Can Science paradox be opposing anti gravity?

[KhashayarShatti]

VERY IMPORTANT, Please be kind enough to give a good and rational answer.
1- Science says: A single point charge has potential(electric field in a 3D universe) around it. How can science prove this for a single point charge? In fact when there is another charge particle, science can become experimental and prove thet an electric field exists. So my question is: Is it only when two charge particles exist, there exists an electric field? In this case perhaps this field doesn't exist for a single charge particle and is only created between two existing charge particles?
I think science can not prove it for single charge particle and that is a kind of paradox for science(a kind of religious science!)

2- The same for magnetic field.

3- Now the question is, if we can not prove the existence of the electric or magnetic fields for single particles, Then my question is: Is it possible that for gravity to exist, there must be matter and amatter(a kind of matter) with no charge that could be the cause of gravity field?

In fact charge particles are responsible for electric and magnetic fields. But neutron has no charge. Could there be a missing particle, not discovered yet, that would be responsible for generation of gravity field? Ofcourse neutron is an example and i doubt it because it can split into electron and proton which are charge particles. In this case may be there could be two missing particles that produce gravity field.

4- If case 3 =true then could there be a kind of atom including amatter to be used with anti gravity property? Can we make such an atom? We may have to make atom since single particles may not be stable for production of amaterial.Perhaps a different configuration of matter atom could be the answer.

[papageno]

1- Science says: A single point charge has potential(electric field in a 3D universe) around it. How can science prove this for a single point charge? In fact when there is another charge particle, science can become experimental and prove thet an electric field exists. So my question is: Is it only when two charge particles exist, there exists an electric field? In this case perhaps this field doesn't exist for a single charge particle and is only created between two existing charge particles?
I think science can not prove it for single charge particle and that is a kind of paradox for science(a kind of religious science!)

The electric field in a point due to a charged particle, is defined by extrapolating the Coulomb force divided by the charge of a test particle:



Electric field:


This procedure determines a field due the source particle which is independent of the specific test charges used.

2- The same for magnetic field.

Same procedure, after swapping magnetic moments for electric charges.

3- Now the question is, if we can not prove the existence of the electric or magnetic fields for single particles, Then my question is: Is it possible that for gravity to exist, there must be matter and amatter(a kind of matter) with no charge that could be the cause of gravity field?

I do not understand the jump from electric and magnetic fields to gravity.

In fact charge particles are responsible for electric and magnetic fields. But neutron has no charge.

But it has a magnetic moment.

Could there be a missing particle, not discovered yet, that would be responsible for generation of gravity field?

Atoms composed of protons, neutrons and electrons seem to be doing quite fine as sources of gravity.

Of course neutron is an example and i doubt it because it can split into electron and proton which are charge particles. In this case may be there could be two missing particles that produce gravity field.

Why do we need additional particles?


EDIT: Re-typed formulas using Tex!

[KhashayarShatti]

The electric field in a point due to a charged particle, is defined by extrapolating the Coulomb force divided by the charge of a test particle:



Electric field:


This procedure determines a field due the source particle which is independent of the specific test charges used.

You see, Force of Coulomb doesn't exist for single point charge.

I do not understand the jump from electric and magnetic fields to gravity.

A kind of analogy because science can not prove that gravity exists for a single point particle. When m1 and m2 exist then gravity exists.

Why do we need additional particles?

If gravity is supposed to be a field, then we may say, by analogy to em fields, there should be two kinds of matter particles similar to +ve and -ve particles of em fields. But +ve and -ve particles are responsible for em fields and since there is gravity between them that always attracts then reversing charges can not reverse gravity. So it seems to me that electrons, protons,neutrons,anti particles perhaps have the same kind of matter which leads to a unidirectional gravity force.

[papageno]

You see, Force of Coulomb doesn't exist for single point charge.

Yes, that's why the formula contains both q_source and q_test.
The point you are missing, is that the definition of electric field through the limit of F_Coulomb/q_test is not dependent on q_test, but only on q_source. Therefore the electric field is defined for a single particle.

To observe (detect or measure) this electric field, we need to use test charges.

A kind of analogy because science can not prove that gravity exists for a single point particle. When m1 and m2 exist then gravity exists.

The gravitational field in a classic sense is defined exactly the same way as the electric fields, because the equations of the forces have exactly the same form. Therefore the (classical) gravitational field of a single mass is well defined, just like the electric field of a single charge.

If gravity is supposed to be a field, then we may say, by analogy to em fields, there should be two kinds of matter particles similar to +ve and -ve particles of em fields.

Except that the Coulomb force is observed to be both attractive and repulsive, depending on the charges. The force of gravity is observed to be only attractive. The analogy between electric and gravitational field is not complete.

