Understanding Gravity (and more)

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by citizenx1

 

String theory does cover these energy strings - how does that correlate with your explanation as to the nature of gravity?

The force that compresses energy into a string shape is the same force that's pushing the Milky Way and Andromeda together. The difference is, at the planck-length scale, the spreading energy from every point is still a tiny little ball, very, very concentrated and strong. At the atomic scale, the energy has dispersed, it's orders of magnitude weaker at any given point on its sphere, but still powerful enough to push electrons away from the nucleus. And at the galactic scale, the still-spreading energy is a huge sphere and very, very weak. It's all the same energy... but some is big and weak, some is tiny and strong.

My gut feeling is that there are too many similarities between the very large and very small for these things to be co-incidence. By saying that I'm not implying i take a view on what created them (nature or "other") but rather, that it seems likely these patterns are visible in the things we already know and those we do not.

Your theory does not seem implausible and is the most logical and understandable of any i've heard on the subject.

I'll watch this thread with interest and would encourage you to forward it to "the experts" for their take.

S&F.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by rival

 

I just feel in my gut that matter is attractive to other matter. It seems to work in nature and from I can see all nature's basic principles seem to function in the same general and simple way.

Glad you enjoyed reading the theory. Maybe I can change your mind...

But I know what you mean. I'm a firm believer in "As above, so below" too. But when two people fall in love, did they fall, or were they pushed, together? Could be either. To me, a neutron is just a really, really tiny galaxy, with three stars in it, spinning really, really fast because it's so small. And the wind is what's blowing it around. Like a windmill. If they were attracting each other together, why would there be any distance between them? Why would a neutron have a size? Why do electrons orbit a nucleus instead of being sucked into the opposite charge at the center? Why is a photon emitted when an electron falls down one valence level, what form was that energy in before the quantum leap released it? Conventional science can't really explain it... my theory does. I really really believe in it.

if we ever reach the stars we will do so because we have solved the mystery of gravity and have learned to "pull" AND "push" ourselves thru space...

UFO flight is also explained by it. If they block the "wind" hitting their ship from any direction, the ship will "fall" in that direction, even if it's straight-up. The acceleration is determined by how much of the wind they block. It can easily allow instantaneous right-angle turns at 15,000 MPH... but inertial dampeners are another matter. Pun intended. You'd have to have those, too... never really thought about how to apply this theory towards dampening inertia... I'm open to suggestions.

No, you haven't changed my mind, but you have fielded some of the obvious questions well. You have
succeeded in provoking me to think. I created a universe in my head and applied your theory and I
just can't make it work. The problem for me is the source of energy needed to "push." It would
have to be pervasive--emanating from all areas...

I can make it work with two bodies of matter shielding each other and being pushed together but
in my head I cannot cause them to orbit, and it really breaks down when I try to get an entire solar system,
into its many differing orbits, or I try to imagine binary stars and the like. I wish I could follow you down
to the quantum level and understand "valance" and interactions of small bits of matter but I ditched in
ninth grade so I work with what I have.

As to UFO's....

Generally, it is recalling the lone sighting I witnessed that spins me off into deep thought like this.
My sighting lasted less than three seconds, at night, green neon streak of light. It came down from
the sky exactly like a normal meteor glowing bright neon green, but then it paused (stopped) maybe
20 degrees above the horizon, paused for a tenth of a second and streaked off to the right at
the same speed it entered my field of view. It was gone from view in less than two seconds.

I can't explain what I witnessed. I can say I have been driving a truck at night for twenty years; currently
I work in the gas field and spend ALOT of time in rural areas, under the stars, watching the sky, while
my truck loads up, and I have never ever seen something that I couldn't explain or debunk....except this
sighting (sorry not trying to derail the thread...this comes back around to topic)

So, in my mind, this was an alien technology, maneuvering outside the laws of physics as we know them
and I go from there in my attempt to understand. The first problem I have is with the friction of the
atmosphere.and the speed of this object--I can't reconcile what I saw with what I know of friction
and aerodynamics. BUT, that is not what really gets me thinking. It is the inertia exerted when that
object stopped and changed direction with no apparent acceleration or deceleration. Obviously there
must have been a speeding and slowing down but to casual observer (did I just say "casual") it was
not apparent.

