Understanding Gravity (and more)

Originally posted by Onewhoknowsjesus

 

will you help me build a space ship?

Just as soon as I solve inertial dampeners. Yes.

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980
It has its application primarily in Newtonian mechanics, but does not hold up when verified and observable relativistic effects are considered.

As I noted, I'm sure this theory needs to be adjusted for relativity... once there's any equation at all to define it. And yes, I've always seen the similarity between this and Einstein's "warped space" way of looking at it; the matter "warps" space by "blocking wind." But did he take it the other way, apply this warping to subatomic scales to explain how electrons can orbit? If the three quarks in a neutron are moving at nearly light-speed, relative to the particle as a whole, then time is moving very slowly from their perspective. They probably have time to count all the bolts holding the LHC ring together as they lazily coast through it... from their frame of reference. And I have no idea how that time dilation affects my theory. To coin a phrase... "Need more brains!"

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

 

I hope I explained my thoughts sufficiently. I don't know jack about astrophysics, though.

That's basically the same thing as the gravitational part of my theory, too. Congratulations for not blindly following "experts." But I don't think anyone's ever contemplated just how much that same picture of universal forces can apply at every scale...

Originally posted by SoulVisions
This theory does not take into account the effects of gravity upon light. If it were a constant wind, then light would not behave in the manner that it does, despite it's duplicitous wave/particle mannerisms.

Photons are massless... or rather, their components don't interact with the "gravity wind" the same way a particle with mass does. They slow down as the density of the medium they're passing through increases. Someone managed to get them down to about thirty miles per hour once, in a Bose-Einstein condensate I believe. There is perhaps a clue in the shape of a photon: it's the same shape as the gravity wind. A "wave-sphere." Every photon expands outwards from its source in every direction, spherically, only stopping when it hits non-transparent-to-it matter. Like your retina. As your retina observes and records it, it looks to the retina like a single point, one particle... but all that "particle" is is the one single point of a wavefront that actually interacted with your retina (or camera, or tricorder). Perhaps... is it possible that photons are just "visible gravity wind?" And that gravity is just "light" at one particular really fast frequency?? Wow; that would explain a lot... and it seems plausible...

Where's my math geeks!?

Originally posted by TorridGal
Objects in space are suspended in space by space, which allows for the free fall of orbiting bodies, but more importantly it explains why they do not fall 'straight down' due to their weight. In essence - they weigh nothing.

Exactly. "Equilibrium," when all forces acting on that body from every direction are in perfect balance. Decrease the amount of force pushing it from any one direction, and it will start moving in that same direction. I never said Einstein was wrong; I just said he didn't take the theory far enough.

Originally posted by iSHRED
Wouldn't the fact of an expanding universe make your theory impossible. The masses on the outside edge of the expansion would be blocked from the wind by the rest of the universe and therefore be pushed inward? Other than that I like your theory, it's awesome!

Matter is mostly empty space, just like space is mostly empty space, and empty space produces the wind. It's determined by the average density of the matter lying in every direction from the mass under consideration.

The masses on the outer edge of the "matter ball" (as opposed to "the universe") are moving outwards; therefore, they're constantly getting farther from the center. The closer to the outer edge they get, past which there is no "wind" pushing them back, the more wind there is from behind them. If you're in a one-kilometer sphere, 200 meters from the center, there are 800 meters in front of you, and 1,200 meters behind you. The 1,200 meters has a lot more wind than the 800 meters, however studded with matter it may be. Everything is falling towards the edge of the universe, away from the center, pushed away from the center by the imbalance of that wind, which is determined by the ratio of empty space in front of you to that behind you. That ratio might, right now, be just slightly less than one-to-one, resulting in a (currently) very gradual acceleration towards the edge. Make sense?

Originally posted by golemina
The short version is simply that 'Gravity' per se... Simply does NOT exist. It is an EFFECT, not a cause.

Isn't that precisely what my theory says? The "gravity wind" is the cause, the vacuum energy, ZPE, is the cause. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces; they're all effects.

But if it helps, I tend to agree with Velikovsky's catastrophism... not that it applies to subatomic physics...

As to 'Brownian motion'... LOOK at the scaling guy... It can NOT be any type of molecular jarring... (molecules are just a little bit TOO tiny!

Brownian motion is randomly-zig-zagging molecules pushing other things around, from atoms to other molecules to macroscopic bits of debris. It increases with heat... or does heat increase with it? What is heat? Energy transferrence via photons at certain wavelengths (like infrared). Hot things glow; the hotter, the higher the frequency of the emitted light. So heat and photonic activity are the same thing. Perhaps it isn't friction alone. Atoms store light and release it; electrons and quantum leaps. Heat must be the same thing.

