What is gravity?

[QuantumT]

I have to recant my discard of quantum gravity.
I was ofcourse wrong about neutrons, but gravity is particle based - for sure!

The only logic explanation for gravity is that certains strings within particles carry it. Space curvage is not gravity!

(Sorry Einstein, my old friend...)

[gaffo]

I have to recant my discard of quantum gravity.

???

I was ofcourse wrong about neutrons,

???

but gravity is particle based - for sure!

"gravitons"???

they exist - gravity is a particle for sure!

how do we knows this is so?

welcome conversation on the matter.

The only logic explanation for gravity is that certains strings within particles carry it. Space curvage is not gravity!

(Sorry Einstein, my old friend...)

how is your view on gravity the only logical explanation?

[thedoc]

how is your view on gravity the only logical explanation?

It's the only one that makes sense to Quantum T so it's the only one, An argument from incredulity.

[Walker]

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that gravity is a Bernoulli-like effect of solar-wind flow dropping pressure against a large face-of-the-earth surface area, creating the attractive effect called gravity, and that this would account for the pressure-difference (gravity) being less pronounced farther from the surface?

[uwot]

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that gravity is a Bernoulli-like effect of solar-wind flow dropping pressure against a large face-of-the-earth surface area, creating the attractive effect called gravity, and that this would account for the pressure-difference (gravity) being less pronounced farther from the surface?

Not to my knowledge. It's an interesting idea, but do you not think that a solar-wind flow powerful enough to account for the gravity on Earth would blow the Earth into outer space?

[Walker]

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that gravity is a Bernoulli-like effect of solar-wind flow dropping pressure against a large face-of-the-earth surface area, creating the attractive effect called gravity, and that this would account for the pressure-difference (gravity) being less pronounced farther from the surface?

Not to my knowledge. It's an interesting idea, but do you not think that a solar-wind flow powerful enough to account for the gravity on Earth would blow the Earth into outer space?

At a business seminar we were taught the technique of group brainstorming. Effective brainstorming eases the grip on assumed reality for the purpose of gleaning a new direction, rather than the presentation of an entire cohesive universe. PC has probably killed brainstorming because too far a deviation from accepted standards is viewed with suspicion if not alarm in the corporate safety zones of groupthink, which can be a career killer without some practical data.

Without a big earth backstop, the sun can blow tiny solar sails sent up by scientists clear across the galaxy at a significant fraction of light speed. If we could build a sail as big as the earth the sun just might rocket it to light speed in no time.

A deflector shield blocking the flow like a racecar spoiler in reverse would deflect aspects of solar wind into the earth to create silent propulsion away from the earth. These aspects that are energy forms as yet undetected by puny human measuring devices calibrated on primitive assumptions, but which have the obvious force to keep the earth from crashing into the sun like a kite crashing into the earth on a windless day, would explain the silent and traceless footprint of massive, fuel-less anti-gravity spacecraft which we have all been conditioned to culturally accept in film, in preparation for the day when clouds drop the disguise and the pyramid builders descend to further serve mankind.

Not so farfetched when compared to other theories.

[Philosophy Explorer]

uwot posted:

"...would blow the Earth into outer space?" The Earth is already in outer space!!!

PhilX

[uwot]

If we could build a sail as big as the earth the sun just might rocket it to light speed in no time.

We already have a sail as big as the Earth. It's called Earth. Granted it would take a bit longer to accelerate than a sail, but if your theory were true, we should see some evidence of the Earth being blown away from the Sun and we don't. It's been in pretty much the same orbit for the last 4.5 billion years.
The other main problem with your theory is that the Bernoulli effect creates a vacuum, which sucks things up. That, I shouldn't need to point out, is the opposite of gravity. It is conceivable that the deflection of the solar wind by the Van Allen belts creates a Bernoulli like effect, much as an aircraft wing creates lift; in fact it is quite likely, so well done for identifying something which as far as I know, no one else has recognised; but it isn't responsible for gravity.