So how would an object move thru space in this way without tearing itself (the occupants notwithstanding)
apart? It must either create its own reality of gravity around itself, or somehow move thru time in such a
way that from my perspective its rate of speed is enormous. Okay, so the latter answer I write off because
it is just too deep for my ninth grade level, but the former idea of creating its own gravitational field
in a bubble (if you will) remains interesting because gravity still remains as an unknown entity.

After many years of thinking about this I realized the easiest explanation is that this object moved
by a means we barely understand--gravity. It certainly could not have used some mechanism of
thrust. And given your theory, it is hard to think it was pushed.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
Science doesn't know yet whether the universe is either truly infinite, or just really, really, really really really big,

Again, we know that the universe is NOT "pulsating", but expanding.
Please explain why this is not the case, because your theory suggests that the universe will stop expanding.

But it would, indeed, have to be massively huge and mostly devoid of matter to avoid the unbalancing you describe.

So, what you are telling is that all observable universe is a "special case" because we are too near the center of the universe to notice the problem? Yet the general theory of relativity has shown why newton's laws are incorrect, and we seem to know what we are talking about?

Your theory is bringing up more questions than it is solving (if any).
So, I think you need to show some calculations based on your model that do not contradict with the theory of relativity, but does so when the universe expands further.
My guess is that you will fail in step one, though.

Yet it is possible. To make sense, my theory requires a non-infinite, but enormous, universe. If anyone knows a way of determining its size another way, lemme know...

What is the issue with our current estimate?

Pretty awesome that you came up with this idea on your own. However, sorry, you are not the first one who thought of this.

This guy Wright came up with this decades ago.

www.keelynet.com...

He based his theory on the work of Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748. en.wikipedia.org...

Lots of other people have disputed this over the years: push gravity

It may be right, it may be wrong. The only thing we "know" at this point is that "scientists" don't KNOW what gravity is, at all. Not even the faintest clue. The much ballyhooed "gravitational constant" of "g" has been definitely proven to be different in different places. This proves it is not a constant at all.

Gravity is "defined" as the tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportioned to the quantity of matter they contain – the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another.

Such is the seemingly circular logic underlying standard gravity theory. There are loads of holes in the standard THEORY, anyway. Gravity Probe B

You could maybe start with the question why does a spinning gyroscope appear to lose weight?

reply to post by Thought Provoker
will you help me build a space ship?

This is an interesting theory that has been postulated before, as another poster pointed out.

It has its application primarily in Newtonian mechanics, but does not hold up when verified and observable relativistic effects are considered.

Gravity, as has been described in the classical sense and referred to in this thread, was initially thought to be a fundamental attraction of matter and energy in the universe.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity upended this notion by postulating that gravity is an effect of the distortion of space-time caused by the presence of matter and energy. This theoretical distortion of space-time has been verified by numerous experiments.

I am certainly no expert, but the theory in the OP does not consider relativity and it would be very difficult to explain certain things without general and special relativity.

Excellent read, thanks for putting together a nice thread! S&F

Sorry to say this to you but your ideas are very "Newtonian" and quite outmoded.

I searched the thread only to find no mention of the greatest physicist of all time who is the last word on gravity via the General Theory of Relativity. So I had to join just to point out that Albert Einstein is the 'grandfather' of gravity - completely overturning the Newtonian propositions set forth in the OP.

I had this very thought years ago, as well. My thought was that gravity was merely the obstruction of the "pressure" of space by a large object, and because the pressure was greater on the side of space, things were pushed against the object.

Since the mass of the celestial body determines the gravitational force, it seems to me that the 'pressure' of space passes through the body, and if the body is more massive, it is unable to pass through as easily and it imparts onto something on the surface with greater force. Conversely, if the body is less massive, the pressure has less resistance and imparts less of its force on something sitting on the surface. Kind of like water passing through various densities of filters.

I hope I explained my thoughts sufficiently. I don't know jack about astrophysics, though.

I like the out of the box thoughts on this subject. Gravity hasn't been explained well by science in my opinion. They have found how to sort of measure it and have gained knowledge of some of it's properties but they still do not know what causes it. Being related to mass is a farce in my mind, this attraction and repulsion is somewhat related to mass but that is only a relationship and not a definition. Why are some things attracted to gravity and others not effected at all? Almost as if their mass exists in a different dimension.

