It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Redefining Gravity. Is it possible? I'll try.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:42 PM
Okay, I will start out by saying I am no scientist, nor do I hold any scientific degree of any nature. That said; I am an avid reader of science non-fiction and have been puzzled by gravity for some time. I will attempt to paint a different perspective on gravity that I don't subscribed to myself, although I can't refute it myself (probably because my lack of knowledge). So I leave it up to ATS and the feelings conscious members that don't want to hurt feelings.

Okay, I am not trying to bash past scientists as I represent my case, I do think that we don't question the foundation of our science enough. And I believe that Gravity is one aspect that is easiest to question the foundation of because science knows little about gravity.

What I am suggesting is that there is no such thing as gravity in the understanding that science gives. I believe there are only reactions to certain variables. I will deal with two stages of gravity:

1). Gravity in space: Okay gravity in space deals with objects positions and dispositions in space and their effect on each other. I think this can be considered reactionary as well. If most objects in the Universe have a certain charge, be it negative or positive, this would enable certain laws of magnetic, electric, or natural attraction to either attract or repell it away. And obviously Newtons laws play a part in such.

Moons are stuck in planets orbit, planets are stuck in the suns orbit, etc.

Starting with the moons and planets. Our moon is filled with certain amount of elements

The lunar crust is composed of a variety of primary elements, including uranium, thorium, potassium, oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, titanium, calcium, aluminium and hydrogen, as determined by spectroscopy.

And our Earth is a big Iron core. The perfect magnetic balance could hold the moon in place. (If you have two magnets, placed them on top of each other, the opposite polarity would keep the top magnent always above the surface)

And as the Earth's core shrinks, so would the precise hold of the moon in our orbit. It would slowly get further. The effect on the oceans tides could be a reaction from the magnetic relationship between the Earth and Moon.

The Law of Attraction could help explain most of the other gravitational anomylies from my feeble understanding that is.

2) Gravity on Earth. Now this is a more of a stretch, but I believe it could have some points of interest to debate.

Since I was a child I have looked at our Atmosphere as a certain force field, no different from space except that we have breathable air, all the components and constituents to sustain life, which a vaccum would lack. So now we are left with, why don't we fly out into space? What keeps us grounded? Gravity. And gravity places 15 pounds of pressure on your shoulders keeping you on earth. Fair enough.

But then I got into the business of Radiology and opened a diagnostic Imaging center with MRI, CT, PET, Etc.. I have a 1.5 tesla magnet that weighs 8 tons. Now most of you may or may not know that MRI technology works because our human bodies have tiny microscopic magnets in our tissue that helps the machine create a scan.

This got me to thinking about Our Earth and it's Core again. The Earth is a big magnent, we have microscopic magnets in us. So what if the core of the earth, earth itself was imposing the 15 pounds of pressure, the pull, rather than the push.

Again, the laws of attraction (that would need their own scientific overhaul) may be able to explain the rest.

Okay, I have tried to explain my uncertain thoughts about gravity. Please be detailed when telling me how wrong I am to think this.


[edit on 15-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 06:53 PM
Well, from one non-scientist to another,
sounds pretty interesting to me. Although, I must say that you are not the only one who has suggested this.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:17 PM
I couldn't find any links speaking about this. Seeker do you remember any sources? I would like some of the the physics pros to chime in...


posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 07:27 PM
Ok, well I am a scientist, I hold no degrees and am pretty young,
but I'm still either as smart or smarter and genrally better at
science than alot of the so called scientists that have degrees.

You do make an interetsing theory err Hypothesis (hope cmdr
did'nt see that), however, theres one thing I feel I should say.

What about Quantum Singularities, r as there better known as,
black holes, they show us, well atleast to me, that gravity itself
is a seperate force, they have gravity so intense that it can
bend light.

Ok, I sort of forgot what else I was gonna say, I guess I learned
not to stop typing to go do exercise lol.

