Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Kaiduorkhon, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Your welcome & THANK YOU for comments, but unfortunately its now buried in slung mud. If anyone wants to return to subject here is link to my post 52: I would hope someone knowledgeable (or at least not an idiot) comments on it.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. davidoblad Computer_Nerd Registered Senior Member

    Per Billy_T

    Per Billy_T

    I think you make some very good points. I doubt I will get any argument in regards to the observation that light is bent around a gravitational mass. Einstein suggested, and was later proven correct, that star positions are out of place when observed as the trajectory path of photons, passing near by our sun, becomes bent. (or shadowed by the sun if gravity is a repelling force due to some exotic particle collisions stemming from every direction)

    This means that the trajectory path of photons can be altered by this hypothetical repelling force.

    Now the only thing left to explain is why the star filled sky is in focus, because light traveling between stars will encounter many random collisions with this repelling force. I don't see how you can stop the effect of randomizing light paths from stars, thus resulting in the radical blurring of the night sky view of the stars.

    Any ideas?

    My first post here attempts to explain the mechanics of gravity. I hate to tell you how many times I read Relativity, trying to understand gravity, before I realized that Einstein's math merely predicts gravity effects without an explanation of the real underlying mechanics.

    On other sites I explain the mechanics of Reality and Gravity.. if you want a link to it/them, just drop me a line. (of course, they are mostly just my ideas, but I like

    Best regards,
    Dave :^)
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for your comments. I only have a little time just now so respond to only this one now:

    Not only does it seem reasonable to me that the QMUs (That's for Quantized Momentum units, as it is mis leading, I think, to keep calling them "particles" even in quotes.) have zero cross section for interactions with light as light on light interaction cross section is zero is by the argument you suggest. (Crossing star light makes no blurred stellar images.) but also it seems forbidden by conservation of energy.

    The QMUs need to give all or none of their momentum to the photon they "collide with" but even if they could just give half of it that would be a change in the photon's momentum, which is linearly linked to its energy - I.e. a change in the photon's energy by source postulated to have no energy. -I.e. a violation of conservation of energy.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Note three paragraphs were added the next day at the end of text, which suggest a speculative QMU explanation for "dark energy" as well as gravity.
    I agree light bends in gravity gradients and "no gradient" gravity does not exist in either theory. As the gradient falls off as the inverse cube, not the square, It would seem possible with two different mass stars A & B to have light pass a path by each where either their gravity (at closest approach points) were the same or their gradients were the same and learn which produces identical bending. I don't know whether "equal gradients" or equal "gravity strength" produces "equal bending." Someone well versed in general relativity should be able to answer. I bet the bending is equal when the gradient, not the strength, of A & B are equal.

    I mention this only to admit that gravity by QMU shadow gravity must pass a more severe test than just the demonstration of bending of light, but that is all I will discuss now. I don't however, need to admit that directly can "path of photons can be altered by this hypothetical repelling force." {BTW it is not a force. Its imbalance causes a force, we call gravity.} In fact I can't admit that. In last post (on why stars have sharp images) I claim there is zero cross section for the interaction between QMUs and photons.

    This however, does not preclude an indirect interaction in which space and QMUs interact to produce the "warped space" gravity, in complete agreement with general relativity's warped space view of gravity. Recall:
    If that is true, then there clearly is at least the “creation interaction” between space and QMUs. Likewise, as most of physics is “time reversible” there probably is the “annihilation interaction” between a zero total momentum pair of QMUs and space. And some quantum mechanical “tolerance” too on that interaction as momentum and space (location) do have the uncertainty product limit on their mutual precision.

    Perhaps in the star’s QMU shadow there is less of this inverse reaction (or some other not yet postulated* interaction between QMUs and space) as the QMU flux is less there and that has a “warping effect” on space, making it in some sense a more dense optical medium. (Light does bend towards the optically denser region of transparent mediums.) Idea here is space’s “intrinsic optical density” (if there were no QMUs) is reduced by the QMU/space interaction to a value which probably explains why light speed C has the value it does. So, in the shadow region that reduction is less and the optical density is therefore greater. The closer you come to the star, the greater the optical density of space becomes, so of course light bends towards the star when passing by it.

