Understanding Gravity (and more)

So, this is an interesting idea, and kind of fun. I won't call it a theory as it's more of an hypothesis or a notion. But, with all of the interesting and esoteric replies, I haven't seen one that addressed the main problem with it directly. Maybe I just missed it? That problem is that if gravity is actually a repelling force coming from all points in space not occupied by matter and going outward in all directions, then the force of this "wind" would not be affected by the amount of matter.

So, it begs the question, why then are low mass objects not all spherical? They have the same wind force blowing on them in all directions. And why do very high mass objects get forced together so tightly that they form a fusion reaction? Or compress so tightly that they become black holes? Since, per this idea, the mass itself is not causing the force in any way, all celestial objects should basically have the same density.

In fact, all observations we have made of the universe tend to very clearly support that gravity is caused by the mass itself.

I wish I had seen this topic earlier, I'm about to formulate a reply to the original post, but there's so much in between that post and this one that I don't have time to go through it all. Is there anything important in the conversation so far that should be brought up? As in, can anyone summarize the conversation so far?

If you don't mind, ThoughtProvoker, I'm first going to go through your OP and point out anything I find "wrong" with it.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
"[Gravity] defies unification with the other forces, its source cannot be determined (it ain't "gravitons")"

I haven't yet studied General Relativity, but Einstein modelled his theory of gravity, which agrees with everything we have tested gravity against so far (assuming the existence of matter that doesn't interact with light, "dark matter" - just means we can't see it because it isn't shiny). We are having difficulty unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but that's an issue your idea wouldn't help solve either, having to do with tiny scales.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
they can ignore those masses' effects for short-term calculations, but they all have an effect, however slight... all the way to the edge of the universe.

Because of the 1/r^2 dependence of gravity, the contributions of far away objects is minimal. If two objects are say, a distance D apart, a third object a distance 10*D away has a gravitational force on the two objects that is one hundredth of the force the two objects exert on one another. On top of that you have cancellations of forces coming from opposite directions. You can ignore the far away masses for much more than short-term calculations.

Also keep in mind the uncertainty principle, just the uncertainties in the positions and momenta of the objects alone would likely contribute more than any acceleration caused by far-off objects for many situations.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
It also takes no force at all to move you or the fans. Superconducting... frictionless... bearings, or something

I'm going to assume you mean any force is enough to make you accelerate according to F=ma, in other words that there's no friction. I mean, in actuality it's friction against the air that causes acceleration in a wind tunnel (you're moving relative to the air), but... I'll bear with you on this.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
And then a meddling scientist pushes a big brick wall in front of you, blocking the forward fan's wind a lot. What will happen? Well, you'd start accelerating towards that wall at, let's say, a rate determined by the wind speed alone, regardless of your physical size or mass. The difference in wind force from in front of and behind you unbalances your inertia; it will result in you speeding up towards the wall, faster and faster, until you splat into it.

This last quote is just incorrect, sorry.

As I understand it, the initial situation is you're in a wind tunnel, connected to a fan in front of you and a fan behind you by a harness such that when you move forward or backwards, the fans move by that same amount forwards or backwards. Let's just look at that situation with text art:
_______________________________________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wind is the motion of air. When you have a situation like you're asking for, the wind created by the fans will eventually disappear. You're going to run out of air in the middle. If you do the opposite situation, with the fans blowing inwards, you're going to have too much air in the middle. Basically, after some time the force the fans are exerting on the air to move it to the other side of the fan is going to be equal to the difference in air pressure on the two sides of the fan. That's why when you have a sealed box with a fan pulling air out of it, the fan won't pull all the air out of the box.

So, there would be no wind. When you add the wall, there's still no wind, there's no force, and there's no acceleration. Your statement about the motion is incorrect.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
And that is why nobody can make sense of it anymore, and have to come up with things like "dark matter:" they're proceeding from the false assumption that gravity is an attractive force, when it is in fact repulsive.

Alright, this is already going off of an incorrect conclusion of a thought experiment, but let's say you weren't wrong. Then you're just talking semantics. In your thought experiment you subtracted a force that was pointing away from the wall. This is identical to adding a force that is pointing towards the wall. You can say you were "attracted" towards the wall or you can say you were "repelled" from the direction opposite the wall, they are identical.

We say gravity is an attractive force because two objects come together because of it. How you model that doesn't make it "repulsive", even if you want to posit other particles pushing them together.

