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.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Understanding Gravity (and more)

page: 9
39
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by Thought Provoker

Very thought provoking idea!
But it breaks down if you assume that 'gravitational' winds travel at the speed of light. For instance, bodies that move in curvy-linear path (like comets around the sun), and are several light years away, the wind that the Sun 'blocks' at any given instant would not affect the comet because the comet would have moved away by the time the 'effect' reaches the comet (due to limitation of speed). This theory seems plausible if somehow the gravity winds are able to reach any object in the universe instantaneously. But this will bring us back to the same situation as to how this work!

Good thinking, anyway.

- Skido

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:13 AM
reply to post by Thought Provoker

Wow, really? So instead of his ultra-mundane corpuscles you are using a "wind of the universe" and claim that this concept will also work for all other forces, without actually explaining how. Very creative...

What you are missing is that a Le Sage type model doesn't even work for gravity!

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:09 AM
Another random crazy old idea popped up... If it were possible to produce a potential by multiplying the result of two imaginary field lines, that product would be negative, would it not? (By imaginary, I'm refering to sqrt(-1) used in mathematics.)

From my basic understanding, electromagnets do have a property relating to inductance that is expressed as a complex number which contains an imaginary component. Could this be the physical phenomena which could be used to produce negative energy?

However considering E=mc^2, the amount of power to be fed into a pair of electromagnets just to produce 1kg of negative mass (in terms of negative energy potential where the imaginary field multiplies) would still be a fairly ridiculously large number. Just to try it would be expensive and power-hungry, not to mention all the other losses from the process of powering those coils. As they say, "there ain't no free lunch."

However if there's some other loophole that allows the effect of a negative mass to act as a multiplier on a regular mass, then the product of any negative mass multiplied by a positive mass would be negative. Thus the amount of energy needed would just be enough to produce a few atoms worth of negative mass. If this could be demonstrated via a physical phenomena, warp drive could be a lot cheaper than we'd expect.

I'm not quite that clever to figure it out in detail, but just putting some idea out there. Maybe we just might have the means to get off this rock afterall. (Chemical rockets obviously won't get us very far. At least if you're considering actually getting out of the solar system.) Isn't that why we all would like to figure out this gravity thing?

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:44 AM

With respect to your 2 quotes (below) - I see no discrediting of the OP here, only well intentioned questions some of which (very few actually) are laced with a bit of healthy skepticism.

As for your comments on Albert Einstein - not so. He had to take the patent office job mainly because he was blackballed for his Jewish-ness coupled with the fact that he had the courage to stand up to the academic authorities and their prejudice (on all levels - cultural, religious and scientific) against this great man. He "used" no one. He was the most original thinker of his time.

Itsallgravity

I believe that if you start discussions with some of the brilliant scientists found by following www.bigbangneverhappened.org... , who are largley discredited in a similar fashion to how you are being slowly discredited here, I believe you will find real truth in solving the mysteries of the universe.

Itsallgravity

Finally, I wish you good luck with finding the right theorist to put your thought experiment into a formular. After all, Einstein was but a humble IP Office clerk who created thought experiments and initially used other talented people to help build his written theory.

edit on 21-1-2013 by TorridGal because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:57 AM

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by moebius

OP's description sounds very much like Lesage gravity...

With the exceptions that he used particles as the causative mechanism, and his theory only describes gravity.

Yes, his theory only describes only gravity, whereas your idea currently describes nothing, and contradicts QM.

Also, wind is a force of air particles, so it isn't clear how your idea wouldn't use particles as a causative mechanism.

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

Originally posted by voidman

...if gravity is actually a repelling force coming from all points in space not occupied by matter and going outward in all directions, then the force of this "wind" would not be affected by the amount of matter.

My assumption is that the wind's energy is absorbed any time it interacts with a particle. The more matter it hits, the weaker it gets, but the wind that goes through the empty spaces in matter isn't attenuated. So the force is affected by how much matter it has to traverse.

This contradicts our observations of gravity - the force is *not* attenuated when it "passes through" matter.

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:53 AM
Now I have not really thought what I'm about to say through, just trowing it out there as a bone to the dogs.

