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.

# okay lets try this gravity theory again and explain it better

page: 1
5
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:53 PM
Part I: Energy to matter

In my theory I see space-time as a zero mass point particle field. We will see why using this zero mass point particle field can solve many problems in physics, as well as provide alternative explanations for many theorems. When you add energy to this field, the energy (like in a traditional medium) compresses the zero point particles as it moves, and distorts the medium. The more energy you input into a medium, the denser the particle compression becomes, and the more it needs to distort to compensate for the compression. Applying my theory to space-time, as a zero point particle field, energy propagating through this field should distort space-time, not only in 2 dimensions like on paper, but in the three known x,y,z coordinate dimensions of space-time.

If we look at matter we can see how it differs from energy by its unique characteristic of having what we consider resting mass. We can see energy also having mass in several equations, and how energy increases the mass of an object. I will show how what we refer to as energy and mass are the same, and how my theory looks at these differences in energy/mass. In E=Mc2, we can see the resting state of matter and its energy equivalence. However how does "pure" energy which has no mass, account for the resting mass in matter? To show how we can basically get the metaphorical something from nothing we are going to apply my theory.

Well following logical steps, in order to create matter we need something with mass. Since the only two things we are given to work with are "pure" energy (zero mass) and space-time (zero mass), lets follow this logically. Energy is applied to zero point space-time, and as a result we get space-time distortion. Space-time changes zero point particle density, and shape to compensate for the energy propagating through it. However, no matter how much you compress nothing, you still have nothing. As energy compresses the space-time medium, the density of zero point particles in a fixed volume increases with it as the energy wave moves through.

However zero point particles by definition have zero mass, therefore no mass even when compressed. How do we make matter without mass? These zero point particles compress and deform space-time as energy propagates through. Since space-time distorts in three dimensions, different levels of energy will distort space-time into different forms. This distorted space-time has different properties then the regular space-time (shape, density, and number of zero point particles per fixed volume). If we see matter as having a specific set of properties (different than normal space-time), and space-time changing properties with energy input, at some point space-time could exhibit properties that coincide with the properties that define matter given enough energy. This makes the difference between resting mass and energy now only a difference of space-time density. Mass is by definition M=D/V. We have (D) density of zero point particles over (V) a fixed volume of space. Increasing energy through space-time compresses the zero point particles and increases (D) while V remains fixed, therefore mass increases with energy. Matter is a critical point at D/V where D/V > X. X being the minimal threshold of energy required to distort space-time into having the properties of matter.

The particles that compose space-time themselves have no mass, but energy distorts the way space-time behaves, and its characteristics. We can redefine mass as energy distorting space-time, and that a certain amount of energy is required to distort space-time into having specific properties of matter. Mass=energy in space-time.

Part II: Mass-Energy Equivalencies

Since the math behind these theories is well established, I am just going to show how the equations prove my theory with the results. When energy is applied to matter, the matter actually has an increase in weight. Something that moves (kinetic energy) or that contains energy (potential energy) is actually heavier then the same object without it. From this conclusion we draw that energy must have some form of mass to account for the weight difference, even though energy on its own has zero mass. If we apply my theory, we maintain mass is M=D/V. The extra energy would distort space-time; the energy would compress and increase the density of zero point particles (D) in a fixed volume of space (V). If (D) increases while (V) remains constant, then my theory explains why increasing energy also increases mass. We can increase mass, by increasing energy, and the density of zero point particles in a fixed space (which in themselves have no mass). Once again mass = energy in space-time

Part III: Gravity

Once again, all the equations are established, just showing how they prove my theory. We can see Einstein’s gravity as a result of curved space. Using Einstein’s Strong Field Theory, we see that not only can matter produce gravity; energy can produce gravity as well. Since my theory is seeing matter, as energy distorting space-time, it is easy to see why they both would have the same effect. In most basic terms, gravity is the attraction of one object to another object. If you have two objects in space-time how would my theory create an attraction? Energy flowing through space-time creates denser regions of zero point particles. These condensed particles distort space-time over 3 dimensions as they compensate for the compression. Too make this idea easy to visualize, and imagine a large square sheet. Lay this sheet out and place four balls on each corner. Start crumpling up the sheet in the middle into a tightly packed ball (energy distorting space-time. What happens to the four balls? They start getting drawn towards the crumpled up ball you are creating as you pack it denser and denser with more sheet. You can see how energy moving through space-time would create distortions that would pull in space-time around it as it moves. Space-time being pulled towards energy (along with everything occupying that space-time) would for all purposes fit the definition of gravity with curved space, as well as show why energy and matter both produce gravitational effects in accordance with Einstein’s theory. Matter is just space-time that is even more densely distorted, therefore having even stronger gravitational pull.

