A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Unread postby kevin » Wed Aug 02, 2017 11:38 am

jtb wrote:
kevin wrote:jtb, No-thing is "travelling"
All is displacing relative to the dominant field flows they are within.

I just assumed that dominate field-flows are constantly flowing, or moving from one location to another (traveling) with objects within that field-flow moving from one location to another (traveling).


jtb,
my bad choice of a descriptive word....flowing.

Struggling with My limited knowledge of words to explain.

Perhaps ...occurring?
The occurance causing attraction and repulsion field characteristics.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/sa ... spartandhp

Spin creates attraction and repulsion, imagine ever so large scale such.
kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Aug 05, 2017 2:32 pm

Here is a challenge to Draftscience's (Gary Mosher's) hypothesis presented by a respondent who claims to be a science journalist. Links to Gary's response will be presented below. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vfnFNC8TTY&t=116s

John Adams
Reasons why Push Gravity does not work

1. The gravity particles are thought of as classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws

2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory

3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman (Feynman Lectures On Gravitation, 1995)

4. Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies.

5. Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.

6. Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.

7. Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.

8. Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified, all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.

9. Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.

10. Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.

11. Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, no transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

12. Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

13. Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.

14. Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.

15. Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results.

16. Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.

17. Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.

18. Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.

[1] re: John Adams comments on particle gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_WNTXuK9A&t=1676s

[2] re: John Adams comments on particle gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjytyg-KJq4&t=265s
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Unread postby jtb » Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:30 pm

kevin wrote:jtb,
my bad choice of a descriptive word....flowing. Struggling with My limited knowledge of words to explain.
Understand completely. Had an India Professor in college that spoke in Dictionary English while we speak in American slang.
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Unread postby jtb » Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:12 pm

jimmcginn wrote:Reasons why Push Gravity does not work
Agree, push gravity does not work assuming gravity is a particle or a wave. Push Gravity only works on a Flat Earth assumption where Earth is enclosed, or contained, and space does not exist. Gravity is a result of atmospheric, electrical, & other pressures. I balanced a raw egg on its sharp end on my kitchen table for about 30 minutes, which means all forces acting on the egg were perfectly balanced with the exception of the vertical downward push. If the table was level and located on the side of a hill, the egg could still be balanced.

The invisible things of this world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. To understand invisible gravity, observe how objects behave in nature. For example, compare how objects act in invisible air to how they act in visible water.
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:50 am

jimmcginn wrote:Here is a challenge to Draftscience's (Gary Mosher's) hypothesis presented by a respondent who claims to be a science journalist. Links to Gary's response will be presented below. Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vfnFNC8TTY&t=116s

John Adams
Reasons why Push Gravity does not work

1. The gravity particles are thought of as classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws

2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory

3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman (Feynman Lectures On Gravitation, 1995)

4. Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies.

5. Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.

6. Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.

7. Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.

8. Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified, all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.

9. Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.

10. Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.

11. Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, no transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

12. Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

13. Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.

14. Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.

15. Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results.

16. Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.

17. Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.

18. Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.

[1] re: John Adams comments on particle gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN_WNTXuK9A&t=1676s

[2] re: John Adams comments on particle gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjytyg-KJq4&t=265s



Most people won't understand why this is a great response to the challenges put forth by John Adams in his questions. Most people will assume that John is arguing from the perspective of what is known to be true and therefore it is Gary's obligation to conform to the truth engendered in John's questions. This attitude is both extremely common and extremely false.

Actually, John is not arguing from the perspective of known truth. John is arguing from the perspective (actually it is a variant of a perspective that is generally shared by many) of a model that has thus far surpassed being proven wrong with reproducible experimental evidence. Extremely few people (and exactly zero science trolls) realize that huge difference between these two!

Gary's response was perfect. Gary said it is not my obligation to make my model conform to your model and what your model predicts. In other words, Gary is arguing--correctly--that it is only his obligation for his model to explain the actual physical evidence, not be obviously disputed by existing experimental evidence, and to otherwise be self consistent.

Moreover, it is Gary's claim that his model does just as good or better a job of explaining the actual physical evidence AND his model is more parsimonious in that it is simpler and engenders fewer initial assumptions.

Now, of course, that creates a huge obstacle to anybody that wanted to dispute Gary's model in that they would first have to have a comprehensive understanding of the standard model and then they would have to put a lot of effort into getting up to speed with Gary's alternative. But that is just the way things are. It's not like it's Gary's obligation to educate every naysayer--especially not the multitude that barely understand the model they are defending.

I also think it is worth mentioning that John managed to ask those questions without being snarky and insulting and Gary provided a respectful and non snarky response. The trolls that frequent this forum should learn something from this.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Unread postby jimmcginn » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:54 pm

This may be Gary's best response yet.

The Ecology of Force/Physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y51xu4e1Es4

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm


Re: A Genuine Unification Theory: gravity is push, not pull

Unread postby jimmcginn » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:10 am

In his latest YouTube video Gary Mosher (DraftScience) takes on Electric Universe and Wallace Thornhill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COM9nopM0oE&t=1026s

What follows is a comment I left in response. I am reposting it here because Gary Mosher has banned me from commenting on his channel because I am critical of his philosophy:

James McGinn:
Even though I agree--mostly--with your assessment of EU and WT along the lines that, yes, it is largely a religion based loosely on a scientific premise, your own assessment of humans is mostly nihilistic garbage based on a severe misunderstanding of evolution in general and human evolution in particular. Your description would have us believe humans are more like baboons than hominids. Can you imagine baboons organizing themselves in to the large groups and producing the technology that us humans have. I can't.

Stick with the physics. Your philosophy is misguided.

Even though EU is largely a religion, so is much of modern science. Electricity does have more to do with our reality than current science generally recognizes. Here is a perfect example of how a modern science, Meteorology, is hamstrung by ignorance of the influence of electricity--in this case static electricity:
Concerning the Drying of Wet Shoes
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16647
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests