physicist either squirm, blow his stack or cry from embarrassment - ask him the suggested questions at the end of this book.

http://www.thehiggsfake.com/

It was written by a physicist and critqued by honest, un-biased ones. Physicists (I know several) who pursue true scientific enlightenment know what the problems are. Some are vocal about it, wreck their careers or land in physics purgatory for voicing recognition of them. Others do what Prins and Unzicker did and write a book.

Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
if you don't get it right you spend billions of dollars
My question was solely technical: which is the difference between field and force? If you cannot explain it, then you apparently don't understand the both, after then your political proclamations apply just to you..


Force measured over distance = Field. The boundary of the field is where the first indication of a force is measured. The field is the entire extent of influence of force (suns magnetic field, earths gravitational field) If you want I can give you a water analogy....
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
This research corroborates with my theory that gravity is essentially electromagnetism on a giant scale, with each "magnet" being an atom due to the CSPs generating an atom's magnetic moment.

Magnetism is the only stand alone force of attraction (save gravity), and the mechanics behind a permanent magnet(PM) are in every element. The only difference is with a PM the magnetic moments are all aligned in the same direction, and they add together to create a stronger force.

My postulate with gravity is ultimately the same force, however the atoms don't align their magnetic moments persay. The pressure they experience by the force of attraction (and heat) causes the atoms to bounce and spin so fast that the moments of all atoms are in every direction (almost) instantaneously. It's impossible for the moments to completely cancel out. The cumulative force wouldn't be doubled as we have with 2 PMs, but it would be some average of the total potential of the individual atomic magnetic moments.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
This research corroborates with my theory that gravity is essentially electromagnetism on a giant scale, with each "magnet" being an atom due to the CSPs generating an atom's magnetic moment.

Think smaller than an atom.

My postulate with gravity is ultimately the same force, however the atoms don't align their magnetic moments persay. The pressure they experience by the force of attraction (and heat) causes the atoms to bounce and spin so fast that the moments of all atoms are in every direction (almost) instantaneously. It's impossible for the moments to completely cancel out. The cumulative force wouldn't be doubled as we have with 2 PMs, but it would be some average of the total potential of the individual atomic magnetic moments

On the backs of giants, we ride...
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
Think smaller than an atom.


Specifically, it's the spin of the electron that produces the magnetic moment. I thought that was implied. The atom is just the "house" of the electrons.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
Think smaller than an atom.


Specifically, it's the spin of the electron that produces the magnetic moment. I thought that was implied. The atom is just the "house" of the electrons.

Ok... did not get yer full meaning. But, yes, electrons. And quarks (the infrastructure, if you will, that make the "house" "liveable".).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
My postulate with gravity is ultimately the same force, however the atoms don't align their magnetic moments persay

@scroof
given what we know about magnets and how they work, and given that the theory is accurate per our measurements and results thus far, then we use the measurements of known properties to extrapolate the data needed, right?

If gravity is the pull of EM but unfocused (rather than aligned and focused/adding together to enhance force) then the measurements of the pull of an object should be the cumulative pull of the total of the atomic particles without the addition of focusing

also, that would infer that a permanent magnet should have a HIGHER gravitational pull than a similar mass object

this is not observed, though
any mathematical proofs that can be used to explain your hypothesis?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
that would infer that a permanent magnet should have a HIGHER gravitational pull than a similar mass object


What I'm saying is the force exerted is one in the same, just with a permanent magnet that force is directly aligned upon an axis, instead of radiating out a general weaker field of attraction in 360 degrees. Also, I'm unaware of any experiments that have used permanent magnets to measure the gravitational constant, thus measure the force. If you have some links I would love to take a look at them.

If we could recreate the Cavendish experiments for single atoms, instead of large masses, we might be able to test this theory. Since the moments of atoms vary, so too would the "gravitational" pull.

As far as proofs are concerned, nothing conclusive yet. It's in the "theoretical physics" stage for now, and as my math skills are quite rusty it's tough sledding. I realize that most physicists need equations to consider a theory not "crackpottery", so I'm working on it.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
And quarks (the infrastructure, if you will, that make the "house" "liveable".).


Right, quarks are what imparts spin upon particles, so ultimately it would begin there.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
And quarks (the infrastructure, if you will, that make the "house" "liveable".).


Right, quarks are what imparts spin upon particles, so ultimately it would begin there.

And beneath that, the mish-mash of stuff that come together to make quarks...:-)
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
The actual "how" behind the generation of gravity by mass as in the isolation of the mechanism/relationship between the two, that causes the effect, is Nobel worthy. The observation that seems to hold true is that the more neutrons you have, the more mass there is and the stronger the gravitational field is.

Scroof - The Captain has a good point, derriving an equation to demonstrate how EM can cause universal mass attraction is tough go. I am not discounting what you say by any stretch, if you can prove it , you have a winner.

"also, that would infer that a permanent magnet should have a HIGHER gravitational pull than a similar mass object"

Actually, It would mean that the permanent magnet has no gravitational influence because the particles and spins are aligned, IF gravity is a result of random orientation. . Unless I am missing what scroof is saying. Like i said that is a tough go because it is like saying magnets cannot generate both a magnetic and gravitational field.
Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
And beneath that, the mish-mash of stuff that come together to make quarks...:-)


Haha, the rabbit hole runs deep. Basically our observations are the universe is infinitely small, while at the same time infinitely large. That's the part that completely blows my mind.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
The observation that seems to hold true is that the more neutrons you have, the more mass there is and the stronger the gravitational field is.


It holds true for most cases. It can't explain (without unobserved dark matter/energy) why the outer reaches of galaxies rotate as fast as they do. It also can't explain why massive hydrogen clouds are more dense than gravity would explain. I think it may be due to the fact that the mass-to-charge ratios of all atoms are almost equal (with hydrogen having the greatest). It's an extremely accurate approximation, but we ultimately know there's a flaw. Schuster says as much in the last paragraphs.

Like i said that is a tough go because it is like saying magnets cannot generate both a magnetic and gravitational field.


That's the thing though, my thinking is that a magnetic field is an aligned "gravitational" field. The underlying cause of the two are the same, just arranged differently to produce separate (but similar) effects.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
"That's the thing though, my thinking is that a magnetic field is an aligned "gravitational" field. The underlying cause of the two are the same, just arranged differently to produce separate (but similar) effects."

Scroof - How are the particles aligned to produce an external magnetic field and disordered enough to produce a gravitational field in one object like a permanent magnet?
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Also, I'm unaware of any experiments that have used permanent magnets to measure the gravitational constant, thus measure the force

@Scroof
I am not aware of any either. you misunderstood
my inference was that the force of magnetism is well known, and therefore can be compared

From what I can see, there should also be fluctuations in non-magnetic objects if EM and gravity are connected
for instance: when you put a human into an MRI you should generate a magnetic human
http://science.ho...mri3.htm

IMHO
If the EM field lines up to produce magnetism &
an object that is not magnetized is disorganized EM
then forcing the object (human or otherwise) to align the poles should also increase the gravitational pull as well as the magnetic pull (if EM magnifies with alignment then G should as well)
& this can be measured, so it is simple enough to check

http://van.physic...p?id=225
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
Actually, It would mean that the permanent magnet has no gravitational influence because the particles and spins are aligned, IF gravity is a result of random orientation.

@no fate
Interesting: but that would mean that an object would only be EITHER magnetic OR gravitationally bound and we dont observe that, either... right?
Unless I am missing what scroof is saying. Like i said that is a tough go because it is like saying magnets cannot generate both a magnetic and gravitational field

yep. Pretty much what I was thinking...
there must be something else (separate forces) or there must be an underlying cause that changes the effects of the same thing (object) in the same state but with aligned poles... and that appears to be saying that the rules for physics change depending on an arbitrary value

Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
That's the thing though, my thinking is that a magnetic field is an aligned "gravitational" field. The underlying cause of the two are the same, just arranged differently to produce separate (but similar) effect.

