Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: hamza on 30/07/2007 19:20:08
-
what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??
-
The Earth's spinning motion is totally separate from gravity.
Gravity is a feature of mass, and anything that has mass will have a gravitational pull (i.e. if you have a 1Kg block of lead, that too will have a gravitational pull, but it would be so very slight that you would need extremely sensitive instruments to even measure it was there; but the earth is a massive 5.9736×1024 kg, and so has many of orders of magnitude stronger gravitational pull than the 1Kg mass does).
The Sun is even more massive, and so has an even stronger gravitational pull, but because it is far further away, we feel its pull less than we feel the pull of the Earth beneath our feet.
The Earth is spinning because it was always spinning, and was created that way. The Earth formed out of the primordial solar system, and that was a swirling cloud of gas, so everything that formed within it was spinning one way or another.
-
The most genrally accepted theory of gravity is that put forward by A Einstein in his theory of general relatively that the presence off matter produces a distortion of space-time so that the motion of a particle that would normally move in a straight line follows a differant course so that it appears to be attracted to a mass (the shortest and least comprehensive account of general relativity published see Wiki for better ones).
The alternative theory is that gravitational attraction is mediated by an as yet hypothetical particle the Graviton but the mass of such a particle would be so small that there is no hope of detecting individual particles
-
The most genrally accepted theory of gravity is that put forward by A Einstein in his theory of general relatively that the presence off matter produces a distortion of space-time so that the motion of a particle that would normally move in a straight line follows a differant course so that it appears to be attracted to a mass (the shortest and least comprehensive account of general relativity published see Wiki for better ones).
The alternative theory is that gravitational attraction is mediated by an as yet hypothetical particle the Graviton but the mass of such a particle would be so small that there is no hope of detecting individual particles
Would not the mass of a graviton have to be massless, or else gravity would have a finite range?
In any case, although difficult, we are able to detect (at least indirectly) the existence of neutrinos, which are probably massless.
George.
-
What evidence is there that the range of gravity is infinite?, the postulated mass of the Graviton is very very small, we used to believe the neutrino was massless but we have had to get used to the idea that it has a small mass!
With the aid of very large detectors we can detect individual neutrinos but according to a 'Scientific American' article (that I cannot find) the mass of the Graviton was 10^-11 that of the Neutrino and a detector the size of Jupiter would be required to detect individual ones.
It could well be that the size of the observable universe could be too small to test whether the range of gravity is infinite.
-
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
-
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.
Are you saying that it is exclusively a nuclear force, or merely a predominantly nuclear force?
Ofcourse, the real problem is that because gravity is such a week force, we really have little idea of how gravity behaves at sub-atomic levels.
-
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.
Are you saying that it is exclusively a nuclear force, or merely a predominantly nuclear force?
Of course, the real problem is that because gravity is such a week force, we really have little idea of how gravity behaves at sub-atomic levels.
The fraction that is nuclear is the fraction of the mass that lies in the nucleus, ~99.9%.
Calculate the force of gravity at sub-nuclear distances, <10^-13 cm, to see if it is "weak."
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
-
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
Good to see you Prof. Manuel,
This Ed Kerls, how is your work going.
Did you ever get around to reading my paper of FIELDS OF IRON RULE THE UNIVERSE.
I have been keeping up with your work.
Let me know when you mite be in the Houston area again.
And as allways you right on with saying that GRAVITY has got to be a manitation of one of the nuclear forces.
And the Iron Cores of the Stars and planets have a lot to do with that manitation of the strong-forces in to Gravitational fields.
Also it is nice to have another on this site that is not afrid to give their full name.
Edward E. Kerls
-
Greetings Colonel Kerls,
Thanks for the message.
We do not understand gravity, but there is no doubt of its importance.
In fact, we have evidence that the Sun and other stars in the cosmos are not powered by hydrogen fusion. They are instead powered by competition between
a.) attractive forces of gravity, and
b.) repulsive forces between neutrons.
Here are links to two papers where this is discussed:
1. "The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation", Hirschegg Workshop 06: Astrophysics and Nuclear Structure, Hirschegg, Austria, 15-21 Jan 2006
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379
2. "On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
-
THE ROLE OF GRAVITY IN THE COSMOS
Since almost all of the mass of individual atoms is in their nucleus, gravity must be a nuclear force.
Are you saying that it is exclusively a nuclear force, or merely a predominantly nuclear force?
Of course, the real problem is that because gravity is such a week force, we really have little idea of how gravity behaves at sub-atomic levels.
1. Gravity is a weak force over long distances.
2. Gravity cannot overcome repulsive forces between neutrons to convert neutron stars into black holes.
3. Gravity is a very strong force over very short distances. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1
The Sun contains a very dense, energetic core of neutrons. A dynamic competition between long-range attractive gravitational forces and short-range repulsive forces between neutrons generates solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar-wind Hydrogen [a neutron-decay product] in exactly the proportions observed.
The Sun is an ordinary star. It appears that other stars and galaxies also contain compact neutron cores. On a cosmic scale, it is the dynamic competition between long-range attractive gravitational forces and short-range repulsive forces between neutrons that powers the cosmos and fills interstellar space with Hydrogen, a neutron-decay product.
If the universe is finite, then neutrons themselves may be the particle-sized black holes that were made in a Big Bang and compressed into massive, highly energetic neutron stars.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1
If the universe is infinite, then it may oscillate between expansion as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
www.omatumr.com
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
-
If the graviton is responsible for the existence of gravity, is it also responsible for its propagation? If this is so, and gravity propagates at 'c', then the graviton would seem to be massless.
-
Either that or more likely its mass is so small that it is beyond our technology to measure how much it deviates from c.
back in 1986 when a supernova explosion was observed with both a neutrino burst and electromagnetic radiation it was very difficult to measure any delay in the neutrino burst and it is postulated that the mass of the Graviton is 10^-11 times that of the lightest neutrino.
-
A lot of times people ask: what is the cause for gravity?
I don't understand this question. Why there *must be* a cause? Then I could ask what is the cause of mass, the cause of time, the cause of space, the cause of energy........
-
Hear hear!
It's as if being able to answer that particular question actually would solve anything. Because, whatever it was that 'caused' gravity would also need a cause to explain it. The best we can hope for is to be able to predict, as well as possible, how things will behave.
-
A lot of times people ask: what is the cause for gravity?
I don't understand this question. Why there *must be* a cause? Then I could ask what is the cause of mass, the cause of time, the cause of space, the cause of energy........
I agree. What is, is.
Good science requires us to accept what is.
