It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Another Gravity Theory part 1

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:20 PM
THEORY OF GRAVITY THEORY OF EVERYTHING
This is my first thread so don’t kill me

I want to share my old gravity theory , that why those treed is named part 1.
Althrought I develop new better one and completely different, this one has something on it.
First some equation, but don’t worry it will weary easy.
Standard gravity equation:
.......................................
...........M1*M2................
F=G* ----------------..........
....................2................
..................R..................
.......................................
Let’s do some simplification:
F - Is force .Like all of you know force is energy (all force is transform to energy in earth atmosphere) or creates movement .in fact force is creating only movement because for example heat energy is only faster moving atoms. Like you all see force is movement in space and time – space time .
G - Is not relevant it’s only some number .Is needed only to calculate strength of gravity.
M1*M1 - its mass .All we know about mass is that it is completely empty .Yes there is somewhere in the middle of the atom , weary weary weary small point where source of gravity is.
I know, all of you seen picture of atoms from scanning microscope. but those picture is not real ,it is only digital approximation on data from needle measuring weary small variation of charge ,This charge is created by negative field around atom .I’m not negating existence of electron but wee know weary little about it and this field
R - is space.
Then let’s look again on gravity equation.

...............................Mass........
Space time = ----------------------
...............................Space........

That means

Mass = space time !!!

For those who didn’t understand –
ALL UNIVERSE IS BUILDED ONLY FROM SPACE WAVES
There is nothing else.

- ask yourself question, what is electromagnetic wave. The truth is wee don’t even know if it is wave or particle. All we know is reacting on matter by adding energy (heat = movement)
Then why electromagnetic wave is not considered as a space wave?
And where in all of those is Gravity?
If matter is some sort of denser space it creates around its self a gradient of space.
(It means space is curved near matter)

Part 2 will be my project of antigravity coil
Then part 3 will by completely new gravity theory.

edit on 1-3-2012 by martterspace because: equation problem

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:32 PM

Part 2 will be my project of antigravity coil

I look forward to this part.

Good luck.

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:33 PM
So if I get this right... "space waves"? (gravity/energy) is the same as mass. So mass is just very condensed "space waves"? Kind of like energy and matter are the same thing? I think your about 50 years too late to patent the matter is basically condensed energy theory. Einstein beat you to it.
edit on 1-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:51 PM

Small issue: Force can be static. Force is NOT movement.

Also in the equation where 'space time = mass / space', to resolve the terms, we'd have to multiply both sides by the 'space' term to get the 'mass' term on its own. It cannot possibly mean that 'space time = mass'. This would yield 'Mass = space^2 time'.

In fact, the equation 'space time = mass / space' is entirely arbitrary anyway! You need to provide some proof that this is so.

What is a "space wave". What frequency/frequencies does it oscillate at, what is its wavelength, how does it propagate, can we measure its amplitude, how is it polarized, can we phase cancel it by addition of its inverse?

We do know much about electromagnetic waves. We can measure amplitude, frequency, phase, polarization and wavelength. We currently have theories of its propagation that conform to measured values and entirely allow us to understand additional things about it that have not been directly observed.

Gravitation, in current theory, is cased by a distortion of the topology of space-time, usually caused by mass.

EM is fundamentally different (they are linked, just different).

edit on 1/3/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:28 PM
I think you are making a big assumption that gravity propagates as a wave. There is no reason to believe that. While there are phenomenon known as gravity waves, they are different then the gravity you are experiencing right now. Think...if gravity was a wave emanating from matter...how could a wave pull you towards it, wouldn't it push you away? The easiest explanation for gravitational force is that it is a result of curved space time. Space curves around mass. Bowling ball on a trampoline. A smaller ball rolling by the bowling ball will have its trajectory slightly altered on the outside, and be "pulled" towards the bowling ball if it is too close (speed being relative). There are no gravity waves emanating from the bowling ball pulling on the smaller ball, it is simply the curve in the trampoline (space time). So for true anti gravity, you need to figure out how to "uncurve" space time locally (flatten out the trampoline). To have an appreciable effect on the local space time curve you would need insane amounts of mass/energy (basically equivalent of another bowling ball on the trampoline so it is flat between them) Not saying it isn't possible, but until we can create insane amounts of energy and focus it all in a very small spot to locally uncurve space time, we aren't going anywhere with anti gravity. We're going to need some huge quantum leaps in energy output before we think about playing with space time curvature. Even then, it still takes a lot less energy to send a conventional rocket into space along the space-time curve then it would take to send that same rocket into space by straightening out the curve (anti-gravity).
edit on 1-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 01:32 AM

The rubber sheet is not an analogy for curved space time. It is missing the time dimension. It might be a good visualization of the Newtonian gravitational potential though.