Hold on to that thought. It's a good one.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
yep. Pretty much what I was thinking...
there must be something else (separate forces) or there must be an underlying cause that changes the effects of the same thing (object) in the same state but with aligned poles... and that appears to be saying that the rules for physics change depending on an arbitrary value

"critical mass", they are not arbitrary, they are organized in tiers. and associated by a prime ratio.
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
@no fate
How are the particles aligned to produce an external magnetic field and disordered enough to produce a gravitational field in one object like a permanent magnet?


Your right, there wouldn't be a gravitational field in a permanent magnet because the moments aren't disordered. They are aligned, thus exhibiting a magnetic force instead a gravitational one. Since we know gravity is much weaker than EM, the effect due to our current understanding of gravity would be negligible anyways.

@capn
if EM magnifies with alignment then G should as well

This is not what I've implied. Gravity doesn't care about alignments, it only cares about the total number of atoms that are involved. Essentially, Newtonian gravitation assumes the same thing, but instead of mass (which is just energy) being the cause, I attribute it to the known force of magnetism.

Let me ask you this: Immediately after the big bang, what was the force that brought together protons and electrons to make H?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
This is not what I've implied

@Scroof
didnt say you did
it seems to me to be a logical extrapolation of the fact that you are claiming EM and gravity to be the same thing
therefore, if EM magnifies with polar alignment, then so should G
Gravity doesn't care about alignments, it only cares about the total number of atoms that are involved

ok, now isnt this saying the same thing as "Gravity is mass dependent"?
but instead of mass (which is just energy) being the cause, I attribute it to the known force of magnetism

which brings us right back to the above... what I wrote
the logical extrapolation being that if G and EM are the same, then G should exhibit the same effects as EM under the same conditions
right?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
they are not arbitrary

@Whydening Gyre
my point was that the laws of physics should not have arbitrary rules
Given that he states the EM and G are the same thing, then EM as well as G should also show the same effects under the same conditions
IF they are the same, then no matter what, when you put a human into a MRI you should get a huge magnet, and that is not what we see on real life observations
this is easily testable as well
you need an MRI, a human, a piece of ferrous iron and a large permanent magnet
Put each into the MRI and run it up (separately)
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
the logical extrapolation being that if G and EM are the same, then G should exhibit the same effects as EM under the same conditions


I think this is where the confusion lies. I'm saying the cause of G and EM are the same, not their effects. What's illogical is to assume that we could align the moments of any celestial body, can't ever happen. We can align the moments of other objects by subjecting them to large magnetic fields, and when we do this the objects start to levitate. Nearly everything is magnetic by nature, why would gravity be any different?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
I'm saying the cause of G and EM are the same, not their effects

@Scroof
I see...
ok... change tack: if "Unlike gravity, which occurs between any objects, magnetism depends on specific properties of objects" then there would have to be an UNDERLYING something that is the cause of both... but if that underlying something is the same, then why the separate manifestations?

IMHO – the CAUSE cannot be the same for G as EM given just the fact that there are separate manifestations, and you can get spearate manifestations of them on the same object: permanent magnets
IF they are the same underlying cause, why manifest in two separate ways on one object?
Why attract/repel with EM but constantly attract with G?

Got anything for that?
Also... not so sure you can levitate a human with a large magnetic field...
thats not to say a human cant feel something... just dont think you can levitate them
see CERN/MRI again
largest magnets we have, I think.... maybe not
I better look
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
@Scroof
forgot to add this...
Both magnetism and gravity can affect objects at a distance. Both get weaker as the objects get farther apart. This is why you are affected by the pull of gravity from the earth, but not from distance planets. It's also why two magnets may move together if you set them near each other, but if you set them far apart nothing will happen. However, as two objects get far apart, the gravity between them goes down by a factor of four when you double the distance, but the magnetic force goes down by (at least) a factor of sixteen.


if G and EM have the same cause, then why the difference in measured effects when separated?
why the separate factors when doubling the distance?

again, this makes me think IMHO that they must be separate forces...
the same underlying cause would not change depending on arbitrary circumstances
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
Unlike gravity, which occurs between any objects, magnetism depends on specific properties of objects


So what are these "specific properties" your talking about? Every element has a magnetic moment, in magnets they are lined up. That's the only property needed. Well, I think the binding energy of the element determines whether or not an element can be "more magnetic", but that's a different point. Check out the curve for binding energy(http://en.wikiped...energy), it's interesting.

Why attract/repel with EM but constantly attract with G?


You have to consider the limited and precise alignments that cause magnets to repel.

If you were to take a typical bar magnet, and spin/rotate it extremely fast, then place an iron rod within the magnets effective range, what do you think would happen? Would it repel or attract? Or would it do both so fast that it essentially it attracts and repels until the iron bar would assume an equilibrium point?

Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
@Rimino
Thanks for adding that distinction.
these orbitals must be occupied with odd number of electrons

Essentially, this is the case so the Pauli Exclusion principle can't cancel out the forces. Also, I find it interesting that hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element that satisfies these conditions. It's just not a solid so it can't display ferromagnetic properties.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
Every element has a magnetic moment, in magnets they are lined up. That's the only property needed

@Scroof
ok
so why can't a person be levitated in the most powerful magnets known on Earth?
Sorry. Not important
the real point I was trying to make was not that, really.
Maybe it was worded wrong and it came out wrong...

real point:
as two objects get far apart, the gravity between them goes down by a factor of four when you double the distance, but the magnetic force goes down by (at least) a factor of sixteen

IF both EM and G have the same underlying cause, why the difference in factors of attraction over distance?
Why does ONE drop by a factor of 4, and the OTHER drop by a factor of 16

given the same cause, this is a HUGE difference, and explaining this accurately would be beneficial to proving a link, as it is one thing that proves (IMHO) that the forces are separate

that and showing why one force magnifies with alignment, one doesnt, given the same cause for both
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
so why can't a person be levitated in the most powerful magnets known on Earth?

Because they're not strong enough. We can levitate frogs, spiders, other animals, so why should we not be able to do the same with humans?
Why does ONE drop by a factor of 4, and the OTHER drop by a factor of 16

Because the moments are aligned different. The magnetic field from a magnet extends out of the N pole and attracts to itself at the S pole. Outside of that field the force is essentially negligable. With gravity, the force extends only outward, so it's rate of decrease would be slower. Think energy attracts energy.
showing why one force magnifies with alignment, one doesnt, given the same cause for both

Again, you can't align moments in large bodies. We can, however, align them in metals. If you rub a magnet across iron, does it not magnetize? We would have taken a gravitationally based object, and created a magnetic object.
no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
"Hydrogen atom should be paramagnetic"

"therefore the gaseous hydrogen is diamagnetic."

Atoms aren't classed this way, they are ionized, that is all.

"Your right, there wouldn't be a gravitational field in a permanent magnet because the moments aren't disordered. They are aligned, thus exhibiting a magnetic force instead a gravitational one. Since we know gravity is much weaker than EM, the effect due to our current understanding of gravity would be negligible anyways"

I would agree, if magnetism didn't depend on the opposing pole for attraction. Easy test for this theory though, drop a brick and a magnet of the same mass and same spatial configuration, from the same height many different times, and chart your results. If you start both tumbling, the magnet should slow or cease tumbling if polarity is involved at all. Or the magnet should accelerate past the brick.
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
@no fate
This is not how it would work, since we are within the IRF of the earth. Both would fall at the same rate. Regardless of gravity's weakness compared to EM, the strength of the magnet compared to the strength of earth's gravitational pull is infinitesimal, thus you could use the equations for mass to accurately describe what would happen. That said, I don't believe mass is the cause, just an accurate approximation.

Let me state that in no way do I know for fact this idea to be true, I'm just trying to explain what we observe with what others have already found, without creating some unobservable/untestable particle. Like Whydening Gyre said:
On the backs of giants, we ride...