But the motion itself? The cause of that effect? All I can think of is string vibrations slinging matter around and the conservation of angular momentum in orbiting matter. But it could be something else. I haven't thought much about this part of it before.

Pushing, not pulling....that explains why my head is empty, it all blew away.

S&F for a great read I'll have to read it at least three times to absorb it all

reply to post by Thought Provoker

If the three quarks in a neutron are moving at nearly light-speed, relative to the particle as a whole, then time is moving very slowly from their perspective. They probably have time to count all the bolts holding the LHC ring together as they lazily coast through it... from their frame of reference. And I have no idea how that time dilation affects my theory.

Add scale. Why does an ant live but two weeks but for them it is a lifetime? The force that binds the nucleus of an atom is the same as gravity just on two different scales.

What I want to know is why dust floating in a room and mist comprised of water droplets in a cloud don't all congeal into one big water droplet or dirt ball?

What allows them to keep separation "as a mist"? That would be the medium they float in, air. The same medium must be keeping stars in a galaxy from all congealing into one big lump. Stars just swim along with each other around the galactic center in the "medium" of gravity. Gravity must have an "ether" such as dust or water droplets do.

Gravity has "ether".

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by golemina
The short version is simply that 'Gravity' per se... Simply does NOT exist. It is an EFFECT, not a cause.

Isn't that precisely what my theory says? The "gravity wind" is the cause, the vacuum energy, ZPE, is the cause. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces; they're all effects.

'They're all effects.'

Negatory good buddy.

You seem to suddenly being throwing 'everything' into some kind of grab bag without any kind of differentiation or quantification.

And then somehow automagically stating something to the effect of 'that's what I meant ALL ALONG!'



One could also make the case that you seem to also be essentially attributing this cause celebre to everything but what some of us heretics have always referred to in some form for the last couple of hundred years... as the Ether.

So essentially, you're adding yet another name for an erroneously discarded BASIS... What is that now... like the 6000th name, for essentially a primal force...

And what?

Claiming 'it' as your own (original thought)?



To attempt to go on this ride, though politically suicidal, you show be tall enough to step up AND ACTUALLY DECLARE YOURSELF...

Say something to the effect that 'GRAVITY' is dead! (And so is almost EVERY currently accepted theory bordering this area of 'expertise'== that would be a whole LOT of territory! ) and lay out something along the lines of... You know!... EMPIRICAL PROOF!

If that is your purpose, there is an insane mountain of material...

(And I am at your disposal to bring some of it back for suitable mounting to what I presume is your target audience.)



And what is worse, is some very tall people.

Speaking of which...

But if it helps, I tend to agree with Velikovsky's catastrophism... not that it applies to subatomic physics...

Velikovsky's entry into this discourse has absolutely zero to do with the major theme the 'Establishment' semitards want to saddle him with... Catastrophism.

Anyone that has been anywhere in the same zip code as ANY of his publications would understand that the man essentially rewrote everything he came in touch with...

So, one can only guess, you only have a Wikipedic quick lookup knowledge of Immanuel Velikovsky and you're reference to 'subatomic physics'... what is that, except maybe at best some kind of canard?

As to 'Brownian motion'... LOOK at the scaling guy... It can NOT be any type of molecular jarring... (molecules are just a little bit TOO tiny!

Brownian motion is randomly-zig-zagging molecules pushing other things around, from atoms to other molecules to macroscopic bits of debris. It increases with heat... or does heat increase with it? What is heat? Energy transferrence via photons at certain wavelengths (like infrared). Hot things glow; the hotter, the higher the frequency of the emitted light. So heat and photonic activity are the same thing. Perhaps it isn't friction alone. Atoms store light and release it; electrons and quantum leaps. Heat must be the same thing.

But the motion itself? The cause of that effect? All I can think of is string vibrations slinging matter around and the conservation of angular momentum in orbiting matter. But it could be something else. I haven't thought much about this part of it before.

I'm sorry Thought Provoker. ^----- That is one whole lot of sheer nonsense.



I could only respond that it's a fairly safe bet that you're probably NOT going to be the guy to lead us out of the continued Dark Ages that is this 'Modern' Era...



Being a nuts and bolts kind of guy, I was wondering when we get to the lab part of this exercise that is your thread?

You know... When we actually DO something besides demonstrating our prowess at cutting-n-pasting?

Originally posted by intrptr

 

What I want to know is why dust floating in a room and mist comprised of water droplets in a cloud don't all congeal into one big water droplet or dirt ball? What allows them to keep separation "as a mist"?

The lack of a catalyst that lowers their resistance to joining together, perhaps. Specks of dust and humidity particles have very little mass. The gravitational force between them is vastly overpowered by the earth's gravity (shadow). Electrostatic/ionic repulsion (like charges repel) also factors in, especially in colloidal suspensions.