Foolish science encourages us to invent a cause.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
-
If gravity were to be exactly the same everywhere then I'd agree that there need not be a cause for it, but the fact is that the degree (or strength) of gravity is not the same everywhere, so there must be a cause for its variation, if not it's origin.
Perhaps the question should not have been 'What causes gravity? but 'What is gravity?
Even then though, there's very strong evidence that the presence of gravity is linked to the presence of matter (and I'm not going to get into arguments about it being the other way around [;)] )
-
OBSERVATIONS THAT I HAD TO ACCEPT
Below are a few of the unexpected observations that I had to accept after I started a study in 1960 to rewrite the Biblical story of Genesis, i.e., the origin of the Earth, from a scientific prospective:
1960: Meteorites contain decay products of short-lived I-129, Pd-107 and Pu-244 from a supernova [J. H. Reynolds, Phys. Rev. Letters 4 (1960) 8-10; V. R. Murthy, Phys. Rev. Letters 5 (1960) 539; P. K. Kuroda, Nature 187 (1960) 36-38].
1962: Earth and meteorites formed simultaneously on the I-129 time scale [P. K. Kuroda and O. K. Manuel, Journal of Geophysical Research 67 (1962) 4859-4862].
1964: Some mysterious process severely mass fractionated Ne isotopes in meteorites [O. K. Manuel, Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 31 (1967) 2413-2431].
1967: Iron meteorites are as old and trapped as much short-lived I-129 as "primitive" meteorites [E. C. Alexander, Jr. and O. K. Manuel, Earth & Planetary Science Letters 2 (1967) 220-224].
1970: Ne and Xe isotopes in meteorites, the Earth, Moon and Sun show a common mass fractionation [P. K. Kuroda and O. K. Manuel, Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116].
1971: The Earth's interior still contains decay products of extinct I-129 and Pu-244 at detectable levels [M. S. Boulos and O. K. Manuel, Science 174 (1971) 1334-1336].
1972: Xe-124 from the p-process and Xe-136 from the r-process of a supernova are enriched by as much as a factor of two in the "strange" xenon observed in some meteorite minerals [O. K. Manuel, E. W. Hennecke and D. D. Sabu, Nature 240 (1972) 99-101].
1973: Meteorites contain mono-isotopic O-16, probably from stellar fusion of helium [R. N. Clayton, L. Grossman, and T. K. Mayeda, Science 182 (1973) 485-488].
1975: "Strange" xenon accompanied primordial helium at the birth of the solar system; "normal" xenon was devoid of helium [R. S. Lewis, B. Srinivasan and E. Anders, Science 190 (1975) 1251-1262; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, Transactions Missouri Academy of Sciences 9, (1975) 104-122].
1976: Different classes of meteorites and planets each have characteristic levels of oxygen-16 [R. N. Clayton, N. Onuma and T. K. Mayeda, Earth & Planetary Science Letters 30 (1976) 10-18].
CONCLUSION: Our elements were produced locally and condensed directly into planetary solids. They neither entered nor traversed interstellar space. The Sun exploded as a supernova (SN) and gave birth to Earth and the solar system [D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, Transactions American Geophysical Union 57 (1976) 278; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, Science 195 (1977) 208-209; O. K. Manuel and D. D. Sabu, paper NUCL 52 presented 2 Sept 1976 at the 172nd ACS National Meeting, San Francisco, CA; O. K. Manuel, Proceedings of the Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII: Cosmochemistry (1977) 263-272; R. V. Ballad et al., Nature 277 (1979) 615-620; D. D. Sabu and O. K. Manuel, Meteoritics 15 (1980) 117-138; O. Manuel, Icarus 41 (1980) 312-315].
a.): "Normal" xenon came from the iron-rich deep interior of the supernova.
b.): "Strange" xenon came from the outer, helium-rich layers of the supernova.
c.): The Sun exploded axially; Chemical SN layers remained in the equatorial plane.
d.): Elements and isotopes were not homogenized, nor ejected to interstellar space.
e.): H|He|C|O|Mg|Si|S|Fe regions formed diamonds/graphite, SiC, silicates, sulfides & metals.
f.): Iron-rich SN debris near the Sun formed iron meteorites; cores of rocky planets.
g.): Earth accreted heterogeneously, first forming its core from iron meteorites.
h.): Iron cores of inner planets became accretion sites for silicate meteorites.
i.): Material from outer SN layers formed giant, gaseous planets like Jupiter.
j.): The p- and r-processes made "strange" xenon in outer, helium-rich SN layers
k.): The s-process made mirror-image xenon where SiC carborundum formed.
The above conclusion has been confirmed by many measurements over the past 33 years, many designed and conducted by my students, colleagues, and me. It was also confirmed by measurement made by others, including many who refused to accept the close association of all primordial helium with "strange" xenon at the birth of the solar system.
The above conclusion was the basis for our 1983 prediction that the Galileo probe would find "strange" xenon in the helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter [O. K. Manuel and Golden Hwaung, Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222]. The prediction was confirmed when the xenon isotope data from Jupiter were released in 1998 [O. Manuel, Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33 (1998, extended abstract 5011) A97.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
http://www.omatumr.com
-
ACCEPTANCE IS THE ANSWER
Hear hear!
It's as if being able to answer that particular question actually would solve anything. Because, whatever it was that 'caused' gravity would also need a cause to explain it. The best we can hope for is to be able to predict, as well as possible, how things will behave.
Sophiecentaur is correct.
Acceptance of observations is the first requirement of intellectual honesty in science.
Most NASA-funded scientists refused to accept empirical evidence of:
a.) Severe mass fractionation because they did not know the cause.
b.) Primordial helium linked to "strange" xenon because they didn't know why.
c.) Poorly mixed supernova debris forming the solar system because it didn't fit textbook descriptions.
d.) "Strange" xenon in Jupiter because that would destroy the illusion of homogeneity in the solar system.
Their research programs "died on the well-nourished vine" of federal research funds.
Neither did I anticipate any of the observations cited above, but I accepted "what is" (perhaps because I was too poorly educated to know better). That was the key to the natural evolution of my research from:
a.) Genesis (The Origin of the Earth) to
b.) The Evolution of Planet Earth to
c.) The Origin of the Solar System to
d.) Local Element Synthesis to
e.) The Composition of the Sun to
f.) The Source of Solar Energy, Solar Neutrinos and Solar-Wind Hydrogen Pouring From The Surface of An Iron Sun to
g.) Interactions between Nucleons (Neutrons and Protons) in the Nucleus to
h.) Neutron Penetration of Gravitational Barriers in Neutron Stars to
i.) The Similarity of Nuclei and Stars to
j.) Dynamic Competition between Long-range Attractive Gravitational Forces and Short-range Repulsive Forces between Neutrons As the Driving Force That Powers the Cosmos and Fills Interstellar Space with Hydrogen, a Neutron-decay Product.