What if you combined the expanding universe with gravity as a pushing force? Lets say the actual universe is expanding as one and thus pushing matter. Think of it as pumping large amounts of an inseparable liquid (aka not possible to enter it as with water) into a room filled with really really stubborn old men. The liquid has no choice but to coexist and share space with them so it does what it can to at least keep em somewhat in check.

And again, I'm not really thinking. Just writing at this point..

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:59 AM
Awesome ideas, I hope the op comes back to thread and sees this as really a better way to help refine his theory. Im actually thankful to see a few physics buffs here take some time to lend their opinion.. This just proves we're all capable of learning or theorizing something new everyday..

Im also interested to see OP's reponse to Twines academia, good points were definitely made and deserve some sort of response, this is still just a theory afterall... Although a very fun one indeed!!

edit on 22-1-2013 by subtleperspective because: typo

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 02:47 PM

Oh, I'm still here, just not sure what to say. But "academia" is, as my OP mentioned, part of the problem. People have been taught things in college that may or may not be correct. Let's take one easy example: "Perpetual motion machines are impossible." In order to make that statement, someone would have to know everything there is to know about physics. For them to teach it as fact is reprehensible. Anyone who thinks for themself would reject that as unprovable after thinking about it; anyone who parrots it as factual can be regarded as "brainwashed," someone who lets others think for them. And that is a fact; flame it all you want, it ain't going away. Until every physical law is known and the entirety of the universe is understood, you cannot state that perpetual motion (or something that appears like it from our perspective) isn't achievable, and you cannot claim that "QFT invalidates your theory."

People who've been taught "quantum field theory" as if it's fact will never believe this theory even though QFT is unproven. Much in the quantum world is unproven. Those who use such theories as a basis to reject other theories are no different from Louis Pasteur's detractors calling his theory of germs "ridiculous fiction." Everyone knows cats are evil, so they have to be the cause of the Black Plague, right? Better kill 'em all just to be sure!

Oops.

So someone tell me... what all parts of quantum mechanics have been PROVEN to be true? I know, for instance, that quantum tunneling happens, or appears to, but are they certain they have the mechanism behind that effect right? Has the cause of it been proven or is the attribution of it to wave/particle duality and Uncertainty just a guess? What if electron waves are getting squeezed through the empty space in a rapid orbital shell rather than "quantum leaping" to the other side? And remember: every experiment has an observer recording effects. You can't observe a particle in its wave aspect without it collapsing into the particle aspect, so how do they know for sure? And if they don't know for sure, why are they teaching everyone that it's for-sure? It's like they're trying to prevent scientific advance... like doctors being taught to ignore the antibiotic effects of colloidal silver.

So let's just settle it once and for all. What all is just theory, and what all has been proven?

PS, everyone: I've stated many times that my wind tunnel model was imperfect. That was just the best analogy I could match what I'm visualizing to. In reality it's nothing like straight-line winds, it's spherical, and coming out of every cubic planck-length of space, saturating the entire universe with an energy gradient pushing ("blowing") equally in every direction at once. The tunnel was just a starting point to describe the effect in two dimensions. I know wind is more particle than wave. I know the moving fans isn't accurate. I know "frictionless" is impossible, I already knew everything everyone keeps pointing out about the wind tunnel; I only used it because I couldn't come up with a better thought experiment. Abandon the ridicule already.

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 02:59 PM
A prime example...

Originally posted by Twine

This contradicts our observations of gravity - the force is *not* attenuated when it "passes through" matter.

For that statement to be true, there would have to exist "negative tides" that occur on the other side of the Earth from the moon with the same magnitude as tides on the close side. As it makes water bulge upwards on the near side, it would have to be pulling down on the water on the other side with exactly the same amount of attraction, squeezing the water down and causing a "displacement tide" that looks just like normal tides, wouldn't it? Otherwise, matter attenuates gravitational force. And don't tell me it isn't a force. That too is theoretical. Nobody on this planet knows for absolutely sure what gravity even IS. All we have are observations of its effects, which LOOK like a force, and theories about its cause, only some of which state it isn't a force.
edit on 1/22/2013 by Thought Provoker because: Slight clarification.

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 02:59 PM
My first-ever accidental double-post. It's a great day indeed.
edit on 1/22/2013 by Thought Provoker because: Too much coffee.

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Thought Provoker

it's spherical, and coming out of every cubic planck-length of space, saturating the entire universe with an energy gradient pushing ("blowing") equally in every direction at once.

