Does my theory of gravity still hold up or no?

Realize I have not actually read the article on gravitational waves. I am not educated in such science and would not understand it well.. That being said, I still have my own theories, albeit from a simple thought process and not very complex nor advanced..

So for years now I've believed that gravity could very well be compared to an electromagnetic field/waves - when I imagine a motor within a generator having a magnetic field - while our earth has an electromagnetic shield wrapped around it - some believing this is from the rotational action of our earth or the outer core.. Could this same idea be applied to atoms, and still not go against recently discovered gravity waves?

My idea would be that gravity is a constant, and that it's forces would act as constant, and that it's effect is in correlation to its density, or rather.. More atoms, more gravitational pull - the theory that each atom generates it's own field of gravity due to the circular motion which is constant... so we see the stars in the same place in the sky every year. We travel around the sun in the same path every year - these things can be studied, but without variation and seeing different situations, there would not be as much insight to much else.

Now with our ability to see things like black holes coming together, we can better see the impact of a non-typical event, and thus study gravity in a way that has not been studied before. With hugely dense entities coming together, I would imagine gravity would not only intensify, but that such an event would be chaotic enough that anything in the area might... Wobble? You imagine gravity as being the constant pull of atoms towards each other - well with major fluctuation of the position of a group of atoms, seems it would cause a fluctuation of sorts on other masses around the area.

Can anyone tell me if this idea holds any merit at all?

-deadlyhope

a reply to: deadlyhope

Just this remark to what you said here:

"Realize I have not actually read the article on gravitational waves. I am not educated in such science and would not understand it well...."

If thats true, then you have a flawed conclusion already. Without the necessary info to formulate your idea and opinion, the idea or opinion lacks facts and points that have already been established.

That doesnt bode well for your "theory" other than a limited opinion based on a lack of scientific understanding of whats possible, not possible, whats already been proven, and whats already proven false.

One needs to have all available evidence on something to state pros and cons, otherwise, its not even a theory, just a suggested opinion not based in scientific conclusions and exclusions.

But, you have a right to make an opinion...even without all relevant points, facts and studies....but thats all it is. An opinion, not a theory because youre missing a lot of the facts proven and disproven...to build a theory.

MS

Science doesn't have gravity quite yet pegged so there is all sorts of people poking at it hoping that it will reveal its answers as its probably one of the strongest things in the universe but at the same time can be almost the weakest.

I'd give those with pocket protectors and white gowns a while longer before they can just go "g=(insert gibberish to most of us)"

Great thread, thanks for sharing.

Astronomy, much like goldsmithing and spookology, is often ridiculed and rarely taught lightly.
Simple childish things like drawing the patterns of lights in the sky and see how they move over time is more often spoken of than done, yet is relatively easy to perform with basic resources.

"That which is micro
Is as that which is macro"

indeed.

So atoms of 0.156 pico ohm per volt may have bosons for all I care, the experimental value of your stated understanding is immense.

The interaction that we know of is that some gravity comes from the sub-atomic nucleii (protons, neutrons) themselves, but a lot more of it comes from their interactions. Whatever this force is, causes space time to stretch towards atoms, warping space-time (like the classic ball-bearing on a rubber sheet example). Then anything on that fabric experiences a force that displaces it. Even photons end up going in a curve.

There's string theory which assumes that since anything with mass can be converted into energy, that every sub-atomic particle is actually a packet of energy just like a photon, but has enough energy to curl into a closed loop. Then photons are open ended loops.

What the actual fabric of space-time looks like at the sub-atomic level is anyone's guess. There's the idea of pairs of virtual particles popping into and out of existence all the time, like a fizzing ocean. Maybe space time is formed from chain links of closed strings of energy, and the virtual particles are ends that snap apart.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Yes that's the established way of shutting down an inquisitive mind.... well done. Are you a teacher by any chance?

Laypeople cant hypothesise, they cant talk with the same language as the academia, they must be shunned and ridiculed in order to preserve the status quo.

As far as 'you have a flawed conclusion already', i did not see anything in DH's post to support this, only words like 'I've believed', ' I imagine', 'Could this', 'My idea'.... not really conclusions are they ?

DH asked 'Can anyone tell me if this idea holds any merit at all? ', why not respond to that rather than showing how smart you are by deriding his academic background/process.

Good thinking deadlyhope..... keep it up, keep an open mind....I like your HYPOTHESIS....

as FZ said, “A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.” ..... and “Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.”

a reply to: deadlyhope

Your idea if I understand what your trying to convey isn't new. A similar model was created by Hendrik Lorentz, who used electromagnetic radiation to attempt to explain gravity. Basically he believed torsion fields were created.However the model doesn't work for two reasons. It would create drag meaning energy would be lossed and violates energy conservation laws. See to keep this as basic as I can the theory has to use gravitational stress-energy tensors. And because it requires something to cause a field something being energy we should see object s lose mass to gravity. This doesn't occur gravitational radiation does not change its constant regardless. Einstine got around this by not having gravitational stress-energy tensors. His theory uses geometrization basically he said space itself is curved . In GR all manifestations of gravitation are completely replaced by the geometric effect the spacetime curvature. Basically GR combines mass with geometry.

Now since we know space time indeed curves and its not a pish or pull thing at all next step is to find out how mass effects spacetime. Here is where we are at sumed up by John Archibald Wheeler "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve." See the connection and at the same time the difficulty.

a reply to: deadlyhope

If your theory were a boat, here it is.

i41.twenga.com...

Feel free to jump into the vast river that is the science/Maths behind gravity and see if it holds up.

a reply to: CovertAgenda

Yes, I was a teacher once...but that is not my intent. I know so little in this world, and I humbly admit that. We are all human.

The OP had questioned if his "theory still held"...and I was trying to say "No. It does not".

Because it was his "theory" made before current additional "facts" and scientific releases which he did not have when he ARRIVED at his theory.

Of course, he could always modify it by including new information we now have available to us.

Thanks!

MS