More after the jump.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
Now, I don't generally like Occam's Razor, but let's apply it here. Which is more likely: that matter contains within it the ability to somehow reach across billions of lightyears to attract other matter, or that every point in the universe has an undetectable "wind" pouring out of it at a steady constant speed (the speed of light, no doubt), expanding spheres of energy that get weaker by an inverse 4πr^2 law (surface area of a sphere, look it up) as they get bigger and never stop going unless the wavefront (the entire sphere) is completely absorbed by whatever matter it hits?

This is a misapplication of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't say that in the case of two theories that predict the same results, the "more likely" one is what you should assume is true, it says that you shouldn't make up unnecessary entities. Say you have a cat, and a vase has been broken. By Occam's Razor you should sooner say the cat broke the vase than say that an unobserved glass fairy came in and tipped it over. Or that you should sooner say "Gravity follows a 1/r^2 law" than "Gravity follows a 1/r^2 law because of unobserved 'wind' permeating all space". You'd want more predictions to come from assuming the 'wind' before you'd assume it exists. You want to assume fewer things, overall, not more things.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
An atom is, depending on its "atomic mass," more than 99.999999% empty space even when treating nucleons (protons & neutrons) as solid...

This statement misunderstands our current assumptions about matter. We assume that "fundamental" particles like electrons and quarks are point particles, having no "solid" space that they "take up", per se. They just can't be very close to each other because of things in quantum mechanics like the uncertainty principle (if two objects occupy nearly the same point in space, the uncertainty in their difference in positions is zero, so the uncertainty in their relative momenta must be nearly infinite). We have never observed that any particles have any "solid" matter. What is even meant by "solid" matter?

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
Scientists call it the "strong nuclear force." It's the same thing as "valence" between electrons holding molecules together... which scientists call the "electromagnetic force."

Electron orbits and molecule structures depend highly on quantum mechanics because electrons are are fermions and obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle (no two electrons can have the same quantum state at the same time) while protons and neutrons are bosons and don't follow the exclusion principle.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
The gravitational constant is a ratio, the amount by which we reduce the force calculated by m1*m2/r^2, but it isn't a "constant" at all. What we've measured it to be, using the earth, is 0.0000000000006675% - and it must be pretty close to the average amount of empty space in all the earth's matter if I'm right.

The gravitational constant isn't a ratio, it has units of N m^2/kg^2. A ratio is unitless. And even then there's no evidence for a specific amount of "empty space" in matter.

-------------------------------

The general idea that forces come about because of particles from far away pushing at objects to cause attraction actually isn't a new one. I don't know the details, but the last time I asked a professor how attractive forces come about they gave me essentially that description. Your thought experiment was incorrect but I get what you were trying to present.

Your idea itself is a good one, but isn't new.

Past that, any of your actual quantitative analyses are incorrect. The idea of the magnitudes of forces depending on the amount of "solid" matter in a particle is incorrect, and the way you've presented the idea conflicts with what we know about Quantum Mechanics. Further, it doesn't predict things like the violations of Bell's Inequalities that make us conclude locality doesn't exist.

In fact, the idea of "solid matter" existing at all is contrary to the observed phenomenon of quantum tunneling. That alone rules out the "wind" theory.

Physicists have already looked at this, and it hasn't led to unification or any acutal predictions beyond what we already have. It's essentially been ruled out. Sorry.

Hi OP.

I have read your post and the many replies with great interest. It appears that there are many detractors from your theory given there hard lined believe that everything they have been taught is correct and must be because of X,Y,Z. However, I think you will find many supporters of your theory out there given that it does appear to solve many issues with the existing THEORY of relativity which to this day remains unproven fully. In fact there are many instances where to make the theory of relativity work we have to make many assumptions and fixes to match the observable universe. Examples of such 'fixes' are black holes, Big Bang theory, fusion based stars etc... Which any properly read scientist will acknowledge. Only a scientist with a narrow mind would take everything written as gospel.

I believe that if you start discussions with some of the brilliant scientists found by following www.bigbangneverhappened.org... , who are largley discredited in a similar fashion to how you are being slowly discredited here, I believe you will find real truth in solving the mysteries of the universe.

I recently read a old book called etidorhpa which goes into detail about misconceptions that may exist about how we see the world and the universe. I'd be interested to see if you read this book if your theory matches with what could be described in such detail around the Nature of gravity.

