Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Disprove LeSage's theory of gravitation.

tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:40:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just learned about it. Would like to disprove it. Can anyone smarter than me help?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 8:24:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Since there have been no replies, I am convinced that I may need to explain the theory. Lesage supposed that gravity has mechanical causes. He thought that energy travels through the universe from all directions and makes contacts with bodies, such as planets, on every side of the planet from every angle. As a result of equal pressure on each point of the planet's surface, the planet is held in place: it does not move.
However, if the planet A is placed adjacent to another planet B, the two planets will receive less force of energy coming only from the direction of the opposite planet. The amount of force that normally would be applied to the side of the planet which is facing the other planet is intercepted by the other planet, which prevents that force from touching the first planet.

Scenario 1: Single planet receives force from all sides. Imagine O is planet, arrows represent vectors of force, imagine also that vectors of force are hitting planet from all directions. The text box will not allow the top and bottom arrows to stay immediately above the planet (O), I have tried to move them. Imagine that the up and down arrows that I have drawn are directly above and below the planet (O) and point directly to it.

|
\ /
---> O <---
/\
|

Scenario 2: Two adjacent planets receive less force of pressure on inner sides as a result of the other planet blocking the path of force.

| |
\/ \/
----> O O <--------
/\ /\
| |

In scenario 1, the planet (O) is acted on from every direction, causing it to stay in one spot. In scenario 2, the two planets are not acted upon their sides facing the other planet (the right planet not acted upon from left, the left planet not acted upon from right). This lack of force on the sides not acted upon by the force will cause the planets to move closer together.
So, LeSage's gravitation is not about attraction, but compulsion.

So, what say you? Sound like nonsense?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 9:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 8:24:02 PM, tabularasa wrote:
Since there have been no replies, I am convinced that I may need to explain the theory. Lesage supposed that gravity has mechanical causes. He thought that energy travels through the universe from all directions and makes contacts with bodies, such as planets, on every side of the planet from every angle. As a result of equal pressure on each point of the planet's surface, the planet is held in place: it does not move.
However, if the planet A is placed adjacent to another planet B, the two planets will receive less force of energy coming only from the direction of the opposite planet. The amount of force that normally would be applied to the side of the planet which is facing the other planet is intercepted by the other planet, which prevents that force from touching the first planet.

Scenario 1: Single planet receives force from all sides. Imagine O is planet, arrows represent vectors of force, imagine also that vectors of force are hitting planet from all directions. The text box will not allow the top and bottom arrows to stay immediately above the planet (O), I have tried to move them. Imagine that the up and down arrows that I have drawn are directly above and below the planet (O) and point directly to it.

|
\ /
---> O <---
/\
|

Scenario 2: Two adjacent planets receive less force of pressure on inner sides as a result of the other planet blocking the path of force.

| |
\/ \/
----> O O <--------
/\ /\
| |

In scenario 1, the planet (O) is acted on from every direction, causing it to stay in one spot. In scenario 2, the two planets are not acted upon their sides facing the other planet (the right planet not acted upon from left, the left planet not acted upon from right). This lack of force on the sides not acted upon by the force will cause the planets to move closer together.
So, LeSage's gravitation is not about attraction, but compulsion.

So, what say you? Sound like nonsense?

Wikipedia says it's been discredited.

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_theory_of_gravitation

Also, General Relativity is simpler. Who needs all these vectors when you can just bend space-time?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 8:49:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:40:15 PM, tabularasa wrote:
Just learned about it. Would like to disprove it. Can anyone smarter than me help?

1.) What you are currently looking at is a web browser. At the top of the web browser there is a box that will contain text that says something like "http://www.debate.org...; or maybe just "www.debate.org/...". In this box type : "www.google.com"

2.) Press the enter key

3.) A new website will come up that has a text box in the middle of it under some text that says "Google". In that box type "problems with LeSage's Theory of Gravity" and hit enter.

4.) A new website will come up that lists a "links" to other websites. Along with the links there will be a short description of what you can expect to find on that website. You can click this links with your mouse and it will take you to those websites. Read through the list and click ones that sounds interesting and read.

