Fascinating Theory of Gravity

It's referred to as the "shadow theory", and has been around since the days of Isaac Newton.

Back then, a guy named Nicolas Fatio de Duillier offered it as a mechanical explanation of how gravity might work, and while he was widely dismissed (although Newton did sign his paper when he submitted it) if you look into it, it does really well in modelling mock-ups and actually makes sense.

I've been doing a lot of looking into Relativity and Gravity theories, and to be honest, this shadow theory of Fatio is the only one that doesn't sound ridiculous.

Here's a quick overview in bullet points:

• There are constant waves of subatomic particles (gama radiation, photons, neutrinos, whatever) bombarding everything that is material and possesses mass.
  
• If a material object is located apart from other mass objects, these bombarding bits and such (since they are coming at it from all sides at once) cause that object to "jiggle" but otherwise remain so located. No net impact to speak of
  
• However, if two or more material objects are near to each other, there can develop a "shadow" region between the two objects where a relative lack of bombardment exists as a result of each object shielding the other.
  
• The slight difference between the "outer" sides and the "inner" shadowed sides of both objects causes both to move toward each other, since the ongoing physical "pressure" of the constant impacts of uncountable tiny bits and such is now pressing on both from the relative outside of their physical proximity.
  
• The net result is that the two objects seem attracted to one another by gravitational pull, while in truth, imperceptible waves of subatomic particles are more heavily affecting each object on the outer surfaces and pushing them closer together.
  

The Brady Gravitational Simulator experiments have caused quite a stir, and if the reviews of his book and his "grasp of Einstein's General Relativity" are any indication, that stir betrays a certain amount of near hysteria from some.

To my own research, Einstein's warped space-time theory lacks any "there" there - since the original concept of space-time (in Einstein's own descriptions) was no more than a location determination strategy for objects in a 3 dimensional space. How it morphed into an actual aether is something that no one (not even Einstein himself) has ever adequately explained. Yes, math equations, but math equations are idealized interpretations of intellectual concepts and not at all functional descriptions of actual physical reality. Making space-time an actual aether that planets and stars and galaxies propagate through is akin to changing the actual physical property set of a material object by changing the definition of it in your version of the dictionary. It's foolishness.

Just thought I'd share a new (to most of us) notion concerning the actual physical nature of gravity. I'm not sure that I am sold on it, but it sure beats the hell out of a metaphysical version of magnetism, and kicks the f*ck out of an imaginary aether that's made of space-time.

a reply to: NorEaster

I'm not sure that I am sold on it, but it sure beats the hell out of a metaphysical version of magnetism, and kicks the f*ck out of an imaginary aether that's made of space-time.

Space-time isn't actually an aether but how are "imperceptible waves of subatomic particles" superior?

There are constant waves of subatomic particles (gama radiation, photons, neutrinos, whatever) bombarding everything that is material and possesses mass.

Gamma radiation and photons are electromagnetic radiation, not exactly subatomic particles. In any case, the sun produces a lot of electromagnetic radiation (gamma, photons, whatever). A lot more than we receive from space (that's why it's bright in the daytime). Why does it not push the Earth into space?

Neutrinos pass through matter with little effect.

One more question. Why if, these "impercetable subatomic particles" everywhere, does gravitation closely follow an inverse squared relationship to distance?

[redundant post]

That theory would suggest that a very dense object would have things coming at it with the same pull as a not so dense object. (these objects being the same size)
Unless of course these sub-atomic particles pass through less dense objects much more easily.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NorEaster

I'm not sure that I am sold on it, but it sure beats the hell out of a metaphysical version of magnetism, and kicks the f*ck out of an imaginary aether that's made of space-time.

Space-time isn't actually an aether but how are "imperceptible waves of subatomic particles" superior?

For one thing, we know that they exist.

There are constant waves of subatomic particles (gama radiation, photons, neutrinos, whatever) bombarding everything that is material and possesses mass.