I think it's ridiculous that science always wants to create new constructs(graviton, dark energy/matter, higgs boson, etc...) to try and explain something when a problem becomes too confounding.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
@no fate
Let me state that in no way do I know for fact this idea to be true, I'm just trying to explain what we observe with what others have already found, without creating some unobservable/untestable particle. Like Whydening Gyre said:
On the backs of giants, we ride...

I think it's ridiculous that science always wants to create new constructs(graviton, dark energy/matter, higgs boson, etc...) to try and explain something when a problem becomes too confounding.


Agreed Scroof.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
IF both EM and G have the same underlying cause, why the difference in factors of attraction over distance? Why does ONE drop by a factor of 4, and the OTHER drop by a factor of 16

Sorry to barge in but the short answer is that it results from 2 things.

1) any long range force that radiates in 3 spatial dimensions is going to decrease in strength according to an inverse SQUARED law. And that includes electromagnetism AND gravity BOTH... except that you also have to take into account that...

2) Gravity is normally experienced as a MONOPOLE (so the normal 1/r^2 applies) but EM fields are normally experienced as a DIPOLE with the two 1/r^2 fields opposing each other and canceling out, leaving only the following term effective: 1/r^3.

And, no I don't believe EM and gravity are related (except beyond GUT scale) even though they share SOME properties because of shared circumstances. (E.g., range because their carriers are both massless, and 1/r^2 because of our 3D plus 1 spacetime.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
@Scroof
I see...
ok... change tack: if "Unlike gravity, which occurs between any objects, magnetism depends on specific properties of objects" then there would have to be an UNDERLYING something that is the cause of both... but if that underlying something is the same, then why the separate manifestations?

IMHO – the CAUSE cannot be the same for G as EM given just the fact that there are separate manifestations, and you can get spearate manifestations of them on the same object: permanent magnets
IF they are the same underlying cause, why manifest in two separate ways on one object?
Why attract/repel with EM but constantly attract with G?

Got anything for that?
Also... not so sure you can levitate a human with a large magnetic field...
thats not to say a human cant feel something... just dont think you can levitate them
see CERN/MRI again
largest magnets we have, I think.... maybe not
I better look

I've seen they've done frogs...
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
Sorry to barge in but the short answer is that it results from 2 things.

No need to be sorry, your explanation was much better than mine.

When you say that gravity has a force carrier, your assuming a graviton right? Has there been any conclusive mathematical evidence for gravitons? I'm asking because I honestly don't know.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
No need to be sorry

Sorry, its a crazy canuk habit. Damn, did it again!
When you say that gravity has a force carrier, your assuming a graviton right?

Weeeellll, no, not exactly. All I'm really saying it that gravity propagates through 3D+1 spacetime according to an inverse squared law (at least as far as we can see, "locally", i.e., in our solar system and not taking into account the longer range observational annomalies that lead to postulating DM & DE).

Has there been any conclusive mathematical evidence for gravitons? I'm asking because I honestly don't know.


O.k., let's back up here a little because "conclusive mathematical evidence" are three words that when put together like that just don't make sense to me. "Mathematical PROOFS" can work. "Conclusive PHYSICAL evidence" can (sort of) work. But physics can't actually tie the two together like that. Gravitions come up "conclusively" in e.g. the math of string theory, but that doesn't constitute "evidence".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
Weeeellll, no, not exactly. All I'm really saying it that gravity propagates through 3D+1 spacetime according to an inverse squared law (at least as far as we can see, "locally", i.e., in our solar system and not taking into account the longer range observational annomalies that lead to postulating DM & DE).

Has there been any conclusive mathematical evidence for gravitons? I'm asking because I honestly don't know.


O.k., let's back up here a little because "conclusive mathematical evidence" are three words that when put together like that just don't make sense to me. "Mathematical PROOFS" can work. "Conclusive PHYSICAL evidence" can (sort of) work. But physics can't actually tie the two together like that. Gravitions come up "conclusively" in e.g. the math of string theory, but that doesn't constitute "evidence"

Crazy canuck is perfect! You are also - exactly ON target. Can be represented with 3d construct, tho.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
Sorry, its a crazy canuk habit. Damn, did it again!


I get it now. Didn't realize that sorry was such a canuk thing until Rob Ford was found smoking crack.

Now that you mention it, mathematical proofs would have been a better way to say it. Either way, you got the point. So why, if string theory isn't widely accepted, does mainstream science accept the idea of a graviton? Rhetorical question, I know...

Regardless of my idea, I do believe that gravity is due to CSPs somehow, and not mass. And the fact that the imagery of spacetime is just the visual representation of the force of gravity, not the cause. The "warp" of spacetime is just a good way to represent the actual attractive force using a simple conception of "funnels".
ralph638s
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
this is the current lead story on the phys.org physics news page:

http://phys.org/n...ton.html

"Researchers propose a new way to detect the elusive graviton"
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
But if you actually read the article, they still wouldn't detect a graviton the same way we can detect a photon. They would have "evidence" that gravitons exist, but they wouldn't actually observe a single graviton.

I'm not saying gravitons don't exist, I'm just skeptical. Another "higgs boson" if you will...
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
I get it now. Didn't realize that sorry was such a canuk thing until Rob Ford was found smoking crack.
Yeah, Ford...I don't know which one embarrasses me the most yet: Ford or Biber...sigh.
Now that you mention it, mathematical proofs would have been a better way to say it. Either way, you got the point.
Well, thing is, I don't believe you can construct a math proof for the existence of a physical entety. What you need is physical evidence.
So why, if string theory isn't widely accepted,
But it IS "widely accepted."
does mainstream science accept the idea of a graviton? Rhetorical question, I know...
Not rhetorical, and not because of blind acceptence of a research program either; there are good reasons to suspect SOMETHING like a spin-2 massless boson. For one, 1/r^2 propagation mentioned earlier. Given the interaction between masses there has to be FIELD there (the question is, can it be QUANTIZED?). If so, the graviton would be the excitation of that field.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Sorry to barge in

@Gawad
not a problem... I enjoy learning from canuks
glad you got straight to the point
thanks

Gravitons/mathematical models that include gravitons are not just string models right? I was under the impression that gravitons were also included in the standard theory, given
reasons to suspect SOMETHING like a spin-2 massless boson. For one, 1/r^2 propagation mentioned earlier. Given the interaction between masses there has to be FIELD there (the question is, can it be QUANTIZED?). If so, the graviton would be the excitation of that field

it also has to interact with the Higgs field, right?
And wouldnt that open it up to more than just string?
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
Good example. massless boson spin. Can move in any combination (gradient) of 3 different directions. to determine it's size, amplitude, direction, whatever - must be measured from four points EQUI-DISTANT from eachother. (IE - tetrahedral-ly). However, 5 and 6 points would be even better. Imagine a tetrahedron or a cube in a sphere, the corners as points.
BTW. works for mass, too...:-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
Regardless of my idea, I do believe that gravity is due to CSPs somehow, and not mass.

@scroof
are you trying to push (or maybe re-write) the Kaluza–Klein theory?

just got popped on me... seems the argument that you are making is related
KK theory is a model that seeks to unify the two fundamental forces of gravitation and electromagnetism.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2014
Regardless of my idea, I do believe that gravity is due to CSPs somehow, and not mass.

@scroof
are you trying to push (or maybe re-write) the Kaluza–Klein theory?

just got popped on me... seems the argument that you are making is related
KK theory is a model that seeks to unify the two fundamental forces of gravitation and electromagnetism.

Good question, Cap'n.

Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 05, 2014
are you trying to push (or maybe re-write) the Kaluza–Klein theory?

Nope, never heard of it. Like I said before, I'm taking the approach that science has all it needs today to unify EM and G, but it's just being overlooked because mass is assumed the culprit of G.