There is a wonderful section in the book whereupon they travel by boat without sails or motor. They use the current from the ether to travel. I have copied below a small section from the book.

Finally, I wish you good luck with finding the right theorist to put your thought experiment into a formular. After all, Einstein was but a humble IP Office clerk who created thought experiments and initially used other talented people to help build his written theory.

Good luck!

To provide initial backstory to the below: a man in the 1800's is lead on a journey towards the centre of the earth by a being who seems worldly in his knowledge. He imparts much of his knowledge to our journeyman. Here in our journey our two companions come to a great underground lake far beneath the earth where gravity has become much lighter...


Quote from etidorhpa


Proceeding farther along the edge of the lake we came to a metallic boat. This my guide picked up as easily as though it were of paper, for be it remembered that gravitation had slackened its hold here. Placing it upon the water, he stepped into it, and as directed I seated myself near the stern, my face to the bow, my back to the shore. The guide, directly in front of me, gently and very slowly moved a small lever that rested on a projection before him, and I gazed intently upon him as we sat together in silence. At last I became impatient, and asked him if we would not soon begin our journey.

"We have been on our way since we have been seated," he answered.

I gazed behind with incredulity: the shore had disappeared, and the diverging wake of the ripples showed that we were rapidly skimming the water.

"This is marvelous," I said; "incomprehensible, for without sail or oar, wind or steam, we are fleeing over a lake that has no current."

"True, but not marvelous. Motion of matter is a result of disturbance of energy connected therewith. Is it not scientifically demonstrated, at least in theory, that if the motion of the spirit that causes the magnetic needle to assume its familiar position were really arrested in the substance of the needle, either the metal would fuse and vaporize or (if the forces did not appear in some other form such as heat, electricity, magnetism, or other force) the needle would be hurled onward with great speed?"

...please then read the next chapter in the book here: www.sacred-texts.com... which goes into more detail as to how the boat moves apparently without force.

Thank you for reading.

I like this idea a lot! I went to college for mechanical engineering so I have some physics knowledge. I've often wondered about gravity & felt like the best explanation would be that there was some fundamental assumption that was possibly wrong. This idea sounds sensible to me.

Very interesting hypothesis OP. I like how you're testing the rules in reverse as I did earlier today in my post on velocities or what does what. I will give this a satisfying runthrough tomorrow morning so I will not read any of the comments for now to make sure I give it a fair evaluation. But I got to say it sounds really interesting indeed.

reply to post by Twine

The general idea that forces come about because of particles from far away pushing at objects to cause attraction actually isn't a new one. I don't know the details, but the last time I asked a professor how attractive forces come about they gave me essentially that description. Your thought experiment was incorrect but I get what you were trying to present. Your idea itself is a good one, but isn't new.

I agree. OP's description sounds very much like Lesage gravity: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by apophasis
have one question though and thats how would a planet like saturn form in such a situation.

How can a gas giant form? Same way anything else forms: gravity either pushes or pulls matter into a sphere. Or do you mean the rings? Well, how did they form? Matter came together in a certain way under gravitational influence. Every theory of gravity allows for the creation of gas giants, rings, galaxies, planets, stars, etc etc... otherwise it can't be true. This theory (I need to find a name for it) postulates that an external force pushes matter together; other theories say a phenomenon internal to matter pulls matter together. Either way, the observed effects would be the same. These theories should all be able to explain anything ever observed, or be thrown out, including this one. But I haven't yet seen another gravitation theory that also explains the other fundamental forces; they explain only the highly-macro scale.

Originally posted by voidman

 

...if gravity is actually a repelling force coming from all points in space not occupied by matter and going outward in all directions, then the force of this "wind" would not be affected by the amount of matter.

My assumption is that the wind's energy is absorbed any time it interacts with a particle. The more matter it hits, the weaker it gets, but the wind that goes through the empty spaces in matter isn't attenuated. So the force is affected by how much matter it has to traverse.

Why then are low mass objects not all spherical? They have the same wind force blowing on them in all directions.

Because the wind is much stronger at the atomic scale. Valence determines the molecular structure, and gravity has a much smaller effect than valence, since that energy came from farther away than the energy coming from right next to the electrons. It's the same reason why a dropped hammer doesn't pass right through the ground; the E-M force is much stronger than gravity.