This theory does not take into account the effects of gravity upon light. If it were a constant wind, then light would not behave in the manner that it does, despite it's duplicitous wave/particle mannerisms.

The inimitable Albert Einstein's theory of gravity as set forth in the General Theory of Relativity also confirmed for me my very early, and purely intuitive notions regarding the weightlessness of celestial bodies. Objects in space are suspended in space by space, which allows for the free fall of orbiting bodies, but more importantly it explains why they do not fall 'straight down' due to their weight. In essence - they weigh nothing.

Einstein is

On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’15


The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.


Newtonian gravity theory is challenged by various aspects of planetary behaviour in our solar system. The rings of Saturn, for example, present a major problem.16 There are tens of thousands of rings and ringlets separated by just as many gaps in which matter is either less dense or essentially absent. The complex, dynamic nature of the rings seems beyond the power of newtonian mechanics to explain. The gaps in the asteroid belt present a similar puzzle.

Wouldn't the fact of an expanding universe make your theory impossible. The masses on the outside edge of the expansion would be blocked from the wind by the rest of the universe and therefore be pushed inward? Other than that I like your theory, it's awesome!

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Must say, this is the first thread in a long while to have some great ideas! (funny too!)

I'm going to need a second cup of coffee and a few days to think this over some more. But damn, I like the way you think!

reply to post by CaptChaos


Perhaps you might venture a comment on the notion of weightlessness of celestial bodies as per Einsteins theorie(s) of relativity. If you do choose to answer I prefer that you not "cut and paste" your response. Thank you.

Interesting postulate! S&F for you.

OP - Much of what you say in your posts makes a lot of sense.

So, in theory then, as gravitational "wind", or, perhaps pressure would make more sense. As all gravitational fields touch, then we could, #1-find a way to detect/identify gravity waves. #2-figure a way to modulate said waves, we would in essence have a way communicate with anyone, anywhere in the universe in real time. No?

Think balloons touching. Press on the outside radius of one and it will transfer to the other ballon at the same time.

Sorry OP.

Excellent effort, but unfortunately you seem to be yet just another victim of the 'sandbox' reality that TPTB allow 'Scientists' to play in...



Vicious yes... And SAD, but true.

The short version is simply that 'Gravity' per se... Simply does NOT exist.

It if an EFFECT, not a cause.

Heresy... I know!



What truly makes it hilarious is the LEGIONS of semitards with Phds, professorships, chairpersons and even Nobel Prizes who somehow seem incapable of providing even the simplest of explanations of this little thing called 'Gravity'...

(Not to mention the phalanx squared of PARROTS. )

That even comes close to matching the unending EMPIRICAL evidence.



If you are truly in search of knowledge... Look at the largest cloud you can find. Smile at it and say 'hello!'. While you are waiting for it to answer you. Take the time to closely look at the cloud. (Especially if you can view it backlit... make sure you look at the edges.)

Then find everything you can about the aurora discharges from the poles. Take note of the key difference between the north and the south. Once you UNDERSTAND that key difference...

Go back and find/talk to another cloud and ask it the significance of the difference...

It will WINK at you... You know... Kinda one of those ELECTRIC moments.

Where you might suddenly understand the 'gravity' of the 'situation'...



If you aren't really in search of knowledge, I'm sorry to interrupt your (and your threadmates ) circular logic reverie.

As to Einstein... I used to be a harsh critic of the man, was especially critical of the only thing he ever got right was his quote about humanity's unending stupidity, but after seeing him thru Velikovsky's eyes, I've come to realize the poor guy was basically trapped by the body politic, especially after being saddled with the albatross of E=mc2 (an inside joke/poseur stupidity test, if ever there was one) at such an early age. When the chips were down, he put it all on the line... Unfortunately in a failed effort.

As to 'Brownian motion'... LOOK at the scaling guy...

It can NOT be any type of molecular jarring... (molecules are just a little bit TOO tiny! )

If you are in search of knowledge... yada. yada. yada.

Go look at a fellow named Gaston Naessens, yet another! heretic.

He has shown that the things that go bump in your microscope are these little creatures he has named somatids. That and his incredible suppressed microscope, discoveries, cancer cure,etc. etc... are just a little tad too much (and OT) for this thread.