I will be forever grateful that my research mentor, the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda, started me on this joyous "road less traveled" almost 50 years ago.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
-
erm... can I ask a silly question? If you hypothesise that gravity is a nuclear force, how does it affect photons?
-
My intuition calls for a return of the ether.
Not the purely electromagnetic conduit of old, but an ether that all energy, all matter travels through...
it would require that the fabric of space be that conduit, but seperate from an absolute space.
There would be clumping and dispersal of this conduit that would account for all gravity in the universe.
Matter is not held together by gravity, its force is too weak, it is the strong and weak nuclear forces that bind matter so tightly. Gravity is the effect of that grouping of engaged conduit space on the surrounding matter that is also using available ether to move.
What is this conduit?
String theory offers a glimpseof what might be possible...
-
This subject seems to be a nest of right loonies and wierdos. A lot of the surff above is scientifically very incorrect or just wordy garbage. Like all good misleading documents it contains a fair number of real pieces of information linked in a misleading way with a seeming gloss of authority. I think that this topic should be reviewed by the administrators and considered for deletion because it containd so much misleading information and conclusions. The real problem is the question which is put the wrong way. It is not a matter of what causes gravity but an understanding of the fact that gravity causes the universe.
-
Soul Surfer has a point - as with all things, it's worth double checking before you take anything posted on a forum as gospel.
Many of the comments on this thread are personal opinions, or pet hypotheses, and so could be misleading.
-
Said this before somewhere on the forum but feel it needs repeating. The alignment of the majority of particles are offset on a planet and not perpendicular to the core so could be shown to cause a spin much the same as a Catherine wheel firework causes it to spin when ignited. Every single particle on the planet contributes to the attracting force we call gravity. I read somewhere that in some places the alignment of gravity is observably offset and people notice they are standing at a slight angle rather than upright. I think Eureka was one such place mentioned.
The particles that make up the planet have repelling forces and attracting forces.
Another interesting point to consider is that if gravity can alter the direction of water swirling as it flows through an outlet on either side of the equator, then it must be doing the same at the molten core, surely this could also influence the motion of the planet? I do not know whether anyone has mentioned this on the forum?
Subsurface structural features of the Saline Range and adjacent regions of eastern California as interpreted from isostatic residual gravity anomalies
Richard J. Blakely1 and Edwin H. McKee1
1 U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
New gravity data indicate a large unexpected anomaly in the Saline Range and other anomalies in neighboring ranges and valleys of eastern California. Residual gravity anomalies, calculated by subtracting the field due to an Airy model of isostatic compensation, show the effects of lateral density contrasts in the upper crust. A well-defined negative gravity anomaly is centered over the Saline Range and connects the Eureka Valley and Saline Valley gravity minima. Apparently, the Saline Range is a thin veneer of young volcanic material lying on a major alluvium-filled basin connected on the north with Eureka Valley and on the south with Saline Valley. We suggest that the basin formed in a pull-apart zone that filled with low-density alluvium and became the site of voluminous Pliocene volcanic eruptions. The age of this depression predates volcanism of the Saline Range dated at about 4 Ma. Other significant anomalies are as follows: (1) An offset in the Owens Valley fault at lat 37°01'N appears in the isostatic residual gravity data and marks the western end of a major gravity depression that continues across the Inyo Mountains at Papoose Flat. The gravity depression suggests that the Papoose Flat pluton is larger than suggested by its surface exposure and may extend on the order of 10 km below the topographic surface. (2) A density boundary trends west-northwest across the Inyo batholith and Proterozoic and Paleozoic rocks of the White Mountains. This trend is anomalous to exposed geologic structures and may reflect a structural boundary buried at relatively shallow depth. (3) A large gravity low, unexpected on the basis of exposed geologic features, is in the eastern Sierra Nevada southwest of the town of Lone Pine.
what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??
-
I've sought this forum as a result of certain thoughts that came to me while riding my bicycle and feeling the effects of gravitation as I negotiated hills and such.
I began contemplating the nature of gravity. My thoughts immediately went to the diagrams most of us are familiar with that show an object in "space" distorting a grid like arrangement meant to convey the idea of space being warped by the presence of an object. I then thought that this diagram is actually somewhat misleading in terms of it attempting to accurately convey this idea as it shows only one aspect of the phenomenon. I thought that it is more accurately described as the object being totally enveloped by the distortion. as to how it describes gravity, Just a hypothesis here; The space that is warped by the object is warped in relation to the mass and volume of the object. relatively small objects warp the space only a little therefore they have very little gravity. Conversely larger objects warp a lot of space and are heavier. But this line of reasoning leads to much bigger questions. I began to imagine space-time as a kind of medium that has a nature whose qualities we understand very incompletely. Perhaps I thought, space is "stiff"; that when an object is warping it, it is actually "compressing" the space and the space is perhaps denser close to the object and this compression is actually exerting a reciprocal force towards the object equally on all points on the object toward the center. In short the larger the object the, more space warped, the more reciprocal force exerted on the object, the more gravity the object has, the harder it is for an object on the surface of the object warping this space to escape this warped space surrounding the object. Once something on the surface of such an object does escape the area of densely warped space surrounding the object, it becomes weightless.
For this to work in the way I'm attempting to describe, there would necessarily need to be a constant density of the spatial medium everywhere in the known universe,or else this medium would simply take a path of lesser resistance whenever changes in the mass and volume of objects within it occurred. which leads to yet another thought; The universe, if all of this works in the way I believe it might, must be finite. That is if the density of this spatial medium is constant, it must somehow be confined (perhaps by so called "dark matter")by forces that exert pressures on this spatial medium equal to the expansive force of the spatial medium that occur when objects within it change volume and mass. I short I guess I'm suggesting that universe may be finite and that is what ultimately causes the effect we describe as gravity. Other thoughts please!
-
Hello
The earth hasn't always been spinning, its rotation is relative to it's size, so as it grew in it's beginning stages, the rotation increased until the earth solidified and its mass became static.
Why does it rotate ?
If it didn't, the forces in the unviverse would pull it apart and it would spread out like compressed gas does when it is released into air.
The rest of the milky way, our galaxy, is pulling the earth in ever changing directions as the concentrations of stars in the galaxy line up to concentrate the pull in all directions unevenly.
The rotation evens out this pull and allows the earth to stay in a globe shape.
Now to the subject of gravity.
There are clues all around us, you know what they are but don't see the connection.
What happens to fish in the sea?
Why to they not all sink to the bottom of the ocean at 9.81 m/s squared?