[Walker]

If we could build a sail as big as the earth the sun just might rocket it to light speed in no time.

We already have a sail as big as the Earth. It's called Earth. Granted it would take a bit longer to accelerate than a sail, but if your theory were true, we should see some evidence of the Earth being blown away from the Sun and we don't. It's been in pretty much the same orbit for the last 4.5 billion years.
The other main problem with your theory is that the Bernoulli effect creates a vacuum, which sucks things up. That, I shouldn't need to point out, is the opposite of gravity. It is conceivable that the deflection of the solar wind by the Van Allen belts creates a Bernoulli like effect, much as an aircraft wing creates lift; in fact it is quite likely, so well done for identifying something which as far as I know, no one else has recognised; but it isn't responsible for gravity.

It's not really a theory, just an idea full of holes that popped up as I was writing, along with the idea that the earth has more mass than a fragile solar sail and so isn't pushed around so easily or as far by the sun, which gives rise to the question of why Mercury hasn't been pushed as far as Neptune, but science is accustomed to explaining such inconsistencies.

A Bernoulli-like effect can be seen when a base jumper glides too close to a mountain and gets sucked in against the surface.

[QuantumT]

I have to recant my discard of quantum gravity.

???

I was ofcourse wrong about neutrons,

???

I made a suggestion, earlier in this thread, that neutrons could be the source of gravity, but I had to discard that theory, since most hydrogen stars have no problems sticking together and generating gravity.

but gravity is particle based - for sure!

"gravitons"???

they exist - gravity is a particle for sure!

how do we knows this is so?

welcome conversation on the matter.

Gravity is not a particle, but it is a part of protons and neutrons in string form inside.
Atleast that is my new theory, wich I suppose is not a new idea.

The only logic explanation for gravity is that certains strings within particles carry it. Space curvage is not gravity!

(Sorry Einstein, my old friend...)

how is your view on gravity the only logical explanation?

If gravity was space curving, we would weigh more at night, and less during the day, because the suns gravity would counteract the earths at daytime, and increase it at nigthtime.
But if it is a local matter (particle based), the suns particles are too far away to counteract earths gravity.
That's logic - IMO...

[thedoc]

how is your view on gravity the only logical explanation?

If gravity was space curving, we would weigh more at night, and less during the day, because the suns gravity would counteract the earths at daytime, and increase it at nigthtime.
But if it is a local matter (particle based), the suns particles are too far away to counteract earths gravity.
That's logic - IMO...

The force of gravity is slightly stronger at night than during the day but the increase and decrease is negligible, the moon has stronger effect but it is also very small.

https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-strong ... le_rich_qa

[QuantumT]

The force of gravity is slightly stronger at night than during the day but the increase and decrease is negligible, the moon has stronger effect but it is also very small.

https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-strong ... le_rich_qa

I would expect a more dramatic difference, like a kg or more.

[thedoc]

The force of gravity is slightly stronger at night than during the day but the increase and decrease is negligible, the moon has stronger effect but it is also very small.

https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-strong ... le_rich_qa

I would expect a more dramatic difference, like a kg or more.

So now you're moving the goal posts? First you claim that there is no expected difference in weight and when shown that there is a difference, you want a specific difference or it doesn't count? Piss off, your not worth talking to, no example will satisfy you.

[QuantumT]

So now you're moving the goal posts? First you claim that there is no expected difference in weight and when shown that there is a difference, you want a specific difference or it doesn't count? Piss off, your not worth talking to, no example will satisfy you.

Grow up! Science isn't for kids. If you want to discuss details, keep your head in the game.
We are discussing space curvature vs. quantum. There are large differences is consequence!
Space curvature acts in the big game. Quantum is local. So obviously I expect more from curvature than quantum!
I'm not moving anything. Just talking consequence by each one.

[Walker]

Gravity is perhaps a balancing movement.

Synopsis: Pathway to Quantum Thermalization
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10 ... X.8.021030