Disproof of Gravity
By Aaron Guerami
aguerami@gmail.com
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
The standard particle model has yet to find any evidence of Gravity. This is most concerning since gravity is used by most modern equations. Great particle accelerators have hunted for any signs of gravity. None found!
There are several ways to disprove gravity.
1) Experimentally
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power.
One simple experiment shows there is no gravity. The Helium Balloon. It rises. How is this possible? Classical Mechanics shows that Force equals the Constant of Gravity multiplied by the Mass of Object 1 multiplied by the Mass of Object 2 divided by the Distance between the two masses raised to the second power.
F=GM1M2/r^2
With this logic, the mass of the Earth is so great that the helium balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. We have mass 1 pulling on mass 2 and mass 2 pulling on mass 1. F1 = F2. This is just wrong. The force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon. It would not rise. What we see in the experiment that the helium is rising to meet its level of density.
2) Commutitive
The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. This is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.
The mathematics of gravity is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. This is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition.
Let’s look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level.
F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration.
We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3 dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.
This alone should disprove gravity.
F = G(M1*M2)/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.
A constant is what is used to fill in the gaps. When things do not work the way we want them to, we just add a constant to fix the problem. When the equation no longer works, we change the constant’s value. Physicists know about this problem. They created gravity waves and shell modeling to compensate for the dimensionless mass. But gravity is still dimensionless. The dimensionless mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape.
We all know that gravity collapses under the scrutiny of the tiny. Quantum level objects do not show any signs of gravity. The particle accelerators prove this. They have yet to find any force that works as gravity is described.
3) Gravity fails the multi-body test.
Gravity can only compute the force between 2 objects. Any equation that uses a sum of objects fails in this way. First the two objects force is computed then the third body is computed with the resultant of the first two bodies. Then that resultant is computed with the 4 body... That is how summation works. The problem is that the distance between object 1 and 2 is not evaluated in the next iteration.
Gravity can only compute the force between 2 objects. Any equation that uses a sum of objects fails in this way. First the two objects force is computed then the third body is computed with the resultant of the first two bodies. Then that resultant is computed with the 4 body... That is how summation works. The problem is that the distance between object 1 and 2 is not evaluated in the next iteration.
4) Gravity and Complex Systems.
Let’s look at a hurricane that is traveling over the ocean. The spinning winds cause rotation in the ocean. The low pressure of the storm causes a bulge upward in the ocean. Heat and pressure are two of the main variables in this system. As the temp increases it decreases the pressure of the storm, causing an increase in intensity in the storm. The heated air is forced up the eye wall. This is an example of a temperature/pressure force on density. It is not possible for gravity to describe this system, with or without spheres.
5) Questions posed by others:
- the rain fall because of gravity.
- the rain occurs because of water vapor cooling (temperature going closer to the dew point).
- the rain formation in itself is a very complex phenomena.
- the dynamics of rain formation depends on the presence of aerosols and fine particles.
- the dynamics of rain formation also depends on complex collision and coalescence phenomena.
- the ascending motion of air is driven by gravity on all parts of the atmosphere.
- this ascending motion is also affected by the Coriolis force.
- this motion is affected also by the drag of rain.
- this motion is also affected by the detailed geometry of the hurricane.
- the fluid dynamics itself exhibits an incredible complexity, like turbulence and instabilities.
- the term "T" in the Navier-Stokes equation above hides a lot of complexities that often still need to be understood.
- heat exchange plays an important role, yet it is not simpler than the fluid dynamics.
- the rain fall because of gravity.
- the rain occurs because of water vapor cooling (temperature going closer to the dew point).
- the rain formation in itself is a very complex phenomena.
- the dynamics of rain formation depends on the presence of aerosols and fine particles.
- the dynamics of rain formation also depends on complex collision and coalescence phenomena.
- the ascending motion of air is driven by gravity on all parts of the atmosphere.
- this ascending motion is also affected by the Coriolis force.
- this motion is affected also by the drag of rain.
- this motion is also affected by the detailed geometry of the hurricane.
- the fluid dynamics itself exhibits an incredible complexity, like turbulence and instabilities.
- the term "T" in the Navier-Stokes equation above hides a lot of complexities that often still need to be understood.