But +ve and -ve particles are responsible for em fields and since there is gravity between them that always attracts then reversing charges can not reverse gravity. So it seems to me that electrons, protons,neutrons,anti particles perhaps have the same kind of matter which leads to a unidirectional gravity force.

Or more simply, the gravitational "charge" (mass) is not linked directly to the electric charge (and other electromagnetic properties).

[Tensor]

VERY IMPORTANT, Please be kind enough to give a good and rational answer.
1- Science says: A single point charge has potential(electric field in a 3D universe) around it. How can science prove this for a single point charge? In fact when there is another charge particle, science can become experimental and prove thet an electric field exists. So my question is: Is it only when two charge particles exist, there exists an electric field? In this case perhaps this field doesn't exist for a single charge particle and is only created between two existing charge particles?

What does it matter? A single particle universe is trivial and not very interesting. Not to mention, there has to be at least(most would say, many more than) two charges to be able to test for the magnetic or electric field.

I think science can not prove it for single charge particle and that is a kind of paradox for science(a kind of religious science!)

Why would it be a paradox? If you only have one particle in the universe, how would you test for it's charge?

2- The same for magnetic field.

Ditto.

3- Now the question is, if we can not prove the existence of the electric or magnetic fields for single particles,

Ahhhh, science can't prove anything, it can only falsify something.

Then my question is: Is it possible that for gravity to exist, there must be matter and amatter(a kind of matter) with no charge that could be the cause of gravity field?

No, that has never been detected. And besides, gravity is the warping of spacetime, not an exchange of particles.

In fact charge particles are responsible for electric and magnetic fields. But neutron has no charge. Could there be a missing particle, not discovered yet, that would be responsible for generation of gravity field?

Those type of particles have been proposed. They are called gravitons. If you don't want to call them that, you still have to explain why particles that produce gravity are massless and have a spin of two.

Ofcourse neutron is an example and i doubt it because it can split into electron and proton which are charge particles.

I don't know where you got that idea at but a neutron is not split into a proton and electron. A proton is a baryon. An electron is a lepton. A neutron is also a baryon. Baryons are composed of quarks. Leptons aren't. When a neutron decays, a down quark changes into a up quark by releasing a W^- boson. This changes the neutron into a proton. The released W^- boson then decays into an electron and an antineutrino.

In this case may be there could be two missing particles that produce gravity field.

Hmmmmmm, I want to be careful here. There are no particles that have been detected whose only job is to produce gravity. Now, all particles will produce gravity due to their mass and energy. Or, the Higgs particle can be thought of as creating gravity because the Higgs is what give other particles their mass. But either particles produce gravity because of their mass or they produce mass because they give other particles mass.

4- If case 3 =true then could there be a kind of atom including amatter to be used with anti gravity property?

Since you haven't been specific enough for amatter properties, this point is rather moot until amattere is first described and then found.

Can we make such an atom?

What kind of atom is this? What is amatter made of in terms of protons, electrons and neutrons? What are the orbitals associated with this type of atom? How many protons, neutrons, and electrons. Mostly, this sounds

We may have to make atom since single particles may not be stable for production of a material. Perhaps a different configuration of matter atom could be the answer.

Are you asking how this works, or are you proposing a completely new kind of material here?

[KhashayarShatti]

No, that has never been detected. And besides, gravity is the warping of spacetime, not an exchange of particles.

I was about to start to ask about the role of "3D space" in which all these things occur. It may be more appropriate to
refer to your next statement in this regard.

Those type of particles have been proposed. They are called gravitons. If you don't want to call them that, you still have to explain why particles that produce gravity are massless and have a spin of two.

You see, about 20 yeras ago when i discussed about gravity with a physicist, his idea was that gravitons in fact constitute the field of gravity itself. Imagine you have protons and electrons. these particles create electric field. But what is the constituents of this electric field? Lets call it "electons" ;neither electron nor proton. I thought it was the same for gravity. May i just mention it to clarify the subject(not for discussion) that the particles responsible for gravity may be called +gravon and -travon. Now gravons and travons may cause gravity field whose constituents could be called gravitons. British people say: don't trust memory. So may be i'm wrong. Some physicists say you can not find void space because it is full of gravitons.
To irradicate discrepancies, may i give another common example: When there is a male and a female may there be love. love doesn't mean anything for a single. So love becomes into existence as a feeling. Now is it possible that when an electron and a proton face eachother, the byproduct becomes electric field(electric love).

What kind of atom is this? What is amatter made of in terms of protons, electrons and neutrons? What are the orbitals associated with this type of atom? How many protons, neutrons, and electrons. Mostly, this sounds

Last year i proposed the idea of a reverse atom in which electron sits in the core and proton circulates it. But this atom was proposed to live in a magnetic field to hold them in their position. A kind of reverse hydrogen atom just to study its atomic properties if it could remain stable. But this atom is in terms of protons, and electrons. My basic idea is a kind of engineering work to produce new atom. It may not be mainstream to discuss it here. The rules of the forum are very tough. I'm struggling to keep the subject within the rules. All my intention is scientific discussion.

