It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How Much does Gravity Weigh?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 01:31 PM
Just a mangled interpretation of a bunch of stuff I’ve read over my life and some of my special brand of logic. Feel free to drive a couple universes thru the holes.

The Atom:
To really get to the heart of the theory it may be prudent to offer a basis. Let's go back to the basic building block of matter, the atom. The proton and neutron just sit there and collect, trade, or lose electrons. Boring job really. But the electron is interesting. It’s considered matter but it has no weight and orbits at incredible velocities when caught by these nefarious conspiring protons and neutrons. But what about the electrons that don't get caught?

The FRE:
These free roaming electrons (fre's for short) have got to be going somewhere. Let's find out where they are going. We know electrons are electricity. Oh yea, ‘grounding of the current’. The electrons are going into the planet. But then what? And where do the electrons come from?

The Relationship:
Fre’s interact with other fre’s in an “energy” relationship. Fre’s interact with non-fre’s (the electrons caught in atoms) in a “force” relationship. (And a bunch of interacting mathematical and geometric ratios, which aren’t actually necessary for understanding gravity.) Large concentrations of fre’s and non-fre’s create EM and Gravity.

Gravity is like a ‘free roaming electron’ quicksand around Earth, if you can picture it. The fre’s and the non-fre’s repel thus forcing matter towards the ground when caught in the “gravity well”. The closer to the ground you are, the more congested it gets because the fre’s are starting to pass through matter. It is also the downward acceleration of the fre’s on free roaming matter (such as us).

Electromagnetism can best be thought of as the collective fre’s force field. Electromagnetism is created by the constant flow of electrons through the center of the dense mass, it’s the “signature” of the matter it’s passing through, the complete field of fre’s surrounding the planet, the interaction with the heliographic field, the interaction with the moon and other satellites, planets, and who knows what else.

Electromagnetism is important. It is the gateway of electrons. Electrons are created by the energy field or wave “breaking” onto the force of EM surrounding dense matter or created by other means.

Particle or Wave?:
An earlier question I asked was “where do electrons come from”. Picture an ocean wave from the side. Looks like a sin wave or any other regular wave. What happens to that wave when it starts to hit shore? It curls over at the top. As great movies like “The Endless Summer” will tell you, there are many types of breaks. To bring the analogy home, picture the breaking wave hitting the shore and freeze frame it. That wave now looks like a circle or a particle. A particle is nothing more than an energy wave acted upon by a strong enough force such as electromagnetism, gravity or existing matter.

Another way to put it:
Electrons are “created” in the physical realm from the energy (ether/electrical) realm by way of existing forces. When a gravity well such as a planet, gets in the way, this perpetual wave of energy is focused to small area. A micro-singularity of sorts is created. Powerful enough to turn the electrons back to waves but still contained by the external pressure as not to consume the matter surrounding it. The matter at the very center of the planet is probably not lava. It’s probably crystalline. The geometrical gravitational forces at that pressure would surely turn matter to it’s most ordered state. What this micro-singularity basically is, is a type of funnel back into the sea of energy.

Space itself is this level of energy. It’s a vacuum to us. But with the appropriate forces you can turn the waves into whatever particle you want. All depends on the variables. That’s why scientists have found so many particles with particle acceleration. It’s the same generic stuff but acted on by different configurations of material and external forces. What we should do is build a particle accelerator between the earth and the moon.

How much does gravity weigh? Gravity is weightless.

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 05:20 PM
The Atom:
You're considering the Atom to be the basis of matter - that protons and neutrons are indivisable. In truth, they are made up of even tinier things called Quarks - which may in turn be made up of energy that's wrapped up in a very wierd way.

Electrons are Leptons - that is to say that they are indivisible. Essentially, it's a Quark that "orbits" the nucleus.

But the Electron DOES have mass - and has an atomic weight of 9.1 x 10^-31kg (0.00000000000000000000000000000091kg).

In fact it's interesting to note that a neutron has exactly that much MORE mass than a proton - which makes a proton essentially a neutron minus an electron.

Now, another odd thing about these electrons is that they don't "orbit" as we are so wastefully taught at school. The electron instead is constantly popping in and out of existance at different points around the nucleus. When an electron "jumps orbit" it's actually moving from Orbit 1 to Orbit 2 without moving in ANY SPACE INBETWEEN!

The FRE:
An electron that is considered free roaming means that it's very quickly moving from one atom to the next, at amazing speeds - or it is in a probability flux. It can't quite be anywhere, so it is simultaneously everywhere (remember, it pops in and out of existance).

The Relationship:
Once again, it comes down to the oddity of the electron also possessing the wave-particle duality that light also exhibits. While free, the electron still produces an overall electro-magnetic charge. Now, what I don't understand is why you say that concentrations of fres and nonfres create EM and Gravity. Each individual electron does create its own EM field - it's just that it's very small and insubstantial. However, Electromagnetism, like Gravity, works over an infinite space (its affects stretch to the ends of the universe). It's just that, when concentrated, their effects are noticeable at the scale of the world in which we live. Normally, at the molecular scale, it's just that their charges are quickly cancelled out by the presence of a near equal amount of protons. FAD (From a Distance), the field is neutral, but up close it's two oppositely charged fields very close together.

Gravity is the warpage of space-time, and so is not so much a cause as it is an effect. It's the warpage of space-time that creates what we percieve as gravity. When you throw a ball forward, it's not that there's something pulling it to the ground - it's that space-time is warping in such a way that "in front" of the ball slowly changes to become the ground.

I think I'll skip most of everything else, since I answered it already...

Is the electron a particle or a wave? The answer is both. When observered up close, it appears to be a particle. When observed from far away, it acts like a wave. It's wave-particle duality in the same way as light. Why this is? That's quantum physics and string theory - both of which are very excellent. It's not forced into one state or another, so much as we percieve it to be something that it kinda is, but kinda isn't.