- heat exchange plays an important role, yet it is not simpler than the fluid dynamics.
- the rain fall because of gravity
Rain falls because as cold water it is more dense or less buoyant then the surrounding air.
- the rain occurs because of water vapor cooling (temperature going closer to the dew point).
Yes, that is one way of looking at density and Buoyancy
- the rain formation in itself is a very complex phenomena.
Yes
- the dynamics of rain formation depends on the presence of aerosols and fine particles
Yes, the mixture of dirty water causes it to be a more dense mixture.
- the dynamics of rain formation also depends on complex collision and coalescence phenomena.
Yes again, as the less dense gas collides with other gases, their temperature reduces and the gas becomes liquid. This process occurs until the liquid water is heavier than the force of the updraft.
- the ascending motion of air is driven by gravity on all parts of the atmosphere .
No. The ascending motion of air is due to the changes in temperature. The air heats at the ground and rises. As it rises it cools and becomes liquid again. The liquid water is more dense then the surrounding air.
- this ascending motion is also affected by the Coriolis force .
There are only 4 forces, Gluon - nuclear, W Boson - magnetism, Z Boson - electricity, and the Photon - heat. Those are the only forces that have been experimentally shown.
- this motion is affected also by the drag of rain
Of course, As rain falls it drags against the updraft. This is the friction that removes the heat from the air. Heat radiates to cold.
- this motion is also affected by the detailed geometry of the hurricane
The motion is the geometry of the cyclone. Geometry is a snapshot in time of an object.
- the fluid dynamics itself exhibits an incredible complexity, like turbulence and instabilities.
The whole system is buoyancy. Buoyancy is only fluid dynamics. As a matter of opinion, everything is fluid dynamics.
- the term "T" in the Navier-Stokes equation above hides a lot of complexities that often still need to be understood.
Like G, they change T frequently. These changes of G try to mimic the evidence. Just change the constant and you will get what you want to see.
- heat exchange plays an important role, yet it is not simpler than the fluid dynamics.
Heat exchange is intrinsic to fluid dynamics. You cannot remove heat from the fluid dynamics problem.
- yet, suppress gravity and there are no hurricanes anymore
One cannot suppress gravity. Gravity is not real. It’s an old model of how objects move. Evidence has forced major changes in gravity. There is no supporting evidence of a graviton. It is like the Higg’s boson. Something that was built to try to explain interactions, but it does not.
6) Silly paradoxes created by gravity.
a. Black Holes are easily disproven by Crothers at sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com
b. Worm holes/Time travel
c. Parallel Universes
d. Relativity
e. Flat universe
f. Graviton decay
g. Higg’s Boson
Kepler's 3 laws are more in line with how planets orbit the sun. This is because of the Sun’s motion around the galaxy. This causes the elliptical shape of the orbit. Not gravity. Gravity cannot explain 3 body interactions. If the equation has a G in it then it is a Zero Point Mass system and that does not exist in the universe.
The rules of the universe are simple. An atoms position in a system is based upon its density in relation to the surrounding densities and the changes in magnetism, electricity and temperature. Density is the most important function in determining the position of an object. Density is the vibration intensity within a volume in relation to the density of the surrounding medium.
Posts
13 comments:
Aaron:
I admire your energy, but you should spend a little more time learning the existing models before you tear everything down to start fresh.
Since Gravity is your favorite whipping-boy, let's start there:
You claim a rising balloon is experimental proof that Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation is false, since the mass of the Earth should easily attract the mass of the Helium balloon.
Is this an honest thought experiment? To say that Gravity is a force does not imply that it is the only force. Clearly, the more dense (or massive, on a particle-by-particle comparison N2 and 02 are held to the surface of the Earth with more force than the relatively lighter He2 particles. The He2 is displaced by heavier particles, and rises until it's displaced mass is equal to the mass of the He2 + balloon skin. If you hold this belief, you need to ask yourself if the fact that most people float is not also experimental evidence that UToG is faulty.