You see, in general referring to the actual nature of electric, magnetic and gravity fields that seem to be unkown, What i am trying to ask is : Is there the possibility of a pair particle for gravity that always aligns unidirectionaly unless we reverse it? Similar to a magnet. Magnets try to stick together unidirectionally unless we force it otherwise. Perhaps gravity is a stronger field that always aligns in one direction, so a kind of force may twist it to align in the opposite direction. Currently it may be highly unstable. Gravity field and magnetic field seem to be very similar and by an engineering trick it may be possible to convert one to the other. If one has millions of pieces of magnets, all pieces try to attract one another similar to gravity. Could this pair particle be there and our understanding close to convert it? How about combining fields?

[Shaula]

But what is the constituents of this electric field? Lets call it "electons"

No. That'd be photons. They are the bosons associated with the EM force.

May i just mention it to clarify the subject(not for discussion) that the particles responsible for gravity may be called +gravon and -travon. Now gravons and travons may cause gravity field whose constituents could be called gravitons.

Not for discussion? Then dismissable. There is no reason to postulate that gravitons are composite.

What i am trying to ask is : Is there the possibility of a pair particle for gravity that always aligns unidirectionaly unless we reverse it?

Do you mean can mass be negative? Photons are not charged but carry the EM force. There are not positive and negative photons. There are analogies between gravity and magnetism that are valid in some conditions - google Gravitomagnetism and have a read. If you look at the Wikipedia article I recommend you read the "Fringe physics" section at the end quite carefully. We have to be careful about saying that a similarity in the equations is a deep and meaningful thing without understanding why forces like the strong force are formulated so differently.

[Tensor]

I was about to start to ask about the role of "3D space" in which all these things occur. It may be more appropriate to
refer to your next statement in this regard.

I didn't say 3D space, I said spacetime. If you want to know the role of spacetime, any good General Relativity textbook should provide you with the information you need.

You see, about 20 yeras ago when i discussed about gravity with a physicist, his idea was that gravitons in fact constitute the field of gravity itself.

Shame, isn't it, that gravitons haven't been discovered and there has been no successful model that uses gravitons. So, currently gravitons are nothing more than speculative.

Imagine you have protons and electrons. these particles create electric field. But what is the constituents of this electric field? Lets call it "electons" ;neither electron nor proton.

Why not call them by the name they've been given, photons.

I thought it was the same for gravity. May i just mention it to clarify the subject(not for discussion) that the particles responsible for gravity may be called +gravon and -travon. Now gravons and travons may cause gravity field whose constituents could be called gravitons. British people say: don't trust memory. So may be i'm wrong. Some physicists say you can not find void space because it is full of gravitons.

First off, let's clear some things up. All of our theories are models. They are more than likely not what is "reality", whatever that is. The models let us make predictions and test those predictions. Our current best model of gravity is General Relativity. It models spacetime and gravity as a warping of the psuedu-Reinmann manifold. Now, classically, gravity is modeled by a force. This model runs into problems at high speed and high energy limits.

Now we have that cleared up, gravity is only attractive, so there is no need for a positive particle and a negative particle (your +gravon or-travon). On top of that, as I"ve said, there is no currently workable model that uses particles as the exchange particle providing the field of gravity. IF there was, there are properties that we know it would have to have, based on the properties we have observed for gravity. One, it would have to be massless, as gravity's effect is theoretically infinite (in this it mimics the photon). Second, it would have to have a quantum spin of 2, which is the spin of particles that produce only attractive forces.

To irradicate discrepancies, may i give another common example: When there is a male and a female may there be love. love doesn't mean anything for a single. So love becomes into existence as a feeling. Now is it possible that when an electron and a proton face eachother, the byproduct becomes electric field(electric love).

Don't even try to do physics by analogy. It never works. For instance, if there is man-man or woman-woman, there may also be love. Or, in the case of a single person, there may be self-love.

Last year i proposed the idea of a reverse atom in which electron sits in the core and proton circulates it. But this atom was proposed to live in a magnetic field to hold them in their position. A kind of reverse hydrogen atom just to study its atomic properties if it could remain stable. But this atom is in terms of protons, and electrons. My basic idea is a kind of engineering work to produce new atom. It may not be mainstream to discuss it here. The rules of the forum are very tough. I'm struggling to keep the subject within the rules. All my intention is scientific discussion.

Proposing idea is all well and good, but what experiments does it agree with? What predictions are different from the current models? If the predictions are the same, an no parts of the model can be detected, the model isn't useful. As has been pointed out to many others, we can propose a model of invisible pink unicorns that move all the matter in the universe around. But unless we can produce some kind of evidence for them, the model, just isn't viable.