I have now given you something much more valuable than just a short synopsis of the problems with Lesage's theory of gravity. You now have the ability to learn for yourself about the theory and about why it is wrong. You can also reuse this process for any other idea you may want to learn more about by just changing what you type in step 3 to reflect other questions.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 9:47:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
hahaha...very good...I also wanted to have a discussion about it, but will do
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Karmanator
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 10:17:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's the mechanical version of Newtons gravity and has been shown to be incomplete. General Relativity has explained it fine for 100 years and keeps being confirmed by modern day experimentation. That gravity is due to mass bending spacetime which is what keeps orbits, not gods hand like Newton thought.
MaxCool
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2015 12:54:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's not wrong...it's just not complete.
The theory should be that the whole universe is made out of photons, and we call some of them gravity. And the reason we make a distinction between photons is not because photons are different, but because there are different frequencies between them. So light is coming at one frequency, then radio waves at another, x-rays closer together, gamma rays even closer in a stream of photons.
It's always a stream of photons; so the trick is light is really two photons. It's all photons, and that the atoms and the pieces that make up atoms (electrons, neutrons, etc.) are basically just condensates of gravity. It's photons that have been caught in a pattern, probably circles or figure 8's of some kind. They are still moving at the speed of light but just spinning and not going anywhere.
So think of every "thing" that is not a photon as a kind of battery storing photons. An electron is storing photons, and the nucleus of the atom is storing photons. That is why when you blow them up in a nuclear reaction, it releases a tremendous amount of energy; because there is a bunch of trapped photons in them. And depending on how you release them, they have the same effect as gravity. It's essentially like releasing gravity, because gravitons are essentially photons without any detectable frequency.
IT is kind of like raindrops moving the speed of light; the raindrops start to get boxed into association with each other. The patterns they get caught in can gain a certain amount of complexity as in say, the periodic table of elements; and those packets of complexity can also have arrangement to each other.
It's like subatomic particles (electrons, quarks, neutrons, protons, etc) were schools of fish that have relationship to each other. They are being gravitationally and magnetically PUSHED together by gravitons. The gravitons are also the source of magnetism.
So the gravity first creates the condensation, it is then polarized. The structures in an atom have the capacity to detect or react to polarization and are affected based on polarization; and therefore create a balancing counter pressure of magnetism.
You could think of it like the Sun emits energy and if it emitted enough energy, it would make it impossible for something to fall into it. So even though it has gravity, it is creating another push force that says "you can't fall here". No pull, and the push is always gravitons.
You have to understand that the whole electromagnetic spectrum is all the same photons, they are just coming at a different frequency. They carry no "wave function" as physics contends. Photons sre really simple, they go from A to B in a straight line until there is gravity. They do not get affected by anything else. It can't be changed until hits something like an electron.
All the quantum effects are really electron effects, and the interaction is essentially a change in direction.
So if you think of the universe as all particles, then it is all kinetic. There is no real exchange of energy; there is only an exchange of directionional information. Like two things go in and two go out, so the same amount of energy is always conserved in every subatomic interaction. Thus gravitons impose directional information on the things they interact with.
Like the school of fish, this would explain time dilation in the sense that there is a pattern of the fish, and if the fish start to be migrated by a force that is subtlely changing individual fish directions or bending that direction a little, then whatever pattern they are making is going to slow down, because they have to consume time to move in that direction.
So they are using time to go extra distance and the price of that is a slowing down of the "atomic metabolism".
So all of Einstein's relativity theories are wrong in that there is no effect on the space people are in; there is only an effect of their individual atomic metabolism. S
So the clocks do slow down, the "machinery" slows down, and that is all that is being time dilated.
You just age slower because your metabolism slows down. It doesn't slow down in terms of the speed of light still maintained inside of atoms; it's just that it takes them longer because they have to take more distance steps to go in a direction beyond the spin. With velocity comes an obligation for the photon to travel more distance.. The fish spinning in circles, can't also move in another direction and maintain a constant velocity; they're going to have to slow down.
Again, things are still moving the speed of light, they are just taking more time to do it because of the added distance. So with humans; we are being slightly shielded by the earth so that more photons are pushing us down than are pushing us up. That is what gravity is!
This theory unifies everything and it gets rid of the quantum baloney.A whole different ball of wax than what physics is talking. No string theory; no multiverse; no time dilation; no bent fabric because photonic pressure is the fabric.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty thingy isn't a law, and I'm not even sure it's a principle. It's just an idea really...and a bad one. The idea that we can't know a photons location and trajectory because it doesn't have any is irrational thinking based on current instrumentation. How the hell could you know direction if you don't know location. Photons don't leave a trail in the sand. Scientists love to publish their conclusions but they almost never publish what happened during the two slit experiments (the evidence).
What it really is, is a particle field. You convert gravity and light into particles, and the particles just have a frequency, separated by distance. This maintains the integrity of physics and what we do know about it. And if you add this other component of photons with no frequency, you can make gravity out of them. You have to imagine a field with no friction where gravity is the particles. This is really the opposite of current quantum thinking. This isn't just a light theory or a gravity theory, it is a real unification theory connected to magnetism and electricity and time dilation. That all forces are exchanges of quanta from one area to another area.