What I believe:
Gravity is a result of cohesion and adhesion. While it is an invisible force it is not an independent one. The molecules of an object extend beyond what is immediately tangible and the invisible extent of these objects can interlock with one another. Thus causing attraction. Currently this invisible extent, or throw off, is immeasurable.
Think of it like the wind. You can feel it but you cannot see it. Though with the right tools air can be seen.
Note: This throw off cannot be seen and is not currently measurable by science. The throw off cannot be measured by conventional tools. It may be related to neutrinos.
So what do you think gravity is?
Einstein’s general relativity is accepted today by most.
Or is it bull?
I saw “Paycheck” which made me think twice.
If you don’t mind my asking, ritchpope, on what basis did you arrive at your conclusion? Or is this this just a wild guess?
I don’t mean any disrespect by asking that, BTW. However, would you agree that if a hypothesis lacks direct empirical evidence, then we shouldn’t be quick to accept it over other hypotheses?
“How does your theory explain gravitational attraction between single molecules?”
Single molecules have extremely weak attraction to each other or none at all.
They would only be “attracted” to each other due to external sources.
Two molecules attracting would be mere chance.
But of course most things being things do not travel naturally as single molecule.
You have compounds like water and such.
“If you don’t mind my asking, ritchpope, on what basis did you arrive at your conclusion? Or is this this just a wild guess?”
Not a wild guess.
“I don’t mean any disrespect by asking that, BTW. However, would you agree that if a hypothesis lacks direct empirical evidence, then we shouldn’t be quick to accept it over other hypotheses?”
That’s the problem with my theory. Current conventional science cannot prove it. It cannot be observed even on a nano scale because light and electron microscopes are inadequate. As well air molecules (being molecules) disrupt the observation of what I describe in lay terms as “throw off”. An electron microscope can only measure things 500,000 times. This would have to be observed in the millions or billions because as I said it is EXTREMELY miniscule. The theory of gravity being caused be cohesion and adhesion can only be observed on much larger scales thus leaving it only as theory.
Water is a molecule. H[sub]2[/sub]O is a molecule. H[sub]2[/sub]O is water. Are you thinking of atoms and not molecules?
IIRC one of the problems with measuring gravity on very small scales is that gravity is by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces. The other forces at play in a molecule simply swamp out any attempt to see gravity at work.
The quantum view of gravity would have us seeing gravitons being exchanged by particles but to be honest I have never understood if the graviton is supposed to be a real, tangible thing or a virtual particle that just helps make the math work.
The Einsteinian view I think has it that gravity is the curvature of space/time. Just like you walking on a surface must follow that surface so too does everything else. What we see as gravity is merely particles following a curved path in space/time.
John Mace you’re just picking holes at my semantics.
"Single molecules have extremely weak attraction to each other or none at all.
Which is it? If the former, then your theory is sunk."
The latter.
"They would only be “attracted” to each other due to external sources.
Sounds like conventional gravitational theory to me."
External sources meaning momentum. See how I put " " around attracted.
"Two molecules attracting would be mere chance.
So, sometimes there is gravity and sometimes there isn’t?"
It depends on how close objects are within proximity to each other. Polaris for example would not effect Earth, being that it’s so many light years away. There is no effect of gravity when objects are too distant.
"But of course most things being things do not travel naturally as single molecule.
You have compounds like water and such.
That still does not fill the hole in your theory regarding single molecules. Single molecules do exist."
I know they exist. They exist 100%. What I meant was that single molecules usually travel together in clusters. For example, within a polymer there are millions of repeated links and numerous single molecules.
“Water is a molecule. H2O is a molecule. H2O is water. Are you thinking of atoms and not molecules?”
Yes my mistake. Water is an atom. Hydrogen and oxygen are atoms. Though there are things smaller than the atom.
When I say molecules I’m merely talking about an object or substance to try to describe the theory. Instead of saying molecules maybe I should use the word matter? Matter is a better term.
There is also the issue of protons, electrons, quarks ect which play a role in all of it to some degree. But the theory is mainly to describe the behaviour of substance “X” and why it causes gravity.
Well, Eistien seems to have put forward the best theory so far. Observations have been made that support the theory. However, on a very small scale relativity has some serious issues (as in: the mesurements do not agree ith the predictions).
String theory puts forth a good argument, but it is currently beyond any means of mesurement, and as such is untestable.
There are some good ideas out there, but they all have flaws that make them from being perfect. To sum up: I don’t know what causes gravity.
Again with the John Mace.
You’re picking at my semantics again.
“I’m picking holes in your hypothesis. How do you know that there is no gravitationaly attraction between single molecules?”
The molecule is of no concern. I’m just saying that the less the atomic mass of something it becomes weaker. It has less throw off due to its size. Sometimes I exaggerate. When I say no attraction I mean in the sense, practically no attraction. But not in actuality (technically) zero attraction.
Like when somebody might say “Damn it’s cold as hell.” We all know damn well right hell doesn’t exist. But we get the point that it’s pretty damn cold.
“Momentum is not a force. Something can’t be attracted to something else because of “momentum”. p = mv.”
Again with the semantics. Momentum and force is co-related. Force is just an external cause which can result in momentum. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. Momentum is not simply defined within one narrow realm, you have applications in areas like quantum mechanics and electromagnetism. YES something cannot be attracted so something else because of momentum. It does not cause gravity. BUT it can result IN gravity. There has two be two objects or more to have the effect gravity.
“How have you determined that?”
That’s the deal with this whole theory. It hasn’t/can’t been proven yet with tangible evidence.
“I thought Einstein settled this question: gravity is the curvature of spacetime, isn’t it?”
This goes against Einstein’s theory.
Anyhow this post isn’t about my theory. I came here to ask what you guys thought it was.
Oh, okay. Welcome to the boards. Usually, polls are opened in Humble Opinions, and questions seeking factual answers are opened in General Questions. If you’d like to host a debate, you’re in the right place, but you need to make an assertion and a defense of it. Your defense doesn’t have to be scientific — after all, you’ve already conceded that your hypothesis is not even testable by science — but it should at least be coherent. I mean, how will you argue with the person who says that gravity is caused by angels?