We can see evidence of space/time "bending" around matter with gravitational lensing. While I believe space/time is dynamic on a zero point particle level to a certain extent (the particles while fixed in position relative to each other can be compressed closer with enough energy), it is not that dynamic. My theory shows space-time not so much bending to create this effect as much as the density of point particles is higher. If we see matter as a very dense concentration of zero point particles (the very center of a bell curve) then we also see how energy influences space-time on either side of the curve. It is still denser than normal space-time but not dense enough to be considered matter.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:54 PM
This high density space-time would produce lensing effects around traditional matter, by altering the way energy flows through this denser region of space-time. When energy waves encounter a higher density medium they compact and slow down. Energy, including light flowing through this region would distort, and bend due to the density change in space-time. While space-time its self would appear bent for all practical purposes, it's actually only denser than normal space-time and not truly bent.

Dark matter becomes easier to understand as space-time that is compressed below the critical (X) of X>D/V, where X is properties of matter. It has gravitational pull, but not all the properties of matter. This fits in with my theory of space-time having different properties with density.

Part IV: Relativity / Time

In its simplest form, time is literally just the space in-between two actions. Relating time to energy is easy, since energy is required for actions to happen, time is simply the period in-between energy interactions. If we see energy as waves through space-time, then you can also see time as being the period between two energy waves. The fastest an energy wave could move in a specific medium would be the basis for Planck time in that medium. Relativity becomes so much simpler to understand once you apply my theory and see that it is simply energy moving at different speeds in different mediums. Time (energy) slows down in the denser space around matter. The denser the matter, the more time slows around it.

Time also would slow as an object accelerates since energy is compressing zero point particles in space-time, increasing the local space-time density. Basically anytime you distort space-time, you are creating a denser medium for energy to flow through, hence time dilation. The more energy you apply, the slower time goes in that local area of space. So an object in motion, would compress space-time (shorten in length) as it increases density (mass) with energy, and this density change would affect the flow of energy through and around the object. This would create a time dilation effect for the object as energy took longer to perform actions relative to an observer.

Part V: Electromagnetic / Nuclear Force

Why does gravity exhibit a much stronger force on the subatomic scale then it does on a macro scale? The force binding atoms together must operate on a different principle on the subatomic level. Traditional gravitational force on the macro scale does not account for what is holding atoms together with a much stronger force. Since we are using a space-time distortion unification theory, it must all be a result of space-time distortion. We hypothesized earlier that space time distorts in three (xyz) dimensions with energy. This literally means space-time distorts into literal three dimensional shapes. If we apply energy to space-time it distorts, and this distortion is unique to the amount of energy applied. The total amount of zero point particles in a given space is a constant, just the density in a given area changes as energy compresses them together. As a result some areas in this three dimensional distortion would have more zero point particles then others. Given the tremendous amount of energy required to compress these zero point particles, even the “low” density areas are significantly denser then flat space-time with no energy. Since higher density wants to balance with lower density to even out the forces, these high and low density areas in the distortions interact with one another akin to polarity.

Separate distortions with high and low density zero point particle areas attracting in an attempt to balance forces, creating strong bonds with other distortions; stronger then gravity alone could account for. If we see polarity (-/+) as a result of high and low density distorted three dimensional space creating attractions to other three dimensional distortions, you can see the basis for how the fundamental charges of sub atomic particles work (electromagnetic force/polarity). The “positive” (higher density concentration of zero point particles) and “negative” (lower density concentration of zero point particles) areas of the space-time distortion work together to bind fundamental particles into larger particles.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:54 PM
Overall, a proton is high density (positive), and would repel other protons, seeking out lower density particles (negative). Looking at a proton on an even smaller scale, we should see many small areas of high and low density within the proton. These areas are very tiny and have a small range of influence, compared to the whole proton. However if you use energy to move two protons together these small areas combined have more attractive force than the overall repelling force and two protons will bind with this polarity (strong force). Not all configurations of space-time would be equally stable. While the space-time would be stable, the configurations might not be. This could account for weak nuclear force, and decay, as the unstable regions reorganize to more stable lower density particles and give off the excess energy in the process. We now have the foundation to scale up electromagnetic and nuclear forces with this theory using zero point particle polarity.