I dont know much about it, but this sounds like dark energy...

the thing is there are all these different perspectives and theories but only one Truth... One true way the universe exactly is... So everyone with a theory and who follows a theory, should be working with everyone else with a theory... working with experimentation to try to solidify the most accurate model and comprehension of the way the universe works and what exactly the universe is. Instead of picking teams and thinking you are a winner for having the theory the most people believe in.. Our models of the universe should have very little to do with our emotions and feelings and thoughts... they should be an exact replication of what the universe is, nothing more, nothing less..Science is the reverse engineering of the universe,. With time, reason, ration, experimentation, modeling, patience, cooperation.. I dont think there is any reason why humans cannot eventually figure out all the ways and whys and whats and hows and whens and wheres of the universe,,, at least at a most general level....

OP I know you received a lot of replies but did anything I mentioned in my last response to you make any sense, or was it of any interest?

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:12 PM

I whole heartedly agree; too many definitions for the same thing making the fields of science into a jungle of homographs. Distillation was in the old n dirty alchemy but there's no reason to not still use it, that I can see other than claiming rights and profit...although looking allegorically at science itself; it's proof to chaos theory, so there is a bright side.

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Ok... what is the quality of space in between atoms, in between star systems, in between galaxies, in between protons/neutrons and electrons ? Is it literally pure nothingness? what would that be, pure nothingness?

There is not "nothingness" in the empty space inside an atom. There are gazillions of points in there oozing unidirectional mechanical force if I'm right. Matter casts a "shadow" in it, and anything in the shadow moves in that direction. They shade each other and are pushed together along the framework of space-time (I think it's a "hologrid" with 1-planck-wide pixels). Great name for a band, but "Force Shadow Vectoring" could be the mechanism behind gravity, mass, charge, spin, inertia, valence, wave/particle duality, strings, tunneling, you name it. I mean, hey; if you're gonna unify the forces, unify 'em. "FSV." I think I have a name.

I don't know where the universe came from, either the empty or filled parts. I don't know where the energy comes from to create and maintain all the matter in the universe, so I also don't know where vacuum energy comes from or how it could theoretically create "spherical wind." But we gotta start somewhere; I started with faith in my gut instincts. Like all scientists do.

I reserve the notion, that reality/universe may be more high tech then we can imagine...

In that case, we can't let our imaginations be limited, can we? We have to occasionally just discard everything we think we know and start from scratch, let our minds run wild with "ridiculous fictions" and see which ones fit into all the puzzle holes. Just bypass creativity. After making yourself not care whether you're right or wrong about your beliefs, toss the beliefs out, throw your mind wide-open, toss in all the provable observations ever made, and visualize what logically has to exist to support particles, what must be if galaxies are to happen, and gravity, and radiation, and mass, and everything else. See how many possibilities you end up with.

So what im wondering,, was there one type of primal energy-ness... one equal vast pool of energy sameness... that separated, and for some reason (laws of physics) the sameness turned into lots of differentness?

All I can say is "Sure, possibly." There might also be different roots for different energies too, the most obvious being physical versus spiritual. But my gut tells me yes; there is one primal source for all of everything that is. And you're soaking in it.

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
A prime example...

Originally posted by Twine

This contradicts our observations of gravity - the force is *not* attenuated when it "passes through" matter.

For that statement to be true, there would have to exist "negative tides" that occur on the other side of the Earth from the moon with the same magnitude as tides on the close side. As it makes water bulge upwards on the near side, it would have to be pulling down on the water on the other side with exactly the same amount of attraction, squeezing the water down and causing a "displacement tide" that looks just like normal tides, wouldn't it? Otherwise, matter attenuates gravitational force. And don't tell me it isn't a force. That too is theoretical. Nobody on this planet knows for absolutely sure what gravity even IS. All we have are observations of its effects, which LOOK like a force, and theories about its cause, only some of which state it isn't a force.
edit on 1/22/2013 by Thought Provoker because: Slight clarification.

It would not be the same magnitude, because while matter does not attenuate gravity, distance does. And indeed there is a tidal affect on the opposite side of the Earth as the moon, though it's also a high tide instead of low. The low tides are on the sides perpendicular.