Gamma radiation and photons are electromagnetic radiation, not exactly subatomic particles. In any case, the sun produces a lot of electromagnetic radiation (gamma, photons, whatever). A lot more than we receive from space (that's why it's bright in the daytime). Why does it not push the Earth into space?

You're kidding...right. Read the OP again.

Neutrinos pass through matter with little effect.

I didn't think when I tossed in the neutrinos in the quick list, so try not to get derailed by it. I realize the temptation to make this all about grammar and/or a fast inclusion of one item (as only an example of the kinds of tiny items bombarding everything) that can cause a distraction, but the topic isn't about that. It's about the concept that's being outlined.

Christ, you'd think that by now that sort of tiny-minded crap had lost its cache on forums after all these years. Whatever.

I once heard that Gravity is more of a push then a pull.
Please forgive my inadequate knowledge on the subject as I don't know better, I'll be happy to check on this thread an learn more.

I'm actually on this thread to understand the theory on Gravity itself, I could go to other sources, but I'd rather see it between fellow ATS folks and of course my Noodling friend phage, you seem to out things into perspective that I am able to comprehend....cryptically, but sufficient.

Well, other then that....

*HEAD EXPLODES*

a reply to: NorEaster

Christ, you'd think that by now that sort of tiny-minded crap had lost its cache on forums after all these years. Whatever.

Not sure what you mean but can you answer my questions so we can have a discussion?

Will we ever figure out gravity?

That is the gravity this question holds.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: NorEaster

Christ, you'd think that by now that sort of tiny-minded crap had lost its cache on forums after all these years. Whatever.

Not sure what you mean but can you answer my questions so we can have a discussion?

You don't have a question.

Why doesn't the sun's rays push the Earth out into space?

That's a clown question and you know it.

originally posted by: Phage
One more question. Why if, these "impercetable subatomic particles" everywhere, does gravitation closely follow an inverse squared relationship to distance?

The distance increase diminishes the shadowing effect. As to why it's that specific formula...? There are a lot of specific formulas that work in a live theater of activity. So what. That's just another one. I would imagine it's because of the constancy of the barrage of stuff from all angles and directions on all material objects. It's that constancy that stabilizes the "formula".

In this case then what would cause orbits themselves? I understand what you are referring to, and it is sort of like air pressure, and although I can see how this would cause an attraction between two bodies, I do not see how it could cause any orbits, like those of the planets, or even those of astronauts above earth. Maybe it would be that there was an equal pressure on all sides, maybe from the atmosphere of the planet and these particles from space, but again why the orbit? And not all planets have an atmosphere.

originally posted by: Toadmund
That theory would suggest that a very dense object would have things coming at it with the same pull as a not so dense object. (these objects being the same size)
Unless of course these sub-atomic particles pass through less dense objects much more easily.

I don't know, but perhaps you've got something there. I just learned of this theory today, so I'm very new to any arguments. I'm definitely curious about responsible arguments, such as the one you just posted here. That's a good question.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
In this case then what would cause orbits themselves? I understand what you are referring to, and it is sort of like air pressure, and although I can see how this would cause an attraction between two bodies, I do not see how it could cause any orbits, like those of the planets, or even those of astronauts above earth. Maybe it would be that there was an equal pressure on all sides, maybe from the atmosphere of the planet and these particles from space, but again why the orbit? And not all planets have an atmosphere.

From what I read today, the momentum of the orbiting body makes it want to keep heading straight (eventually heading on out to space) but the outer pressure versus the deceased pressure within the shadow well (between the orbiting object and the larger object) redirects the orbiting object inward to the degree that it maintains that orbit.

That's the idea anyway. Like I said, I'm interested but the entirety of the concept does seem a bit casual - perhaps a bit too casual for my own taste.

a reply to: NorEaster

The error with the Shadow theory is that it would seem to favor both volume and density of the objects involved as opposed to being directly related to mass. I believe practical observable data supports a direct correlation to mass and density.