I once heard a saying that goes: If there's 10 people trying to solve the same problem, and 9 go about it in the same way, the last person has to try a different way just in case the other 9 are wrong. Something like a sanity check.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2014
Gawad: The impossibility of quantizing any field was the essence of my first post. What is the force carrier for gravity is as rediculous as asking what is the force carrier for a magnetiic field.

It is painful to watch people who don't understand field dynamics try and discuss them and constantly resort back to a particle. Right up there with the admission that over 99% of all matter in space is plasma (ionized particles), then constructing a model of universal structure around the force that has almost no effect on plasma at all...and fixing it mathematically by adding a non descript particle en masse(which conveniently defies all known physics )that produces enough force to account for the observed motion because our measurements and observation actually do not support the current model at all.

Fields are not composed of particles...that is why it is a field for Pete's sake.

Massless particles....really. How about photonless light? Massless planets? detectable dark matter?

Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
@Gawad

Gravitons/mathematical models that include gravitons are not just string models right? I was under the impression that gravitons were also included in the standard theory, given
reasons to suspect SOMETHING like a spin-2 massless boson. For one, 1/r^2 propagation mentioned earlier. Given the interaction between masses there has to be FIELD there (the question is, can it be QUANTIZED?). If so, the graviton would be the excitation of that field
Yup, they can be introduced into QFTs also, but they break them at high energies. The funny thing is, not only do they not break string theories at any energies (string theories "break" for other reasons ;^), but you can't get rid of them in string theories (they're intrinsic).
it also has to interact with the Higgs field, right?
Well, I wouldn't expect it to as this theoretical beast is supposed to be massless and move at c (sorry, that's redundant); like photons don't couple to the Higgs field.
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
Gawad: The impossibility of quantizing any field was the essence of my first post.

Uh huh. And what made you think I give a shit?
What is the force carrier for gravity is as rediculous as asking what is the force carrier for a magnetic field.
What is ''ridiculous" is you.
It is painful to watch people who don't understand field dynamics try and discuss them and constantly resort back to a particle.
Well, if it causes you mental anguish, hey I'm all for it.
Fields are not composed of particles...that is why it is a field for Pete's sake.
Oh wow, no shit? That's funny, I've never met an actual PHYSICIST who would claim that.
Massless particles....really. How about photonless light? Blah, blah.
The only thing you've proved here is that you don't know what "the excitation of a quantum field" is. More, you show double ignorance about it. Mass is ONE of many fundamental properties of nature; it is sufficient but not necessary to "exist". A particle can have others.
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Mass is ONE of many fundamental properties of nature

Yet isn't mass essentially just energy? So why do we assume mass is what causes gravity? This line of thinking hasn't resulted in resolving the problems that arise from Einstein's theory. Einstein's own definition of insanity: doing same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Maybe we should listen to him.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
"Uh huh. And what made you think I give a shit?"

"Given the interaction between masses there has to be FIELD there (the question is, can it be QUANTIZED?). "

This statement did genius.

"What is ''ridiculous" is you."

Very scientific. What year did they teach you the math on this?

"Oh wow, no shit? That's funny, I've never met an actual PHYSICIST who would claim that"

No? so you have a paper route then? Or you arent a physicist ( or you have a peice of paper labelled "degree" but can't even keep comments consistent in a single thread)

"And, no I don't believe EM and gravity are related (except beyond GUT scale) even though they share SOME properties because of shared circumstances. (E.g., range because their carriers are both massless, and 1/r^2 because of our 3D plus 1 spacetime."

I think Rob Ford may actually be more intelligent than you.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
"Given the interaction between masses there has to be FIELD there (the question is, can it be QUANTIZED?). "

This statement did genius.
Then learn to read (that would help you with more than physics), because that's not what prompted my reply.
"Oh wow, no shit? That's funny, I've never met an actual PHYSICIST who would claim that"

(or you have a peice of paper labelled "degree" but can't even keep comments consistent in a single thread)
Claims like this-like yours-only mean something when the person making them can show they understand what is meant by a "particle" and what is meant by a "field". You don't.
I think Rob Ford may actually be more intelligent than you.
Eh, that may well be; he did after all manage to get himself elected mayor of Toronto. To make the claims you do while leveling the accusation of "ridiculous" at mainstream physics (on here of all places) you must be smoking even more crack than he does!

Care for an 18 year old single malt with that?
shavera
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
ITT: people who haven't taken a semester of either Electromagnetism or Relativity circlejerk each other about wild crank physics. Christ.
shavera
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
The force on charged particles at relative rest to each other is an electric force. The force on a charged particle in motion from a current of charged particle(s) is a magnetic force. Rest and motion are dependent on reference frame, which is to say, they're "relative." So there exists a coordinate transformation (relative motion) that turns electric forces into magnetic and vice versa. So they obviously can't be different *things*. There's only electromagnetism. (more specifically the time-like components (timelike row and column) of the EM field tensor are electric fields, and the space-like components are magnetic.)

What people often forget is that relativity was initially published as a paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." Einstein was working out the laws of EM when he came across "relativity." The one follows straight away from the other. And countless experiments with a large variety of equpiment historical and present has confirmed the predictions of both.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Mass is ONE of many fundamental properties of nature

Yet isn't mass essentially just energy?
No, mass ISN'T "just" energy. Just because there's an equivalence between the two doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
So why do we assume mass is what causes gravity?
Sorry but this is a non sequitur. It just DOES NOT naturally follow from your previous statement. In any case we know (we don't "assume") that mass/energy or particles couples to the stress-energy tensor. What we don't know is why the stress-energy tensor couples to spacetime resulting in the effect we know as "gravity"
This line of thinking hasn't resulted in resolving the problems that arise from Einstein's theory.
Which problems? (Apologies if I missed them, I haven't read this whole thread.) SR and GR work exceeding WELL.
Einstein's own definition of insanity.... Maybe we should listen to him.
That's fine, but any avenue has to demonstrate it solves more (of the right) problems than it causes.
no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Claims like this-like yours-only mean something when the person making them can show they understand what is meant by a "particle" and what is meant by a "field". You don't.

Your ignorance/arrogance is matched only by the massive failure of the model you support.

You haven't demonstrated a shred of understanding about particle/field interaction other than to regurgitate the equations of force...bravo.

"Then learn to read (that would help you with more than physics), because that's not what prompted my reply."

Your motivations for replying are your shrinks business, I just pointed out that you commented about something you later claimed to not give a shit about, so you may want to discuss this with him (your shrink) as well.

I support valid, tested mainstream physics, I do not support the use of theoretical constructs as part of a model that I then claim to represent reality. And I will never say no to an 18 year old single malt, but I recommend you finish the bottle.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
Well, being a devout follower of SR and GR I thought you would know some of the observed anomalies. From wikipedia:

Extra fast stars
Flyby anomolies
Accelerating expansion
Anomalous increase of the AU
Extra energetic photons
Extra massive hydrogen clouds
The rotation of spiral galaxies

Listen, I'm not arguing that the equations don't work, or that the science is wrong. It's not, like you said SR and GR work perfectly well 99% of the time. However, we do have these OBSERVED anomalies that physics can't explain(without creating some new UNOBSERVED construct), so some small detail must be missing.

When I try to solve a problem, I like to go back to the start i.e. the big bang. It wasn't gravity that brought together photons and electrons to create the first atoms, it was charge, and therefore magnetism. Why should we assume that the large scale attractive force that is gravity should be rooted in anything other? Just because the equations work? I don't settle for "just because".
no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
"So they obviously can't be different *things*."

You need magnets to generate electricity, but you can't *find* electricity, then make magnetism, In all cases the field forms the product. CD85 also has real problems grasping this. Einstein said it 70 years ago:

"A new concept appears in physics, the most important invention since Newton's time: the field. It needed great scientific imagination to realize that it is not the charges nor the particles but the field in the space between the charges and the particles which is essential for the description of physical phenomena" - From "The evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, pages 258-259.