You see, in general referring to the actual nature of electric, magnetic and gravity fields that seem to be unkown, What i am trying to ask is : Is there the possibility of a pair particle for gravity that always aligns unidirectionaly unless we reverse it?

Yeah, and there is known actual material for the makeup of electrons, protons, quarks gluons photons, etc. How about the physical nature of space? What I'm trying to say is there is no evidence for any kind of actual nature at the basic levels of reality. What we have are models, the models we normally use are the models that make the most accurate predictions. There are, however, cases were we use models that are less accurate, but not by much depending on the situation , because the calculations are easier.

Similar to a magnet. Magnets try to stick together unidirectionally unless we force it otherwise. Perhaps gravity is a stronger field that always aligns in one direction, so a kind of force may twist it to align in the opposite direction. Currently it may be highly unstable. Gravity field and magnetic field seem to be very similar and by an engineering trick it may be possible to convert one to the other.

Yeah, explain to us the similarities of the dipole nature of gravitational radiation vs electromagnetic radiation.

If one has millions of pieces of magnets, all pieces try to attract one another similar to gravity. Could this pair particle be there and our understanding close to convert it? How about combining fields?

Simple answer, no, no and no. I would suggest you do some research into Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity. You have some serious misunderstandings concerning the current models. Some research should clear those misunderstandings up.

[KhashayarShatti]

No. That'd be photons. They are the bosons associated with the EM force.

Perhaps some misunderstanding, my fault. Let me put it this way. An electric field between two flat plates of a capacitor. Surely there is no photon. This field is only sensed by charged particles. What would be the actual nature of this field?
First of all, can this field exist for one single point charge? If yes, how can we experience it without using other charge particles? With a pure scientific point of view, we consider two point charges. When these are brought together, or separated, the energy comes and goes into electric field. In fact this field becomes an energy accumulator. In this case it doesn't radiate energy. But as you know it can do work. I have many things to say about this but in other threads. I'm struggling to make it scientific getting away from ATM discussions. By my fault one of them got into ATM and that was "Energy Atom".

[KhashayarShatti]

Why not call them by the name they've been given, photons.

Please refer to my notes about Shaula's recent post.

First off, let's clear some things up. All of our theories are models. They are more than likely not what is "reality", whatever that is. The models let us make predictions and test those predictions. Our current best model of gravity is General Relativity. It models spacetime and gravity as a warping of the psuedu-Reinmann manifold. Now, classically, gravity is modeled by a force. This model runs into problems at high speed and high energy limits.

Now we have that cleared up, gravity is only attractive, so there is no need for a positive particle and a negative particle (your +gravon or-travon). On top of that, as I"ve said, there is no currently workable model that uses particles as the exchange particle providing the field of gravity. IF there was, there are properties that we know it would have to have, based on the properties we have observed for gravity. One, it would have to be massless, as gravity's effect is theoretically infinite (in this it mimics the photon). Second, it would have to have a quantum spin of 2, which is the spin of particles that produce only attractive forces.

Yeah, and there is known actual material for the makeup of electrons, protons, quarks gluons photons, etc. How about the physical nature of space? What I'm trying to say is there is no evidence for any kind of actual nature at the basic levels of reality. What we have are models, the models we normally use are the models that make the most accurate predictions. There are, however, cases were we use models that are less accurate, but not by much depending on the situation , because the calculations are easier.

Yeah, explain to us the similarities of the dipole nature of gravitational radiation vs electromagnetic radiation.

Considering electric field as a kind of energy accumulator, gravity field is also a kind of gravity energy accunulator.
First of all, can this gravity field(energy accumulator) exist for a single point mass? Let's take the reality which is experimentally sensed. In science it is said that this field is sensed by any existing particle of matter and energy(photon).
When external force is applied between two particles, this gravity energy changes. Any particle placed in this field of gravity
experiences this field. A unidirectional force of attraction. Can there be any possibility ,by analogy to electric or magnetic fields, to make this force bidirectional?(i mean a kind of force similar to emf with reversing capability).
I think either matter should be changed or a kind of new matter created since energy can be converted to matter(mass), i think we may assume aenergy(amatter) similar to +ve and -ve charge that we don't know their actual nature so we called them -ve charge and +ve charge though we experience unidirectional gravitational force on them.
This field of gravity doesn't radiate its energy. So we are not talking about gravitational radiation. But in a similar manner as the combination of electric and magnetic fields called em field the product of which is photon, we may be able to get a kind of radiation by combining electric and gravity fields and get a kind of electrogravity radiation or magnetogravity radiation with a different kind of product.
All the question is, by this method of neglecting that science paradox for single particles for the moment, could there be the possibility of changing the direction of gravity field or force? Currently i think we may assume that, combination or reconfiguration of matter may lead to amatter(aenergy) that experiences gravity in reverse direction with the same concept that exists for +ve and -ve charge or N or S poles.

