How gravity really works

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: wildespace

Even single atoms and molecules have their own gravity..

How about proton or neutron? Do they also exert own gravity field?
Because you indirectly suggested atoms bind because they are in gravitational (geometrical) interaction somehow?

Yes, proton and neutron have their own gravity, but no, they don't bind because of that. They bind due to nuclear force.

Gravity doesn't really play any role at the atomic scales; electromagnetic and other forces dominate here.

a reply to: wildespace

All it takes from you is to explain in layman terms why feather and a hammer touch down Moon''s surface at the same time...Absence of air I cannot possibly consider as an explanation of phenomenon. Sorry.

Thanks.

Earth gravity can be countered with creating in front of the space ship source of gravity that 'over powers' Earth's g 'pull' locally. Space ship has to undergo free fall effect, where locally, small steep 'dent' has space ship start 'free falling' into.
Set of gravity sources array can lift space ship off the ground gradually allowing it to leave Earth gravity well premise and continue travel

How does that sound?)

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: wildespace

All it takes from you is to explain in layman terms why feather and a hammer touch down Moon''s surface at the same time...Absence of air I cannot possibly consider as an explanation of phenomenon. Sorry.

Thanks.

Every object's mass creates inertia (how difficult it is to change that object's state or direction of motion). Although Earth has a stronger pull on the hammer, that stronger pull is equalised by the hammer's stronger inertia.

In other words:

Say, for example, that the hammer has 10 times the mass of the feather. From Newton's law, we can see that the force applied to the hammer must therefore be ten times the force on the feather.

However, the equation giving acceleration due to applied force looks like:

a = F/m

so, given any particular amount of force, the hammer will accelerate 10 times less. The factor of ten in both cases cancels out, and you get the result that acceleration is equal for all objects.

www.reddit.com...

a reply to: wildespace

we can see that the force applied to the hammer

What force?

..so, given any particular amount of force..

What force are you referring to? Gravity force? Gravity is not a force as per GR. Or you mean some other force?


cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: wildespace

we can see that the force applied to the hammer

What force?

..so, given any particular amount of force..

What force are you referring to? Gravity force? Gravity is not a force as per GR. Or you mean some other force?


cheers)

That's the conundrum. Gravity is not a force in relativistics (but then, what is?), but that doesn't mean that all of classical mechanics and Newton's laws got invalidated. We're still sending rockets in space using Newton's laws.

It will be of some help if people don't choose one theory over the other as the "be all, end all", but recognise that each model (classical, relativistic, and quantum) describes a specific area of how the universe works. Perhaps we will discover a Unified Theory some day, perhaps not.

Now, about force. The definition for force is "any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object." en.wikipedia.org... Gravity certainly does that.

Force actually does have a place in relativistics: en.wikipedia.org...

Thus, it's simply a matter of reconciling the idea that relativistic effects (such as the warping of spacetime by mass) create a force that causes objects to change their state of motion.

originally posted by: wildespace
Now, about force. The definition for force is "any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object." en.wikipedia.org... Gravity certainly does that.

Look up "fictitious force":

The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in Einstein's general theory of relativity.[17][18] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity.[19] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See Eötvös experiment.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: wildespace
Now, about force. The definition for force is "any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object." en.wikipedia.org... Gravity certainly does that.

Look up "fictitious force":

The notion of "fictitious force" comes up in Einstein's general theory of relativity.[17][18] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity.[19] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See Eötvös experiment.

I get that this is the currently accepted mainstream model, but if you think about it, it's not much more than just mental gymnastics and throught experiments. A freefalling observer in a box will smash against the ground eventually. Does it mean the ground is accelerating towards him at 9.8 m/s/s? Of course not. Regardless of what the observer is experiencing himself, to the rest of the universe he is accelerating towards the ground.

If an object didn't experience any force on itself, it would conserve its direction and velocity. Gravitational slingshot wouldn't be possible.