Part VI: Quantum physics

Quantum physics now becomes easier to understand using this theory. Why can an electron only exist at certain energy levels? Why does it disappear then reappear at a different energy level, and cease to exist in-between? Quantum physics, tells us that energy exists in quantified states called quanta. Energy can exist at level 1 or level 2, but not at 1.5. We can understand why energy only exists in quantified states using this theory.

We have the basis now to describe space-time as three dimensional shapes with polarity. Different energy levels can distort space-time into different shapes and polarities. It takes more energy to keep compressing space-time into denser forms. In order to form stable matter, these dense space-time shapes join together with polarity almost like puzzle pieces.

When we scale up to an electron orbiting we see stable matter. The dense space-time shapes locked together with polarity (in a scaled up version). In order for the electron to move to a higher energy orbit, let’s say level 1 to level 2, we need to input more energy. That energy compresses the zero point medium even more and distorts space-time to a denser form. This new denser distortion, with different shape and polarity no longer fits into the puzzle that makes an electron at energy level 1. Space-time reorganizes the puzzle pieces to balance out polarity again, and the electron disappears. Once the pieces reorganize to account for the higher energy (denser mass) space-time, the electron reappears with higher energy (level 2).

It requires much more energy to keep further compressing the zero point particles. It takes way more energy to go from level 2 to 3, then it does to go from level 1 to level 2. If there is not enough energy present to compress the zero point particles to the next stable distortion, the electron will remain at its current energy level, until the threshold is met. The same process in reverse lowers an electrons level from 2 to1. Since the pieces need to fit together in specific ways to form stable matter, the excess energy left over after space-time reorganizes is always the same for an electron moving between level 1 and 2, thus energy interacting with matter is always in quantified packets depending on what is transitioning, be it electron orbits, or protons into more fundamental particles. Quantum physics also tackles the dual nature of particles and waves. Since particles are just very dense waves of space-time in my theory, I think this is fairly self explanatory.

Question… Would an electron that is constantly interacting with energy, ever take on a stable matter form as space time constantly rearranges? I believe this is the basis for an object appearing as a (psi) wave function while interacting with an energy field. It exists as dense space-time with all of its properties intact, but constantly rearranging to compensate for the energy field it is interacting with. In order to observe an electron, we must locate it. Locating it changes how it interacts with the energy field. This enables it to take a stable form as an electron.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:55 PM
According to my theory, matter does not physically move through space-time. While on a macro level we see a ball being thrown through the air, on a sub-atomic level we will see something else. The ball has mass because energy compresses zero point particles into dense space-time distortions. However these zero point particles are fixed in local space-time, they do not move with the energy wave. So the zero point particles that give the ball mass are always changing as the energy wave moves through space-time. The same zero point particles that gave the ball mass at point A are not the same particles when the ball is at point B. The point A particles stayed at point A, just energy moved. If you move your hand in front of you, what you are seeing is energy distorting all the zero point particles between point A and point B. The particles that gave your hand mass at point A, are still at point A. Matter doesn’t move, energy changes fixed space-time density as it moves.

So what are the zero point particles made of? A better question is do we even need the zero point particles to make this theory work? They have no mass, so what good are they? In reality the zero point particles are just imaginary, and there to help us see how space-time moves with energy. It is like using smoke to see a cars aerodynamics in a wind tunnel. You don’t need the smoke, the aerodynamics is the same, but it helps you visualize how the air moves. My theory should work without them; all they do is help you visualize how space-time compresses with energy. Replace zero point particle compression with space-time compression, and you shouldn’t actually need them, they just make the theory easier to understand.

This is just a quick abstract of my theory, and I hope you can understand how I am using energy and space-time to relate fundamental forces. I am not a PhD physicist, and there is a good chance I am not explaining it correctly. I am not showing any math, because the math is already done. I am just reinterpreting the results into a more cohesive theory.

