2
   

Is the idea of a "Graviton" ridiculous?

 
 
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 02:39 pm
I'm not going to go into great length about this, but I recall reading into elementary particles and forces and discovering that a "graviton" is meant to account for gravity as a force.

Maybe that was simply one model or theory that I interpreted as "generally accepted", but that's neither here nor there: the point is, I disagree with it and find it mildly ridiculous.

My concept is that gravity is a resultant force; indeed, Einstein described it best within General Relativity. However, I don't see it as a "curvature in space-time." In fact, in my opinion, that also seems ridiculous.

I see it more like... well, pretend you have a giant, spheroid electromagnet. Without a charge, it just sits there... like it's dead. But put a charge through it, and suddenly it whirs to life and pulls everything of sufficient metal content towards it.

Now spin the magnet on its axis. Spin it so fast, it begins to contort under the force of its own rotation. It's spinning so fast, it wants to tear itself apart at the center, and thus begins to bulge at the sides.

Let's see you throw a few coins into the mix. They start violently orbiting the magnet. Throw more coins. MORE COINS. More! MORE! Now throw other metals. Just start throwing crap into the mix... and wait.

Eventually, all the objects you threw at the magnet are going to collide and break apart. As they do, their smaller components are going to stick to that magnet and add to its mass and density.

For argument's sake, let's pretend that magnet is now coated in penny dust. It looks like Mars! Lawl.

If you're following me at all, that's really all it is. Eventually, the force of the magnet is going to dissipate across the surface because it's been sufficiently coated by "neutralizing" agents -- like having a giant table between two magnets. It lessens the attraction but does not completely eliminate it.

Now consider that humans -- and everything else on this planet -- has a charge. The crust of the earth, which sits atop what is essentially a giant supermagnet spinning at a high rate of speed, helps dissipate that strong magnetic pull generated by the core. We're literally stuck to the planet like a giant magnet, and the more dense we are -- the more ENERGY we have, and therefore the greater CHARGE -- the greater the force of "gravity."

In other words... your weight. Your weight is a reflection of your energy content. Is it not? E=mc2. (You could technically argue that mass and weight are different but in reality, they are not as different as one might think -- weight is merely "relative mass.") Therefore, the greater energy content, the greater your attraction to... well, giant electromagnets like the planet... and therefore, the greater your weight. Or at least that's my theory.

Ok, so I went into it at more length that I thought, but the main point is: do you agree that the graviton sounds ridiculous? If so, what are your views?

And if not, why? What evidence, do you feel, supports the existence of the graviton?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 4,135 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 03:06 pm
@lieunacy,
Interesting topic. It seems that most modern physicists talk of gravitons although nobody has yet been able to demonstrate the existence of gravitons.
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 03:16 pm
@wandeljw,
Precisely; I looked up each individual elementary force on Wikipedia and discovered that the graviton is the only one not yet observed. I expected as much before I even visited the page, however, as the concept I explained above had already begun to take shape in my mind.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 03:42 pm
Maybe you should write to a few major physicists and point out where they've been going wrong...
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 03:45 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Maybe you should write to a few major physicists and point out where they've been going wrong...


I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 03:52 pm
@lieunacy,
I don't think they are going to find a Graviton or a Higgs Boson.
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 04:05 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
I don't think they are going to find a Graviton or a Higgs Boson.


I agree entirely about the Graviton, but I see the potential for a "Higgs Boson." The problem is that I don't believe it's a "boson" or a "particle" at all: it's the cumulative whole.

It's kind of like stretching a single point (say, a period) in three dimensions across a large volume of space. The discrepancy in -my- theory, however, is that this then places it in a realm more akin to the photon as opposed to solid matter. In other words, the "Higgs Boson" is merely the cumulative energy constant of the Universe.

It kinda works like this... Universe as a single point has X energy content, Big Bang occurs, Universe as a large entity still has X energy content. It doesn't change.

Interestingly, like DNA, discovering this "God particle" would give us all the information we need to know regarding the history of the universe, like a quantum footprint of all that has happened. It's like finding a single strand of DNA from the human body -- it contains the entire sequence of instructions necessary to build a human without the material or resources.

Like you, however, I don't believe we'll find that.

Why?

Because it's intelligent and doesn't wish to be found. Or, that's my theory. Regardless, it's hard to argue against *this*: nothing is random. The concept of spontaneity does not occur in nature. "Random" is human rationalization attempting to make sense of what is unknown. This, to me, is the most profound argument in favor of "intelligent design."

A bit off-topic, but I'm thoughtful today.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 04:39 pm
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:

Quote:
Maybe you should write to a few major physicists and point out where they've been going wrong...


I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.


Can't you? Are you sure?
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Jan, 2011 04:43 pm
@contrex,
Is this what you do here at Able2Know? Are you the resident ass who contributes nothing but irrelevant quips?