    *Following Ockham’s advice, I won’t postulate more until forced to. Thus far I have postulated QMUs exist, travel at speed of light, have extremely small cross section for interaction with mass, but when they do inter act they give 100% of what they are (one pure quantized unit of momentum with no energy or mass) to the matter they inter act with. And that every element of space spews them out at a statically fixed rate pair-wise traveling in opposite directions. I.e. a balance has now been achieved between their production and destruction rates so the strength of gravity in the current era is essentially constant but see last three paragraphs below for more on how it may have varied a long time ago.

    Perhaps very early in the universe's history during the "inflation period" the space density of QMU was very high (all of the elements of space producing QMUs were in very small volume); this mechanistically explaining the explosive inflation assuming their interaction with space itself is like a pressure in space. Then, at or near the end of the inflation, the space density of QMUs had fallen in the rapidly growing larger universe, but the total number of QMUs still steadily increasing linearly with time until matter began to form as the universe cooled.

    When the first stars were forming, the universe was much smaller than now and matter had just recently starting to destroy QMUs. I.e. the "pre-matter" linear rate of increase in total QMU population started to slow down (less than linear increase) as matter increasingly destroyed them. But when first stars existed, the total number of QMUs was still increasing and thus may not have been as great as it is now, (production rate still greater than destruction rate in part because with matter more concentrated in stars, each QMU lived longer before it found some matter to die in.); however, the QMU space density probably was greater due to the much smaller universe. Clearly the strength of gravity in this theory depends only upon the local density of QMUs but that depends upon how many QMUs exist vs. the volume of the universe. - I.e. the first stars experienced stronger gravity than stars now do, so stars are separating at a faster rate now, as is observed.

    The above two paragraphs are pure speculation hinting that dark energy might have a QMU density explanation. I.e. gravity probably is not a constant and the observations which suggest the existence of "dark energy" when applied to this theory suggest it was stronger in the past. I.e. QMUs per unit of universe was greater when early stars were forming.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 9, 2011
  8. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Dear Billy T and davidoblad:
    Thanks very much to both and each of you for your ongoing contributions to this thread. You (plural) have introduced some quality observations and innovative perspectives - please be reassured that I, for one, am duely impressed with the thought provoking relavant dialogue unfolding here. It's a challenge to reciprocate and possibly contribute.

    I will attempt to at least equal your standards, including the incisive questions introduced, when (and if) I understand them better (lol).
  9. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Einstein's 'biggest blunder' was Right After All

    ( A skunk fight with a rosey ending )

    Off-topic name-calling intruders on this thread are referenced to 'April 5th', who holds a Master's degree as a counselor for whoever may be burdened by genuine disorders relating to PTSD, when such persons are sincere and fortunate enough to find her on station.

    On the other hand, charletons, troublemakers and various pretenders of whatever stripe will be promptly triaged, identified and forthwith dismissed to practice their parlous power trips - certainly including any spammers who declare advisories such as this to be 'spam' - elsewhere.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2011
  10. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Hey Kaiduorkhon,

    I sent you a message with regard to your interesting views on 'Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein'. I've been working on the same thing for donkey's years. Are you too much up your own backside to reply or consider that someone else has something substantial to offer? CSS
  11. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Dear common sense seeker:

    You are conspicuously remiss in providing access to or otherwise proferring your notably vacant claim of having 'worked on the same thing for donkey's years', and your unsubstantiated assertion that 'someone else has something substantial to offer.'

    Until if and when you fulfill that rudimentary obligation, your featureless allegation only distinguishes itself off-topic, in an accumulating genre of friendly fascist 'Make 7! Up Yours!' commercials.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2011
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    CSS typically post much worse NONSENSE about his theories, often relating to new types of matter he imagines exists, strange dynamics internal to the earth, caused by it, making effects on the moon etc.

    This post of his was one of his better - only claims to have new theories but fortunate does not tell any thing about them. Just making wild claim about himself is progress for him.
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    If you look at attractive forces like the EM and weak/strong nuclear forces, each of these gives off energy quanta when the force potential lowers. Gravity is different in that there is not any noticable energy quanta output when the gravitational potential lowers. This means gravity is not a force like the rest.

    Hypothetically, say we assumed gravity was due to the repulsion of matter by space. The question to ask is, would this scenario logically result in no observeable energy output, like we observe.

    For example, say we had something under pressure like a balloon with a net about it. There is an outward force; repulsive force outward. If this force can repel outward and expands the gas to lower the pressure force potential, the entropy expansion will cool the gas and absorbs the energy. There will not be any energy output since it will cool the space once occupied by the pressurized gas.