Thank you,

Any comments or suggestions are appreciated

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:59 PM
Pictures say a thousand words, a thousand of your words are, well....boring!

Sorry just A LOT of content to skim through!

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:58 PM
Wall of text, eyes cross, mind boggles. I am sure what you have to say is interesting and would greatly further my understanding. However it is to much. Can you condense it and then maybe take questions?

I'm sorry obviously your a smart person, and I hope you are not thinking we are a waste of O2, not being able to cope with your presentation.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:06 PM
This is even wronger than last time. Re-read my comments from the last thread, none of the issues have been addressed and starting a new thread does not magically make your arguments better: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, again, please take my advise and learn some real math and physics from some real math and physics books.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:07 PM
bit more than an abstract, I would say.

admit it: you CAN'T do the math...."its been done by others" is an excuse.

and while I can appreciate the difficulty of putting this info out for the lions, you appear to be in waaay over your head. not only has the math been done, but the majority of your "original" thought has also been done.

so. first paragraph: how many "known dimensions of space-time" are there again?

three you say?

out of curiosity, why do you believe yourself qualified to make this "reinterpretation "?

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:25 PM

Current human physics is unfinished/ Stifled. Are you just saying No your wrong to this person and not offering a solution other than saying listen to mainstream suppressed science :/

If so... Fail

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:36 PM

Very interesting! ^.^

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz

Current human physics is unfinished/ Stifled. Are you just saying No your wrong to this person and not offering a solution other than saying listen to mainstream suppressed science :/

If so... Fail

I am saying he's badly trying to answer issues solved by science 100 years ago and coming to nonsense conclusions. Not exactly cutting edge.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:18 PM
Your description sounds very much like the reciprocal system library.rstheory.org... . There are a expressions of some SI units in terms of just time and space which does lay a solid foundation to such a theory. Once all the SI units have been translated into functions of time and space it will be a strong and valid theory. The main problem I have with your perspective is:

matter does not physically move through space-time.

Wither it is called matter, energy or compressed space time, there are dynamic relationships going on. I can see your point with it in how the fabric of space time is constant, or some aspect of it is. But it is raising conflicts with the observable universe and needs more work for a clearer explanation. Apart from that, well done

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:24 PM
It's a theory I'm working on, there is no math to do until I can make the concepts work. I work a little different then a lot of people. I need to visualize the concept. Backwards from a lot of people, I know. The math is meaningless to me unless I know what it is I'm working with, but that is just me. That and the equations work the same with my theory as they do with the standard model, what I am changing is on the sub atomic level, which means everything still works the same, the math is done, no reason to rewrite the same equations. The people who wrote them were brilliant. As far as it's even more wrong... according to what? The theories we are currently using don't explain everything either. Your using a broken ruler to measure things. If it 100% agrees with everything accepted, it wouldn't be any different then what we currently have, and we all know that that doesn't explain everything either. You have to give somewhere. I can't make it agree with everyone, if they don't all agree with each other. Can you relate gravity to weak nuclear force? Neither can anyone else yet. When we do figure it out, odds are were going to have to change a few things. We normally do. We had to come up with quantum physics to explain what we were seeing in the sub atomic because it didn't work with classical physics. Is one more wrong then the other? Like I said, through no fault of yours the ideas are hard to convey. I can understand why you might not see them like I do and consider them wrong. I'll see if I can explain it better so it makes sense. I know I am not the best at conveying these ideas. While I can see interactions in my head, and they make sense, they might not flow on paper as easily, so your not visualizing the same thing. I'll admit I can be totally wrong on things as well, this isn't easy. If it was it would all be figured out. Oh and three known COORDINATE directons. There can be more, we don't know for a fact there are yet. Let me work with what we know before you go into 11 dimensional string theory please.
.I realize time is the 4th dimension, its not a coordinate dimension though. I'll work on it.
edit on 15-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:31 PM
Answered 100 years ago? Okay please post the accepted unification theory for all fundamental forces that works with classical and quantum physics. Apparently it was done 100 years ago...even before quantum physics was invented. Please tell all researchers at CERN to quit, because we already figured this all this out, didn't you get the memo? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Einstein himself didn't even understand quantum physics entirely. All worked out... please.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:43 PM
Right, I'm only a professional physicist, what could I know with my decades of study that you haven't figured out without any math at all? And the literally millions of devices out there that depend critically on relativity, quantum mechanics, and gravity working together, clearly that just all happened by accident. And the fact that all of this is mathematically consistent and is derived from a few basic experimentally verifiable postulates? Well, clearly that's wrong because of negative numbers.