See ya!

reply to post by rival

The problem for me is the source of energy needed to "push." It would have to be pervasive--emanating from all areas...

Yep. Well; I'm thinking, every emission point has one planck-length between them.

it really breaks down when I try to get an entire solar system, into its many differing orbits...

It's really no different from "classical" mechanics (Kepler), it's just that the cause is inverted in my theory. Instead of matter pulling, space pushes... but the effects would look identical either way. Orbits are already hard to calculate; my theory doesn't help there.

UFO's... The first problem I have is with the friction of the atmosphere.and the speed of this object.

If the UFO has a force field generator, it could make an aerodynamic shape around itself that instantly reorients to the direction of movement as they "change course." I imagine. That's what I'd do. As for inertia, yes, that does need to be inhibited somehow or people turn to liquid. But I've no idea how to do it yet; I just know it should be possible.

And given your theory, it is hard to think it was pushed.

Think back to the 3D wind-tunnel-sphere thing. If you had a brick wall that moves around with you, and can be aimed in any direction, you can block wind with it, which will make the remaining wind (vector sum) push you towards wherever your wall is. If the wall has variable density, you can control the force (thus, the speed) of the fall to the wall. It's like hang gliding, with the "wall" above you; doesn't it feel like your sail is pulling you towards it?

Originally posted by Nevertheless

 

Again, we know that the universe is NOT "pulsating", but expanding.
Please explain why this is not the case, because your theory suggests that the universe will stop expanding.

I think this is a semantics problem. Terminology's getting mixed-up. "The universe" is, to me, the entire region within which all matter exists. But your definition seems to be "All the matter that exists." The universe doesn't end at the outermost piece of matter; that's just the thing in it that's farthest from the center. The outer edge could be billions of times farther away than the furthest-flung bit of matter, or it could have no edge at all, or be "wrapped inside itself," in which case the outer edge is the same as the center. All the matter we can see is expanding and accelerating outwards, yes, but that isn't "the universe." That's just stuff in the universe. See?

So, what you are telling is that all observable universe is a "special case" because we are too near the center of the universe to notice the problem? Yet the general theory of relativity has shown why newton's laws are incorrect, and we seem to know what we are talking about?

Newton's Laws are only incorrect at extremely-high relative velocities, at speeds near the speed of light. Einstein only updated them so that those relative velocities are taken into account. I have no problem with someone doing the same for my theory; I just don't have the Cosmology PhD it'd take to do it. I don't even have an equation. I merely see a picture of How Things Might Be. It's certainly begging to be perfected, but I can't do it alone. I can't show any calculations because I don't know the required math.

What is the issue with our current estimate?

We don't have a current estimate of the size of the universe; we only have an estimate of how big the ball of matter in it has gotten so far. There could be quintillions of lightyears of empty space beyond it that the (why not) the Big Bang remnants simply haven't gotten to yet.

Originally posted by CaptChaos

 

Pretty awesome that you came up with this idea on your own. However, sorry, you are not the first one who thought of this. This guy Wright came up with this decades ago.
www.keelynet.com...

I too was inspired by someone else. Someone named Sylvester, back in the mid-1990's; called himself "Zap." I was on his mailing list; that's where the ideas first started germinating in me. He only related it to gravity, though; he never extended it down to the sub-subatomic level (and I've never seen anyone else extend it down like that either). Zap was pretty cool. He even gave us homework. I wonder where he is now...

The much ballyhooed "gravitational constant" of "g" has been definitely proven to be different in different places. This proves it is not a constant at all.

Which my theory not only agrees with, but explains (as the percentage of open space inside matter)...

You could maybe start with the question why does a spinning gyroscope appear to lose weight?

Yes, and only when spinning clockwise... and it doesn't gain weight when spinning counter-clockwise. Freaky, I know, but it's only losing about 0.0002% of its weight. But the faster something spins, the more solid it acts. Unless you're fast enough to slip between the cracks as they go whizzing by, it'll block you. I also have to wonder; was this done in a vacuum? Is the "losing weight" actually just aerodynamic lift, like a little helicopter? Or maybe it's a manifestation of the conservation of angular momentum inherent in anything spinning that fast; it makes it not want to move, so perhaps gravity can't accelerate it as fast... Dunno.