Next, point mass. The idea of treating massive objects as a point mass is not AT ALL to imply that there is infinite density, or anything of the kind. Instead it is a mathematical abstraction made possible by the use of Newton's other baby: calculus. If you integrate all of the infinitesmal force elements from the idealized Earth Sphere, you get the majestic result that, for objects beyond the edge of the Earth, the force is mathematically identical to a point mass located in the center of mass of the body. This is a great result, and it makes calculations much easier, but it is a feature of mathematics, not physics, and any issues you have with it should be addressed to Calculus, not to Physics.
That's enough for this morning. If you are still interested I'd be willing to discuss further.
Cheers,
Andy
[I found your blog from your post on the NYT this morning]
Andy,
Thanks for reading my work.
It is physics that uses the point mass mathematics to prove its theory of gravity.
There are many problems with gravity. Gravity is not my favorite whipping-boy. It is just the easiest target.
Mercury should be pulled into the sun under gravity. Galaxies should fly apart under gravity. The four inner moons of Jupiter are too small to be in that orbit around the gas giant. They should be pulled in under gravity.
Then there is no boson that supports attraction as described by gravity. They have given up on the graviton, the Higgs is, well, magic at best. I describe the bosons and their respective forces in this blog.
This comes from my posting on the General Science Journal
The discussion was about the earth and moon are a single system in their orbit around the sun. Never mind the 400000km between the two.
Here are the issues with the moon under gravity.
1) 14 day precession: When the moon is closest to the sun, there would be a strong pull on the earth. When the moon is further from the sun there would be another pull on the earth. This would amount to a noticeable 14 day precession of the earth's night sky.
2) The moon does not spin. It should be rotating. Yet we only see the one face. Why should it rotate? In gravity the sun and the earth both pull on the leading edge.
3) 12.5 hour tides. That matches nothing. The tides alone should show that the earth-moon is not a single system around the sun.
4) The 28deg change in position in the night sky. Look at the crescents. One will be north of the elliptic, the other south. This would cause the earth to wobble.
5) Even if you consider the Earth-Moon as a binary. The sun would pull the moon away from the earth within one orbit.
Now the earth is not powerful gravitationally but magnetically... Have you ever noticed that planets with a large magnetosphere hold moons. The stronger the magnetic field the larger the moons. It not that the magnetism attracts the moon. It is that the magnetism pushes back the dark matter and gives the moon a place to be captured.
Again, thanks for reading my work. I hope we can continue this conversation.
Aaron
Mercury doesn't fall into the sun because it is moving fast enough tangentially to the sun. Imagine a circle around the sun to be Mercury's path, and for the sun to be centered on a cartesian plane. Then, when Mercury is on the right side (+x axis), moving up, the sun is pulling Mercury to the left (-x axis). This pull to the left causes Mercury to end up at the top (+y axis), at the same point on the x-axis as the sun. However, it didn't fall to the sun, because it was moving up to begin with. At this point, the sun is pulling down, but this is the same situation as before, just rotated 90 degrees. Until you see this, you won't be able to see why the more complicated Earth-moon-sun system is also stable.
Gravity has NOT been shown to not work under small scales. It's just far weaker than the electromagnetic force, which dominates the microscopic region, or the weak or strong forces, which dominate the subnuclear size regime (see hierarchy problem). As far as I know, no experiment has the resolution to see gravitational effects on a microscopic level. However, the reason we see gravity at all, is because even though it's so weak, it's always attractive, whereas positive and negative electric charges will cancel out.
Thanks for reading my work.
If gravity does not work on the small scale, what makes it work on the large scale?
There is no evidence of gravity from the particle accellerators. Mass is a zero dimensional construct. It does not represent volume.
The Earth's magnetosphere is strong, charged and extends beyond the moon. So positive and negative charges do not cancel out.
My second paragraph posted above answers your first question. To repeat, "the reason we see gravity at all, is because even though it's so weak, it's always attractive, whereas positive and negative electric charges will cancel out."
You do have a point about the extension of the magnetosphere, and I suppose I should have said "to first order, electromagnetic fields will cancel out". The electric field from a dipole drops as 1/r^3, instead of 1/r^2, for large distances, r. (This comes from a relatively simple algebra.) Therefore, the electromagnetic field becomes negligibly weak, unless there is a net buildup of charges. Positive and negative charges are attracted to each other, so any temporary buildups of charges will be eventually neutralized, and magnetic monopoles have not yet been experimentally seen (though some theories include them).