"The force on charged particles at relative rest to each other is an electric force."

Electricity is a force?
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
From wikipedia:

Extra fast stars
...
The rotation of spiral galaxies

...we do have these OBSERVED anomalies that physics can't explain (without creating some new UNOBSERVED construct), so some small detail must be missing.
I just don't see how most of these implicate our understanding gravity directly. (The last one yes, but I can't say I'm familiar with the 4th. The 3rd may have much to do with particle physics as GR.) Just because we can't explain a phenomenon doesn't mean a theory is necessarily broken, it usually means you don't (yet) understand how what you've observed relates to it.

Why should we assume that the large scale attractive force that is gravity should be rooted in anything other? Just because the equations work? I don't settle for "just because".
The equations working is a necessity. When that gets backed by heaps of observational evidence it becomes a good reason. When the equations don't work for the alternatives then you're still left with GR.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
It wasn't gravity that brought together photons and electrons to create the first atoms, it was charge, and therefore magnetism. Why should we assume that the large scale attractive force that is gravity should be rooted in anything other?
Well, to put it simply, because gravity, though it's much weaker, is always attractive and never cancels out, and that adds up in ways that electromagnetism just doesn't.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
Your ignorance/arrogance is matched only by the massive failure of the model you support.
Who? Moi? Well Jesus, I'm not the one claiming to overthrow Kepler, Newton and Einstein, am I?

You haven't demonstrated a shred of understanding about particle/field interaction other than to regurgitate the equations of force...bravo.
You're welcome. That's right: I ain't no Newton, I ain't no Einstein, hell, I ain't even no Krauss or Woit. But at least I know enough to keep from being not even wrong. (Just plain old wrong is plenty enough!)
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
It wasn't gravity that brought together photons and electrons to create the first atoms, it was charge, and therefore magnetism. Why should we assume that the large scale attractive force that is gravity should be rooted in anything other?
Well, to put it simply, because gravity, though it's much weaker, is always attractive and never cancels out, and that adds up in ways that electromagnetism just doesn't.


You need to do better for credibilities sake than this answer. You just said "I am right because it is what i believe." When his legitmate query has more scientifically valid merit than your answer does.

Maybe you can throw some more equations at it...they always help.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2014
doesn't mean a theory is necessarily broken

Never claimed it was broken, all I'm trying to point out is it's fundamentally flawed. What's it tell you when the calculated mass for an atom doesn't equal the measured mass? It tells me there is a flaw.

For the sake of argument let's assume we didn't know what mass was, but were given data that shows the gravitational influence throughout the universe. We're also given the elemental distribution of the universe. What is the first thing that we would notice? Well, H is approximately 73% of the universe, and there's a gravitational force that accounts for ~72%(dark matter). The next is He at 24%, and there's a gravitational force of about 23%(DE). Would we try to find out how much the things weighed, or how they interacted?

Maybe its just a coincidence, but I find it intriguing. Especially when you consider the mass defects previously mentioned, H has the highest ratio(1.007) followed by He(1.00065). Everything else is basically 1...
no fate
2 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
"But at least I know enough to keep from being not even wrong. (Just plain old wrong is plenty enough!)"

You don't even know what is or isn't physically possible. Go play with the media you claim to have an understanding of. Actually see how things work instead of taking for granted that what you have been told is correct. Quoting the math of motion as though it brings you understanding of the physical processes that drive structure is sad.

"I ain't no Newton, I ain't no Einstein,."

Clearly not, these guys actually figured stuff out.

Einstein would be insulted to have his name attached to the current debacle that is theoretical astrophysics.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
It wasn't gravity that brought together photons and electrons to create the first atoms, it was charge, and therefore magnetism. Why should we assume that the large scale attractive force that is gravity should be rooted in anything other?
Well, to put it simply, because gravity, though it's much weaker, is always attractive and never cancels out, and that adds up in ways that electromagnetism just doesn't.


You need to do better for credibilities sake than this answer. You just said "I am right because it is what i believe."


It not simple a matter of "what I believe" it's a question of facts. Fact: Electromagnetic fields drop off at 1/r^3 vs. gravity's 1/r^2. Fact: All positive electrical charges have a corresponding-usually very local-negative charge and they cancel out . Gravity NEVER cancels out. Taken together that adds up to a lot more than your debunked crackpottery bunk.
Gawad
not rated yet Mar 06, 2014
doesn't mean a theory is necessarily broken

Never claimed it was broken, all I'm trying to point out is it's fundamentally flawed.


Well those two sound pretty much the same to me. What's the difference then?

...Well, H is approximately 73% of the universe, and there's a gravitational force that accounts for ~72%(dark matter). The next is He at 24%, and there's a gravitational force of about 23%(DE). Would we try to find out how much the things weighed, or how they interacted?

Maybe its just a coincidence, but I find it intriguing.
But it IS a coincidence. What you're describing is purely circumstantial. Much like the moon happens to orbit in just the right way to cause total eclipses AT THE MOMENT. Had we evolved 3 billion years ago, or 3 billion years in the future (leaving out issues around solar evolution) then neither of those coincidences would be.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
Fact- Ionized particle motion is dictated by magnetic flux (experimentally validated...opposite of debunked)

Fact - Gravity has almost no measurable effect on plasma which is composed of Ionized particles (experimentally validated...opposite of debunked)

It is exactly a matter of what you believe. Your gravity based model needs non-existent entities to function and your mainstream "it all cancels out" ideology regarding interstellar magnetic fields shows how limited the thought process behind that ideology is. 5 light years from any star, in space, there is still magnetic flux....not being "cancelled out", influencing charged particle motion. No gravity there.

My "crackpottery" based approach has accurately explained more about how things work in 2 years than the mainstream has in the last 50.

Hint at relative importance: If you remove the force of gravity from the universe, every particle still exists, if you remove magnetism nothing does.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
"Well those two sound pretty much the same to me. What's the difference then?"

How about it's broken because it is fundamentally flawed. Also, thanks for the repeat post of those equations, very effective. After reading it the second time I really got it.

Since we are all entitled to our opinions I'm sure you will be more than happy to accept a model that has so much wrong with it. Those of us who like our models to mirror/predict reality have no problem junking the ones that don't. Yours doesn't and is now an analogue of a frayed, patchwork quilt that belongs where it will inevitably end up.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
Fact- Ionized particle motion is dictated by magnetic flux (experimentally validated...opposite of debunked)
So? Only minimally or non-relevant to large scale structure: Planets. stars, nebula, galaxies.... Debunked.

Fact - Gravity has almost no measurable effect on plasma which is composed of Ionized particles (experimentally validated...opposite of debunked)
Not relevant. Internally particles in a dense enough plasma can easily resist the effects of most gravitational fields. Outside of a plasma, not so much. Debye length for the solar wind is a whopping 10m! Woohoo. Debunked.

5 light years from any star, in space, there is no gravity there.
Yeah, and this is why you're batshit crazy.
My "crackpottery" based approach has accurately explained more about how things work in 2 years than the mainstream has in the last 50.
Only in your imagination.
if you remove the force of gravity from the universe, every particle still exists
But no large scale structures.
Gawad
not rated yet Mar 06, 2014
Those of us who like our models to mirror/predict reality have no problem junking the ones that don't. Yours doesn't and is now an analogue of a frayed, patchwork quilt that belongs where it will inevitably end up.
Uh, yeah, whatever. Good luck with that, luck's all you've got.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
Those of us who like our models to mirror/predict reality have no problem junking the ones that don't. Yours doesn't and is now an analogue of a frayed, patchwork quilt that belongs where it will inevitably end up.
Uh, yeah, whatever. Good luck with that, luck's all you've got.


Well, luck and a working model. Guess I'm 2 up on you.

