Theory of Gravity

I think the argument will be around the hole area of whether gravity is actually a "Force".
Einstein works in certain conditions and Newtonian theory works in others.
In geophysics we use Newtonian (and only a wee bit of quantum) theory because the "force" is applied mostly to static or slow moving large scale systems" in non-molten conditions

Things like gravitational constants and gravitation equations are all useable and they WORK.

We could be all qet but in a systematic fashion that we have one of those field equations upon which we base a false technology. BUT until someone disproves it, Im still hiring out consultants and grad students to do gravitational surveys for mapping of ore bodies and hydrocarbon reserves

This article is about 'Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity'

one of several papers over the last 30 to 50 yqr .
Ive been dealing with it in our trade for years.

Explaining a gravity survey to physicists as the hardest

Why do you think physicists were the hardest? Could you explain how you were dealing with it? I think Verlinde is on the right track.

Let me just say (I have been out of the field for a long time).... This looks really cool whether or not it holds up to experimental tests.

This guy is a real physicist, and he has defined a mathematical theory that can be tested experimentally. And, the fact that it past its first test is pretty interesting.

In June 2017, a study by Princeton University researcher Kris Pardo revealed that Verlinde's theory is inconsistent with the observed rotation velocities of dwarf galaxies.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/researchers-check-space-time-to-see-if-its-made-of-quantum-bits-20170621/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.00785.pdf

Sounds like he needs to adjust his theory. He needs more details to his structure of space. I would suggest he look at Bose Einstein condensates for the pattern he needs for its structure.

The only problem is that there was experiment done that observed the effects of dark matter. While that doesn't prove its existence, it supports Relativity. Believe me, if some one truly invalidates General Relativity it will be big news.

Edgarblythe,
He is looking at gravity in the same way that entropy changes pressure and temperature in a gas. That is similar to wind in a hurricane. That causes him to average all matter and all of the empty space together in a galaxy as if all the matter in that galaxy is one continuous hurricane. But each piece of matter (from a star, to a planet, to a speck of dust) is an individual hurricane floating in a giant hurricane (the galaxy it is in). To account for this they need to factor in the surface area of all the matter in that galaxy, not just the amount of matter. The smaller the pieces of matter the greater the combined surface area the matter in a galaxy has, and the faster the galaxy spins. The Higgs mechanism is the driver of the rotation, and it needs surface area between matter and space to work.

I think everyone knows this already, but brianjakub doesn't have the slightest clue about Physics. You can't just make stuff up.

Why do you think his calculation of the rotational speed of the galaxy is wrong?

You need to have a pretty advanced understanding of mathematics to have any idea of what any of these ideas mean. There is a popular science explanation that the media is giving you, but that doesn't really give any understanding. There is real math and science here, you can't just make it up... that isn't what the scientists are doing.

Your posts are what you would get if you put a Physics dictionary in a blender.

Or a Cuisinart for paleo and biology texts

I have a pretty advanced understanding of math. What does Verlinde math mean to you. I took enough math when i went to college for engineering, that I can understand the idea his math is describing. I came to understand gravity was an entropic force back in 2001 when I was learning how plants use energy to turn inorganic matter into living biological matter. I wrote a simple version of his equation then using the gas laws and entropy as patterns. They were simple and let me put my thoughts on paper but unfortunately, I can't do vector calculus like Erik can. I did not come up with this idea reading popular science magazines, they wern't covering it then. There is real math and science, and it is describing a real picture a person can imagine in your mind. My post is an analogy describing what his math is saying. I am fairly confident the main concept is correct. Where do you think it is incorrect?

This is all gibberish Brian. You are just making stuff up.

Those texts must describe something you can imagine happening in reality. Sometimes the interpretation of the data in these texts cannot be verified using the data we have, so the missing data is filled in by the scientists mind to fit a predetermined interpretation of the data. That is fine and well as long as the interpretation is an accurate description of reality as it is happening, and has happened in the past.

I often post articles to find out what others have to say about them. Often I have formed no conclusions of my own. This is one I just put out there.

"Entropic gravity" treats gravity, like a meteorologist looks at a low pressure system. Matter like, a planet, is a low pressure system in the space time continuum, in the same way a hurricane is a low pressure system in the atmosphere. Gravity ends up being like a wind in the space-time continuum. I will show you when i get to my computer.

Gravity is a force. Period.

When you put a piece of paper close to a bus parked in the street, by observing that no influence is noticed from the bus to the piece of paper, then the theory of Relativity has been completely invalidated.

When you cause the bus to run fast and pass by close to the piece of paper in the street, and you see the "pulling" of it, then you know that gravity is just that, a force.

What it causes this force is motion.

Motion rules the universe.

Since 1999 I stated this fact, that gravity is motion in action: a force.

Motion of bodies in straight way will cause the pulling of smaller bodies, and rotating motion of big bodies cause the orbital motion of smaller bodies.

You don't need to waste time measuring far away galaxies, you just can prove my words by observing our solar system.

For years I have been laughing of the absurd ideas that those so called scientists invented about gravity, like the stupid "space-time" or the ridiculous "graviton particle". Lol

The same as I discovered the law of perception, that we (including our instruments) can only perceive the present of the universe, I also discovered that this force of gravity is caused by motion and that it has nothing extraordinary but that is a regular phenomena in the universe that can be even repeated in lab, like the bus with a piece of paper described at the beginning of this message.

So, forget of that dumb idea that we see planet Jupiter "as it was 30 minutes ago", because regardless of their distance from us, we see the galaxies in their current location and status simultaneously with our current location and status.

Gravity is a force caused by motion.

Einstein was a poor idiot, and everyone trying to prove a fact thru numbers as the main source is just another idiot.

Numbers are not a language to explain something, numbers are just quantities.

Everything is explained with words describing the phenomena. Numbers is just the presentation of the quantities involved. That's all.