On top of this, it's not just planets with a magnetosphere that have moons (see Mars, for instance).
I don't disagree that mass is zero-dimensional. It just doesn't make any experimental difference on any scale larger than picometers, which is where we are observing gravity to begin with. Further, as the other poster stated, the gravitational field from a point mass (zero dimensional) is mathematically EXACTLY THE SAME as the gravitational field from a sphere (3-dimensional), as long as you are outside the sphere. For us, we're on Earth, and outside the sun, so we feel all of their gravitational effects. If we were inside of some giant spherical shell, however, we wouldn't feel that.
I'm personally a fan of Occam's Razor. Newtonian gravity alone was enough to explain the motion of every planet in our solar system except Mercury to an extremely good degree. Adding in corrections from General Relativity was enough to pin Mercury to its correct location as well. There's usually no need to add a new, more complicated, theoretical concept when the existing ones work fine. If you're ultimately proposing a system that works exactly the same as one that's already established, then you're just making a semantic argument or a metaphysical argument, and I'm wise enough to leave those to the professional linguists and philosophers.
I am enjoying our conversation. You have posted a rather lengthly comment so I hope I can touch on all the topics.
Mars does have a magnetosphere. A rather small one, but one nonetheless. You can read more about this from UCLA. LINK The first spacecraft to collect data of a magnetosphere around Mars was Mariner 4. The magnetic field of Mars can also be detected by Martian meteorites. Mars' magentosphere may be weak, but it is strong enough to have captured 2 small moons.
I also am a fan of Occam's Razor. Thus, the universe has 3 dimensions and that is what it needs to deal with objects. You cannot take a 3 dimensional object, convert it to a zero dimensional point, then return to the original 3 dimensional shape. Mass breaks the commutative law of addition. That is the real problem.
It is wrong to suggest that Newtonian mechanics explains orbits of planets. It is Kepler's laws that explain orbital mechanics.
General Relativity also breaks the laws of addition. Again a force, field, or energy is 3 dimensional. So a 3 dimensional energy does not equal a zero dimensional mass * a scalar. This breaks all kinds of mathematical laws.
General Relativity requires a flat space. This is not found in nature.
Back to Occam's Razor, The sun is a radiator, not an attractor. It is constantly radiating energy. It radiates energy as heat (photons), magnetism (W+/- Bosons), and electricity/plasma (Z Bosons). The magnetosphere of the sun extends beyond 50,000 au. The motion of the sun through the galaxy causes the elliptical shape the planets transverse. This tension that is the cause of this elliptical shape is the relationship between the dark matter and the magnetosphere of the sun.
Pioneer 10 and 11 both hit something that caused changes in their trajectory when they tried to leave the sun's magnetosphere. This barrier they hit is the boundary between the sun's magnetosphere and the pressurized dark matter.
Aaron
Let’s look at some of the equations and how gravity fails at a fundamental level.
F=ma : Force equals mass times acceleration.
We have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that does not equal a 3 dimensional field. So the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test.
If you are dealing with forces in a 3 dimension coordinate system then the acceleration in (a in f=ma) will be a 3 component vector, with a value for each dimension of length. (Height,width, depth)
Multiplying a 3 component vector by a Scalar (Mass) will result in a 3 component vector with each component scaled by the scalar value.
For example -
If a 1kg object accelerates 1 m/s in the x axis, you can calculate the acting force by
f = 1kg * (1m/s^2,0,0)
Which equals
f = (1kg*m/s^2,0,0)
The unit mass * length / time^2 is called a Newton, or N so
f = (1N,0,0)
The important part is that since Mass has no units, all we can do by multiplying each component by it is to change the length, or magnitude of the resulting vector compared to the original acceleration vector.
It will still point in the same direction, therefore the Force will be in the same direction, simply modified by how massive an object it is acting on!
This is why a big heavy truck will not perform as well as a light sports car, even with the exact same engine for example.
Same force, same direction, but different Magnitudes as a result of the differences in mass.
Coming back to your original assertion, it seems to me that you may need to look more closely into how Units are managed in these types of equations, as well as Vector mathematics.
Take a look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force#Units_of_measurement
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FHSST_Physics/Units/Importance
http://hypertextbook.com/physics/foundations/vector-multiplication/
Regards.