But because of this thread I will enjoy watching our newest instruments continue to provide information to baffle and confound you and the mainstream, until you all have to admit you were "not even wrong". Although, i have and will continue to laugh hysterically at the gag reel of proclamations regarding DM and BH's leading up to that moment.

I'll see if Rob is interested in tutoring you....

Also, regarding your take on Ionized particles it's wrong. Go to a lab and wait for a vacuum chamber of plasma to "settle" at the bottom...don't leave til it does. I'll notify your next of kin.
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
@Gawad
It's fine you can't look past your simple minded ideas, most mainstream followers can't, and that's part of the problem. Everyone knows there's something wrong but refuses to accept it. Don't, however, discard a logical theory because you can't believe it to be true. Just as I don't have mathematical proof that I'm right, you don't have any proof that it's wrong. It's theoretically possible, and you can't prove otherwise. I'm pretty sure the one who's crazy is the one who believes something blindly without 100% proof.
Gawad
not rated yet Mar 06, 2014
THIS I believe:
i have and will continue to laugh hysterically
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
THIS I believe:
i have and will continue to laugh hysterically


But you haven't seen the math that proves it...are you sure?
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
Everyone knows there's something wrong but refuses to accept it.


You're wrong about this. We know what's wrong, but we refuse to accept any half-assed stab at a so called solution that comes without solid supporting evidence, doesn't work theoretically and requires throwing out what does work in existing theory.

Don't, however, discard a logical theory because you can't believe it to be true.
See above.
Just as I don't have mathematical proof that I'm right, you don't have any proof that it's wrong. It's theoretically possible, and you can't prove otherwise.
Man, I can't even believe anyone would write anything like that, least of all someone who hopes to be taken seriously! You're the ones on the outside looking in, the onus is on you.
I'm pretty sure the one who's crazy is the one who believes something blindly without 100% proof.
And you guys need to start understanding the difference between facts, evidence and "proof" and how that relates to "belief".
no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
"And you guys need to start understanding the difference between facts, evidence and "proof" and how that relates to "belief"."

You need to follow your own advice.

There is a reason you continuously have to "add" to your model to make it work. Hysterically, you can't physically find what you added so you just keep saying it's there and you will eventually find it. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that it is fundamentally flawed because it worked so well till it started going wrong, and you refuse to acknowledge how far wrong it has gone.

"You're the ones on the outside looking in"

Yes, thank god. If we were in there with you we might mistakenly think you know what your talking about.

"the onus is on you."

Yes. But I can say with complete confidence that the gravity based model will be in the trash bin whether our group publishes anything or not. More detailed observations are already causing more problems than for your model than verifying it.

Fun to watch.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
I don't follow what you mean by "magnetism is the force." There is an electromagnetic tensor field. Separating out electric and magnetic forces is just a matter of reference frame. There is only electromagnetism. Yes, that tensor field only contains quantized solutions, but the classical approximation holds good too, with a classical tensor field arising from the quantized solution.

can you generate electricity without magnetics? Bet you can't.

Gravitation, on the other hand, is not a field. Not directly at least. There's a *curvature* field of space-time, a description of how measures of lengths and times change with location. And when we perform physics in such a space-time, we find terms *like a* force or potential appear. But gravitation itself is not a force, not directly anyway.

Gravity is property of immense magnetic field.

No Fate. An artist sees what you do.
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 06, 2014
We know what's wrong

Oh really? Then what are we doing here? If you have the solution to all the anomalies I previously posted (and the observed cause of gravity), pray tell, I'm sure the physics world is dying to hear it.
And you guys need to start understanding the difference between facts, evidence and "proof" and how that relates to "belief"

Well, I'm sure the all powerful wizard of canuk can explain the difference for us. I think your misinterpreting the "evidence and proof" (or feel threatened because your advanced intellect can't conceive what you've been taught your whole life could possibly be wrong). While it says the current equations are extremely accurate, it doesn't say they're 100% right.
the onus is on you

So says the feeble minded. Did you forget what the whole point of this article was?
They hoped to quickly prove that CSPs made no sense as force carriers.

Yet they found the opposite. It's only a matter of time until your world is upended.
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
This is written in a kind of a hurry, because I don't have much time, so pls forgive any slackness in the writing of this:
@Scroof: Maybe you need to go back to basic high school physics. Newton first: for objects with mass, gravity is generated by that mass & is dependent on how much mass there is. (& remember, no rotation required) So even an apple will generate a gravity field, proportional to its mass. All formulae containing g, also contain 'mass' terms eg F=ma, or F=mg (where a=g). So all objects with mass with generate a gravity field, no matter how small. But not all objects will be magnetically active; that is dependent on the specific properties of material involved, ie iron vs plastic & is a different mechanism again. For massless objects, the rules change again. I'll post some links in the next post, for you to read.
@Stumpy I noticed that the earlier in the conversation, there seemed to be some interchanging of 'magnetic' & 'em' going on. That is rather slack...cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
cont...so be careful. Even though magnetic is a component of em, there are different properties involved. Everything emits an em field, but not everything attracts purely magnetically. Okay, so here are some links. The wiki article on massless particles is not so good, but is sufficient to get the basic point across:
http://www.physic...6l3c.cfm
http://www.bbc.co...ision/3/
http://www.mass-gravity.com/
http://en.wikiped...vitation
http://en.wikiped...particle
Going back to basics is usually a good idea. Hope this helps.Gotta go now, but will be back later & might post some more then.
Best regards, (&happy reading) DH66

bluehigh
5 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
You humans are really strange.

Obsessed with imposing own views on others, you will not easily accept to differ. You would all be more successful if you simply agree to disagree and move forward.

I want to go home.
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (1) Mar 06, 2014
@DH
Does it make you feel smart to try to insult someone's intelligence? Just because the jocks embarrassed you in high school doesn't mean you can try and do the same on a (anonymous) forum. BTW, it obviously doesn't work, there's been plenty of you clowns that babble on about what the books teach, and I'm still going. Feel free to regurgitate shit I already know all you want, it's not gonna change my mind.

From your massless particles link:
Massless particles are known to experience the same gravitational acceleration as other particles

How do massless particles experience gravity? If there's no mass, what is gravity's influence pulling on then? Oh ya, velocity... Funny that you guys are completely fine with contradictions, but naysay theories that would get rid of them. Unless you have a new and unique point to argue, the only thing your going to accomplish is getting upvoted from your like minded devotees. Why do I get the feeling that means so much to you guys...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
That is rather slack...so be careful. Even though magnetic is a component of em, there are different properties involved

@DarkHorse66
Thanks for pointing that out. Appreciate it.
Best regards, (&happy reading) DH66

And thanks for those links... looking into them now.
Still working on getting back through the basics in classes (again) LOL
but all help is MUCH appreciated
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
@Scroof:

@DH
Does it make you feel smart to try to insult someone's intelligence? Just because the jocks embarrassed you in high school doesn't mean you can try and do the same on a (anonymous) forum. BTW, it obviously doesn't work, there's been plenty of you clowns that babble on about what the books teach, and I'm still going. Feel free to regurgitate shit I already know all you want, it's not gonna change my mind.

