You wanna hear another crazy take on gravity?

Here's my pet theory on gravity: Just like Einstein said space tells mass how to move, and mass tells space how to curve. But what is it about matter that allows it to curve space? Well, I think it all starts in the nucleus of the atom where there are a LOT of opposing forces just barely keeping each other in check, like a LOT a lot. And it's all squished down into a tiny volume. A huge energy density which has to be expressed somewhere, and I think where it goes is it gets distributed evenly over a region of space much larger than the mass, but all of that space gets compressed into the volume of the mass. And that's where the energy is stored, in the compression of the space. This is the origin of inertia.

As a quick aside this is the same medium through which EM radiation propagates, and it is this elastic squishability property of space that allows it to do so. Like slapping jello mould.

Anyway, when a mass receives an impulse it gets an acceleration, but remember that its still in the center of this huge expanse of bunched up space and still needs to traverse that expanse even though spatially the expanse is very small. It does this at the speed of light, albeit over a highly compressed distance. Now, at a constant spatial velocity there is an equivalence between the rate at which the space behind you spools out and the space ahead of you gets compressed, so you feel no sensation of inertia. You're just an object in motion. When you are accelerated by an unbalanced force, however, that equilibrium gets thrown off. You can't travel faster than C, but space is a little elastic. You feel a force which opposes the acceleration, and this is the definition of inertia. The space ahead of you buffered your foolhardy attempt at superluminal travel by becoming slightly more compressed than the space behind you.

Okay, so far so good? If you're still with me here's where it gets a little weird. We've got a mechanism for the origin of inertia and momentum and a way to explain why even light doesn't go lightspeed, we can develop optics, but there's two major problems. One, nothing about this is falsifiable, and two we haven't answered our original question which is how does matter curve space?

tbc...

a reply to: Zelun

It sounds more like you are talking about warp theory for FTL.

If gravity were force created by some process as opposed to a property of matter what would the process be like. The amazing thing about gravity is it operates at extremely far distances. I was think there is some kind of atomic particle that get's hooked by surrounding gravity sources. And if you could some how shield this particle from being hooked you would create anti-gravity, gravity shielding, or inertia dampers. If you could create a device capable of generating gravity how would it interact with the Earth.

So imagine a device sitting on a scale. The scale would read say 20 pounds. You turn the device on and the scale then reads 2 or 3 pounds. That would be something. Say it read 0 pounds and you hold the device up and remove your hand would it just float? I think so.

So if gravity is process is might explain the acceleration of the objects in the Universe. Say gravity is increasing between two objects. It would be like tightening or shortening a string of an object flying around or tethered in circles. Angular momentum would cause the object to go faster. So if gravity is increasing between two objects they would move faster around each other.

So terms of anti-gravity, if your 20 pound device increase gravity rapidly as you threw it up in the air, then between the device and the Earth it would accelerate away from the Earth at high speed. Of course I'm just making this up. I have no idea how this would work. I was just thinking if gravity were a generated force, then there would be strange effects when two gravity sources interact with each other in space. I think understanding how to create gravity as a force is key to making an anti-gravity device.

Of course a 20 pound gravity source I propose here is all imaginary BS but how can you create anything if you are not willing to entertain fantastic possibilities. I have no how idea how you would create a gravity generating device. But just framing the problem is the first steps.

So I suppose a good place to pick back up would be to ask "are we sure spacetime even curves?" "If it does, is there a better way to visualize it than that stupid bowling ball on a rubber sheet demonstration which relies on gravity itself?" Sure there is! You may already be aware that orbits are not circular, they are elliptical, with the massive body being orbited located at one of the two foci. Say we're looking at a diagram of an Earth orbit that is highly eccentric, say GTO. If you draw a line dividing the ellipse in half the long way, like a hot dog bun, the line will intersect the ellipse at two important points. The one closest to the Earth is called perigee(or more generally periapsis) and is the point with the lowest altitude and the highest orbital velocity. The other one is called apogee(or apoapsis) and is the point with the highest altitude and the lowest orbital velocity. Good. Got our terms straight.

Okay, now we're in that orbit around the Earth. The first thing to note is that we're in freefall. We can detect no inertial forces. If we were in a box with no windows we wouldn't be able to tell if we were stationary or in motion. This is known as the Einstein Equivalence Principle. Now. The Earth is getting bigger, so we know we're approaching perigee, which means we must be accelerating. However, we feel nothing. Still in freefall. Now we're past perigee so we must be decelerating, yet still no sensation of inertial forces. Furthermore, since we're in orbit we know we're experiencing an inward acceleration causing our path to be curved but there is no sensation to indicate so. The most sensitive accelerometer would read 0 gees.

What can we make of this? For some reason acceleration due to gravity is different than acceleration due to thrust. Going back to our theory we must conclude that acceleration due to gravity is a balanced force. Somehow, as we accelerate toward perigee there is progressively less and less space 'gather' up in front of us while at the same time less and less space is being drawn out behind us. Another way to look at it might be that in the region surrounding a massive body there is less distance to travel the closer you get.

The curvature of spacetime refers (in this present theory) to the smooth curve of spacetime rarifaction as one gets closer to a massive body. Space gets thicker as you go outward in every direction. Presumably the mass of the Earth is sitting on top of a lot of compressed space, and seems to be at the center of a region of stretched out fabric. Is it safe to assume that while spacetime can be compressed, it can also be stretched? Maybe.

tbc...

a reply to: Zelun

I dont know crap about gravity. I hate heigts, therefore, my biggest concern about gravity is:

IT NOT FAIL!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Zelun

I dont know crap about gravity. I hate heigts, therefore, my biggest concern about gravity is:

IT NOT FAIL!

If gravity failed, height would not matter - youd float away. If it were to NOT FAIL, the height should worry you!