PS - It's early and I haven't had my coffee yet today, so any minor errors can probably be attributed to that =)
Adam,
Mass does not exist in the natural world. an object cannot have mass and not have volume. It is volume that allows for a description of weight over a space.
For example I weigh 150lbs. Am I overweight or normal for north american human males who are 40? Mass tells us nothing of my size. If I were 5' then I would be severely over weight, 5'6 (which I am) I would be nominal, 6' I would be wiry.
a 3 dimensional version of Newtons f=ma would be Force = Density* acceleration. This would be acceptable.
It is important that mass be discarded because it has no dimensions. If replaced with density then we can get an appropriate picture of the natural object in 3 dimensions.
I will write a new post of F=DA and show how an object moves in 3d space.
Mass is the problem because it does not accurately represent a natural object.
Aaron
A 3 dimensional coordinate system does not change the fact that mass does not have a volume. Mass can not be represented in 3 dimensions. So mass cannot be represented in a 3 dimensional coordinate system.
It is the object that needs to be represented in 3 dimensions, not the motion.
Having a 3 dimensional coordinate system means that the smallest object needs to fill the one space. In that the object must have length, width, and depth.
Mass is supposed to be dimensionless. It has nothing to do with volume. The job of density is to relate mass and volume to one another. It is not the responsibility of mass to do so on it's own.
F=ma is structured as it is because, experimentally, the acceleration of an object is uniquely determined by only the force being applied to it and it's mass, independent of volume.
If I have two spheres of differing density but identical mass, and applied an identical force, F=ma tells us that they'll both experience identical accelerations, and this is exactly what we see in experiment.
Your equation factors in volume. So F=da tells us that if one instead has twice the density of the other, it will experience half the acceleration. So according to F=da, if the two spheres weighed exactly the same, but one was twice as dense, meaning half the size, it would accelerate at half the rate. Or put another way, F=da means I can squish an object, without changing it's weight, and it will accelerate more slowly under equal load. Is this the behavior you're predicting? Have you been able to verify it?
Or do you have another definition of density other than d = m / v? For instance, you say: "Density is the vibration intensity within a volume in relation to the density of the surrounding medium." It's relative? So the density of an object changes when it's surrounding density changes?
Regarding multi-body... Gravity works just fine for N bodies. It's simply:
F-sub-i = G * m-sub-i * Sigma-sub-j [ ( m-sub-j / r-sub-ij ^ 2 ) * r-hat-sub-ij ]
where i and j range over 1..N, and r-hat-sub-ij is the normal vector pointing from i to j (I sincerely apologize for the phonetic syntax... not sure if your blog supports math markup). Or in other words, the force on each body is the superposition of the law of gravitation applied to each other body. There is no trickery here, and interestingly, to solve for a body, all I have to do is sum the mass/distance-scaled vectors to each body, then apply my mass.
Regarding constants, there is no problem there. G or c are perfectly valid constructs, and don't point to any sort of illegitimacy of the theory.
If anything, they're simply the product of an unfortunate choice of units. We arbitrarily chose grams and seconds and miles and furlongs and hogsheads and bushels and meters, and those arbitrary decisions are reflected in the constants.
If our units aligned better with the universe, the silly constants would drop out of the equations.
For instance, everyone's favorite e = m c^2, under a particular choice of units for mass, would simply become e = m, which is really much more to the point, isn't it? Energy is mass is exactly what the equation says. c^2 was just a constant, and has no effect on the behavior of the equation.
And the law of gravity, under a particular choice of units for mass, would become F = m1 m2 / r^2, which states exactly the idea intended, that each mass increases the effect linearly, and the distance decreases it quadratically.
And you might argue that I'm just hiding the constant in the unit, and yes! I am! But there's nothing wrong with that. The unit itself was arbitrary to begin with. The constant just scales the equation to fit the units of the universe, but the structure of the equation--it's behavior over the domain--stays the same.
If the equation is fundamentally wrong, there could be no constant that would result in correct behavior. The constant can't make an invalid equation valid, it can only scale the resultant units.
I am going to move your comment to a new posting to use latex. Currently blogger does not allow most markups in the comment section.
Thanks for reading my work
Aaron
Post a Comment