How gravity really works

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: wildespace
Gravity pulls but pushes at the same time, that's why the moon hasn't crashed into the Earth.

Except it doesn't push. The Moon is in free fall towards Earth. It hasn't crashed into us because it's in orbit around us.

One could argue that gravity pushes matter together rather than pulling it together.

We don't actually know for an absolute fact which is happening.

Well we know the effects gravity has on everything, as the electron orbits around a nucleus of an atom and magnetism orbits around electrons. Planets orbit around stars and stars orbit around the black hole in the center of galaxies. So gravity shows influences from the subatomic to the intergalactic. What is the physical essence that space-time calculates? Gravity is caused by a mass creating a dimple in space-time, but what is it? Something of a physical nature causes like particles to repel and unlike to attract. Like it has been said, gravity can push and gravity can pull.
It could be something so simple as the rain falls from the sky to the earth, so gravitons shower down from the heavens and push us to the earth and an ether is the constant that keeps it all from colliding together.

originally posted by: SeekAnswers
Well we know the effects gravity has on everything, as the electron orbits around a nucleus of an atom and magnetism orbits around electrons. Planets orbit around stars and stars orbit around the black hole in the center of galaxies. So gravity shows influences from the subatomic to the intergalactic. What is the physical essence that space-time calculates? Gravity is caused by a mass creating a dimple in space-time, but what is it? Something of a physical nature causes like particles to repel and unlike to attract. Like it has been said, gravity can push and gravity can pull.
It could be something so simple as the rain falls from the sky to the earth, so gravitons shower down from the heavens and push us to the earth and an ether is the constant that keeps it all from colliding together.

Could be. We can calculate its effects, but it, so far, gravity is invisible, so its function is still only mathematically understood.

Does space have a greater effect on more massive objects? That is the real question concerning gravity. Is it the mass or the space?

originally posted by: Esarman
Can't say I understand this, my bad.
I read that gravity is a weak force, which is born out of the sheer mass of the earth, compared to the mass a human being and the effect it has on said human.
Such a weak force should be easily blocked, but how, it's got to have something to do with those spinning electrons.
some sort of resonance at a very very high frequency, maybe the key is to disrupt that resonance?
If gravity is mass, how can mass be changed, add energy maybe, but at the right frequency.
Totally nuts right, but it's going to take a new way of thinking to solve this one, if we ever do!

Every proton or neutron has a gravitational field. The gravitational field pulling us downwards is a result of the gravitational force in all other directions (sideways) cancelling each other out, so that only the downward direction is left.
There are experiments which can be done with petanque balls which demonstrate the warping of space due to mass:

www.fourmilab.ch...

Whenever a positron particle goes near a nucleus it disappears (that's what they explained about pair production and gamma rays). With quantum particles appearing and disappearing at random, that could generate an acceleration field
around particles, the strength being proportional to mass. Gravity actually decreases the closer you get to the centre of a sphere. If you had a torus shaped planet, all gravitational attraction would cancel out at the center.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Esarman
Can't say I understand this, my bad.
I read that gravity is a weak force, which is born out of the sheer mass of the earth, compared to the mass a human being and the effect it has on said human.
Such a weak force should be easily blocked, but how, it's got to have something to do with those spinning electrons.
some sort of resonance at a very very high frequency, maybe the key is to disrupt that resonance?
If gravity is mass, how can mass be changed, add energy maybe, but at the right frequency.
Totally nuts right, but it's going to take a new way of thinking to solve this one, if we ever do!

Every proton or neutron has a gravitational field. The gravitational field pulling us downwards is a result of the gravitational force in all other directions (sideways) cancelling each other out, so that only the downward direction is left.
There are experiments which can be done with petanque balls which demonstrate the warping of space due to mass:

www.fourmilab.ch...

Whenever a positron particle goes near a nucleus it disappears (that's what they explained about pair production and gamma rays). With quantum particles appearing and disappearing at random, that could generate an acceleration field
around particles, the strength being proportional to mass. Gravity actually decreases the closer you get to the centre of a sphere. If you had a torus shaped planet, all gravitational attraction would cancel out at the center.

There is absolutely no proof that it is not space relative to mass that is doing the work instead of mass itself.

