External Gravitation

Paul I can't follow this, you may as well be writing about fairy dust. I understand Newton himself was puzzled enough about his own concept of force as an explanation for gravity that he went to the university cellars and blended many kinds of rock and melted the mixtures in a furnace. I am not sure if he was ever made to explain his experiments but it might have been that he had some notion that different rocks might generate different amounts of gravitational force, but this is a guess.

I remember a physicist friend once asked me if I knew what gravity was. Of course I gave him the textbook answer. But then he asked me if I understood what I was talking about, if I could explain what this force of attraction is, rather than simply what it does. Naturally I couldn't answer. Nor could he.

I daresay he'd be curious about this theory Paul. I'm no physicist, but I'm curious too.

Hey, that's not a bad theory.

How would it explain distal tides (the high tides on the opposite side [of the earth])?

1. Because non-locality proves there is no 'action' per-se.
   
2. Why not define these mediums topologically?
   
3. Collisions are due to not that there is a physical separation that just exists, the physical separation that we perceive spatially, is due to the fundamental forces of nature. Suggesting more particles to explain the phenomenon of particles just seems so redundant to me. And I haven't decided whether reality is logical or not yet.
   

Ok, sure. Correlation suggests causation, but now we need to prove it.

And what causes the behaviour of these Paeps? This circular idea doesn't solve anything.





I think Newton had a very similar idea to this that later on had to be discarded.




Why can't the universe be spinning? One thing that I cannot understand is how does an indivisible particle spin?

You may be theorizing a graviton.

Hi Paul. Interesting reading. You refer to your post as a 'paper', which suggests plans to publish. Can I ask: do you hold a degree in physics? (Not that this should be a requirement for getting a paper published - it's just a common way to build up enough information to write such a thing.) The reason I ask is that some of the points and questions you raise seem to ignore much of a standard physics degree syllabus.

For instance:


All quantum field theories already do this, not by pressure but by absorption.


The electric force and the nuclear force are both attractive, at least to the degree that magnetism is (all three may also be repulsive).


LaSage, when he wrote his theory, was unaware of the neutron star, the smallest and most dense object in the cosmos bar the black hole. This raises an interesting question of scale. The inverse square law of gravitation is a law for point particles not extended bodies, which is an obviously extreme way to treat a planet but, since the distances involved are so huge, it works pretty well. The other extreme is to treat a gravitational body as an infinitely large surface area, at which point the gravitational force becomes a constant (hence 9.81 m/s^2 here on Earth where the Earth's surface is a good fit for an infinite plane). The vector gravity field model predicts both kinds of results, as does general relativity. I'm not sure yours does. If the force is due to a pressure drop between the two gravitating bodies, then the maximum area determining the pressure drop is the smallest cross-sectional area of the two bodies involved. In other words, it shouldn't matter whether the area of the earth presented to the falling body were as we know it to be, or that of a small coffee table so long as its density and depth (from the presented face to the opposite side) were as we know them to be. This clearly doesn't recover the predictions of any successful gravitational theory nor match experimental or even daily observation. I've attached an image to illustrate. In fact, in the upper image is shown additional pressure on the larger (and so heavier) Earth which should reduce the attraction between the bodies rather than increasing it as we'd expect.

The neutron star is a case in point: it presents a very small surface area but has a very high mass. Okay, this will increase the diminishment, but not for as long as, say, the Sun, again because the neutron star diameter is so small (about the width of a big city). Further, it would not effect the paeps passing it which would be free to push away a large gravitational body which should be pulled toward the star.

The black hole case is even more absurd as this presents no cross-sectional area to the paep stream at all.


Now this is odd. Anyone who has spun something on a string only for the string to snap know that the object whizzes off in a straight line. Why do your paeps retain angular momentum when they leave a rotating surface without some central force (which just gives you action at a distance again)? Further, the only way this could happen without slowing down the rotation of the star (since any angular momentum gain in the paeons must match a loss by the star) is if the process where symmetric, i.e. different paeons are given equal and opposite amounts of angular momentum. This is fine, since paeons passing on one side of the sun (moving with the rotating) will pick up angular momentum in one direction, and the others passing on the other side (moving against the rotation) will pick up the opposite, thus angular momentum is conserved. Unfortunately, then, the effects on the planet will cancel each other out as it receives paeons of equal and opposite angular momenta.


Orbits, rotations and gravitational attraction were all tied together by Einstein in his general theory of relativity almost 100 years ago.


Spin and mass to not correlate at all. A photon has more spin than a proton.


Overall, you've clearly put a lot of thought into this, but there's a reason why similar theories such as LaSage's were immediately dismissed: they just don't work, and they were formulated by very learned people. It's cool to think up theories of the universe - I have thought up a few in my time - but without some grounding in physics we have no idea whether what we're proposing actually accords with what happens in the universe. You obviously have a great interest in physics - you should continue to push it, but push it in the right direction. Put the legwork in - you won't regret it.