And yes, gravity is weightless.

I'm a bit confused, did you post this for people to answer questions? Or to answer your own questions for others to see?

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:14 PM
Thank you very much for such a great reply.

You're considering the Atom to be the basis of matter - that protons and neutrons are indivisable.

Just didn't go deeper as not to lose the reader. When you start talking about muons, pions and positrons it tends to turn off brains.

Electrons are Leptons

Yea, and anti-electrons are created from photons hitting a magnetic field. Tell me another one.

But the Electron DOES have mass

I do actually remember this from 8th grade science. When writing the original post I was trying to think how to quantify the amount of electrons in a given space. I gave up very quickly I have to admit.

In fact it's interesting to note that a neutron has exactly that much MORE mass than a proton

Now that, I did not remember. That is indeed interesting enough to note.

Now, another odd thing about these electrons is that they don't "orbit"

Another tidbit I glossed over. You'll notice I deliberately expanded on what I think most people remember about science in grade school. That way the information is connected somewhere in the brain.

wave-particle duality that light also exhibits

Exactly. It's merely fluctuations in the energy-field. Just as the ocean wave turns back into a wave after it's brief particle existence, so too do these mysterious electrons.

Now, what I don't understand is why you say that concentrations of fres and nonfres create EM and Gravity.

Just expanding off the most widely know EM and Gravity fields. Gives a reference point for the information for the widest possible audience.

Gravity is the warpage of space-time, and so is not so much a cause as it is an effect.

This may be where this theory differs. My brain keeps telling me that the warpage is merely a side effect. The main force is the electrons that are pulling the space-time field inwards towards the center of matter. But, then again, maybe the bending of space-time does "hold" everything down. I'll keep this portion in a state of probability flux until I get further information.

I'm a bit confused, did you post this for people to answer questions? Or to answer your own questions for others to see?

I don't have any answers. Just presenting a few decades worth of observation and reading being filtered through my brain. And doing the presentation in such a way that I hope it's understandable by non-scientific minds.

Here's a question. What is time? We created an arbitrary measurement for it. We depend on it to create order. We depend on it as a location device. But for the life of me I can not figure out what it is. I've read all the definitions but they aren't defining anything. A long equation only quantifies the observable effect of the arbitrarily labelled phenomenon. Knowing how to balance equations of the greek alphabet doesn't define the phenomenon. Someone please define this "time" thing for me.

[edit on 1/28/2006 by Arm Of Geddon]

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:45 AM
Ah, I see.

The evidence I give for the warpage of space-time being "what holds us down" is that without it we have to consider light to have mass - since light is affected by "gravity". However, we distinctly observe light to NOT have mass - so why would such things at gravity lenses and black holes work? Because the space around them is bent, is changed.

Imagine a sheet of rubber. Now draw a line parrallel to one side, and somewhat off from the middle (you'll get the best impression of the result this way). Now, push down on the middle of the rubber, while holding out the corners so that the rubber stretches and bends. What happens to the line? Besides bending 3-dimensionally, it has also changed it's 2-dimensional position as it approaches into the "warped" space of the rubber. It appears to be pulled inward towards the bend. It's not that it's actually pulled in, it's that the space the line is travelling across has changed.

Space-Time is very similar to this, except that since light travels (is not a line that's already there), the light does not bend back out as it leaves the area of warped space - but will instead have a new direction to it. However, that applies to all things. All things travelling perfectly straight, if they do not adjust their course, will have their position and direction changed AS IF SOMETHING WERE PULLING THEM. But it's not being pulled, it's that its path has been altered.

So when you jump off the ground, there's nothing pulling you back, it's that the path you're travelling along gets changed. Your overall energy kinetic energy remains the same throughout the entire voyage (minus air resistance and wind and blah, blah, blah) - but your path slowly changes so that some of that kinetic energy is turned downwards. Eventually you stop at some point in the air (at this point we say you have maxed your potential energy - but really it's still all kinetic, just in perfectly diaposed directions) and then enough kinetic energy is changed into a downward direction that you start moving downwards.

We're living in warped space. How cool is that?

Next question, time. What is time? A philosopher will state that time is an illusion caused by the passage of history/memory. However, that's metaphysics - not physics. However, I'm starting to find that metaphysics and real physics are starting to converge at some point inbetween.

One idea in physics that, for a time, had a bit of steam (and appeared in Discovery magazine, cover-story) was a theory that the universe is in fact static - but there are an infinite number of universes, that are but moments in time - and that we're travelling through them in a sort of way.

Or, you can consider time to be the ultimate "X-Axis", something that's there and keeps on counting, forever. This X-Axis, though, is the 4-th dimension of space (and thus space-time, tada!), and you can travel forwards and backwards, for it makes no distinction between the two, but we haven't found out how yet. Of course, this gives rise to a notion that there could very well be a Y-time-Axis, which is a temporal "up", and even a Z-time-Axis, which would be a temporal "width".

Where am I going with all of this? Time is an observer. It is the event which "sees" all. Moreover, however, time is not a constant, and SPACE IS NOT A CONSTANT. In fact, I believe that there is a supra-verse, extending in every possible direction, with the different Y and Z time-axies representing different universes where different events take place. Close to us, these events are insignificant. There would be a universe where instead of an electron appearing on one side of an atom, it appeared on the other. But there could well be a universe where enough changes such as this could effect something, or where different decisions were made, or any other possible combination of events took place.

Things to think about.

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:54 AM
Interesting points guys.
Although I am not as educated as either of you on the subjects at hand, I just wanted to let you know this is an interesting conversation, and I have learned from it!

new topics

top topics

log in