Talk:Physical Theories of Gravitation
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | 1895 |
| Source: | http://books.google.com/books?id=2osKAAAAIAAJ |
| Notes: | Pages 47-52 |
Would like to see reference to "Mechanical explanations of gravity'[edit]
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation
Although the current article is excellent with respect to more details about the many criticisms of the theories, the Mechanical article contains references to many more notable scientists who apparently proposed mechanisms and criticisms of mechanical /physical theories of gravity.
Although Newton's theory of gravitation described the effect beautifully, his actual explanation of the underlying cause was very far removed from both science and reality.
The recent discovery of the Higgs mechanism / field has again raised a flurry of old questions about the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. These questions were responsible for some of the proposals (like Le Sage) of physical causes for gravitation. Unfortunately, the Higgs being defined as a scalar field means that Bertrand's Theorem comes into play and stable planetary orbits are therefore not possible. Therefore, astrophysics will need to continue to rely on the mathematics associated with General Relativity to make larger scale predictions. See the excellent Wikipedia article on Bertrand's Theorem for details.
Because virtual energy / particles are created and annihilated regularly in free space far removed from gravitational fields and interact at the speed of light there, and because the Higgs mechanism interacts to impart inertial mass to electrons, quarks, their antiparticles, W and Z bosons, and also because the Higgs itself has inertial mass (125 GeV), this all must take place at a speed LESS than the speed of light anywhere near a gravitating body or matter / antimatter, it is natural to surmise a connection between the Higgs mechanism and gravitational mass, as supported by General Relativity's Principle of Equivalence. It isn't Le Sage's gravity, or even a similar mechanism, but it does seem to make sense. Danshawen (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)danshawen
Danshawen (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)danshawen Danshawen (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)danshawen
- What exactly are you requesting? There's a lot of words here, but I can't find the meaning. Did you need help on Wikipedia with something? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)