And why do very high mass objects get forced together so tightly that they form a fusion reaction? Or compress so tightly that they become black holes? Since, per this idea, the mass itself is not causing the force in any way, all celestial objects should basically have the same density.

At the center of gravitation of a planet or star or black hole, gravity is close to zero... but the pressure is tremendous because of the off-center matter being shoved towards it. In a planet, that force doesn't get high enough to initiate fusion. In a star, it does (pressure-caused friction). In a black hole, the pressure is so great that everything stays "fused."

The mass itself doesn't cause the force, it... sort of enables it, by shielding the wind. Wind hits the particle, stronger from one given direction, creating a net force vector pointing away from that stronger direction. Anything lying in that direction will feel the force of that particle pushing on it. The wind is the cause, gravitation is the effect.

Originally posted by moebius

 

OP's description sounds very much like Lesage gravity...

With the exceptions that he used particles as the causative mechanism, and his theory only describes gravity.

reply to post by Itsallgravity

Thanks, I shall look through Etidorhpa. Never heard of it before. And I definitely agree with Schopenhauer's observations on the Three Stages of Truth... ridicule, opposition, and acceptance. There's only a little ridicule in this thread, with much more opposition... so we're already at Stage Two, I believe. It's going better than I'd hoped.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Nice OP

What do you think space is? Do you think space is infinite? Do you think a quantity and quality of energy (similar or related to quarks and electrons) existed before the big bang (if you think the big bang happened)? What is electric charge and how was it created? Why are there different kinds of particles (separate elementary particles)?
Is there one base "energy/matter" which primally is the constituent of all energy/matter?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

 

What do you think space is? Do you think space is infinite?

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space... but it's not infinite, not if this theory's right. Then again, is a circle infinite? In one sense, yes. You can go around and around it forever without end. I think that's the form an eternal afterlife would take with regard to the passage of time. But space... I don't know what it is, beyond "an n-dimensional sea of potential energy." I just can't see it being literally infinite; and even if it's a closed, curved loop, it would invalidate this theory because the wind from one "edge" would just continue on through to the other side and start pushing matter backwards. Whether it's truly infinite or a loop, it would prevent the accelerating expansion we've observed going on out there; the only way it can accelerate outwards, as opposed to "gravity drag" decelerating the Big Bang explosion, is if there is (A) a "black wall" lining the inner surface of the universe (attractive-gravity), or (B) less wind in the direction of expansion than from behind it (repulsive-gravity). No theory of gravitation I've ever heard can hold true in an infinite universe (unless everyone's wrong about accelerating expansion, but I won't go there).

Do you think a quantity and quality of energy (similar or related to quarks and electrons) existed before the big bang (if you think the big bang happened)?

Energy, yes, but without quality and definitely not infinite. Let's just say it was, ohhhhhh... "without form, and void." That sounds nice. It was then released somehow, "some amount of time" passed, and then the laws of physics took over. But in order for that to happen, space had to exist before the bang could occur. Otherwise there'd be nothing for it to expand into. So what I think is that there was space-time, just as vast as it is now, and then a whoooooole lot of energy appeared in it at a single point (might not even be the center) and blew up somehow. I don't disbelieve the Big Bang entirely, but I don't consider that the only possible way the universe could've come into being. For the moment, assume there is a God. If he had this big vacant space he wanted to build lots of stuff in, a Big Bang might be the easiest way to create it. Just let some energy go and let it self-organize into matter, and let the matter self-organize into galaxies, stars, solar systems, and even life forms. Believing in Big Bangs and evolution doesn't mean you don't believe in intelligent design; they are not mutually-exclusive. But I digress.

What is electric charge and how was it created? Why are there different kinds of particles (separate elementary particles)?

Electric charge is just one of the properties of particles, like spin and mass. Those properties weren't "created" any more than the laws of physics themselves were. They, along with the entire subatomic particle zoo, are consequences of the laws of physics, but laws we don't know yet. Muons are muons because they (their component strings) have some characteristic that some physical law forces into muon-ness. I'd like to think the "gravity wind" theory can explain all this too, but who knows...

Is there one base "energy/matter" which primally is the constituent of all energy/matter?