Anyways, I agree with you, scientitst don't question science enough.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by iori_komei

What about Quantum Singularities, r as there better known as,
black holes, they show us, well atleast to me, that gravity itself
is a seperate force, they have gravity so intense that it can
bend light.

That is not gravity in my hyothesis. It is another deminsions interuption, antimatter, dark matter, etc... Just because our finite abilites can't put a name to it, doesn't mean it is gravity. You see I believe gravity is a bandade for scientists. If they can't easily understand something using our set laws they put the gravity bandade over it.


posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:16 PM
I don't get the "15 pounds of push". Are you thinking of air pressure? The amount of "push" downwards is gravity (9.8m/s^2) multiplied by your mass, say 100kg. F=ma, so force will equal 9.8*100, which gives 980 newtons of "push" downwards, or pull, on a body of 100kg of mass.

I think you mean roughly 14.7lbs per square inch, or 100,000N per square metre due to air pressure. We would still be attracted to the Earth at the same rate if there was no air around us (provided we survived).

One problem I see is with your "bodies attracted magnetically". How do objects with no magnetic field stay in orbit?

And regarding MRI, Wikipedia says under "technique" that it relies on the "relaxation properties of excited hydrogen nuclei in water". So we don't have microscopic "magnets" as such - it's just the water in our bodies that the MRI scans rely on. If that's the case, take a piece of plastic - no water in that, yet it's still pulled down by gravity.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Xar Ke Zeth

And regarding MRI, Wikipedia says under "technique" that it relies on the "relaxation properties of excited hydrogen nuclei in water". So we don't have microscopic "magnets" as such - it's just the water in our bodies that the MRI scans rely on. If that's the case, take a piece of plastic - no water in that, yet it's still pulled down by gravity.

I should've clarified. The hydrogen atoms act like tiny magnets. And if an 8 ton magnet can do that to out body, what can the magnetic field of a planet effect?

Basic Working Principle Of MRI:

This information is not meant for those of you who haven’t still forgotten your high school chemistry and biology. It is a well known fact that 70 % of human body is made up of water, made up of two integral components – Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Remember those good old times when you were fascinated by tiny magnet pieces attracting pins, coins and other metal objects? May be you would be surprised to know that there are these tiny little magnets inside your body as well. Yes! The hydrogen atoms in our body behave just the same way and the MRI diagnostic procedure makes use of these hydrogen atoms in the body, which are so abundant.

One problem I see is with your "bodies attracted magnetically". How do objects with no magnetic field stay in orbit?

Well certain laws of attraction state that masses will attract other objects with mass.

Weight is an entirely different thing. Every object in the universe with mass attracts every other object with mass. The amount of attraction depends on the size of the masses and how far apart they are. For everyday-sized objects, this gravitational pull is vanishingly small, but the pull between a very large object, like the Earth, and another object, like you, can be easily measured. How? All you have to do is stand on a scale! Scales measure the force of attraction between you and the Earth. This force of attraction between you and the Earth (or any other planet) is called your weight.


[edit on 14-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

[edit on 14-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:57 PM
You would have to have gravity as it's own force than, since masses
attract/ are attracted to other masses because of there gravitational

Honestly, I figure gravity is one of the fundamental ofrces that we
just don't understand yet.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:05 PM
Couldn't gravity be the reaction of invisible masses from another deminsion? Other deminsions pressure on this deminsion? Take empty space within this deminsion without any mass. No real disturbance there. Other deminsions won't be effected by empty space. Not until you throw objects/Mass/Matter into that space. Then that causes other deminsions to make room so to speak. That force of readjusting is different the size of the deminsional obstruction. So Jupiter takes more energy to be calabrated and adjusted for. Therefore it has higher resistence to itself and other objects around it.

Did that make any sense?


[edit on 14-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:13 PM
That reminds me of the string theory of gravity.

Which states gravity is a force, but the reason it sems so much
weaker to us us because it originates in a higher dimension.

It would'nt matter what spatial dimension something exists in,
if it has mass, it has gravity.