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by voidman

It would not be the same magnitude, because while matter does not attenuate gravity, distance does.

Ah. So it does; slipped my mind... sorry, Twine.
But couldn't they both attenuate it? How can you tell whether it's distance or matter doing the attenuation? Gravitic calculations are done based on center-of-mass, aren't they? If the equations only consider a single point in the masses, at a certain distance. they're averaging the mass into an abstract virtualization. If three masses in a straight line are involved, like...

A ------------ B ------ C

How do you calculate the gravitation between A and C? If mass doesn't attenuate gravity, then simply calculating A->C and ignoring B completely should be accurate... but is it? B does increase the forces on A and C, but how do you calculate just the forces A and C are putting on each other with B in the way?

And indeed there is a tidal affect on the opposite side of the Earth as the moon, though it's also a high tide instead of low. The low tides are on the sides perpendicular.

I actually did know that; I was trying to exploit the fact that the far-side tides are of lesser magnitude than the near-side tides, but forgot about distance also attenuating it in my haste and tiredness... the enemies of science.

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:16 PM
I’m bored today so I thought I put forth an idea for explaining Gravity, and I will try to explain it easily….key word try. It's actually a simple concept.

So when we talk about temperatures we always talk about highs and lows, and when talk about pressures we talk in highs and lows. Yet when we talk about electricity we talk in “+” and “-“. Then to further that confusion we give partials in an atom this defeat charges of being one or the other. We tend to think of a negative always being negative. However this not true, a negative can become a positive if you compare to something more negative.
For example if connect the “+” of a battery to side “A” of a resistor, and the “-“ of battery to side “B” of resistor then measure the voltage from the “+” to the “A”, the “A” appears to be negative. However if you measure voltage from “A” to “B” the “A” will appear to be positive. So what is point “A” positive or negative? Depends on what’s its compared to.
The circuit looks like this…
+ --------------^v^v^v----------- -
Now if were to think of electricity more like temperature or pressure it becomes easier to explain. Let’s replace the term negative the term low and positive with the term high, and look at that example again.
“+” = H ‘-‘ = L
If connect the “H” of a battery to side “A” of a resistor and the “L“ of battery to side “B” of resistor then measure the voltage from the “H” to the “A”, the “A” appears to be lower compared to the higher point on the battery. However if you measure voltage from “A” to “B” the “A” will appear to be higher than lower “B”. It’s at a higher or lower energy state as to what it’s compared to.
The circuit looks like this…
H --------------^v^v^v----------- L

So if look at charges like electrical as highs and lows instead of positive and negatives we can get a slightly different picture of the standard atom. Let’s say the nucleus of an atom is low instead of positive, and the electron cloud is high instead of negative. Well in nature a hurricane has this same configuration, a low pressure center with a higher pressure around the clouds after the eye wall, or at least higher compared to the eye.
So why is comparison important, well because hurricanes are attracted to each other. It’s a little known fact called the Fujiwhara effect.
And this is how it works. If you have two hurricanes side by side and look at pressures along straight axes, the pressures would look like this.
High (clouds) > Low (eye) < High (clouds) High (clouds) > Low (eye) < High(clouds)
Or
HLH HLH
Now different pressure levels are attracted to each other in order to try and equalize the pressure.
So if we take the L on the left side we count the H’s to each side and see that the L is attracted to the right. (3 H to the right and H to left) Doing the same to the L on the right we can see there more H’s to the left. These two hurricanes will move toward each other until the repulsion of the H’s matches the attraction force of the L’s. And this is attraction in the Fujiwhara effect.

So take this same concept to atoms, and the same thing happens…attraction between natural atoms.
And there you have gravity.

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:51 PM

The detection of an Electrons Micro-Mass is due to the effect of Gravity as Gravity effects everything...Protons, Netrons, Photons,Electrons and all Quantum Particle/Wave Forms.

Although these studies have not been done at any large distance form a Gravity Well it is said that the farther an Electron is from a Gravity well the lower it's Micro-Mass.

Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:23 PM
May I submit to your thread Tetryonics? This is a new understanding of the Equilateral Triangular Geometry of Energy in all it's forms.

As seen on page 101 of Tetryonics [4]Cosmology.pdf abailable freely to all those interested.

Gravity Explained

Looking forward to your thoughts on all of this.

top topics

39