Look here for a space time visualization: www.relativitet.se...

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:53 PM
Well it's close enough to explain gravitational forces due to curved space.

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:25 PM

"chr0naut: Small issue: Force can be static. Force is NOT movement."

Force is movement ,it can by potential like a metal spring in clock , actually matter could by standing wave or some sort loop of space .But it is still "sort of movement in pause"

"It cannot possibly mean that 'space time = mass'. This would yield 'Mass = space^2 time'. "

It only states that space have density - just another dimension but it is still space.

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:28 PM
Not all force is movement. Static force is not movement, like a magnet. Matter could be unicorn wishes and rainbows for all we know, the problem is you can say it is folded space, or "sort of movement in pause" (which would be static) , but in reality, you kind of need to prove part 1, if you want us to move on to part 2. Either that or part 2 should prove part 1, and you should lead with that then. It's okay to have theories, but you need to establish the theory is correct before you start building onto it. Your just building on a house of cards with no foundation.

A wave in water is simply energy moving through water. The energy propagates without actually moving any of the physical medium forward with it. Maybe matter is nothing more then a dense wave through space time. Your hand moving as you type is just a complex ripple moving along space time, using the energy of your "movement" to condense space-time in front of it into a denser form of space-time we interpret as matter . As the space-time behind it expands back to normal. As your hand passes what you think you are seeing is matter move through space time. What you are actually seeing is the space-time medium distorting with energy like ripples in water. No actual matter is moving, just the medium contracting and distorting with the energy input. Hell, let's go off the wall, space time doesn't curve around matter, the space time distortion is matter. The gravitational force is simply space time it's self contracting with the energy wave pulling all objects in that contracting space closer to it as it moves along the plane. We can even throw time in there too, as the speed space time oscillates naturally (maybe Planck time is that oscillation). Every oscillation is a moment of time we experience. The faster you move through the medium the longer it takes the oscillation to catch up to you relative to your direction of travel, slowing time for you as you move faster. The denser contracted space time around let's say something really dense like a black hole also slows down the oscillations (time) as they have a denser medium to pass through. There, relativity throw in for fun. I just made that up, I have zero proof, I know there is no way to ever prove it that i know of...but it could be right too. You need to take known physics and incorporate it, to show how it works with your theory. Make the theory fit the facts not the facts fit the theory. Actually with some tweaking that's not half bad

edit on 2-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 02:17 PM

Curved space alone in not enough. This is why this example with the rubber sheet/trampoline is so wrong.

The idea with relativity goes like this: Every object is moving along a geodesic(straight line).

Try to draw a straight line in the curved rubber space to get an orbit. It wont work. You need curved spacetime to get the orbit ellipse.

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:42 PM
I’m didn’t find any claming of “rubber” version of gravity.
I’m only postulate 4 dimensional space plus time .
Four dimension as “density” of space. It is no “rubber” more like cavity in water or soundwave in air.
But like I wrote from beginning, this theory is old and herd. to prove.
For last year I worked on electromagnetic theory of gravity.
Its look promising and is proof able.
However it needs filing some of blind spots .
I’m hoping that antigravity coil of my next treed, help mi to fill some missing puzzle.

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 04:55 PM

Do you have some actual math to support these things? Or any quantifiable contexts? What you have provided so far isnt sufficient (to say the least).

I think that concepts like gravity are certainly nearing a more complete exploration, but I have yet to see anything but philosophy on the topic. That isnt meant as a negative, quite the opposite, I just see that this is posted in science & tech. In that, I personally prefer quantitative exploration and affirmation through experimentation.

I am sure I am not alone in wanting to review the hard data supporting the philosophy. Chronaut did a great job in demonstrating some of the.. issues with the current presentation
edit on 3-3-2012 by sinohptik because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:15 AM
Actually I have match worked out. Now am creating computer simulation to visualize it.
It will by on my 3 thread.
Electromagnetic gravity equations are no more complicated or different from those wee all know (except units used
).

I notice that some of posters on this thread use “fast reading method” .Its make them to lose to mach of contents.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:44 AM

I do look forward to that. Hopefully it is presented well! You can look online (google) to see how to type different symbols, etc. for your equation.

There are very few people who can turn their philosophy into an objective project. Most never even try, so I certainly encourage you in what you are doing!

new topics

top topics

3