The reason is that they have the same density as the water and can tune this density by sucking in more water to lower their density and so move upwards or exhale in to become more dense and fall.
We were once fish and existed as fish do without any gravitational force on us. The word Gravity is a word we have come up with for something we do not understand, when we do fully understand it we will not call it this anymore.
So newtons law does not follow here, the gravitational force on the fish mass x the acceleration due to gravity g. This = 0 g=0 when the density of the object is the same as the medium.
When we we fish we too had the same density as the water and still have a very close density to it now.
As soon as we moved out of the water we placed ourselves at a level above our natural density level.
A resorting force is then applied to move us back to it. The force is proportional to the ratio between the densities, the higher the difference, the greater the force. This applies to all the stars and planets in the galaxy, not just the resorting force towards the centre of the earth. You are being resorted towards the sun, mercury, venus, mars, the moon, all the moons around the planets,Jupiter has a large resorting force and Neptune plus pluto and all the other stars and planets in the galaxy.
Everytime we get out of the bath we feel this resorting force restored.
The rotation of the earth ensures these forces are averaged out so that as the sorting force is greater towards the local density node, the earth, so we remain on earth and do not fly off.
Why do the planets rotate around the sun?
The solar system is a giant gyroscope, the planets are masses in this giant gyroscope. The resorting forces in the universe act to pull it apart, so the rotation of the whole system is needed to average this out and keep the solar system as it is. Without it Neptune would be sucked off and sail away towards a supermassive system far away.
To understand it further,
The terminal velocity formula can be transposed to have its terms changed to show that it is proportional to the ration of densities. But the equation should equal 0 when the densities are the same and it doesn't. Extra missing terms have to be added multiplying the answer by the difference of the densities also so this zero's out the formula.
This formula then needs differentiating to become a formula for acceleration. The value of g is then arrived at for different density ratios.
In the past we have assumed that two balls of different densities would fall at the same rate, this was untrue. Firstly bacause they have a different density ratio with air and secondly that the air density is not constant and decreases rapidly as the balls are raised. At the height of 20,000 m it is a small fraction of what the air density is at ground level.
There is a formula for this air density, which can be altered for any medium.
If we travel out further into space towards the moon, at some point the density field of the earth will equal that of the moon. In relation to the earth and moon there is zero g imposed. In between this an orbit has to maintained to prevent an acceleration towards either the earth or the moon.
At this density midpoint, other density gradients cross and although you may be at a density mid point between the earth and the moon, this is not so with you and the sun. So a sorting force is imposed on you by the sun. Jupiter also imposes a sorting force as well as the other planets. The net force and direction of all this inputs gives rise to the acceleration and direction you will follow.
Spaceships need position control thrusters and a main thruster to combat this forces and move in an unnatural direction.
Along these density meridians, hydrogen flows, being the least dense of all the elements it travels freely along these rivers towards stars afar.
I will share the new formala for g with anyone who is interested.
Regards
Mike Kenyon
-
Hello.
What causes gravity.
Firstly, lets examine things we take for granted. The fish in the ocean are swimming around. They have mass so why do they not fall to the bottom of the ocean like a piece of metal would?
The answer is because they have the same density as the water and when the object, the fish, has the same density as the medium it feels no gravity. g=0.
So g is dependent on the the objects density and the medium's density.
So if we start with g= density object/density medium
but this = 1 when the two densities are equal so more terms are added.
next we take one density from the other and multiply it by the ratio such that.
g= density object/density medium x (density object-density medium)
This also allows the acceleration to have an up and down vector.
Now we have to scale the formula.
The greater the altitude, the lower the density of the medium, be that water or air.
Water on the sea bed is at a much higher density and pressure than on the surface.
But it is the mediums density immediately surrounding the object that matters.
The density of a gas has a formula that varies with height, the formulas include the universal gas constant.
Density medium= maximum density x 1/exp(hieght/23800)
The 23800 is the result of the rest of the formula to simplify the calculation.
g= density object/maxim density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)
x (density object-maximum density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)
Now g will vary with height.
When a person is falling through air there is nowhere in the range of air density that is the same as the persons density which is roughly the same as sea water.
So the air molecules rush past us as we seek our natural density position which is in the water. If there is solid land in the way we will hit it before we reach our destination.
Next we have to add the air friction which acts differently with the shapes presented. a flat circle attached to a parachute will fall slower then a ball bearing of the same mass attached to the same parachute. A needle of the same mass will fall the fastest.
So the difference between the cross section area of a needle and a flat disc of the same volume covers the lamina flow type of falling. A flat disc with a rough surface with tiny buckets indented in it pointing towards the centre would fall even slower. These are like resistors in an electrical circuit, but it is air that is flowing not current. Each resistor could be given a number and its resistance being a property of the velocity of the air flowing around it.
The reason for the density being the same is that we originated from being a sea creature. We floated around at zero g, just as fish do. We still like to lie in virtually zero g in the bath.
Heres the formula so far agian
g= density object /maxim density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)
x (((density object-maximum density medium x 1/exp(height/23,800)*K)
Now if we add the effect of medium resistance, the equation will go out of balance if it isn't placed in the correct place.
To prevent this the density of the object will not change whatever shape it is.
A near zero high value resistor such as a needle could have a value of almost 1.
A low value resistor such as a rough pocketted disc could have a value of 0.8
The value of g is an acceleration but the resistors work in relation to the flow rate akin to V=I.R Where V is the potential difference, which is Density medium - Density object.
the equiverlent of I is the air velocity rushing past and the K value is the resistance.
See K added to the potential difference above
So there we have it, a simple formula for g.
This works as in space at very low density the density of more than one heavenly body comes into play and actually it does on earth also.
So the density of the medium has more than 1 component.
It is density medium Earth -density medium moon - density medium the sun-density medium Jupiter and so on. The moons density meets the earths somewhere in between the two. The reference heights can be matched to the height above the earth and the height above the moon and the net density worked out. The moons low density field on earth pulls higher density objects on earth towards the moon. When the moon is rising and falling it pulls the sea water on an angle so creating the tides.
In space both the earths density field is trying to sort you and your spaceship back to the natural density layer of the spaceship which is deep underground at the layer where aluminium resides. Similarly the moon has a dense layer under its surface that is the same density as the spaceship and a sorting force is applied to move it to this natural density zero g layer also.
The Earth has the biggest density field and the thrusters on the spcace ship oppose this until you near the moon when the moons density is greater then the earths at this point and the thrusters have to be reversed at this point to combat the moons sorting action.