[Shaula]

Perhaps some misunderstanding, my fault. Let me put it this way. An electric field between two flat plates of a capacitor. Surely there is no photon. This field is only sensed by charged particles. What would be the actual nature of this field?
First of all, can this field exist for one single point charge? If yes, how can we experience it without using other charge particles?

The field is a quantum field. The vector bosons associated with it are photons. That is the nature of the field. It is a quantum field. To understand it you need to understand Quantum Field Theory. Just like you need Quantum mechanics to understand an electron. Asking what it "really" is is meaningless. It is modelled by field equations and associated with the photon as a momentum carrier. There is a virtual photon. That is how EM works.

An EM field exists for a point charge. That is the simplest model for what we see. And that is all physics does. Model and predict. If there is no way to sense something (although I have a thought that an EM field might contribute to the mass-energy tensor and so show up in gravitational effects) then you may as well remove it from the model.

[Strange]

First of all, can this gravity field(energy accumulator) exist for a single point mass?

Yes. Gravity is a direct result of the presence of mass and/or energy.

Can there be any possibility ,by analogy to electric or magnetic fields, to make this force bidirectional?(i mean a kind of force similar to emf with reversing capability).

No.

I think either matter should be changed or a kind of new matter created since energy can be converted to matter(mass),

Why should should there be a new kind of matter?

i think we may assume aenergy(amatter) similar to +ve and -ve charge that we don't know their actual nature so we called them -ve charge and +ve charge though we experience unidirectional gravitational force on them.

You assume wrong.

All the question is, by this method of neglecting that science paradox for single particles for the moment, could there be the possibility of changing the direction of gravity field or force?

No.

Currently i think we may assume that, combination or reconfiguration of matter may lead to amatter(aenergy) that experiences gravity in reverse direction with the same concept that exists for +ve and -ve charge or N or S poles.

Again, your assumption is wrong.

[Strange]

VERY IMPORTANT, Please be kind enough to give a good and rational answer.

You have been given some very good answers based on our current understanding of physics. You seem to prefer your baseless speculation.

1- Science says: A single point charge has potential(electric field in a 3D universe) around it. How can science prove this for a single point charge?

It doesn't have to prove it for a single point charge. The field is a theoretical construct derived from observation of the behaviour of charges. There is no reason to think that the field magically disappears just because we are not looking at it. In fact, because we defined the field, we know it doesn't.

[KhashayarShatti]

You have been given some very good answers based on our current understanding of physics. You seem to prefer your baseless speculation.

It doesn't have to prove it for a single point charge. The field is a theoretical construct derived from observation of the behaviour of charges. There is no reason to think that the field magically disappears just because we are not looking at it. In fact, because we defined the field, we know it doesn't.

It seems as though i have to(must) prove it to you. Why should there be an energy field for a single point charge? A point charge is a point charge with no energy. It is when you bring another charge that this field is created to accumulate the energy used to bring the two charges together or get them separated.Right?

[Tensor]

It seems as though i have to(must) prove it to you. Why should there be an energy field for a single point charge? A point charge is a point charge with no energy. It is when you bring another charge that this field is created to accumulate the energy used to bring the two charges together or get them separated.Right?

That is not the way our current models work. And yes, you will have to prove it to us, by citing an experiment, as that is not a mainstream science position.

[Shaula]

It seems as though i have to(must) prove it to you. Why should there be an energy field for a single point charge? A point charge is a point charge with no energy. It is when you bring another charge that this field is created to accumulate the energy used to bring the two charges together or get them separated.Right?

Wrong. As I said. Check out QFT.

[KhashayarShatti]

That is not the way our current models work. And yes, you will have to prove it to us, by citing an experiment, as that is not a mainstream science position.

I think neutron is a good example. There seems to be no electric dipole associated with a neutron. It is said to be neutral. Neutron a kind of particle that could become a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.Now charge comes to existence from a neutral particle.
A kind of reconfiguration of the original particle causes an electric field to come into existence if and only if there is no internal electric field associated with neutron.(i think no electric dipole is sensed outside neutron).
Furthermore, referring to amatter, probably it could be of the same nature. The only difference between amatter and dark matter or dark energy(aenergy) is that based on the fact that i think for a single particle science can't prove that gravity exists so the nature of amatter seems to me to be based on a kind of gravitational dipole that could be associated with amatter. In fact i feel that gravity is a kind of energy accumulator that is concerned with separation of matter. It may be created when particles or energy gets separated
or are brought in vicinity of each other.