It is a baseless assumption that will hinder progress into the understanding of gravity.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

What is space then? We know what mass is, it is observable, gravity is also observable, but its form is not observable.
The simplest description of the theory of relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy.
Even though spacetime is a mathematical formula, it also seems to be used to describe physical but intangible space.
So what is it that is being curved?

originally posted by: SeekAnswers
a reply to: TarzanBeta

What is space then? We know what mass is, it is observable, gravity is also observable, but its form is not observable.
The simplest description of the theory of relativity describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy.
Even though spacetime is a mathematical formula, it also seems to be used to describe physical but intangible space.
So what is it that is being curved?

Space is the expression of potential energy.

Potential energy is energy that needs a vessel in order to manifest. Potential energy wants to be kinetic energy.

Therefore, there is not a curvature. There is simply a potential to kinetic energy gradient. Towards more potential, time is faster. Towards more kinetic, time is slower. The reason is that potential energy pervades time, but kinetic energy is the expression of time.

Space-time should be said to be potential-kinetic energy flux. But it's easier to point out their expressions than to point at what they really are. The manifestation can be sensed, but the reality must be imagined.

How ironic.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: wildespace
Granted, this kind of visualisation makes it harder to explain how smaller bodies orbit the bigger ones, so that's where the trampoline analogy might still be useful. But this, in my opinion, is how the effect of gravity on spacetime should be visualised.

The trampoline seems to address this concern quite nicely, you're right.

The video explains gravity using gravity. It is wrong.
Just pointing out...

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: wildespace
Granted, this kind of visualisation makes it harder to explain how smaller bodies orbit the bigger ones, so that's where the trampoline analogy might still be useful. But this, in my opinion, is how the effect of gravity on spacetime should be visualised.

The trampoline seems to address this concern quite nicely, you're right.

The video explains gravity using gravity. It is wrong.
Just pointing out...

Yep, that was my whole intention in creating my video. Instead, we can visualise space as a 3-dimensional grid, with the massive object pulling the grid lines into itself.

Here's another, similar video: www.youtube.com...


And another one: www.youtube.com...


Turns out there are a few like-minded people!

a reply to: wildespace

STORMCELL

If we knew how it worked, we could make gravity motors in the same way we make electromagnetic motors and dynamos.

You know what happens once gravity can be completely controlled
right? Someone will claim the rights to it and it becomes taxable.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: wildespace
Granted, this kind of visualisation makes it harder to explain how smaller bodies orbit the bigger ones, so that's where the trampoline analogy might still be useful. But this, in my opinion, is how the effect of gravity on spacetime should be visualised.

The trampoline seems to address this concern quite nicely, you're right.

The video explains gravity using gravity. It is wrong.
Just pointing out...

Yep, that was my whole intention in creating my video. Instead, we can visualise space as a 3-dimensional grid, with the massive object pulling the grid lines into itself.

Here's another, similar video: www.youtube.com...

And another one: www.youtube.com...

Turns out there are a few like-minded people!

Your videos, imo, are real deal. Space gets its metrics stretched the closer to the gravity source. The 'stretch' is vector like, pointing toward the source.

With this said, seems as if xyz dimensions of any physical object outside gravity affected area when placed inside the area, the object will be forced to become dimensionally altered from its 'original' shape. To rephrase, every object occupies allocated space volume to accommodate it's presence and if available volume is changed geometrically (preserving overall volume size), the object will change it's shape as well.


I just have this little guess of mine as of why physical objects (apple) fall toward Earth surface. But not right now...It based on the gravity concept as in your videos.

Your video shows how gravity should be thought of or visualized in general. First step is correct base of understanding through mental model and then think of that phenomenon making theories.



cheers)

The lack if visualization in science/math "teaching" is abominable. To the point it's obviously intentional. The traditional ball on a blanket nonsense could only be intentionally bad.

Gravity is junk. A worthless temporary force like static cling.

Gravity is an expression of a conglomeration of matter whose net energy is less than that of equivalent matter existing in free space. Since falling toward a gravitational potential describes a loss of energy, does matter fall or is it pushed?
When interstellar clouds coalesce they do so because the blanketing of material cools the cloud down. Atomic electrons occupy lower orbits - matter occupies less space and the cloud becomes denser.

The first question is why does matter even fall toward a gravity source, why doesn't it just 'hang' there and yet be unable to retreat from the gravitation?