Though an interesting note, if something has negative mass,
it has anti-gravity.

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:08 AM
[EDIT] Woah thats weird, you just said what i said. I guess im right then! [/EDIT]

That is an interesting theory, and its good to see people have the capacity to think outside the box. Though I do not have an explanation, i have a hypothesys.

The magnetic, Electric and Nuclear forces are billions of times stronger than gravity. Why?

I think that it is because for some reason, these forces are limited to our four (or ten in string theory) dimensional universe. However, though the e, m, and n forces are stuck here, gravity is different. Instead it has the ability to leak off our universe into extra dimensions. If this is true, the ability to manipulate gravity could give us the ability to jump off our three dimensional spacial matrix. Transdimensional cruise, anyone?

[edit on 9.15.06 by ProveIt]

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:15 AM
Without actually checking, which I'll do after I finish writing this,
I'm pretty sure the Electro Magnetic force is the only one actually
stronger than gravity.

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 12:23 AM

Gravity, the weakest of the four forces, is about 10-36 times the strength of the strong force. This weakness is easily demonstrable - on a dry day, rub a comb across your shirt to give it static electricity, then hold it over a piece of paper on a desk. If you were successful, the piece of paper lifts off the desk. It takes an entire planet to keep the paper on the desk, but this force is easily overcome with everyday materials employing the electromagnetic force.

We will see if that so-called gravity leak theory holds up. It would be exciting to atleast prove the multiverse theory. I would still like more insight on gravity.


posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:20 PM
If a recent theory say that gravity is leaking into other deminsions, which effects the magnitude of the gravity we feel here, than it would be possible for things in those demisnion to effect us? So in a sense, outer-deminsional objects influencing us could resemble what we think is gravity. But in reality it is a reaction to a certain variable.


posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 05:29 PM
I honestly don't know, to tell you the truth, I only have the most
basic of understandings of string theory.

I also have a few doubts about the gravity leaking.

Perhaps it's that gravity is caused by mass, but it's a force that
exists on a nother dimension, so we feel it, just deluded a great

posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 05:59 PM
You know, this reminds me of an old thread about time. Similar critical thinking. I got involved at page 3.

It's true gravity is a bandaid, but in my opinion dimensions are a bandaid too. You know?

It's one of those things where we would benefit greatly from our alien brothers. Since they've demonstrated complete mastery, in the physical working sense, then I beleive they could rectify our understanding, unless you prefer the self-determination route.

The real question, is what exactly is gravity, or magnetics even. Discovering and proving the procedures and mechanisms does not suffice, this question goes beyond and seeks to identify what this energy is.

I beleive that is a question which has never been answered by science. Science is the grand theory, it is procedural, it is logical, and it is unifying.. but at the same time it is nothing more than observation. None of us know what energy really is, we just identify it by behavior.

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 07:52 AM
There's a few things about this Magnetic Theory of Gravity that I don't understand.

#1, what holds down all the Magnetically Neutral objects - such as the molecules in the air, or the shingles on the roof? What holds down sulfur and water?

Many things are magnetically neutral - they have just as many protons in their atoms as electrons, and so have no impact on magnetic fields. If gravity were magnetic, these objects should float away.

#2 What about ferromagnets? If what you say is true - that gravity is really just a trick of the magnetic force - then shouldn't magnetic objects either:
a) fall faster?
b) float?

A magnet with the opposite magnetic charge should fall FASTER to the ground than a neutral object - since the earth's magnetic field in your theory would have a stronger hold on it.

A magnet with a similar charge should either fall slower, or even float, since the magnetic fields would repel each other.

I think these are two large holes that a Magnetic Theory of Gravity can't answer properly.

As for Gravity, I am a General Relativity fan. To put that theory of gravity in its bluntest form says:

The reason that you fall to the ground when you jump into the air is because it's the fastest way to get between "Now" and "Then".