I hope this narative provokes some thought as g is a variable, not a constant. We place g=9.81 in equations and put terms around it to balance the equations. We need to put g as a variable and work out the coorect formulas to match this.Much work has to be done, it could spawn a new era. More work may be required to refine the formula to include the local heavenly bodies and the local star systems around us. How the stars progress around effects their distant miniscule density fields that may just a light particles at this range and their effect on our solar systems position in space. Also the K values for the shapes presented to the mediums needs to be finalised. Fish have a very high K value, they are thin and their scales point backwards, the presented profile is streamlined and very small in relation to the fish's total volume. This is a result of natural selection.
Regards
Mike Kenyon
Reference
At sea level it is 23.77 slugs/ft cubed (US units) and at 20,000 ft it is 12,67 slugs/ft 3
Roughly halved
At 40,000 ft it is 5,87 slugs/ft cubed and at 80,000 ft it is 0.86 slugs/ft cubed
At 250,000 ft it is 0.00065 slugs/ft cubed
The air pressure drops accordindly from 14.696 pounds per square inch at sea level to 0.03 pounds per square inch at 200,000 ft. At 250,000 ft it is approaching zero.
-
Hi Kenyonm. Welcome to the forum! [:)]
The earth hasn't always been spinning, its rotation is relative to it's size, so as it grew in it's beginning stages, the rotation increased until the earth solidified and its mass became static.
The Earth used to rotate faster than it does now. Tidal forces caused by the moon is causing the rate of rotation to slow down.
Why does it rotate ?
If it didn't, the forces in the unviverse would pull it apart and it would spread out like compressed gas does when it is released into air.
There are no forces in the universe which would pull the Earth apart. The only force acting on the Earth are gravitational forces from other bodies. They can basically be ignored since they're pretty small. The force on the Earth by its own forces hold it together. In fact that's what gives the Earth the shape of a sphere. But it wouldn't be pulled apart by other forces in the universe.
The rest of the milky way, our galaxy, is pulling the earth in ever changing directions as the concentrations of stars in the galaxy line up to concentrate the pull in all directions unevenly.
The magnitude of those forces on the Earth are so small that they can be neglected for all intents and purposes.
Now to the subject of gravity.
Speaking of which. Sir Arthur Eddington wrote the following about Einstein's theory of gravity, i.e. General Relativity
The purpose of Einstein's new theory has often been misunderstood, and it is criticized as a attempt to explain gravity. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and does not even hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite hypothesis as to the relation between gravity and a distortion in space; but if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the scaffolding constructed from our measures. - A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36
We were once fish and existed as fish do without any gravitational force on us. The word Gravity is a word we have come up with for something we do not understand, when we do fully understand it we will not call it this anymore.
That's quite wrong. We call it gravity because we merely needed to give the phenomena a name like we do with everything else in nature.
..., when we do fully understand it we will not call it this anymore.
That has never been true. I.e. there has never been a phenomena which was given a name and then given another name when we "fully understood" it. In fact there will never be a time in the future where we can say that we know everything about something, i.e. we will never "fully understand" anything. That's not one of the abilities in science.
See something which is closely related at: ttp://www.newenglandphysics.org/common_misconceptions/DSC_0002.MOV
So newtons law does not follow here, the gravitational force on the fish mass x the acceleration due to gravity g. This = 0 g=0 when the density of the object is the same as the medium.
You're wrong. Newton's law of gravitation always applies in its domain of applicability such as is the case here. There is a force of gravity acting on the fish and another force exerted on the fish due to the water pressure surrounding the fish. The forces cancel out.
etc.
-
My theory for gravity is the speed of light is the ground state of the universe and gravity is an affect due to matter attempting to return to the speed of light reference.
If we start with extreme energy, photons can split into matter and anti-matter. This results in photons originally moving at C, becoming something that can't move at C. Matter cannot move at C. Since matter and anti-matter is at higher potential, lowering the potential would return matter and anti-matter back to C. Since anti-matter has been removed and only matter net remains in the universe, the push back to lower potential C is still there, but matter has to find other ways.
If you look at gravity this causes space-time to contract in the general direction of C reference. Stars can't go all the way to C but can mass burn to energy via fusion to partially return to C. Black holes get almost all the way to the point-instant reference of C. They are stable due to having little potential remaining.
The universal red shift is also connected to energy returning to C reference. If you were on the C reference, the universe would look like a point. What that means is any wavelength less than infinite can' be seen, since that wavelength would be a fraction of a point, which is not possible by definition of a point. For energy to return to C ; so it can be seen, it needs to red shift toward infinite.
-
Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart. If the earth stopped spinning it would not rip apart, it would simply become a sphere compared to the present obloid shape.
Force created from spin is a Y-axis invert force to a central point. There is no inwards force of the x axis created by spin, the x axis is under constant ''centrifugal force'' trying to expand.
This shows you why gravity is mass attracted to mass. In saying that you have just given my an idea and a thought to question.
If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,
so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?
-
Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart.
I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.
-
I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.
Geostationary.
-
I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.
Geostationary.
I don't know if this applies to all satellites or just some, but even geostationary satellites spin on their own axes. Try googling "Onboard spin axis controller for a geostationary spin-stabilized satellite" or http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.20215?journalCode=jgcd
Is this what you mean by spin (or lack of it)?
-
I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.
Geostationary.
I don't know if this applies to all satellites or just some, but even geostationary satellites spin on their own axes. Try googling "Onboard spin axis controller for a geostationary spin-stabilized satellite" or http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.20215?journalCode=jgcd
Is this what you mean by spin (or lack of it)?
Well you learn something new every day , thanks, either way it does not matter, spin has no effect on the x axis being compressed, I did have a theory myself once about everything being based on spin, complex but workable.
-
If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,
so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?
The ground provides an equal and opposite force due to the weight of the ball. The earth won't experience that as it doesn't rest on a surface.
The forces compressing the ball are internal to the ball, not outward towards the ground - remember that in this case you are not pressing the top of the ball to cause the compression.