[PetersCreek]

Khashayarshatti,

Kindly keep the ATM explanations out of this thread. You said so yourself, this isn't the place for them. Start a thread in ATM if you wish to explain and defend your ATM ideas.

[HenrikOlsen]

Surely there is no photon.

You need to learn more quantum physics to continue, your understanding is just plain wrong.

[Tensor]

I think neutron is a good example. There seems to be no electric dipole associated with a neutron. It is said to be neutral.

There are reasons why there doesn't seem to be a dipole associated with a neutron. It is part of the Standard Model after all. However, there are calculations for the dipole moment for the up and down quark, which do have charge.

Neutron a kind of particle that could become a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.Now charge comes to existence from a neutral particle.

I explained, as the papers do, that there are three particles in the neutron that have charge. The neutron contains two particles (down quarks) with a charge of -1/3 and one particle (up quark) +2/3. That gives a total charge of 0. The neutron breaks down due to the weak force, which causes a down quark changes to an up quark releasing a W^- (this has a charge of -1, which is offset by the change of +1, the change from the -1/3 of the down to the +2/3 of the up). The W^- breaks down to a electron and a anti neutrino. The neutron does not go straight from the neutron to proton-electron particles. There are intermediate steps that provide the change from a neutral particle to two particles, one with a positive charge, one with a negative charge.

A kind of reconfiguration of the original particle causes an electric field to come into existence if and only if there is no internal electric field associated with neutron.(i think no electric dipole is sensed outside neutron).
Furthermore, referring to amatter, probably it could be of the same nature.

Probably? Could be? A bit speculative with this, aren't you?

The only difference between amatter and dark matter or dark energy(aenergy) is that based on the fact that i think for a single particle science can't prove that gravity exists

What you think has no bearing on validity of a model. What can you show to be in agreement with experimental values?

so the nature of amatter seems to me to be based on a kind of gravitational dipole that could be associated with amatter.

Seems to you? It doesn't seem to me. And just to illustrate the point, how would you calculate the gravitational dipole?

In fact i feel that gravity is a kind of energy accumulator that is concerned with separation of matter. It may be created when particles or energy gets separated or are brought in vicinity of each other.

Yeah, great. I happen to think it's the warping of spacetime. Please demonstrate how your energy accumulator idea can make predictions as close as this , or this or this . I could go on, but I think you have enough to try to come up with.

[KhashayarShatti]

Seems to you? It doesn't seem to me. And just to illustrate the point, how would you calculate the gravitational dipole?

May i change the viewport to engineering please? Surely you are familiar with phase shift in electrical engineering. How about the phase shift between I and V in a capacitor. Now gravitational dipole may resemble an spherical compass with 3 degrees of rotational freedom. A kind of compass that surely you have seen one;afloat in a liquid that always stays aligned with the magnetic field of the earth whichever way you rotate it.
In gravitational domain when an object passes by another object, these dipoles get aligned with some phase shift. When a planet orbits a star, the gravitational force is always aligned with a different phase shift. This amount of phase shift i have calculated to be proportional to gravity force. Once the planet is in orbit this phase shift becomes 90 degrees. Let me put it this way: A satellite can fall, orbit or fly away depending on its rotational speed. When and only when the satellite is in orbit this phase shift becomes 90 degrees. in free fall this phase shift between gravitatinal dipoles becomes zero. Moving away this phase shift becomes -90 degrees.
In fact centrifugal force is a kind of anti gravity.Any third object will disturb this phase shift accordingly.
I'm trying to use maths as little as possible. A kind of sensory control and monitoring system if you are familiar with modern electronics.

[Tensor]

May i change the viewport to engineering please?

Not really, were talking theory.

Surely you are familiar with

analogies omitted...

In fact centrifugal force is a kind of anti gravity.

No, it's a frame effect.

Any third object will disturb this phase shift accordingly.
I'm trying to use maths as little as possible.

And this is your problem. I asked for the calculation of the gravitational dipole for a reason. If you preform the calculation, you'll understand better.

[Shaula]

If you just gave up trying to paint verbal pictures and did some maths you'd either help your case or be able to move on from these ideas fairly quickly. Words are pretty much the worst way to communicate the detail of a theory to others. By putting your ideas into a mathematical framework you are forced to apply rigorous rules of logic to them and present them in a way that your ideas can be tested.

Modern electronics uses an awful lot of maths, by the way...

[KhashayarShatti]

Maths is perfect for final modelling but for conceptual stages i think "extra sensory perception" works better.Let's have an example:

When an object's height is increased above earth's surface then in maths it is said that it's potential energy has increased by mgh. It is said that it has some potential energy. In fact on the contrary, its potential energy has decreased by this amount. Why? Because gravitational energy has converted to kinetic energy of the object. You see at a height of h above ground then the orbital radius of the object is R+h (r=radius of earth).
So V1=R*Omega has changed to V2=(R+h)*omega and the kinetic energy from 0.5*m*V1^2 has changed to 0.5*m*V2^2.