Particulate matter is highly-constrained energy. Waves are energy displacing some aetheric medium (itself a sea of energy). There are probably different kinds of energy out there, too. But just as the sun is the root cause of rainfall, plant growth, and planetary orbits, one root type of energy could be responsible for every phenomenon in the universe. It's all in how it gets applied. The same energy creates both up quarks and antiup quarks, but those blow each other up if they get too close. Strings. That's what we should be working on understanding. Their vibrations and topographies (their songs and timbre) are probably the key to understanding the symphony of nature. "You can cage the singer, but not the song." (Harry Bellafonte.)

And now, because I like food for thought, here's one of my favorites. I posted this video in another thread but nobody seemed to care there. I think here, it will find... more-fertile soil, let's say.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


You have just provoked the hell out of my thought. I've been wondering about the connection between electromagnetism and gravity/entelechy. That is now all the same and explains the "engine" behind the current flows from star to star to planet all through this universe. The Electric Cosmos theory, that is.

Gravity is a form of entelechy. Potential manifesting as force (apparently through attraction, but in reality in repulsion from everything else. But this means that the universe is expanding at an ever-increasing speed. At some speed the potential passed the threshold from being invisible (to intelligence) to being visible. Before that, inpalpable to palpable. Before that, unfeeling chaos. But then there is suggested a moirë pattern, as we continually advance in consciousness.

It appears that there could be an attractor being built into the center of the universe. As the advancing shell of galaxies and superclusters enlarges its circumference, it also rarifies. As it does so, some matter at the trailing edge eventually decelerates (due to all the mass radiating from behind it, which eventually overcomes the mass pulling from ahead. and begins accelerating back towards the center of the universe. The most contrary force that causes this stratification would be this effect present in the infinite space beyond the universe. Being in equilibrium causes stagnation. Imbalancing the dipole creates work. In this case, the deceleration of the mass at the trailing edge of the universal shell. Eventually the matter will re-accrue at the center of the universe, and builds a super black hole that then sucks everything back into itself rather quickly, since this run has netted the desired increase in consciousness. The differing densities of matter/energy causes electric currents to be set up. This drives stars, not nuclear fusion or fission. Stars are arcfurnaces, precursors to the eventual recycling of the matter in the universe. Thus is postulated at once the by-now-familiar expanding/contracting universal model and the origin of being. It, the manifestation of the universe, is like the pulsing of a gargantuan heart. All is returning to that unity, that same being who with our every breath and the least puff of wind. asks, "What am I?".

I see it, friend! I see it! Mathematics is merely a language through which to communicate relationships, and though I lack the literacy in math to express it that way, I do totally grasp what you are getting at. It appears we have come back round to the head of the snake!

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Think "coriolis forces" and "near collisions". These forces and your wind from the vacuum balance against each other in a very special shape. Something called the Nassim Haramein has some good info on that front. I like how he breaks it down for the layman. It's not a complicated idea.

Here's a site that has gathered a lot of that info together, TransPortal: www.transportals.org...

Haramein's video, "Beyond the Event Horizon" I think the title is, goes into some of the 'why' with respect to the manifestations of force. His idea about "mini black holes" is not incompatible with your concept of mass shielding.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by ImaFungi

 

What do you think space is? Do you think space is infinite?

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space... but it's not infinite, not if this theory's right. Then again, is a circle infinite? In one sense, yes. You can go around and around it forever without end. I think that's the form an eternal afterlife would take with regard to the passage of time. But space... I don't know what it is, beyond "an n-dimensional sea of potential energy." I just can't see it being literally infinite; and even if it's a closed, curved loop, it would invalidate this theory because the wind from one "edge" would just continue on through to the other side and start pushing matter backwards. Whether it's truly infinite or a loop, it would prevent the accelerating expansion we've observed going on out there; the only way it can accelerate outwards, as opposed to "gravity drag" decelerating the Big Bang explosion, is if there is (A) a "black wall" lining the inner surface of the universe (attractive-gravity), or (B) less wind in the direction of expansion than from behind it (repulsive-gravity). No theory of gravitation I've ever heard can hold true in an infinite universe (unless everyone's wrong about accelerating expansion, but I won't go there).