That is literally it - but it can make sense when you think how we move through time at almost the speed of light, but to move through space, since the speed of light cannot be exceeded, we have to take away our speed through time. This require us to expend energy - and since everything likes to be in its lowest energy state, we default to the lowest energy state whenever we can, which is trying to end our movement, which is falling to something bigger.

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:45 AM

Good points.

It is important to understand that if my theory were to hold any real validity, a few previously unknown things would have to become known. Like the Law of Attraction for starters. I believe it could be possible for nuetral charged particals to borrow collective charge from either the air around it or other charged particals, either in our time and space, or from another place and time. Sub-atomic particals for one place a role when they show up here, but what if they played a role when they weren't here as well.

Coulomb's law explains how friction can cause nuetrally charged particals to share or pick up the charge of other particals energy.

Also, could it be possible that there is no such thing as a nuetrally charged partical, it be be assumed that each particals charge is unregisterable by any comparison. Perhaps the charge is too small to be registered. Basically everything in our universe had some degree of positive or negative charge.

About the our deminsion leaking into the other deminsion theory. I could more easily believe that it is the other way around. The other deminsion leaked and formed our deminsion.

Trippy I know...


[edit on 16-9-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 01:23 PM
Hmm, some more problems arise from that answer though...

A negative charge come from an overabundance of electrons. A positive charge comes from a deficit of electrons.

So, let's say we had a Helium atom with 3 electrons - the Helium is negatively charged. Let's also say that a second Helium atom comes along, but it's nice with 2 electrons. In this case, the atom with 3 remains at 3 unless the two collide or something similar. If this happens, then we end up with the first atom being neutral, and the second being negative. The total charge remains the same.

Now, let's add a third atom in, this one with only 1 electron. The two will speed towards each other because of the electromagnetic force's strength. The Helium with 3 electrons losses its extra, and the Helium with 1 gains one. In the end, we're left with 3 neutral atoms.

So, sharing is possible, but nature aims for neutrality.

Also, we're very sure that the charges of protons and electrons are equal - because they're made of quarks. Each quark has mass. We also know that the neutron is slightly heavier than the proton. In fact, it's exactly 1 Electron in mass heavier. The neutron is litterally an electron and proton squeezed until the strong nuclear force (the most powerful force we currently know of) is beaten.

This is why the neutron is neutral - not because it lacks charge, but because the to charges cancel each other out when placed so close together.

Everything's about scale. If I took two million of each positive and negatively charged Helium atoms, and placed them in two different jars, their combined charge is neutral. Close to any specific jar, and the charges are apparent - but once you get further away, the jars cannot be distinguished, because at that distance their charges have cancelled each other. At the scales involvd inside atoms, 1 proton sitting beside 1 neutron still can't tell where inside the neutron the two charged quarks are.

Also, I believe you missed my second point, that other magnets should either fall faster than neutral matter, or float.

I really admire the amount of thought you put into this, though. If anything, this theory has expanded many people's minds with the idea of what can be possible.

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:08 PM
Yarium, you have made good sense to a laymen. I did miss your point about the free fall of magnets. They should fall faster or float depending on the charge. I agree. Considering you seem to be the person I wrote this thread for, I will ask another question.

Does quantum physics have any paradoxical uncertainties that could fill in the blanks? I understand that relating atomic particals have a universal relationship within one another. So if one partical here ceases to exist, that partner partical, no matter where it is in the universe would cease to exist as well. And then sub-atomic particals, do they have a role to play when they show up here?

Also, I have this problem with wieght and it's relationship to gravity.

Couple questions. (they may seem like simple questions but they're not to me)

Why does wieght lose it's gravity in water, or most of it?

Imagine to have a dome underwater that is air tight and people live there. (signifying earth and space relationship) Weight has a purpose in the dome, but if we had ships (subs) that went into the water to explore. When "waternauts" went to explore, their equipment wouldn't weigh like it did in the dome. I realize my understanding is vague, but I feel like there is something else, another factor that is playing here. Gravity doesn't appease my appetite... Yet.


new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in