So potential energy of objects decrease as the height increases.
Everywhere gravity energy can convert to kinetic energy unless released by atomic energy.
So the rule of the cosmos is to have planets or stars to retain gravitational energy.

Why Is it that if gravitational energy is not going to convert to kinetic energy then atomic energy must change?

[Shaula]

Nope. You have made several mistakes in your example that prove how bad words for getting to the nub of this.
1) An object on the Earth's surface is not in orbit. For something to be in orbit and have a period of 24hrs it has to be in geosynchronous orbit - a long way out. And object on the Earth's surface is co-rotating with it (and the atmosphere and so on). This point alone wrecks the whole example because by raising an object you are not altering its speed relative to the Earth's surface.
2) Gravitational potential energy is only one form of potential energy.
3) Gravitational potential energy increases as you raise an object. This is pretty easy to tell as when you let do it falls. Converting potential energy to kinetic energy. Your misconception arises from point one.
4) "Everywhere gravity energy can convert to kinetic energy unless released by atomic energy." No idea what you mean by this. Some equations or examples using real numbers might help - I suspect that we do not share a mother tongue and this makes it hard for me to understand you sometimes. Luckily there is a universal language of physics we all speak to some degree and can check using standard techniques. That would be maths then.
5) Your last question makes no sense to me either. Sorry, comprehension fail on my part, perhaps. You seem to be using the term energy interchangeably with potential and perhaps force (as in a field).

Edit: Concepts are fine but the issue here is that you are trying to use concepts and very fuzzy non-mathematical approaches to reason with. Natural language is rubbish for reasoning in. It has too many lingual, cultural and perceptual paradoxes, inaccuracies and poorly defined aspects to it. Wave your hands for a bit to get the basis of the model in your own head but get to the maths asap.

[KhashayarShatti]

Nope. You have made several mistakes in your example that prove how bad words for getting to the nub of this.
1) An object on the Earth's surface is not in orbit. For something to be in orbit and have a period of 24hrs it has to be in geosynchronous orbit - a long way out. And object on the Earth's surface is co-rotating with it (and the atmosphere and so on). This point alone wrecks the whole example because by raising an object you are not altering its speed relative to the Earth's surface.
..........

I think there is some misunderstanding.
Firstly When you change the height of an object then kinetic energy of the object increases unless you are at poles. I think a sattelite has a larger speed when in geostationary orbit compared to its speed on ground to be 400m/s at equator.

secondly imagine that this mgh energy is not going to increase but some kind of antigravity energy of the system is going to increase instead(conceptually). In fact reducing this potential energy by this amount and increasing anti gravity energy(conceptually). Sorry for my badly interpreting the subject that is my fault and you are quite right.
So i'm asking: Is this possible?
What i thought about it was that if energy=force * distance in the same direction of force, Then if by changing the phase angle of this force by 90 degrees then gravitational force will not be effective and potential energy will not increase(it is supposed to increase but it is made to decrease by this amount).
You see when you are in a polar orbit and a small compass is moved around the earth, the direction of magnetic field of the earth changes a very very little amount but the direction of the compass changes a lot. So we may be able to change the direction of gravitational force of the small object by a large amoung but very very little for the earth.
What energy can be used to change the angle of the gravitational force of the smaller object based on the fact that one single point mass can not be proved to have gravity. I mean, by science, gravity exists only and if only two point masses could at least exist.
If for one point mass no gravity exists(conceptually) then it may be assumed that it is generated when two point masses exist. So if gravity is going to be generated then we may be able to stop its generation.

[Shaula]

Yes, there is some misunderstanding. And it is yours. A LEO orbital velocity is about 7-8km/s. Geo it is 3km/s. And neither are really relevant unless a body is in orbit. Things one the Earth's surface or thrown away from them are not unless they are given a large kick that meets certain conditions.

Conceptually I have no idea what you are talking about. Your explanations appear to be using terms in a non-standard way, you seem to be suggesting things that are not physical and are getting a lot of your facts wrong. Hence my request: maths would make it easier for me to see what you mean, where you are going wrong and what you are getting at. If you cannot do the maths then you have no way to have checked the logical self-consistency of your ideas. Argument by analogy is not how you do science.

So I guess I can say the answers to all your question are: Probably not. What you are saying makes no sense. Your questions about the gravity fields are also highly model dependent. GR is the current best and from that perspective the answers to your questions about gravity are no, no, no.

[KhashayarShatti]

Yes, there is some misunderstanding. And it is yours. A LEO orbital velocity is about 7-8km/s. Geo it is 3km/s. And neither are really relevant unless a body is in orbit. Things one the Earth's surface or thrown away from them are not unless they are given a large kick that meets certain conditions.