Gravity is a moving wall that certain things can and cannot penetrate.

Like an ocean wave, or the wind. Both being 'a sum of parts collective 'force''.

Little air molecules, little water molecules, alone they are nothing, can easily be tossed around. But stuck together, and all at once strongly forced in a direction, they can blow a house down, or be a 50 ft high wall of water that can break a house down.

Stand in front of some average waves and they may push you backwards, but you can also potentially dive right through it.

Some heavy wind may make it difficult to walk forward, open a parachute behind you and it may become more difficult.

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Gravity is a moving wall that certain things can and cannot penetrate.

A moving wall of what? What creates it, where does it travel from, and in which direction?

originally posted by: wildespace
A moving wall of what? What creates it, where does it travel from, and in which direction?

A moving wall of water (a wave) is made of water. In between the earth and the sun and the moon, all surrounding, is 'some type of stuff'. Water is 'some type of stuff', the walls on a trash compactor is 'some type of stuff', wind is 'some type of stuff'.

The physical reason the Earth revolves around the Sun, the Moon around the Earth, is because 'some type of stuff', pushes it to, forces it to.

We cant see this stuff (look at the night sky and its just black). We cant see air. And perhaps a fish cant see water.

But there is stuff there, a heck of a lot of it. Because if there was not 'a heck of a lot of some type of stuff' there, then the Earth could not orbit the Sun.

And this stuff must have the ability to be 'strong' enough (heavy enough, forceful enough) to push/steer/corral a planet.

Think of how heavy a planet is. In order for the Earth to not travel in a purely straight path, this 'wall of some type of stuff'/curve/warp like wind, like a water wave, like the wall of a trash compactor, must be able to hold its weight as it pushes/guides Earth around the sun.

Something crucial to consider is the angle at which the planets orbit the sun. Classical simple models being looking down on it flat like rings, but I am not sure if that is the case. If that is the case what I state above may not be entirely accurate.

The elements of my thoughts on gravity, is that the Suns rotation might play a major role. A massive body rotating among 'a particular type of stuff', causing the stuff itself to orbit the sun now.

If you are standing in water and start spinning around the water around you near your body would start moving in those directions.

So one aspect, is this effect, that the planets potentially ride on this 'treadmill' effect, created by the suns rotation. This whirlpool effect.

The second is what I was trying to describe wall like. The water example was considering the surface, but below the surface may be rotating too. Where we are in the universe it appears we would not speak about the surface of 'the some type of stuff that allows the action of gravity to occur'. So this stuff is a 3d medium (like under water, like among air).

So imagine a ball traveling through a 3d medium that the ball can pass through (like air, or water). (its also thought the sun is traveling very fast, and is very massive)

As it is traveling through the medium, it is displacing the medium. The space the ball/sun occupies cannot entirely be occupied by 'other stuff', if it was, there would be no ball/sun only other stuff.

So wherever the sun goes, the stuff that exists at point B, when the sun is at point A, must not exactly exist as it did at point B, once the sun is exactly at point B.

Just as water is displaced when you enter it.

So within the 3d medium, submerged if you will, the sun is constantly displacing the medium (warping), as if moves forward (and rotates, if thats relevant)

Now its troubling that I dont know the characteristics of the 'stuff' that composes the medium.

Different stuff acts certain ways. There is a different reaction on the surrounding medium by spinning in circles in air, as in water, in a fast food ball pit, in mud, in marbles, in magnetic marbles, so we can only go on the clues of how the planets do react to attempt to understand any characteristics of the stuff of the medium, of the medium.

So the component of the 'wall' theory, is that once the medium is displaced, it is undisplaced.

If you dive into a pool, your body submerged is displacing the water, as you go from a to b to c to d to e to f to g, non displacement, displacement, non displacement, displacement, non displacement, displacement

The water seals back up, the 'hole' your body leaves in it.

