Raster's theory of gravity

[Raster]

This is somthing I have been thinking for quite a while. Please, if you dont understand, PM me, and I will help you out.

Raster's Theory of gravity

Lets start out with me explaining a few things. There is a force, called strong force (basic enough), that atracts the protons(positive chage)/neutrons to the center of the atom, and the electrons (negative charge) also get atracted to this point, but is repelled by the protons, creating the orbitals of an atom. The protons of an atom, determintes what element it is. Im only going to be using the elements Hydrogen(H2), Helium(He), and Lithium(Li) for my example of gravity through this explenation. This will also go along with the big bang theory. Lets begin!

Before the big bang, there was nothing but H2 floating around in the empty space of the universe. Since there is a mass amount of space in the universe, there is alot of space for the H2 to move around, and gain a mass amount of speed. At some point in time, two H2 atoms colide with each other creating He. Since He has more mass, than H2, it would logicly have more strong force than H2. So this He atom atracts the H2 atoms around is, because of its strong force.

As these H2 atoms atract to the He, there is a mass amount of colisions going on creating more He atoms. Soon the mass about of He atoms colecting into the center, what I will call now "The core", will soon create one of the first Alkalie metals Li. Then the same process happends with Li, as how H2 made He, and so on with the other elements.

With this huge mass colisions of these atoms, it later becomes out of control, making the "big bang".

That ends my theory. Basicly, The atoms strong force determines our gravity, and the mass/density, determines, what can go through what. (Like mercury in a steal bowl.)

If you have any questions, PM me, or post, and I will quote you/put it up onto this post. If you dont want me to quote you, just tell me :biggrin: .

I hope you do not become like him --> <-- after reading this topic.

A way to prove my theory

Here is a perfect, yet impractical, way of proving my theory. (Impractical because it would cost millions of dollars...) Basicly is to send up a satellite to the empty pit of space. In this satellite is an artifical atmosphere of O2. At a sertaint point, have the satellite come to a stop, where there is barely any affect of gravity from any of the planets or the sun (Another reason why it is impractical, to get out of the suns gravity, you would have to go way past pluto).

Right once it is in position, let out like a drop of mercury from 3 different locations within this enviorment in the satellite. If the mercury moves to the center of the satellite, and forms the shape of a ball, it proves my theory, if it doesnt, well Im out a couple million bucks .

[Liazon]

Interesting theory...

but, electrons normally should be attracted to protons, not repelled. The strong force is an attraction between leptons and I think gluons in distinct nuclear particles.

Everything else you propose (the hydrogen colliding and forming more matter) has already been proposed. The only distinct thing is that you propose that gravity does pin us to the ground, but rather the strong force does. That is interesting because you suggest unification between the Strong Force and gravity, leaving only three forces in existence (the other two are the Weak Force and Electromagnetism).

I think you'll have to offer more proof before others in the science community take that seriously. I think it's a good idea! Yay Unification!! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Raster]

[Jeremiah Walgren]

First off, as stated above, the Strong Force is a nuclear force. There's no way it's going to affect electrons let alone entirely different molecules that are off by themselves.

I thought the current Big Bang Theory stated that there was nothing before the Big Bang. If this is so, you cannot have anything to work with. Or are you proposing a modification to said theory?

Also, it was the Big Bang that supposedly created the Universe. How can your Hydrogen atoms be floating around in something that has yet to be created?

How might the neutrons in the Helium nucleus be created?

As for your experiment, have the satellite come to a stop in relation to what? The earth? The sun? The center of the galaxy?

In regards to the balls of Mercury, they will need to be ejected from the aforementioned satellite. This will give them a velocity - however small - in their direction of release. If this happens within the satellite, they will most definitely collide with each other or with the side of the satellite.

I hate to rip into your theory so hard (and I may even be misunderstanding certain things), but it's better now than later.

Edit: I read the experiment wrong. Corrected my statement accordingly.

Edit 2: Why an atmosphere of pure oxygen for your experiment?

On your statement about how mass/density determines what goes through what... I think you might want to research just how strong electromagnetism is.

Every neutral atom has at least one electron associated with it. When you bring several billion atoms that are bonded together into contact with several billion atoms of another substance, those electrons are going to repel each other.

[Brazucs]

[leofox]

I dont think that what you describe in your theory can begin a mass explosion like the Big Bang. Also, scientists say that after the big bang there was only energy, and no mass. If the big bang was a gravity reaction caused by mass (h2, He and Li ?) then there would always be a bit mass left after the reaction, or maybe the reaction created even heavier atoms.

I like your theory, but i also think you should've stayed away from big bang .

[Brazucs]

Right!

Also... if you are saying that:
2H -> He
or that
2H2 -> He2
you're saying that the mass of the universe is constantly decreasing as atoms get heavier and heavier.

One more thing, too. I think you've got some nomenclature issues. "Theory or gravity"? Gravity isn't a theory. It was proven to mankind quite a while ago by a guy named H. E. Erectus.

[Arcane Wizard]

[Liazon]

@Raster: you can never escape gravity of anything. Gravity is always affecting us no matter where we are in the universe. It's just so small we find it negligible, but significant enough to affect the outcome of your experiment (which I do not think will prove your point) I think gravity is (mass1+mass2)/distance squared.

But @ everyone else: think out of the box for the moment and just imagine that perhaps the Super String theory is correct and everything is really made up of tiny vibrating strings of energy. There is only one force called The Force, and it encompasses the powers of the Strong Force, Weak Force, Gravity, and Electromagnetism, cuz they're all really just forces that cause things to move a certain way. Who cares if one only works at a certain distance or has a certain strength?

[DarkerLine]

Carefully calculate an area where the gravity from all parts of the universe is canceling out. Possibly use artificial satellites to make it cancel out more.
However, it proves nothing about the nature of gravity that three drops of mercury will be gravitationally attracted toward each other.

[Arcane Wizard]

I think we're gonna need a better understanding of time before we can understand gravity.

[Brazucs]

The fact that's it's not constant? Einstein proved that...

[Liazon]

Yay for geniuses like Einstein!

But why should a study of time come before gravity? (though I think the gravitational constant is in m/s i think, 9.6?)

[Weregoose]

9.8 m/sec², according to the TI-83 Plus manual, but that's simply a measure of the gravitational force of the Earth.
Geniuses like Einstein come about through many subtle factors, but hard work usually turns out to be the big one.

[Liazon]

If only gravity was a matter of who has more graviton particles.

I believe Einstein made gravity seem like a ripple or sink hole on the fabric of the universe. That's why when a star blows up rite, it forms a black hole. It ripped the fabric of the universe.

[Raster]

[DarkerLine]

But you don't get to find out what is it that will make them move to the center if they do.

[Liazon]

That's how you find out a scientific law

scientific law: a statement that describes how nature behaves (most of the time); also known as a natural law.

scientific theory: a statement that explains why nature behaves that way. It essentially explains why that law exists.

[Raster]

[DarkerLine]

What I'm trying to say is, just because IF your theory is true THEN the mercury will move to the center, doesn't mean that IF the mercury moves to the center THEN the theory is true. The current theory of gravity also says the mercury will move to the center.