And there's also density. If you compress a volume of humid air, it will reach a point where the water molecules do start clumping together. Condensation forms, or rain, as the distance between the molecules gets small enough to let electron valence join them together. It's all about scale.

The same medium must be keeping stars in a galaxy from all congealing into one big lump. Stars just swim along with each other around the galactic center in the "medium" of gravity. Gravity must have an "ether" such as dust or water droplets do.

The stars also stay separate because of (A) the scale of distances between them, and (B) their momentum. They're in orbit now because they've always been in orbit; before a star forms, it's just a big cloud of hydrogen. The cloud condenses until there's enough pressure at the center to initiate fusion, and it ignites and starts cranking out helium... but it stays in the orbit that gas cloud started in. The whole solar system formed that way; starstuff kept condensing via gravity until there was a sun in the middle and a bunch of planets going around it as they did before they were formed. A planet's orbit, or a star's, is the conservation of angular momentum in a frictionless environment. If a planet slows down, its orbit gets smaller until it falls into the sun.

The ether is space-time, the sea of energy we can't see, but do feel the effects of. It is the source of all physical things, and it governs their motions. All matter wants to keep moving along the vector it's currently moving along, so stars stay where they were and keep moving like they were moving when they were formed, when the hydrogen started gathering together into a galaxy. Picture it like... Humidity (hydrogen) in the air (ether), plus heat (gravity?), turns into a hurricane (the galaxy), and eddies within the hurricane (clumps of hydrogen) can form into tornadoes (stars and/or solar systems)...

Boy, I need to learn how to draw all this stuff. A few diagrams would really help.

reply to post by Thought Provoker

The lack of a catalyst that lowers their resistance to joining together, perhaps. Specks of dust and humidity particles have very little mass. The gravitational force between them is vastly overpowered by the earth's gravity (shadow). Electrostatic/ionic repulsion (like charges repel) also factors in, especially in colloidal suspensions.

And there's also density. If you compress a volume of humid air, it will reach a point where the water molecules do start clumping together. Condensation forms, or rain, as the distance between the molecules gets small enough to let electron valence join them together

You just described gravity. Now if we can just figure out what spectrum all that exists in, then we can invent a meter to measure and then harness it.

reply to post by golemina

For the record, I haven't cut'n'pasted anything except that one diagram image in the OP. I heard about Velikovsky at least ten years ago, and catastrophism (which made some sense to me) was the only part of his work I looked at. So I replied in that context. I did not just go look him up on Wikipedia. Believe it or don't.

And as I've stated many times, I'm not good enough with math or lab practicals to be able to conceptualize the theory in any other form than how I presented it. I can't come up with equations to describe it, I can't invent experiments to test it, all I have is the hypothesis, and this thread was an attempt to get some help from others who can do the math and practicals, who can test it. Whether it's vacuum energy or Feynman's gravity angels, I just want to figure it out.

reply to post by Thought Provoker

Sorry had to reply twice.

The stars also stay separate because of (A) the scale of distances between them, and (B) their momentum.

If you could shrink down to stand on an electron orbiting an atom's nucleus in the same relative size that the earth orbits the sun, the size and displacement of all other atoms would appear as the night sky over our heads.


Thats what they say anyway. So it is a matter of scale. But the same principles are at work.

As above, so below?

Originally posted by intrptr

 

As above, so below?

Precisely. Galaxies, solar systems, hurricanes, atoms... same thing, different scale.

It might work this way... The paired particle annihilations of the quantum foam can be displaced by energy. With enough energy the resultant vectors of annihilation events will push back towards the energy that displaces them. Also keep in mind that it's not a hard boundary but a gradient.

Guess what's equivalent to energy? I'm pretty sure Einstein told us.

Thing is, you want to affect gravity in any significant way, it's going to take heaps and heaps of energy. (There might be some loophole with resonance, but it's not going to be that obvious.)

Now also consider if you were to have a moving matrice of energy packets, there would be more annihilation events behind than in front. But since it's moving away, the resultant forces would act to keep the movement speed constant. Yet if you apply a force to slow down, those annihilations which are happening behind catch up and start to push harder. Thus if looked at dynamically, the same phenomena also could be considered related to inertia.

Hmmm... That gives an idea... If only there were some way to direct quantum foam displacement via some standing wave phenomena created with a atomic-scale meta-material. It might be possible to re-aim that inertia vector of a moving object at-will and cheat that way. Talk about turning on a dime! (And if you could modify that vector of inertia gained by gravity pulling you in freefall, there may be a more clever way to "orbit" at a much lower speed.) However something like that is still way beyond our current level of tech.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Dear Thought Provoker,

There is a complication to your beautifully spoken theory about gravity. I will get to the complication in a second. Let me offer an editorial comment about your approach. It can be summed up in a few words” You smell a rat!”