Seriously. There are just so many thing wrong with everything you've said, I literally can't even comment on what's wrong with it.

But you go ahead and argue that the theories that make your computer, mobile phones, and everything else work are totally wrong based on the fact that you don't understand what science actually describes.

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:53 PM
Nobody is arguing anything but you. Nowhere did I state that energy doesn't work the way we think it does.Your precious cell phones and computers are safe. Like I said it is an alternative to reach the same conclusions as established theories and try to connect them. ALTERNATIVE, not replacement, the equations are the same. No one is arguing E=mc2 isn't correct. Energy and mass are related under Einsteins theory. I am not challenging that, I am embracing it. Or does energy not add mass to matter in your world? It's the same thing. I am just using a different idea of mass as energy compressing zero point particles. In the end you have the same result. No one is challenging Lorentz magnetism, no one is saying Einsteins gravity is wrong, no one is saying Coulombs theories don't apply, no one is saying energy isn't quantified, no one is saying any of this but you. I am actually using established equations to show how my theory fits with them (not against them).You act like I am upending physics with radical equations. My theory comes to the same conclusions through an alternative path.
if the conclusions are the same, why do you feel computers won't work? Which part of modern physics do you have a problem with since the conclusions are the same? Granted like I said it is an abstract, its a simplified version just to show ideas, and maybe you aren't understanding what I am saying.
edit on 16-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:01 AM

His work sounds from what I gather similar to how Tesla looked at physics.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by b309302
Nobody is arguing anything but you. Nowhere did I state that energy doesn't work the way we think it does.Your precious cell phones and computers are safe. Like I said it is an alternative to reach the same conclusions as established theories and try to connect them. ALTERNATIVE, not replacement, the equations are the same. No one is arguing E=mc2 isn't correct. Energy and mass are related under Einsteins theory. I am not challenging that, I am embracing it, or does energy not add mass to matter in your world? Does the medium along move with the waves in your world? No one is challenging Lorentz magnetism, no one is saying Einsteins gravity is wrong, no one is saying Coulombs theories don't apply, no one is saying energy isn't quantified, no one is saying any of this but you. I am actually using established equations to show how my theory fits with them (not against them).You act like I am upending physics with radical equations. My theory comes to the same conclusions through an alternative path. Which part of modern physics do you have a problem with since the conclusions are the same? Granted like I said it is an abstract, its a simplified version just to show ideas, and maybe you aren't understanding what I am saying. Physicist... really... yeah it shows.
edit on 15-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

The things you are saying do not remotely resemble what actual physics says. It blatantly contradicts what actual physics says by randomly stringing sciencey sounding words together into technobabble.

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:47 AM
Look technobabble... okay Mr. Physicist:

E/c2=D/V. No one violated physics doing this. Follow me here... The density of point particles in a fixed volume of space increases as energy increases. Assuming the speed of light in a vacuum medium is a constant, which my theory shows can change given the amount of energy in local space time. Light does slow down through denser mediums or is wave speed= frequency x wavelength technobabble too?... This isn't technobabble. I'll break it all down for you if you like, but I'm tired and it's late right now. Like I said your wrong isn't an answer. If I'm wrong please explain what exactly is increasing (D) in a fixed volume of space, when (E) increases? The density of something is increasing with energy... my theory has an answer for that. What's yours? Ill work with you and take it one piece at a time and let me explain it to you, we might teach each other something. I honestly think we are not understanding each other, and I can see your point of view since I am probably not explaining it right. Relax...
edit on 16-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:29 AM
let me get this straight.

you're using established theories...

with the same maths...

to come to the same conclusions?

you can make this easier on all of us by answering this one question: when you arrive at the information you are looking for, what will this allow you to accomplish? what does this thing DO?!

we are not seeing the grand vision.

5