    Irronically, the burden of proof for gravity being an attractive force, is not to cite tradition, but science needs to accounts for the "invisible" energy output that is visable with the other three forces of nature. I am not say repulsion is the way, but it does account for it easier, without having to redefine the attractive force to include energy or not.
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    To Wellwisher:

    I an not well versed but think the conventional POV for all four forces does have "virtual particle" exchanged to "carry the force" and avoid "ghostly action at a distance." Even gravity, as this quote from Wiki explains a little over my head now without more study and refreshing some things I have long ago forgotten:

    "... If we use the same trick of giving the graviton some mass and then taking the mass to zero at the end of the calculation the propagator becomes
    {an equation did not copy here}
    {an equation did not copy here},
    which is once again attractive rather than repulsive. The coefficients are proportional to the masses of the disturbances. In the limit of small graviton mass, we recover the inverse-square behavior of Newton's Law.[13]
    Unlike the electrostatic case, however, taking the small-mass limit of the boson does not yield the correct result. A more rigorous treatment yields a factor of one in the energy rather than 4/3.[14] ..."

    The "virtual particles" are all bosons of various "spins" {Photo's is 1/2 graviton's is 2, gluon's is ? and I forget the other(s).} But gravity is "different" and will not merge into one unified force theory as the other three will (15 or 20 years ago at least that was true)

    If you enjoy pounding your head against a not terribly hard wall, read more here:

    In the mass less and energy less quantized momentum flux shadow model of "pushing gravity" alternative I am trying to half-heartily support, energy is conserved by postulating this "particle" flux has no energy as well as no mass, only momentum. They are born, pairwise traveling in opposite directions to conserve momentum and disappear in extremely-rare, low-cross section, momentum-transfer, interactions with matter.

    Thus, even if "radioactive space" produces them with a constant average space decay rate per cubic meter, how many there are in the universe need not be constant without violation of these conservation laws; but when their density in space is not constant, the "force of gravity" in not a constant either. - Dark energy is based on observations that can be explained by the history of variation in their density in space. In either case (either theory), something never observed directly is postulated to make sense of the observations.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 22, 2011
  15. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member


    This url takes about a minute to emerge, it is Einstein's Unified Field (recognising gravity and electromagnetism as one and the same), w'out mathematics. It's a quick, comprehenssive read.


    Regarding the *disqualified 'big bang' (*1976 - 1996), *unexpectedly proven to be accelerating, instead of remaining constant or slowing down; refer 'entropic heat death' said to be a forthcoming result of the incumbently perceived 'big bang':

    What was there before 'the beginning' explosion - where did the firecracker and all of its presently observed universal, residual matter and light, originate? Yet, the 'big bang' remains front & center as the incumbent model of the universe.

    "Nothing begets nothing." - Locke

    "Nothing begets nothing." - Hume

    Yet, the 'big bang beginning' begets something (the entire physical and spatial universe here and now) out of nothing.

    This is a blatent contradiction of the Law of Conservation & Energy.

    Whereas, the recognition of the constant and uniform accelerating expansion of matter itself - neutrons, protons & electrons: charges of electricity - explains a spatially expanding-accelerating universe; this is also a reinstatement of the (abandoned) Steady State theory: featuring an incumbent universe without beginning or end; refer, 'infinity' and 'eternal'.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  16. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I think it is a slow and painful read. Not only is it without math it is without out evidence or logic and complete unsubstantiated conjecture.

    The big bang is by far the best theory on the origin of the universe. What was there before The big bang? Nobody knows.

    Thats nice but so what. By the way which of these guys was the plagarist?

    That is just conjecture on your part. There is no proof it came from 'nothing'.

    Go ahead and prove that the universe came from nothing and this violates the conservation of mass and energy.

    This statement is completely at odds with what we observe in the universe. We sure as hell don't see everything expanding at an accelerating rate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Who knows what that even means in the primordial epoch. And the question is complicated by the fact that time emerges out of a timeless primordial state, for which conservation of energy has little or no meaning. How does one conceive of (much less write a coherent equation for) the amount of energy present in the timeless, spaceless "pre-BB" epoch? And we haven't even touched on what time even means in the context of the primordial universe. From a relativity standpoint alone, I wonder what that even means. There is no gradient, just the most massive gravity well conceivable. But "in the beginning" (as it were) not even one wavelength of light (or of any other radiation) can exist without the space to traverse at least one full period, which comes way later, long after the beginning has begun to begin. And of course there is no space to curve, no path or trajectory, no geodesic, just nuthin' but singularity (whatever that means).

    except for the constant and uniform part, that's basically Big Bang Theory in a nutshell

    Yeah, well, or maybe there was a quark epoch first and so on. And there would have to be a period of extreme density and unreal temperatures and so on. Put it all together and I think it comes out the same as Big Bang.

