Welcome. I need your help... but first I need to blow your mind. Get through all that follows, and if you grok it, it will blow... assuming nobody can
blow holes through it. Fingers crossed.
Gravity is the thorn in the cosmologist's side, the bane of the physicist. It defies unification with the other forces, its source cannot be
determined (it ain't "gravitons"), and everyone's been clutching at straws for decades, yea, centuries
about it to no avail. Y'know what I
think? Clearly one of our base assumptions is incorrect, or we'd have figured it out by now. And while we're at it, why not try to solve magnetism
too? Then the Insane Clown Posse will be able to sleep nights. Well, I'll try.
So let's ponder; what base assumptions could we change without ruining any
mathematically-proven gravitational axiom? Without invalidating the
inverse-square law, the "gravitational constant of the universe" concept, Newton's laws of motion, Kepler's laws of celestial mechanics, Euclidian
geometry, electromagnetism, the lot of it? I can only think of one thing. Tell ya in a minute; background first. Get some coffee.
When physics students in college start solving basic gravitational attraction equations, they're usually given a diagram like this:
And they're asked, "How much force is pulling those two masses together if m1 is blah grams and m2 is blurgh grams and r is snurrrr meters?" That
would be fine if there were only two masses in the universe. But. NASA knows, having been doing it all these years, that any gravity calculation has
to take into account every blob of mass in the solar system, from sun to Pluto and beyoooooond!
(Sorry.) After the masses start getting a
certain distance away from whatever probe they're calculating a course for (or, more accurately, once the distance "r" gets so large, or one of the
masses so small, that the equation starts evaluating to infinitesimal numbers), 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.
Conventional gravitational theory has it that this force between any two objects is "attractive," as in "not repulsive." Scientists believe that
gravity is matter pulling at other matter, no matter how far apart they are, in brief. With me so far good keep up please.
What those student physicists perceive
as a straight line linking the centers of two masses is, they're later taught, in the context of reality
in real-life outer space, actually the sum
of all the gravitational force vectors acting on the masses. "There's less force from other
bodies pulling them away from each other than there is pulling them together," they're taught to believe, because that's what their teachers were
taught to believe, whose teachers taught them to believe it, ad infinitum
. But what if they've got it exactly backwards?
What am I getting at? Okay, I'll stop dangling it just out of reach. Catch it if you can!
Picture yourself in a wind tunnel. On roller skates. (It could happen.) And fortunately, it's a bi-directional wind tunnel. Winds of equal intensity
are blowing against you from before and behind. You stand still, balanced in the middle. We call that "equilibrium." But there's a catch. The fans are
both tied to a harness you're wearing, linked by overhead rails; if you move, they move. (I'm not saying this is how the universe works, but it's
necessary for the purposes of this thought experiment so just accept it and listen.) It also takes no force at all to move you or the fans.
Superconducting... frictionless... bearings, or something, ANYWAY. If you push off and roll forward, with no friction, you'll just keep going. The
wind velocity vectors pushing on you stay the same, so you stay at equilibrium even though you keep moving forward at the same speed from your initial
acceleratory impulse, just as if there was no wind at all... and that's what we call "inertia." (In a wind context. It's an imperfect metaphor.)
Stop your rolling now. You're motionless relative to the floor again. 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. (See? This is why we wear helmets in wind tunnels.)
Now let's add one more base assumption to our experiment: you, the mass on roller skates, have never heard of wind. You couldn't see it or feel its
effects on you when you were at equilibrium... and then the wall showed up. Wouldn't you think that you'd "fallen" towards the wall? That it had
pulled you to it? Well, what else
do you see around you that could've caused it? Nothing.
And what else
was visible to Isaac Newton when he saw the earth pull an apple to it? Nothing.
He'd never heard of wind. He couldn't see
it. And from that moment on, every single equation that involves gravity was designed upside-down. Inside-out. Totally on its head. And that
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
Gravitational energy is the "wind of the universe," pushing against masses, and the gravitational constant determines how much
of that energy
affects the mass (that is, "gets absorbed by it") and how much passes right on through it to affect other masses beyond it. That is, "how porous to
the wind it is." If the wall was made of chicken wire, it would block a tiny amount of the wind blowing you away from it, and you'd accelerate towards
it very slowly. A black hole wouldn't let any
of that wind through, would it? It would be a brick wall, totally without pores. Get too close
and the wind from behind you will smash
you into it, and you'll never have enough energy to leave again.
And consider: if you were in some sort of whimsical 3D wind tunnel, wind from every direction equally, no roller skates, you'd be "weightless" until
someone threw a big ball in, wouldn't you? And then you'd fall towards the ball while the ball fell towards you,
at velocities determined by
your masses ("how easily the wind can push you"). But if you could aim to go around
the ball, you'd just keep going around and around and
around as the "gravity shadow" (the wind the ball keeps from hitting you) went around and around and around to point at wherever you are at any
moment... and the ball would also wobble back and forth, always "leaning" towards you (that wobble is exactly
the method they now use to find
planets around other stars, "coincidentally").
edit on 1/19/2013 by Thought Provoker because: Why don't image tags work...!