-
I saw someone on here say WHY ask what causes Gravity, can't we just accept it is? Well It would certainly help a lot to find a way to create gravity on a long range spacecraft (simulating it using centrifugal force is not the same thing). OR to learn how to cancel it on earth to fly without aerodynamic forces or lighter then air craft. Most of the fuel to launch a space craft is used just to break it out of earths gravitational pull imagine if we could simply turn off the earths effect on the spacecraft at will? There are many reasons to ask What causes gravity. It seems to me most of what we know about gravity is the study of it's effects not it's cause. I am not a Expert in anyway but it does not take a expert to understand solving this question and then to make practical use from that would be a astronomically HUGE scientific breakthrough. Everything else is hypothesis until you can not only explain your hypothesis but actually prove it with practical application. I also know the way it is discussed in schools (Meaning K-12 education text books) gives the impression Newton Understood Gravity what he did was come up with mathematical formulas that explained the effects of gravity on mass and motion. (not to say that was not huge and quite brilliant especially when you consider how long ago he came up with those formulas and we still use them today) My fear it is highly likely that it is a force SO dependent on mass that to duplicate the gravity of earth in a space craft that works the same as gravity on earth would require a spacecraft that had the the same mass of the earth. In the end it may just be one of those laws of physics you just can not change even if we did fully understand it. But that does not mean we should not continue to try or ask why. Asking why is what science is all about. (To those more educated then I please be kind as I know I may be way off)
-
Shielding a spacecraft from the force of gravity would be some feat. Considering that gravitation acts on all particles almost simultaneously. Depending only on the density of hypothetical force carriers. The best that can be done is distort the gravitational field around an object so that no force carriers take a path through the craft. This would require some kind of black hole device. Imagine trying to contain that.
-
Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart. If the earth stopped spinning it would not rip apart, it would simply become a sphere compared to the present obloid shape.
Force created from spin is a Y-axis invert force to a central point. There is no inwards force of the x axis created by spin, the x axis is under constant ''centrifugal force'' trying to expand.
This shows you why gravity is mass attracted to mass. In saying that you have just given my an idea and a thought to question.
If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,
so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?
What is interesting about the spin of the earth, is this spin generates a centrifugal force vector that goes in the opposite direction of the gravitational force vector. If the earth spun fast enough and stayed together we would be propelled into space. This is not called antigravity, but the force vector from the spin points in the same direction as would anti-gravity.
What this suggests is the gravitational force, like all the other forces, gives off some form of energy, when the potential lowers, that can cause a countering action/reaction in other matter.
As an analogy, if the EM force caused an electron to fall one energy level, the energy given off, can cause another electron to gain that potential. If a lot of electrons where lowering potential, but the countering re-absorption was not 100% efficient, the result would be only partial action/reaction. In the case of gravity, the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, but this appears to only partially go into the spin, that mathematically cancels only some of the gravity force vector.
-
Hello once more
I have read your feedback
What holds the galaxy together if the graviation forces are so weak?
Now lets look at Newtons equation Force = Mass x acceleration.
The Force is small as the stars in the galaxy are far away , but the combined mass of the galaxy is massive.
So a whole galaxy will have a huge force pulling the other galaxies towards it.
This is why our galaxy will collide with he Andromeda–Milky Way collision is a galactic collision predicted to occur in about 4 billion years between the two largest galaxies in the Local Group - google
So the forces are not weak when the masses are large and Newtons equation says no matter how small the force is it will cause an acceleration.
If you look at just 2 degrees in a circle, making a cone in space and see how many galaxies are in that cone. All these combine together to pull on our solar system, the biggest planets and the sun will feel the largest force.
In order for these forces not to change the position of the planets in the solar system; they orbit the sun in a perfectly balanced rotation with the other planets to keep the sun very still in space, or on its path through space at a huge velocity as it orbits the centre of the milky way, The inertia is 1/2 the mass of the solar system x it's tangential velocity squared. This is a huge amount of inertia that is in all respect infinity large. So the outside forces have little or no effect on the position of the elements of the solar system as a result of the rotation. The mass is 1.98555 x 10 to the power 30 x 1.0014 and the velocity is 365 days at 120 million miles radius = 240 million miles diameter
pi x 240 million miles is a velocity of 38,451 meters per second. This squared is 1478468463 and muliplied by the mass is 2.94 x E to the power 39 N m/s squared.
The earth and all the other heavenly bodies rotate in just the same way at a speed to create the inertia level to keep the earth perfectly still in space, we take this for granted. Everything seems to be perfectly stationary, only earth quakes disrupt this.
On the subject of the cause of gravity again, I will give some more examples.
When we watch a high diver at the World Championships, they spring up off the diving board and then fall as their density is many times greater than air.
They are rushed past by the air molecules the cannot support the diver but are dense enough to act as a restistor to his or her profile and slow the diver down a little.
So the acceleration isn't as high as a needle of the same mass would achieve.
When the diver hits the water, the effect is seems is straight away, the water is almost the same density at the surface as the diver so the acceleration is decreased quickly to zero in just a few seconds. All the interia is absorbed by the water and the diver comes to a halt. There is an abrupt change in g as soon as the diver enters the water. It is almost zero, the inertia is what carries the diver into the water.
Another example is a birthday ballon that is going down. Three days after the birthday, you come down stairs one morning and the balloon is floating in mid air. The net density of the ballon plus the remaining Helium is the same as the density of the air. The ballon has mass, but it doesn't fall and the mass x g rule is wrong. g is a variable proportional to the ratio of the objects/medium 1's density/the surrounding medium 2. This is the cause of the force, if the densities are the same there is no force.
When there is a difference a sorting force is created to change the object to its correct place to be surounded by material of the same density as it's own again.
Whilst there is movement there is medium flow (such as water or air) and this impedes the movement.
The terms x(Density medium-Density object)K where K is a decimal fraction. So the resistance K once occurs when there is a flow. When the Object and medium's density is the same this drops these terms to zero so zeroing out the whole equation. The full equation is on my earlier post. If anyone wants to help refine this formula with me, I would be very grateful and will consider them as part of a team that has helped find the cause of gravity and the team will be the most famous team in history.
The realm of the lone wolf inventor is limited, but the power of a team with scientific prowess would be many times more capable to complete the goal.
Once the cause of gravity is found and uncontested, the next task is anti gravity, a free power source, that will create no exhaust fumes, will probably cost almost nothing to run. My company is called MKForce Ltd. It is a young company. I believe that all who contribute to creating an invention should recieve an equal reward. If we are stuck and someone comes along with the answer and unlocks the team, then that person is in the team. Who wants to be in the team?
Regards
Mike Kenyon
-
Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart.
I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.
The earth is travelling at a huge speed,it's mass is huge compared to your salelite. If it stopped rotating, the effect would be to stretch it out akin to the tail on a comet, the mass would stretch. Pull a balloon through water and see what happens. Now if possible do it again but with the ballon spinning and it would stay round, the forces are evenned out.
A gyroscope works to stablise an object connected to it. The Earth is a huge gyroscope which makes it massively stable. Without the rotation it would be massively unstable.
Regards
Mike
Regards
Mike
-
Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart.
I hope you meant there are some satellites, not all. I could name quite a few which I know for a fact were spinning - I used to process the data from them.
The earth is travelling at a huge speed,it's mass is huge compared to your salelite. If it stopped rotating, the effect would be to stretch it out akin to the tail on a comet, the mass would stretch. Pull a balloon through water and see what happens. Now if possible do it again but with the balloon spinning and it would stay round, the forces are evenned out.