    Yeah only now we qualify a couple of different rates of expansion, but effectively that's the same as BBT. Of course in BBT the space that produces the expansion is actually being created (along with time) so that's maybe an innovation on older ideas.

    Well BBT is quite bit better than that since it tries to account for the way matter could have possibly condensed in the rather unusual way it did. But I think if you dwell on the meaning of the statement "time and space were created in the Big Bang", it sort of makes the notion of an infinite past rather moot. Or I guess you at least let's say its purely academic, once we have the "come to Jesus" explanation of what the heck "birth of time" really even means. As for an infinite future or not, there was a slot allocated for that in the ongoing discussion about whether the universe was flat or not and WMAP indicates that it is, so here too your ideas seem congruent with BBT. So I guess I'm agreeing with you but I think BBT arrives at its definition with facts and evidence that were not really the basis of Steady State theory. And of course the BBT endgame involves perpetual slowing (of the expansion) which is a variation on that somewhat. It also seems consistent with the notion of an asymptotic approach to a state of timelessness which we might speculate is right around the corner (back at the beginning, I think we'd have to conclude) . . .if we wanted to try to ponder the meaning of "origins" from a state of timelessness, and what "infinite past" and "infinite future" even mean at all, much less in this context of time being created in the expansion. There's quite a fertile field for pondering some of the more counter-intuitive notions of other speculative areas that the Big Bang allows us to piece together which aren't forthcoming with in Steady State Theory. Obviously if time is created in the beginning, then there can be no "before" so . . . that appears to bounce back as an ill-formed question altogether. So BBT seems to me to be the ultimate upgrade to SST. I mean at least at the level I'm speculating on this, nothing better answers the mail, even if the apparent answers are rather weird, strange, odd, mysterious, counterintuitive and outright hard to swallow. (And all that and more and at the same time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Hey wow you've opened this thread a dog-life ago. Speaking of time I feel like I'm talking to a time traveler . . .IF you do somehow crack this and go back to (what the--2007?) will you please buy me about 10,000 shares of CitiBank when it drops to 24 cents a share? I'll double your money and buy this site and make your its god and emperor. (But Origin and his pals stay as lead technical honchos.) Make it a couple of million shares and I'll throw in a Learjet.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. pmb Banned Banned

    The Big Bang theory does not address how the universe was created. It’s only a theory of how it evolved after it started, if there even was a start. It’s possible that it was just some sort of phase transition of sorts.

    And the problem with that is?

    There’s no reason to assume such a thing and the Big Bang theory doesn’t even say that. There’s even something called the Pre-Big Bang Scenario in string cosmology that addresses what happened before the Big Bang. See

    See also
    And why is that? Not that there’s a major problem with it since it would only mean that this law only holds after the universe was created and not during or before. However since gravitational potential energy contributes a negative amount then its quite possible that the total energy of the universe is zero. For details see The Inflationary Universe by Alan H. Guth, pages 9-12 where he discusses this exact problem.
  19. pmb Banned Banned

    Snip = my mistake
  20. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Dear Aqueous Id (Post # 74):
    My absence from this thread is research and writing of three unpublished books and a number of essays on the causes, effects and possible remedies for unnecessary war and unredeeming violence in general.

    Throughout this thread there is an abundance of unqualified disagreements:
    Anyone may agree or disagree with any person, thought or thing at any time for any 'reason' or lack of same. This cited 'method' lacks probative value.

    Regarding the desperation of so called 'string theory' in the ongoing quandary, please refer to the blue typeography on page three, post #23 of this thread.