Picture the dynamics of 3 objects. One an extremely dense and massive object but small, the second a large object of significant mass and a 3rd object which is large with little mass. I do not believe you would get the correct dynamic relationships using the shadow theory of gravity.

I could be mistaken, but that is my take on it.

a reply to: NorEaster

I think if one were to envisage things under this theory, then active objects (like stars) would be the source of the majority of these particles and passive objects (like the moon) would provide only shadowing.

Assuming radiation into 3D space, it could be seen that particle density closer to any source would have to be higher from that source as one gets closer to it. The field of pressures would decrease with distance compliant with the inverse square law.

So for stars at a long distance, the pressures would be negligible but for close objects the pressures would be so much higher, that the distant object pressures could be discarded without discernible change in the effect.

In fact, we have the example of the Heliopause where the interstellar medium's particle pressure finally equates with that of the Sun. That the Heliopause is at a significant distance from the center of the Solar System demonstrates that the pressures of known particles cannot work in the way suggested.

It all hinges on the inverse square law which describes how things spread out from a source.

There are other problems with the shadowing theory, like gravitational density of objects (i.e. how mass does not necessarily relate to volume) and measured relativistic effects which argue against it.

This is not to say that there isn't some logic in the theory, just that it does not fully account for the observed.

Thanks for mentioning this as it gave me a good reason to have a bit of a think!

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

The error with the Shadow theory is that it would seem to favor both volume and density of the objects involved as opposed to being directly related to mass. I believe practical observable data supports a direct correlation to mass and density.

Picture the dynamics of 3 objects. One an extremely dense and massive object but small, the second a large object of significant mass and a 3rd object which is large with little mass. I do not believe you would get the correct dynamic relationships using the shadow theory of gravity.

I could be mistaken, but that is my take on it.

the shadow theory definitely hinges on some sort of particle that interact with mass.

i bet this will all turn out to be terribly more complicated then the original shadow theory but it really seems to be in the ball park.

i just had an idea while day dreaming about all this. if these "Particles" do exist then couldnt we use a sort of "RamJet" style intake of these particles where we somehow use the interaction to create thrust like a jet engine. a particle jet so to say?

originally posted by: Phage
One more question. Why if, these "impercetable subatomic particles" everywhere, does gravitation closely follow an inverse squared relationship to distance?

That's an easy one. The surface area of a sphere doubles as the radius doubles (area = 4 pi.r^2). So therefore, the field strength (number of particles over surface area ) follow an inverse square rule.

But if this shadow theory does work, then the Moon should be able to focus gravity particles from the Sun onto the Earth.

There's a fascinating experiment done with petanque balls, which demonstrates that even small objects warp space-time:

www.fourmilab.ch...

a reply to: stormcell

Except that gravity is not directly related to size, but is mass.
You pretty much made the point I made regarding the shadow theory failure in an earlier post.

a reply to: NorEaster

You don't have a question.

Right. I had three.
And you didn't answer them.

1) How are "imperceptible particles" different from spacetime. You said, "we know they exist." Which imperceptible particles exist? How do we know they exist if they are imperceptible? We know that spacetime exists because observations support its predicted properties.

2) Why do to the "imperceptible particles" produced by the Sun not push the Earth away from the Sun? You said, "That's a clown question and you know it." That is not an answer. It is an evasion to a valid question based on the "theory."

3) Why if, these "imperceptible subatomic particles" are everywhere, does gravitation closely follow an inverse squared relationship to distance? The Sun is by far the most abundant local source of "gama radiation, photons, neutrinos, whatever." You answered this one...sort of.

"I would imagine it's because of the constancy of the barrage of stuff from all angles and directions on all material objects. It's that constancy that stabilizes the "formula".

That does not explain why the force of attraction is related to the inverse square of the distance between bodies. If gravity is a shadow effect the force would would be directly proportionate. A shadow is directly proportionate to the distance between the object casting the shadow and the object upon which the shadow is cast. The Sun has very nearly the same apparent diameter as the Moon. Why does the Earth not orbit the Moon as it does the Sun?