It might be that the 'hole'/warp/displacement the sun creates as it darts through the medium is sealed up by the medium, (also the suns rotation might be spinning this medium near the sun (like a whirlpool)), it might be a combination of these things that keeps the planets circling around the sun.

The 'action of sealing' (returning to equilibrium), may be a force, and the suns rotation causing the medium rotate, causing much smaller mass bodies to be caught up in the tide/wake/river/whirlpool may be a force. Of gravity, which forces these bodies to orbit the sun.

A main challenging thing is, still, how are the planets at such distances from one another, (and the sun), and So, locked in place.

Imagine just the simplest 3d medium that would allow for the things I am saying, a body moving through it while rotating. locally causing the medium to rotate, (the, or a key, of course is knowing, which I cant claim I do, at what angle the planets orbit the sun, parallel to perpendicular) and the displacement. Consider the potential difference of the interaction between the sun and its 'ever nose' (even though it rotates, this ever nose would not rotate with it, but is just a conceptual idea to consider the sun is traveling a forward direction), and the medium at that nose, and its ever tail, and the medium at its tail.

The simple 2d representations of gravity mass warp, usually show an even perimeter of warp all around the body, but I dont think that would be so in light of what I have said. Because the sun is moving forward, how could it make an even extended impression on the material ahead of it, if its nose has not touched that material yet (there are 2 reasons I suppose...I will say after the reason I thought it could not). Like consider a motor boat traveling on the sea, it does not create a circle of wakes all around it, it does not create waves out infront of it, because its nose is always only ever touching the new space it gets too. Like wise a submarine (maybe) effects the water in front of it as it moves differently than behind it.

The 2 reasons it might be different. The rotation as I suggested. The rotation could allow the space in front of the sun to be effected before the sun itself gets there, by having the medium whirlpool around it wherever it goes. The 2nd is the possible way of displacement, and if this really gets to the heart of the meaning of warping. If there really is x amount of 'medium stuff', and the sun has y mass and takes up z amount of square space, that y and z of mass and space (and density) the sun takes up, is all displaced away from that space (as I said, this is the idea of displacement, if there exists objects R,T,Y,U at point A, and there is a massive body Q, and Q is placed exactly at point A, then R,T,Y,U cannot possibly exist at point A. So in that sense perhaps, the 'medium stuff', is semi evenly displaced around the sun (warped).



Why is the 5th closest planet to the sun stay so locked where it is, and then there is 6, 7 and 8th. Considering what I have said, what about any possible medium, that set up, could keep the 5th planet from ever drifting (well that was entirely what my musings were attempting to explain). That is what any deep theory of gravity attempts to explain. How is the sun effecting the medium in such a way that keeps the planets locked in position. This as I have said is key to know the alignment of orbit (what degree, parallel to perpendicular in relation to suns forward direction of travel)

a reply to: greenreflections

So basically your saying geomertic deformation of objects induces kinetic energy in objects which we perceive as gravity?

Origination of kinetic energy might be explained in context of geometry induced inner forces shift in the center of balance of test object.
Test object 'moves' continuously in attempt to maintain geometrical location of 'balance point' in xyz moving it's 'core' along an axis pointed toward gravity source.


)

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Applying your theory about gravity being a wave, how do you explain Apollo 15 feather and a hammer experiment? They both fell on the surface at the same time. If gravity was a wave, we would say feather and a hammer been affected by force of the wave (it's energy). Since force acts on objects at different degree, because of their mass, either feather or a hammer would touch down first. Which is not the case.

Crude example: I am on a floating mat on the water and a feather is next to the mat. Now, big wave comes in. The wave will push me but the feather will move very little spatially. I will reach the shore sooner. But this is not what happens according to the experiment.
Am I right?

Watch Apollo 15 video...




cheers)

What do you think about this?
Gravity is the cumulative reaction of the gyroscopic forces of rotation of electrons to the external influence from the Expansion of the Universe.
Journal of Physics and Astronomy vol.9(9), 10(2), 10(8).