Conceptually I have no idea what you are talking about. Your explanations appear to be using terms in a non-standard way, you seem to be suggesting things that are not physical and are getting a lot of your facts wrong. Hence my request: maths would make it easier for me to see what you mean, where you are going wrong and what you are getting at. If you cannot do the maths then you have no way to have checked the logical self-consistency of your ideas. Argument by analogy is not how you do science.

So I guess I can say the answers to all your question are: Probably not. What you are saying makes no sense. Your questions about the gravity fields are also highly model dependent. GR is the current best and from that perspective the answers to your questions about gravity are no, no, no.

Shaula, I have to simplify explanations especially for you. In simple terms using maths:
Power=force *velocity = force * speed * cosine(angle between force and direction of motion). right?

When an object is in LEO or GEO then movement of the object is always perpendicular to force of gravity. So there is no change of power and the object will not fall.
When you walk on the surface of earth, your movement is always perpendicular to the direction of your weight. So there is no change of power and you will not fall into earth.

In the first case, the centrifugal force opposes gravitational force and in the second case, reaction force opposes your weight. Is this simple enough to understand?

Now, can one move in the direction of force of gravity by changing the direction of weight instead of moving at right angles to the direction of gravity force?
In other words can we think of a kind of linear antigravity in comparison with rotational antigravity motion(orbital motion) that could physically be achieved? In the first case you change direction of motion and in the second case you change direction of force.
This argument has nothing to do with opposing GR.

[Hornblower]

Shaula, I have to simplify explanations especially for you. In simple terms using maths:
Power=force *velocity = force * speed * cosine(angle between force and direction of motion). right?

If by power you mean the rate of change of the body's kinetic energy, yes under some conditions.

When an object is in LEO or GEO then movement of the object is always perpendicular to force of gravity. So there is no change of power and the object will not fall.
When you walk on the surface of earth, your movement is always perpendicular to the direction of your weight. So there is no change of power and you will not fall into earth.

Here I see sloppy use of words about power. I would say there is no change of kinetic energy, provided the orbits in question are circular. We could say that there simply is no power in that sense. For orbital motion the body "falls" in the sense that gravity is causing it to diverge from a straight line, but its forward motion causes it to "fall around" the Earth instead of toward it.

In the first case, the centrifugal force opposes gravitational force

I would substitute "momentum" for "centrifugal force" in keeping with the modern inertial-frame principle that there is no upward force acting on the orbiting body.

and in the second case, reaction force opposes your weight. Is this simple enough to understand?

Yes.

Now, can one move in the direction of force of gravity by changing the direction of weight instead of moving at right angles to the direction of gravity force?
In other words can we think of a kind of linear antigravity in comparison with rotational antigravity motion(orbital motion) that could physically be achieved? In the first case you change direction of motion and in the second case you change direction of force.
This argument has nothing to do with opposing GR.

Once again your writing about some fundamental terms is so sloppy that it is difficult to ascertain your line of thought. It appears to me that you have a fragmentary acquaintance with some of the fundamental principles of physics but are lacking the knowledge of some critical details. In addition you appear to have difficulty in writing coherently about what you do know. A forum like this is not adequate for me to set you straight in an orderly manner. I would have to sit down with you and have you take me step by step through your line of thought, so I could intervene instantly with appropriate statements or questions when I catch you in an error or omission, or when I need to have something clarified. Having pencil and paper for sketching something that is tricky to describe verbally is helpful. Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.

[Gsquare]

When an object's height is increased above earth's surface then in maths it is said that it's potential energy has increased by mgh. It is said that it has some potential energy. In fact on the contrary, its potential energy has decreased by this amount. Why? Because gravitational energy has converted to kinetic energy of the object. You see at a height of h above ground then the orbital radius of the object is R+h (r=radius of earth).
So V1=R*Omega has changed to V2=(R+h)*omega and the kinetic energy from 0.5*m*V1^2 has changed to 0.5*m*V2^2.
.....
....So potential energy of objects decrease as the height increases.

Clearly this is ATM, and belongs in ATM section....Standard physics says potential energy INCREASES with height above earth's surface.
KhashayarShatt is making new theory based upon his FALSE assumption that gravity imparts HORIZONTAL velocity to an object above the earth's surface, (which it clearly doesn't)...

In his description above for orbiting objects , he makes the false assumption that the angular velocities, omega, of two objects orbiting at different radii are the SAME....leading him to false conclusions about the their actual velocities and their kinetic energies.

From Standard physics we know for objects in ANY circular orbit....(no matter what the radius)... the kinetic and potential energy stay in a constant ratio, namely, K E = -1/2 (P.E.) .
See simple standard derivation here: http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~broholm/l24/node1.html

G^2