A gyroscope works to stablise an object connected to it. The Earth is a huge gyroscope which makes it massively stable. Without the rotation it would be massively unstable.
Regards
Mike
Regards
MikeThebox
The spinning ball changes shape as the loop of material at the centre is travelling faster than the pole which is stationary, just a rotating dot in space.
The material in the centre has a centripedial acceleration pulling out. Because the top of the ball is connected to it, this acceleration occurs in lesser and lesser amounts to the top of the ball when it is zero. The top moves down as the ball fattens and as it is full of gas it's shape is kept uniform.
The ground is a solid so the ball cannot pass through it. If it wasn't solid the ball would fall through it and keep falling until the surrounding material was of the same density as the ball. The ball would overshoot this point then rise back to it. There, it would feel no gravity.
Imagine a world of just water and wood. The wood would float on the water as it is less dense. After a long time, the wood would become waterlogged. At this point, the air that was trapped in the wood, making it less dense than water would have escaped and have been replaced by water. The wood would then have a similar density to water
and would fall slowly down to the depths where the water pressure increased the density of the water to that of the waterlogged wood.
Everything has a density level where it could come to rest and feel no gravity. In engineering a stone on the ground has no potential energy, only when it is raised away from its natural density level does a sorting force arise which in turn creates an acceleration and a potential energy as a result.
Regards
Mike
-
I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in a thread! Almost every statement (apart from Pmb's thoughtful comments) is evidently wrong or selfcontradictory. Does nobody stay awake in science lessons these days?
-
My theory for gravity is the speed of light is ...
You're not allowed to post your personal theories in this particular sub forum. You have to post it in the New Theories sub forum.
-
I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in a thread! Almost every statement (apart from Pmb's thoughtful comments) is evidently wrong or selfcontradictory. Does nobody stay awake in science lessons these days?
If you think that it's bad here then take a gander at https://www.physforum.com/index.php
-
I don't think I have ever read so much nonsense in a thread! Almost every statement (apart from Pmb's thoughtful comments) is evidently wrong or selfcontradictory...
The confusion between gravity and buoyancy seems very common, but this poster adds in a wide range of misunderstandings including gyroscopic effects.
I thought of responding but found it hard to decide which of the many to address first.
PS note to Mike Kenyonm.
g is not constant over the surface of the earth nor at heights above the earth. The value of g changes with height, but even at 100 miles up it is close to that on earth. 'Zero gravity' in spacecraft circling earth is a misunderstanding of free fall.
All objects on earth experience the force of gravity as described by Newton, but this can be balanced by buoyancy and air resistance.
Look up buoyancy and Archimedes principle to understand these.
-
Hello Colin
Buoyancy is what we use to describe terms in boats, displacement etc.
Water is just another medium, it has three states ice, liquid water, water vapour and steam.
It also has surface tensions that can support small insects and pollen etc.
What I am talking about applies to any 2 medium's or to two solid object's, it doesn't matter if it is a solid, liquid or a gas, they all behave the same in terms of gravity.
A simple test, a lump of wood will float on water as it has a density less than water. The wood is said to be buoyant.
A stone will fall through the water but not at 9.81 m/s squared.
A steel ball will fall also, again as it is denser than the water.
Submarines are hollow sealed tubes so they float as their net density is less than the water. They take onboard water to be able to have a net density greater than water in order to submerge. Once at the required depth they blow the tanks a little to balance the net density to that of water.
This is exactly how a fishes swim bladder works. This is full of air, the fish exhales just enough to have the same net density as the water.
The people in the submarine feel gravity because there is air above them and a steel floor beneath them preventing them from moving down into the water in which they would have a very similar density. The potential difference between the densities is akin to a Voltage in electronics. Current can only flow if it is allowed to move. The steel floor represents a infinite resistor allowing no flow. As the potential difference is there, there is a constant force trying to move the higher density object through the floor to its final destination.
Upside down, if you create a steel platform under water and some wooden statues of people on it or yourself with a rubber ring and arm bands on. You and the statues can stand up,on the upside down platform. the wood and yourself will be pushed onto the platform constantly as you and the wood need to move through it to the surface of the water. The right way up now can you see that we are being pushed onto solid ground by a sorting force trying to move us through it constantly to our natural density level, in the water.
This is the source of gravity.
A boat made of plastic is a wide container of air, at the top rim of the boat this is the boundary of the boat. It's net density includes the air up to that boundary.
The air makes to boat float as it less dense than the water. The same is true of ships made of steel. Once they are holed the boat sinks as the water pressure is greater than the air pressure. Large ships weigh many tons but still float due to their net density being less than water. They are full of air inside.
g, I agree does change with height. So at 100 miles up the air density is very low so it's abilty to resist movement is low. This is unless the object is spacecraft entering the atmosphere at great speed.
As you know, astronauts train in water as it is the nearest thing available with closely matched densities to the micro gravity of space. The further you travel away from the Earth, the more the moon and the other planets try to sort your spacecraft towards their surfaces. This cancels out some of the sorting action of the earths density field. Further out you begin to be pulled in all directions creating the weightless.
I'm sure both you and I see eye to eye on a great many things as what we have in common is a love of science and a thirst of answers to things yet to be fully understood.
Thank you for your feedback also,
Regards
Mike Kenyon
Managing Director MKForce Ltd
-
What I am talking about applies to any 2 medium's or to two solid object's,
You claim to be the managing director of a company, yet you can't even formulate the plural of a noun. That's two media and two objects by the way.
A stone will fall through the water but not at 9.81 m/s squared.
Nor can you differentiate between a speed and an acceleration
The potential difference between the densities is akin to a Voltage in electronics. Current can only flow if it is allowed to move. The steel floor represents a infinite resistor allowing no flow. As the potential difference is there, there is a constant force trying to move the higher density object through the floor to its final destination.
Totally meaningless
I'm sure both you and I see eye to eye on a great many things as what we have in common is a love of science and a thirst of answers to things yet to be fully understood.
Regards
Mike Kenyon
Managing Director MKForce Ltd
Well, these things are perfectly understood by those who have studied primary school physics, and your thirst for knowledge will enable you to do the same. Excellent. Keep at it.
-
All that can actually be said of gravitation is that the force of gravity affects the vector direction and momentum of a particle. No one can yet say how. The equations may be complex but this is what it ultimately boils down to.