What are you babbling about? Are your feelings hurt?
You've been a member on this site for all of two months & you think that you can make some one like me feel inadequate by throwing your weight &a bad attitude around? I happen to be a GENUINE Physics undergrad (as most of the regulars on this forum ALREADY know, but that you have yet to wrap your thick skull around)slowly working their way thru that degree. I don't even make a claim to know everything, but do like to contribute now & again-as is my EQUAL right....cont

DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
cont...Your choice of words & your phrasing indicates that you have a rather closed mind as well as a poor & jumbled understanding of what all this physics stuff actually does mean & I only feel it fair to point out to you in advance that this kind of attitude does not go down well on this site in general. Methinks others will heap far worse of the 'brown stuff' on you for that, than what you will ever cop from me. You also need to be prepared to accept being corrected from time to time. I would also honestly suggest that you be less touchy & stop jumping down people's throats every time they say something you don't like. As far as fights here go, you obviously ain't seen nothing yet (there have been many doozies& you do not want to be in the middle of one) So grow a thicker skin! As far as a massless particle wrt gravity goes, I'll try to answer that one shortly. In a separate post.
Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
@DH
From your massless particles link:
Massless particles are known to experience the same gravitational acceleration as other particles

How do massless particles experience gravity? If there's no mass, what is gravity's influence pulling on then? Oh ya, velocity... Funny that you guys are completely fine with contradictions, but naysay theories that would get rid of them. Unless you have a new and unique point to argue, the only thing your going to accomplish is getting upvoted from your like minded devotees. Why do I get the feeling that means so much to you guys...

I did try to warn you that the article was not that good...There is also more than one way of defining gravity. But I'm assuming that you know that. When you are defining gravity in terms of an attractive force, you are defining it in terms of Newtonian Physics. Newton gets taught first because he is easier to understand & introduces new concepts nicely to the beginner. However, there is a....cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
@DH
From your massless particles link:
Massless particles are known to experience the same gravitational acceleration as other particles

How do massless particles experience gravity? If there's no mass, what is gravity's influence pulling on then? Oh ya, velocity... Funny that you guys are completely fine with contradictions, but naysay theories that would get rid of them. Unless you have a new and unique point to argue, the only thing your going to accomplish is getting upvoted from your like minded devotees. Why do I get the feeling that means so much to you guys...

I did try to warn you that the article was not that good...&your mistake is that you are conflating Newtonian rules with those of Relativity. Since you know it all already, I'm presuming that you already know the difference, but I will spell it out anyway (at least for the sake of others):
1. Velocity has nothing to do with it. Acceleration does. Velocity is just speed+a directional vector component...cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
What the hell!! A quasi double post?? I tried to post the previous one and the site made me believe that it had failed to post. So I wrote a fresh one. When I tried to post IT, suddenly the other came up. Has this been happening to anyone else?
Anyway, I think I will continue from the later post, for the sake of continuity.
Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
cont...velocity is about 'rate of displacement' (m/s), while acceleration is about 'rate of change of displacement' (m/s^2). In other words, if you are going at a steady speed of, say 60km/h, your acceleration is 0m/s^2 (yes, zero)
2.Newton: he had a mechanistic understanding of the universe. It is still valid, but has limitations. It is not so much a contradiction (can't have it both ways), but a divergence in level of validity but also different perspectives(ways of looking at an issue): eg at lower speeds, Newton & Einstein fully agree. But get towards relativistic speeds, (ie roughly within 10% of the speed of light), Newton's equ'ns develop an increasing error wrt to the real speed of objects. To view gravity in terms of a force is quite valid, but also limited. Newton's equations will give a valid answer, but require an object to have mass, in order to define gravity (as a force). This is where that different perspective comes in: looking at it as a field, not a force...cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
cont.., just a different way of defining the same thing.Read the following link carefully, particularly the bit about: "In a field model,...either no gravitational force,[2] or that gravity is a fictitious force.[3]" That part is key. http://en.wikiped...al_field By using a field analogy, we are using Relativity, instead of Newton; a definition which has a much wider application. If you had understood what the link about massless particles was about, you would have instantly known that the mere mention of Relativity meant that Newtonian concepts of forces were not what was being applied here. Btw, the definition of a 'fictiitious force is not what you think.They are genuine concepts, but not genuine forces(I recommend watching the animation too)They are about perceptions:
http://en.wikiped...us_force
Ah yes, nearly forgot: http://en.wikiped...leration for my point 1. about acceleration...cont
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
cont...Lastly:
3.(Still from 'massless particle') Do you actually know that there are different kinds of mass? That article is quite specific in mentioning something called 'invarient mass': http://en.wikiped...ant_mass But there is also an entity called "relativistic mass":
http://en.wikiped...lativity
Even a photon (no restmass=massless) will have a relativistic mass:
http://math.ucr.e...ass.html
http://www.desy.d...ass.html
But I guess you've done Modern Physics (2nd year subject at uni) & have understood all this...that was what you've been implying! (when you tried to tell me that you weren't interested in learning more)

Hey Stumpy, is your head spinning yet ;D ?

Best Regards, DH66
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
What the hell!! A quasi double post?? I tried to post the previous one and the site made me believe that it had failed to post. So I wrote a fresh one. When I tried to post IT, suddenly the other came up. Has this been happening to anyone else?
Anyway, I think I will continue from the later post, for the sake of continuity.
Regards, DH66

perform refresh after a post.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2014
Hey Stumpy, is your head spinning yet ;D ?

Best Regards, DH66

DH - I believe you might recognize - "spinning" is the key...
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2014
@W Gyre:

What the hell!! A quasi double post?? I tried to post the previous.... When I tried to post IT, suddenly the other came up. Has this been happening to anyone else? .....
Regards, DH66

perform refresh after a post.

Usually I have found that if I refresh/reload (I use Firefox) the page, I find that it kills off (by simply making it disappear) what I have written. Then the only option that I have is if I have done a right-click mouse save, I can repaste. Not only did the page act exactly like that, but I had forgotten to mouse-save (select all/copy) I usually don't need to reload anyway when I am posting. My page usually live-posts promptly & this causes an automatic refresh of the page. In the past, if there was a delay, I would hit the ranking slider button to cause a partial reload, but there was normally some kind of freezing action to tell me to force the issue. This time, nothing. C'est la vie, I guess...
C U all after the weekend
Cheers, DH66
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
We know what's wrong
Then what are we doing here? If you have the solution to all the anomalies I previously posted (and the observed cause of gravity), pray tell, I'm sure the physics world is dying to hear it.


You know, if YOU say
Everyone knows there's something WRONG
And I reply
We know what's WRONG
And you twist that into
Then what are we doing here...if you have the solution
You are either one fucked up puppy troll or have a serious reading comprehension problem or some of both. No wonder you confuse evidence and proof and what is reasonable to form beliefs. In any case there's little point in point in discussing any of this with someone who has such poor reading skills and even admits to willfully wallowing in their own ignorence. Sad. (Btw, the shot answer to your question to DH66 is that all particles experience ST curvature regardless of mass. And sorry about having left "fundamental"' next to "mass" earlier, it was left from a rewrite.)
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 07, 2014
@DH
It would be impossible for you to hurt my feelings. Notice I used one paragraph to return insults, you countered with 2 whole posts. How hypocritical. The reason I came down on you so hard is because many others have said the same asinine things. I guess it was a cumulative effect.

For the massless particle bit, thanks for further describing the contradiction. I think we all know everything experiences the curvature of spacetime(but not gravity directly), as it was the observation of gravitational lensing that confirmed Einstein's theory. You realize that a 2d representation of spacetime is a poor way to accurately conceptualize it? Maybe you might like to look into some of Reimann's work.
(http://networkolo...iemann/)
If you would, you would see that for G lensing to occur, the particle would go around the densest part of the G attraction. Call it path of least G resistance if you will.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2014
"No Fate. An artist sees what you do."

Thank you WG.