That “rat” to use my own vocabulary (as I am quite sure existing pure line technical wording is misleading you) is this, and you would never in a very long evolution get at it very well.

1)
Matter bleeds matter! It affects gravity minutely, but in universe totality, it is the force equivalent to the strong nuclear force.

2)
There are three kinds of gravity!
A) Linear which you are working through as though it is the near total force of gravity, which it is not.

B) Absolute gravity! This is the Einstein equivalent of a constant to prove the validity of theorem computations before they get used in ways that throws off calculations. The constant is not used today because he felt it was illogical to attempt a calculation based mainly on some idea of God. Nonetheless, absolute gravity is a powerful force in the universe and anyone who is attempting to understand gravitational influences needs at least to have its concept at hand.

C) Antigravity! This modifies linear gravity but complements absolute gravity.

I can not say just how these three forces of gravity work in your wind tunnel. But I am willing to speculate that they do not all impinge on something so locally demonstrated. To understand the mix up in gravity theory we currently work with, the only way to prove what is really going is to be sure you conduct your experiments in something called unpervaded space.

3)
Sub-atomic particles run the risk of being blown out of the universe if no absolute gravity were present. Linear gravity alone would shunt atomic particles into clusters of protons, neutrons, quarks, muons, and shattered ions, and all of these things would drift endlessly between the great masses they happened to be collected by.

The universe has a trick up its sleeve by operating with forces not known directly be man to measure, and while man can measure quantities, he can not fully see the quality of the quantities he measures. The quality of a sub atomic particle is indirectly related to its mass, but its mass is determined, not entirely by its weight, but by is proximity to the source of absolute gravity. Hence there are reactions in matter that do not follow the known rules of electromagnetism which we all agree is quite beyond simple explanation.

Suffice it to say that the laws of matter must include an understanding of sub atomic particles as they relate to the three kinds of gravity described. Current theory proposes that nothing is equal to anything else unless that other thing is larger. That is not how the universe works, and the concept needs to be modified to include anti-gravity calculations for its effects on mass, and to bring this to a close, matter must be found in all sub-attractive calculations when even there is no matter to be seen. This is in response to my first statement that matter leaks matter, and what it leaks is what you call zero point energy.

Originally posted by Aronolac

 

1)
Matter bleeds matter! It affects gravity minutely, but in universe totality, it is the force equivalent to the strong nuclear force.

You mean radioactive decay? Isn't that the weak nuclear force? Alpha particles, free neutrons, gamma-frequency photons?

2)
There are three kinds of gravity!
A) Linear
B) Absolute
C) Antigravity

I think this theory mostly addresses the Absolute kind. I picture that as spherical. Isn't the difference between Absolute and Linear the same as the difference between a whole lot of force vectors and the sum of those vectors? Linear is "collapsed Absolute," that is. Antigravity, well... a shadow is a region of "anti-light" too. Couldn't Antigravity be the same sort of concept? I don't think science has ever demonstrated antigravity between two masses, has it? Isn't "gravitational repulsion" purely theoretical? If not, I wish I'd have heard about it sooner.

3)
Sub-atomic particles run the risk of being blown out of the universe if no absolute gravity were present. Linear gravity alone would shunt atomic particles into clusters of protons, neutrons, quarks, muons, and shattered ions...

I imagine electron shells protect their nuclei from fusing like that; they can't get close enough to get sucked in by the "strong force." So the electromagnetic force is also involved. And plain ol' electrical charge. Maybe I don't actually understand the difference between linear and absolute...

matter leaks matter, and what it leaks is what you call zero point energy.

Soooo, you didn't mean radioactive decay... hmmmm. But how can empty, matterless space have inherent energy, then? Just from the massless photonic wavefronts moving through it? This is making me lean towards the "Gravity is a form of photonic activity" postulate again...

Originally posted by intrptr


Gravity has "ether".

Better to say "gravity IS aether."

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by TorridGal
Objects in space are suspended in space by space, which allows for the free fall of orbiting bodies, but more importantly it explains why they do not fall 'straight down' due to their weight. In essence - they weigh nothing.

Exactly. "Equilibrium," when all forces acting on that body from every direction are in perfect balance. Decrease the amount of force pushing it from any one direction, and it will start moving in that same direction. I never said Einstein was wrong; I just said he didn't take the theory far enough.

Isn't that precisely what happens at the center of the earth, or any other heavenly body with respect to gravitation?
The forces are neutralized, so to speak, contributing to the notion of weightlessness of which I speak. "As above so below" = "As within, so without."

If the aether is gravity it is the aether that is responsible for holding the celestial bodies in their places, hence their weightlessness. Perhaps Clerk Maxwell was correct all along respecting his notion of the aether, and its probably hidden somewhere within those mysterious quaternions.