    Regarding the statement - 'Nothing begets nothing' - by Locke and Hume: neither one plagiarised from the work of the other, the identical conclusions were notably established independently.
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    The problem is that it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about. Your website is fraught with errors and wild conjectures. Just glancing through the site it is obvious that you have not studied physics and do not have any grasp of current physics. You whole write up can be summed up as, "I don't understand math or physics, but I know they are wrong". For instance you say gravity is the 4th dimension - for crying out loud you do not even know what a dimension is, or you are making up your own defintions to commonly used terms - a hall mark of pseudo-science. I saw that you got several 'likes' on your write up. That is really sad - spreading ignorance is not something to be proud of.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    You post under the influence of some false assumptions....[1] The "nothing " that you say the BB sprung from, was not "nothing " as such. It was actually "nothing that we are able to model/describe at this particular time. This maybe revealed with a valid observable QGT in the future.
    [2] The BB was not an explosion as such.....It was simply an expansion/evolution of space and time, "as we know them ", as distinct from whatever form they held prior to 10-35 seconds after the BB. [or is that 10-45 seconds after the BB...take your pick]
    [3] The term BB was also originally a term of derision applied by Fred Hoyle of Steady State fame.
    Freddy did some great things in his time, and it would be wrong of anyone to label him as a crank, although he was burdened somewhat with his opposition to the BB, mainly due to the inference of a beginning and consequently a creator.
    In the fifties and early sixties, three models of Universal evolution were around...Steady State, Oscillating theory and the BB....The discovery of the CMBR gave the BB the final edge, and its final acceptance as the most likely scenario.

    The observed accelerating expansion of the Universe applies to space/time, not matter/energy, which in reality, is taken along for the ride, so to speak.
    And I certainly cannot see for the life of me, how that acceleration infers Steady State.
    The accelerated expansion can be simply explained as follows....
    The BB/Inflationary epoch driven by a CC/DE or whatever saw the Universe/space/time expanding at an incredible rate...Gradually the mass/energy density at those early times, [thus gravity] acted against the CC/DE or whatever, slowing the expansion rate. As the mass/energy density lessened with continued expansion, the CC/DE or whatever again exerted its influence, and accelerated the expansion rate. This is the epoch we find ourselves in now.
  23. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Bondi, Hubble and Hoyle responded to the unexpected discovery that the spatial universe is expanding - hence the relatively new term 'expanding universe' which is proferred not to apply to 4-D matter itself (peruse basic physics and geometry and find the definition for dimensions - length, breadth, depth accumulatively generating three dimensions of matter, the 4th dimension of time - is the moving interval between two or more points in 'space'; i.e., 'the (unrecognised) 4th dimension is time'. - Einstein

    In your own words, Fred Hoyle cast aspersions (terms of 'derision') on the newly considered so called 'big bang theory; it is well known that this slap-stick humor was first aired during an interview on a NYC radio station. Once it was established by Edwin Hubble (a man named 'Silpher' found it first - refer 'red shift') brandished what is still termed to be 'Hubbles law':
    namely, 'the further a given stellar, galactic and/or universal system is from the point of observation, the faster it is moving from that point of observation'.

    The glitch in the Bondi, Hoyle, Gold model of the Steady State universe is that: in the - recently proven (late '30s) expanding (formerly 'static', steady state universe') must be thinning out' due to the unanticipated expansion and the newly installed, hurriedly ad hoc 'big bang' - the newly established moniker that evoked a New York City broadcast chuckle from Fred Hoyle. The question of how the Bondi, Hoyle, Gold steady state model of the ('static) universe could maintain the same proposed steady state density if and when the expanding universe is a model of a universe that is 'thinning out'.

    The steady state advocates attempted to reparate their static universe by introducing a conjecture called 'the spontaneous creation of Hydrogen'... This improvisation was discarded - and remains discarded - due to the fact that it contradicts the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy - a Law which is unpopular with some of the occupants of this thread.

    Whereas, the four dimensionally proven fact that 3-D matter (neutrons, protons and electrons, et al)
    is moving at right angles from its three recognised dimension (generating and maintaining an ongoing 4th dimension of time=motion). In this 4-dimensional scenario, the Past universe is smaller and more dense than the Present universe, while the Future universe is larger and less dense than the Present.


    There are several posts in this thread that speak of Newton's Principia - especially the three page Preface of same - as though there is more than one translation, whereas, Newton spoke and wrote fluent Latin (the Principia is presented in Latin, verbatim, throughout all of the international libraries) there is but one (verbatim) translation, as presented here and elsewhere, globally; in as many languages.

    It seems that the nay sayers herein, find no requirement to make their (whatever allegory) case.

    Incidentally, the so called 'back ground radiation' arriving upon the earth, from every direction, has been interpreted as 'proof' of the 'big bang', while such radiation is no less 'proof' of the progressively smaller and more dense - 4-D - universe of the endless Past.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013

Share This Page