In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a "force". In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime,[1] and that there is either no gravitational force,[2] or that gravity is a fictitious force.[3]- DH's Wiki link

Experiment and observation show the above to be an incorrect interpretation. There is "space" and there is "time", the fact that they combine in astrophysical equations does not mean that they are one in the physical world. A field effects space...just space.

if you remove the force of gravity from the universe, every particle still exists

"But no large scale structures." -gawad

Exactly! Large scale structure is required to generate signifigant gravity. To get from an atom to star starts with magnetic attraction because on the...
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
@Gawad
I said:
Everyone knows there's SOMETHING wrong

You said:
We know WHAT'S wrong

Can you grasp the distinction? No twisting of words required, just a different emphasis(why you would emphasize the same word I don't know). I implied it's still a mystery, you implied you know WHAT it is, thus no mystery. I think you should do as MJ said and start with the man in the mirror:
You are either one fucked up puppy troll or have a SERIOUS READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM or some of both

Funny that again you so quickly result to more insults, like calling me a troll we make me run and hide under a bridge. I suggest you fully comprehend the things that you read before you continue, because it's not making you look any brighter.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2014
quantum scale gravity is so weak that a photon has more effect. A star exhibits no gravitational compression despite super rotation at the equator, is composed of plasma and is surrounded by a region where the particles are super excited. A region which, in hundreds of solar flare videos, is shown to either accelerate the charged particles of a flare away or force them back to the surface, it is clearly a magnetic envelope. Yes this object has gravity, but to assume core accretion via gravity can produce it is fallacy. Unless you start with the assumption that gravity did it and tailor the math to suit.

The physical reality is that it starts with magnetic attraction and grows as the field complexity evolves, the fields always trump gravity. The earth is different for obvious reasons, gravity is the dominant force here, the earth is composed of neutral atoms, not plasma or charged particles. Hence the mainstream confusion that the forces for all bodies are structured this way.

con't
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
Seriously? You:
Everyone knows there's SOMETHING wrong
="Everyone knows there's a [set of] problem[s]" True.

Me:
We know WHAT'S wrong
="We know what the problems are"

Does NOT = "We know what the SOLUTIONS are" which is what you decided that was supposed to mean. That's twisting and trolling. Thanks for the laugh.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
The earths magnetic field is a product of the mass and it's properties. The sun is a product of it's magnetic fields. Gravity is simply the after effect of mass so as Whydening Gyre and Scroof CORRECTLY postulate, gravity is the product of a massive or very compact magnetic field (this is what a neutral mass is by the way) . The physics of a body like earth, a neutral mass, couldn't tell us how it all worked until we were clever enough to breach the quantum scale, the energy that mass is composed of. When we did we didn't find gravity...did we?

We found energy and magnetism. Newton and Kepler didn't know about this. But they could observe and calculate and they were good so, voila, the laws of motion and the supporting math...and because of where they were standing the mistaken assumption that the force behind it all was gravity. True story....end hasn't been written yet.

The behaviours of stable quantum particles show us how it works, we pay attention and model accordingly.

no fate
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
Seriously? You:
Everyone knows there's SOMETHING wrong
="Everyone knows there's a [set of] problem[s]" True.

Me:
We know WHAT'S wrong
="We know what the problems are"

Does NOT = "We know what the SOLUTIONS are" which is what you decided that was supposed to mean. That's twisting and trolling. Thanks for the laugh.


But you are so sure his "solution" is wrong, or that mine is wrong, that you didn't hesitate to chime in and let us all know. In my case with remarks designed to incite an emotional response. And you call Scroof a troll? Thank you for the laugh....idiot.
Gawad
not rated yet Mar 07, 2014
But you are so sure his "solution" is wrong, or that mine is wrong, that you didn't hesitate to chime in and let us all know.
We can know a proposed solution is wrong without knowing what the right solution is. Nothing unusually difficult about that.
In my case with remarks designed to incite an emotional response. And you call Scroof a troll?
No worries, I consider you a troll as well, but thanks for being so open about it. Trolling is what crackpots do best, given they can't understand or do real science. And Phsyorg is often your last refuge.
Gawad
not rated yet Mar 07, 2014
And please note: I specifically called Scroof a "puppy troll'. It falls in line with being a crackpot in training. You on the other hand I consider a full fledged, mature troll and crackpot. You know, complete with the hysterical laugh and all (by your own admission no less). Tell me, you wouldn't also happen to have a mustache you can tweak? (I imagine Scroof may not yet be able to properly grow facial hair so I won't ask him.)
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2014
"We can know a proposed solution is wrong without knowing what the right solution is."

In your case I wouldn't bet on it.

Given the force you think drives structure, and the way you believe physics works, you won't find a solution to any of the problems with your model. Or recognize any of it's failures.

Watching mainstream astrophysicists trying to make sense of our latest observations is hilarious. Reverse collisionless shockwaves and the sloshing of particles, you lackey's eat it up like cake, towing an antiquated model that just keeps getting more difficult to validate. I'd be embarrassed for the lot of you if the one's like yourself didn't need the rude awakening so badly.

I consider you a poster child for mainstream astrophysics right now. Happily wallowing in the pile of shit you have all made and telling us how great it is. Fortunately we know better because we can smell the shit a mile away.


"Tell me, you wouldn't also happen to have a mustache you can tweak?"

TransmissionDump
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
I have one, and a beard if anyone would like to hire it out for
tweaking purposes.

Pm me for rates and legal info.
Scroofinator
not rated yet Mar 07, 2014
="We know what the problems are"

Does NOT = "We know what the SOLUTIONS are" which is what you decided that was supposed to mean.


Well how is everyone supposed to know what you mean when you put such an open statement out there? Plus, I doubt you have any clue what the problems are, as you clearly have not supplied any rationale to prove otherwise. All you can do is copy/paste ideas from books, that's what makes me laugh.

Now that your at a loss for words, trying to make sense of the logical arguments before you, you can only cower away behind your keyboard throwing (lackluster) insults around. In this battle of the wits, you got knocked the fuck out. No wonder your head is spinning.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2014
Hey Stumpy, is your head spinning yet ;D ?

@DarkHorse66
totally... but it is a good spin
refresh/reload (I use Firefox)

I have the same problem sometimes. You either have to copy what you wrote first or open a text document and type answers there first. I do the latter and it helps a lot.

Are you running it in Linux or Windows? Running it in windows causes issues, and I wold recommend loading Linux (you can go to Ubuntu and burn a DVD that allows you to run it w/o deleting Windows)
I found that skipping MS and going straight to Linux solved all my problems, except the occasional double post accident

THANKS for those links.. still studying them (in between all the other stuff I am doing LOL) and they are also helping with my classes too!
PEACE and have a brew on me
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
Well how is everyone supposed to know what you mean when you put such an open statement out there?


Lol! And here I was just following YOUR lead in
Every body knows there's something wrong
How was THAT for an open statement? Scroof, you don't even need some else to knock you out in the battle of wits, you can take yourself down all on your lonesome. And as far as what's really laughable, come on, seriously, you and your EU "mentor", the lot of the AWT sockpuppets, wild-eyed Prins who thinks this forum is the equivalent of a peer reviewed journal, Reg "ain't no gravity, your just getting bigger" Muddy, the whole Godder ID brigade, you lot are all reduced to trying to plead your "scientific" case...on Physorg (or the likes)! What's NOT to laugh? That alone should tell you lot all you need to know about your sanity.

No wonder your head is spinning.
Naw man, that's Captain Stumpy ;^) Try to at least keep your posters straight.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
I consider you a poster child for mainstream astrophysics right now.


Really? Well, ah...I'm...touched. Still, you might want to tone down grand pronouncements like that on here a bit...you might make guys like DH66, Maggnus, YYZ or Captain Stumpy jealous ;^)
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
How was THAT for an open statement?

Funny, you seemed to understand what I meant.
you lot are all reduced to trying to plead your "scientific" case

If anyone is pleading their case it's you and the rest of the Newtonian/Einstein initiates. The rest of us "lot" have being trying to explain things you guys haven't been able to for 100 years (except Reg, he's trying to sell books). What makes you think your smarter then the people that came before you using the exact same philosophy?

As for the "scientific" bit, I've only ever stated my ideas to be theoretical. I know your lot needs equations and data to make yourselves feel all warm and fuzzy, so I've always claimed my ideas as pure theory. Sad that generations have lost their ability to think freely, and lack any imagination at all. You know, as someone who reads from a textbook like a bible, I would think you would understand the true root of physics:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

-Einstein