I'm going to assume you were sarcastic, because sheep like you will eat every last piece of bullshit that "major physicists" spit.

For the record, they could very well be wrong. Congratulations, your thought process just collapsed.

Science... it's just another religion.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 01:01 am
@lieunacy,
lieunacy wrote:
Science... it's just another religion.


A "religion" that made it possible for you to write your stoner nonsense here.
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2011 05:04 pm
@contrex,
Lawl. Ok, buddy.

When scientists realize gravity isn't actually a force all its own, you can kiss my right ass cheek. Actually, no you can't; I won't defile myself like that.
0 Replies
 
HFgulliver
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 01:19 pm
@lieunacy,
So i think we can all agree that there is some attraction between objects with mass. The arguement for the graviton comes from the reasoning that something has to be linking the two masses for an attraction to be observed. So far physicists have explained it with the graviton...

We know however that if a mass moves the other masses are affected instantly. In other words at greater than the speed of light. If it was some particle causing the attraction it would be going much faster than the speed of light making it impossible.

On the other side of the argument though, i guess we could say there could actually be a particle acting above the speed of light and we just cant observe it using our conventional tools.

However, something like that breaks a major law of physics so even if it does exsist I dont think we can call it a particle in the classic sense.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 01:33 pm
@HFgulliver,
HFgulliver wrote:
We know however that if a mass moves the other masses are affected instantly. In other words at greater than the speed of light.


We don't know anything of the kind. The speed of gravity can be calculated from observations of the orbital decay rate of binary pulsars PSR 1913+16 and PSR B1534+12. The orbits of these binary pulsars are decaying due to loss of energy in the form of gravitational radiation. The rate of this energy loss ("gravitational damping") can be measured, and since it depends on the speed of gravity, comparing the measured values to theory shows that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light, which would be fully consistent with the theoretical prediction of general relativity that the speed of gravity is exactly the same as the speed of light.

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 03:21 pm
@HFgulliver,
HFgulliver wrote:
We know however that if a mass moves the other masses are affected instantly.
That's not correct. Where did you hear that?
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Jan, 2011 04:46 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Where did you hear that?


Some guy on YouTube I expect.
0 Replies
 
lieunacy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jan, 2011 08:46 am
@contrex,
You just proved my point with beautiful exactness. Thank you for that. Smile

Think about what you just said: they've discovered that the "speed of gravity" is predicted to be exactly equal to the speed of light. What is the speed of light? It is the perceived maximum velocity of light and radiation -- energy -- within a vacuum.

This supports my theory that gravity is in fact a resultant force. "Gravitational damping," as you described it, depends on the speed of gravity -- and therefore light, if the aforementioned holds true. The quantum of light, the photon, is a massless particle with an infinite range; it travels, conveniently, at the speed of light -- and therefore the predicted speed of gravity. It also happens to be the force carrier for electromagnetism, making it a key component of my so-called "stoner nonsense."

"Gravitational radiation", then, could conceivably be another form of radioactive or nuclear radiation produced by photons -- in the realm of cosmic rays, gamma rays, beta rays, etc.

Compare it to CMBR if you'd like: whereas CMBR is stretched and diluted across the entirety of the universe, gravitational radiation would be a localized distortion caused by the magnetic pull of massive bodies.

In essence, what they are viewing is potential proof that there is a constant "pull" acting upon everything within earth's atmosphere and beyond -- gravity. It is not a force acting upon the planet -- it is the force of the planet's electromagnetic activity pulling everything within its range of influence towards it, diffused through the crust of the planet; without the thick crust and volume of water, the gravitational constant upon the earth's surface would crush us.

I'm not trying to tell you what is, I just hope I might have decently described what might be -- with greater evidence. In either case, I stand firm in my conclusion that gravity is not an independent force, but a resultant and mutual one.
0 Replies
 
alfredschrader
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2011 11:51 am
@contrex,
I discovered the graviton in 2,002. I'm not tring to be an egghead, it's just a statement of fact.
I'll help anyone understand it if they ask me...

[email protected]
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2011 06:55 pm
@alfredschrader,
alfredschrader wrote:
I'll help anyone understand it if they ask me...

Go ahead. Help us understand. It's an open forum, just go for it.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2011 07:15 pm
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/short-summary-of-graviton-and-gravitino-searches/
0 Replies
 
JD The Confused
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jul, 2011 10:01 am
@lieunacy,
Just as an out there concept what keeps objects that hold no electrical charge to the ground? not that i think your wrong had almost the same idea spinning super magnet and all but could we test it and see if its correct. if we could increase the speed of the rotating magnet to make up for the loss in mass....dont want to have a magnet the size of the earth...so at 1 quarter of the size of the earth to 3 quarters speed increase we should be able to produce gravity just like the planet right?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is the idea of a "Graviton" ridiculous?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:53:47