Gravity isn't a force. As another poster has said, its a property of matter.

Take a gyroscope and put a good spin on it. There is a force acting on the rotor that radiates towards its center of rotation. If gravity was a force, the gravitational force would react with the spinning rotor causing it to become very unstable.

originally posted by: eManym
Gravity isn't a force. As another poster has said, its a property of matter.

An Jesus is Lord too.

It's pressure of space imploding from everywhere, towards down and inward everywhere as it converts into pure time located at the one infinitesimal Singularity that is engaged in infinite velocity and infinite angular diversity. Mass is a disturbance caused by the presence of a particle in space much like wind striking against an opened umbrella. Space imploding strikes a particle resulting in mass. The current of space imploding striking the particle is gravity. Einstein was close. But it isn't space bending and distorting that is gravity. It is space itself as a "material" impacting a particle and gravity is the shrapnel.

Hmm... Here comes some rambling: what if gravity is related to the exchange of energy? Everything puts out energy... most things absorb it... reflection of energy repels like antigravity, and absorption would attract... with kind of a “surface tension” of sorts with the energy (imagine a paper towel sopping up water by only touching it with a corner)... Black holes absorb so much, so they attract the most... Planets are attracted to stars because they absorb, but are also repelled by so much energy being blasted out that isn’t absorbed, either by deflection or reflection... I feel like I should throw something in about path of least resistance, and lightning bolts, and stuff. I don’t know how we would be attracted too much to the earth, but I just made this stuff up, as far as I’m concerned...

Taking all the sciency bits away the best way to understand Gravity is this...think of a fish tank of water ( the water is the ether of space ) inside a bubble is formed in the middle of the tank. Increase the bubbles size and pressure around it increases, we are living on the outside barrier of where the bubble meets the water and are being pushed back toward the centre.

The Bigger the bubble the greater the pressure there is pushing us back to the centre, now water is only a analogy because it stops pressing when there is not contact so it falls down there and other places but the principle is similar.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The model I'm describing should be consistent with the Alcubierre metric which you astutely pointed out. The primary difference between what you and I suggest is this: I am proposing that "objects" which possess the property of mass are merely vast amounts of "space" bound up hyperdimensionally into a very small volume. I'm attempting to formulate the verbiage of this concept for a future post, and I very much appreciate your contribution and feedback to this thread.

best!
z

a reply to: eManym

A gyroscope demonstrates the pseudoforces centrifugal and precessional. Both are consequences of the conservation of momentum. A future post will describe how important these are, and it is good that you're thinking about gyroscopes. Thanks for commenting.

best!
z

a reply to: mazzroth

The problem with your analogy is that it relies on gravity in order to work, much like the "rubber sheet" model mentioned in my second comment. Without gravity, density/displacement is irrelevant regarding what rises and sinks, thus the surface of a larger bubble isn't significantly different from that of a smaller bubble when in free fall. I do thank you for your comment, and encourage you to keep thinking about this stuff. It really is important to wonder.

best!
z

a reply to: tkwasny

This is a good idea, however interferometry experiments have been done that, at least to my satisfaction, prove a sort of "etheric wind" is not the source of gravity, specifically Michelson-Morley. I think the primary flaw is in the assumption that there is a fundamental difference between "space" and "matter." The model I'm describing in this thread assumes there is no difference, and only the hyperdimensional structure and energy density of a given region of space determines whether it displays mass-like properties.

best!
z

a reply to: Zelun

Just ban gravity! Problem solved!

a reply to: japhrimu

The entire Standard Model is based upon what you're describing, or where you're headed with your reasoning at least, and mathematically and experimentally it works, so far. The problem I have with the Standard Model (and don't get me wrong, I LOVE it, it's a very beautiful, simple theory that makes falsifiable predictions to test and refine.) is ontological. As convenient as it may be to invent "virtual particles" to make sense of what your equations are describing, it doesn't make them real. As Feynman famously said "just shut up and calculate." Well I won't shut up.

The model I'm describing here suggests that gravity influences the motion of other objects at a distance by changing the geometry of the space surrounding it, just like Einstein described. The difference is that I am suggesting what we call "matter" is actually just spacetime bound up into a tiny volume and sustained in that state by the particular structure of that bundle and the intrinsic energy contained in the structure which allows it to be stable over the time spans we humans have available to study it. Just as light waves are described as needing no medium through which to traverse, rather creating their own medium of an alternating E and B field as they propagate through space, the motion of matter is here described as matter sucking in space in the direction it's going and expelling space in its wake. If the region it's moving through is "flat" then it goes in a straight line, just like Newton said.

best!
z

I always wondered why a falling water droplet forms a sphere. Seems the gravity is applying pressure on all sides of the water droplet. Maybe its the surface tension of the droplet that forces it into a sphere.

a reply to: eManym

You've got it. Water, a very polar molecule, forms a meniscus on its surface due to surface tension. Overall the volume compacts into its most space-efficient arrangement, a sphere.

ETA: except gravity isn't pushing it in on all sides, not significantly. Surface tension is an electrostatic phenomenon. Polar molecules act like little earth magnets.

a reply to: Zelun

I have a theory about energy which ties into your theory of gravity. My theory is mass causes space to condense and cause tension. When energy is released it is that tension being released.

a reply to: jbailey134

Yep, that's exactly in line with what I'm saying. One of the more extreme examples is when the mass defect in a nuclear reaction is converted to energy, the "force" it conveys to the surrounding material is space itself moving outward to accommodate the increased amount of space in that particular region. This is also the phenomenon responsible for spectral absorption/emission, though on a much smaller scale and its nature is periodic.

I would love to hear more about your theory.

ETA: in fact the only difference is I'm saying mass doesn't "cause" space to be compressed, matter has the property we call "mass" because it is compressed space.