Ok... what is space made of? what is the quality of space in between atoms, in between star systems, in between galaxies, in between protons/neutrons and electrons ? Is it literally pure nothingness? what would that be, pure nothingness? If pure nothingness exists how and where was it created? If pure nothingness exists and is not infinite in dimension, then what is beyond the boundary of this nothingness?
If infinite nothingness or finite nothingness exists where the heck did all the somethingness come from?
these questions have led me to believe that what we think of as space, is very closely related to what we know to be quanta, energy/matter... That nothingness, does not exist in this universe...there are only regions of higher and lower densities of energy/matter... galaxies, and areas with no galaxies....So my view of gravity is pretty much the same as Einstein's..but I reserve the notion, that reality/universe may be more high tech then we can imagine... thats a big road bump in science,, formulating a qualitative view of the nature of essence of reality,,, is it dumb archaic rocks... or is it highly advanced superconducting physically computing particle accelerator.... anyway... I think space has a total mass, or pressure,, and this space hugs dense regions of energy very tightly as tightly as it can,,( its why things with less mass are easier to accelerate maybe),, and so that leads into imagining the sun traveling through space, and I view it like a bullet being shot through a very special type of liquid,, and the waves, and wakes, and whirlpool, and vortex the bullets path leaves behind it in the liquid, is its gravity, and so a dust particle that enters its trail will be caught in this wake like a pebble being flushed down an infinitely long toilet bowl circling round and round.... anyway,, i know there are alot of holes in that point of view,, but hopefully we can continue discussing our thoughts on these manners.. I am open to thinking about other possibilities with my main and only goal being discovering the actual truth of the matter..

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Electric charge is just one of the properties of particles, like spin and mass. Those properties weren't "created" any more than the laws of physics themselves were. They, along with the entire subatomic particle zoo, are consequences of the laws of physics, but laws we don't know yet. Muons are muons because they (their component strings) have some characteristic that some physical law forces into muon-ness. I'd like to think the "gravity wind" theory can explain all this too, but who knows...

So what im wondering,, was there one type of primal energy-ness... one equal vast pool of energy sameness... that separated, and for some reason (laws of physics) the sameness turned into lots of differentness?

Originally posted by TorridGal
Angelic Resurrection
Really? I think your claims are very questionable, especially this one --->.............You state "Yes according to GR, but GR is absolutely and totally wrong"

Comparatively speaking, how do your relatively meager qualifications as an "Engineer, Pilot, Inventor" permit you to say such a thing? Your actual profile is devoid of such a declaration as to your credentials (physics, mathematics, etc.) so would you mind filling us in as to your ability to refute the General Theory of Relativity.

I want to ask you quite seriously - Are you joking around with us here in the thread?
Or worse - are you making claims that on the face of it would seem impossible to back up even to the average person?

Otherwise given your alleged "engineering" background what could possibly qualify you to "fix the bugs concerning the big bang and the black hole singularities?"

Your contentions sound so preposterous to me that I have to call you on it.

edit on 20-1-2013 by TorridGal because: correction

Hey Lass and wt exactly are your credentials ,besides who is " us " you are refering to, tptb? Meagre? Lol, One earns a BS in engineering after 16 yrs of academic education, the same
16 yrs that it take to earn a MS in pure science. Engineers do essentially applied physics, so engineers can delve into pure physics as well, if they wish to.
Its you who is evidently average and jesting.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


All of these answers are predicated on the concept that the greater the mass the greater the gravity, just like the traditional theory. I guess I just can't visualize how your idea of this "outside wind" results in that, but I'll take your word for it.

But, the directional aspect of it is still a problem. For example, imagine that you drop 2 very thin, very large pieces of sheet metal of equal mass in space above the Earth, far enough above the atmosphere that you can ignore any air resistance or friction (Let's also ignore solar wind or any other normal particle or radiation pressure) One with the thin edge pointing toward the planet, and one with the large flat side toward the planet. And of course conversly the other sides of the sheets, pointing to the ""windy" side are also thin for one and flat for the other. It seems with your idea, the flat side one would fall towards the Earth faster than the other. For one thing, since mass blocks this energy by asorbing it and apparently turning into kinetic entergy, the atoms on the thin edge should block out a lot of the energy before it reaches the "bottom". Where as the sheet with the flat side will absorb energy across it's entire surface. But also, because this wind comes from every point in space, the flat sided one is simply exposed to more of it on one side than the thin sided one. Per your wind tunnel analogy, a sheet of metal parralell to the brick wall would slam into it faster than the one perpendicular to it. Yet, obviously this is not what we observe with objects of equal mass and no air resistance or friction.