When matter is compressed by gravity, the atomic electron orbit is changed from that of the 'free orbit' expressed by interstellar matter. Under even greater pressure it can be argued that the electron orbit is now persistently deflected by neighbor atoms and their electrons. When the motion of an electron in free space is diverted (by a magnetic field) it emits Synchrotron Radiation.

So the second question is; why doesn't matter compressed within massive objects release more energy than we are seeing? I suspect the outcome of this, is that if it did, the effect of gravitational attraction would result in instability of matter – that being unable to resist gravity - and the Universe being unable to exist in its present form. The precise balance of gravitational attraction and matters ability to resist it gives us the identity of molecular mass and the world we enjoy today.

The deflection of the compressed atomic election and the ‘missing’ radiation gives us a negative energy quotient and we call this ‘Gravity’. This also explains why we observe ”no Gravity, Gravity and more Gravity” but never a negative or anti-value. It isn’t possible to give atomic mass a value of negative energy.

originally posted by: Cinnamon
Gravity is an expression of a conglomeration of matter whose net energy is less than that of equivalent matter existing in free space. Since falling toward a gravitational potential describes a loss of energy, does matter fall or is it pushed?
When interstellar clouds coalesce they do so because the blanketing of material cools the cloud down. Atomic electrons occupy lower orbits - matter occupies less space and the cloud becomes denser.

The first question is why does matter even fall toward a gravity source, why doesn't it just 'hang' there and yet be unable to retreat from the gravitation?

When matter is compressed by gravity, the atomic electron orbit is changed from that of the 'free orbit' expressed by interstellar matter. Under even greater pressure it can be argued that the electron orbit is now persistently deflected by neighbor atoms and their electrons. When the motion of an electron in free space is diverted (by a magnetic field) it emits Synchrotron Radiation.

So the second question is; why doesn't matter compressed within massive objects release more energy than we are seeing? I suspect the outcome of this, is that if it did, the effect of gravitational attraction would result in instability of matter – that being unable to resist gravity - and the Universe being unable to exist in its present form. The precise balance of gravitational attraction and matters ability to resist it gives us the identity of molecular mass and the world we enjoy today.

The deflection of the compressed atomic election and the ‘missing’ radiation gives us a negative energy quotient and we call this ‘Gravity’. This also explains why we observe ”no Gravity, Gravity and more Gravity” but never a negative or anti-value. It isn’t possible to give atomic mass a value of negative energy.

The whole time you sit, potential energy and kinetic energy are converting. There is also a pushback from matter.

So there is a lot of energy flux, but it is about equal.

I do apologise, the 5th paragraph should read

"The deflection of the compressed atomic election and the ‘missing’ radiation gives us a lower energy quotient compared to equivalent matter in free space and we call this difference ‘Gravity’. This also explains why we observe ”Zero Gravity, Gravity and more Gravity” but never a negative or anti-value. It isn’t possible to give atomic mass a value of negative energy.

As you can see, this is very difficult to explain.

originally posted by: greenreflections
The video explains gravity using gravity. It is wrong.

How are black holes modelled using the alternative proposed by the OP?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: greenreflections
The video explains gravity using gravity. It is wrong.

How are black holes modelled using the alternative proposed by the OP?

Inspired by this thread I've been recently looking for possible (better) visualizations myself.

Here is an interesting one:
A Black Hole is a Waterfall of Space

It is curious that you can come up with a formulation with the space itself falling towards massive objects.

originally posted by: Cinnamon
I do apologise, the 5th paragraph should read

"The deflection of the compressed atomic election and the ‘missing’ radiation gives us a lower energy quotient compared to equivalent matter in free space and we call this difference ‘Gravity’. This also explains why we observe ”Zero Gravity, Gravity and more Gravity” but never a negative or anti-value. It isn’t possible to give atomic mass a value of negative energy.

As you can see, this is very difficult to explain.

When you're dead, are you anti-alive or just dead?

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
The lack if visualization in science/math "teaching" is abominable. To the point it's obviously intentional. The traditional ball on a blanket nonsense could only be intentionally bad.

Gravity is junk. A worthless temporary force like static cling.

No more gravity for you!

Let us know how that works out.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: greenreflections
The video explains gravity using gravity. It is wrong.

How are black holes modelled using the alternative proposed by the OP?

Space-time is stretched to infinity at the singularity.