-
I saw someone on here say WHY ask what causes Gravity, can't we just accept it is? Well It would certainly help a lot to find a way to create gravity on a long range spacecraft (simulating it using centrifugal force is not the same thing). OR to learn how to cancel it on earth to fly without aerodynamic forces or lighter then air craft. Most of the fuel to launch a space craft is used just to break it out of earths gravitational pull imagine if we could simply turn off the earths effect on the spacecraft at will? There are many reasons to ask What causes gravity. It seems to me most of what we know about gravity is the study of it's effects not it's cause. I am not a Expert in anyway but it does not take a expert to understand solving this question and then to make practical use from that would be a astronomically HUGE scientific breakthrough. Everything else is hypothesis until you can not only explain your hypothesis but actually prove it with practical application. I also know the way it is discussed in schools (Meaning K-12 education text books) gives the impression Newton Understood Gravity what he did was come up with mathematical formulas that explained the effects of gravity on mass and motion. (not to say that was not huge and quite brilliant especially when you consider how long ago he came up with those formulas and we still use them today) My fear it is highly likely that it is a force SO dependent on mass that to duplicate the gravity of earth in a space craft that works the same as gravity on earth would require a spacecraft that had the the same mass of the earth. In the end it may just be one of those laws of physics you just can not change even if we did fully understand it. But that does not mean we should not continue to try or ask why. Asking why is what science is all about. (To those more educated then I please be kind as I know I may be way off)
Hello
We wouldn't be anywhere without Netwons great steps forward. He didn't try to understand the cause of gravity by his own admission. It's up to us to do that now. Any new theory of the cause of gravity must still fit within the known and proved understandings. My theory does just that. It just tries to explain the cause of g and put an equation together for it, not just to accept it as a virtual constant and build equations around it.
A spacecraft would have to be super inversed dense field, the opposite of a black hole to deflect gravity.
Regards
Mike
-
You didn't actually take me seriously did you?
-
I'm sure both you and I see eye to eye on a great many things as what we have in common is a love of science and a thirst of answers to things yet to be fully understood.
I'm sure that might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that we do not see eye to eye on this, as nothing you have written either explains or describes gravity.
-
The cause of gravity has a simple explanation. Entropy of mass. Mass causes the dilation of space (curved space). This is observed in galaxies as lensing. So dilation of space by mass is an observed phenomenon. In the center of mass is the most dilated space as observed by clock tick rates being the slowest tick rate position on a planet. Red shifted light in GR is considered to be less energy. Red shift is the greatest in the gravitational center of a planet. So we can conclude more dilated space suggests a less energy position in space as an observation. If we consider dilation of space also dilates mass that occupies that space we can understand why light and mechanical clocks both slow equally with greater distances of light and the electron to travel to create physics the same in every frame.
In that light we can consider energy being dilated (red shifted light being produced in more dilated space). Now for the potential energy as an attractive force of entropy. We can now follow gravity as simply mass being attracted to a more dilated position in space of less energy. in Relativity light bends away from and curves around dilated space while mass is attracted to a more dilated space position. Einstein appears to be correct in dilation (curvature) of space is the cause of gravity.
To give up on the cause of physics is very unscientific. It may always remain a subjective interpretation of cause but explanations need to be consistent with observations.
-
Satellites do not spin in space and are not ripped apart. If the earth stopped spinning it would not rip apart, it would simply become a sphere compared to the present obloid shape.
Force created from spin is a Y-axis invert force to a central point. There is no inwards force of the x axis created by spin, the x axis is under constant ''centrifugal force'' trying to expand.
This shows you why gravity is mass attracted to mass. In saying that you have just given my an idea and a thought to question.
If we spin a ball on the ground really fast , the north and south of the Y axis compresses, and the x axis tries to expand, however the ball is on the ground, the ground is has an equal and opposing force that allows the ball to compress,
so my question is what force is underneath the earth at the south pole or north pole dependent to which way we are really up, that is an equal and opposing force to the earth to make the obloid physically possible?
What is interesting about the spin of the earth, is this spin generates a centrifugal force vector that goes in the opposite direction of the gravitational force vector. If the earth spun fast enough and stayed together we would be propelled into space. This is not called antigravity, but the force vector from the spin points in the same direction as would anti-gravity.
What this suggests is the gravitational force, like all the other forces, gives off some form of energy, when the potential lowers, that can cause a countering action/reaction in other matter.
As an analogy, if the EM force caused an electron to fall one energy level, the energy given off, can cause another electron to gain that potential. If a lot of electrons where lowering potential, but the countering re-absorption was not 100% efficient, the result would be only partial action/reaction. In the case of gravity, the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, but this appears to only partially go into the spin, that mathematically cancels only some of the gravity force vector.
Hello
If the Earth did not spin we would not have any time? Days on the light side would last forever and nights on the dark side would last forever.
I'm sure that if it wasn't rotating we would feel pulls on the Earth from the billions of stars in our galaxy. This would make the Earth shake a little.
We all take for granted this as the earth stays very still due to the inertia and gyroscope effects stabling it. Just like a bicycle which stablises once it is moving due the the wheels rotating exept on a huge globe. Imagine how stable a wheel would be the size of the earths diameter, This is what keeps the Earth so beautifully still.
Regards
Mike
-
If the Earth did not spin we would not have any time? Days on the light side would last forever and nights on the dark side would last forever.
I don't think so. If it didn't spin we would have days and nights lasting 6 months. Think of the moon. As for the rest, why on Earth (*giggle*) would you think that a spin makes any difference to the gravitational effect of other stars in the galaxy?
-
what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??
Hi Hamza, the cause/mechanism of gravity is presently not known although there is several ideas about what causes gravity.
Spin is regarded as different to gravity, although nothing says this is not the cause at the present, but the physics for gravity does not really fit for being spin.
Presently it is suggested there is a Gravitron, some sort of ''virtual'' particle that transmits from mass to mass.
And thats about it so far.
-
If you are thinking about spin as a centrifugal type of gravity the spin would actually reduce attraction to the center of the Earth not cause it.
Its interesting that mass dilates (curves) space with dilation following the inverse square law equal to the inverse square of gravity attraction. Centrifugal is a curve through space where mass appears to be directed to a straight line. Each system will cause a scale to register what we describe as weight.
-
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
The space unoccupied by particles of matter has mass.
I call this mass the aether.
Particles of matter move through and displace the aether.
'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802
"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."
The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way moves through and curves spacetime.
The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.
The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.
The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
-
We all take for granted this as the earth stays very still due to the inertia and gyroscope effects stabling it. Just like a bicycle which stablises once it is moving due the the wheels rotating exept on a huge globe. Imagine how stable a wheel would be the size of the earths diameter, This is what keeps the Earth so beautifully still.
The bicycle is unstable because a strong gravity is trying to pull it onto the ground. The earth has no such significant forces acting on it and does not need a spin, nor would it fall apart without one, nor smear like a comet.
You need to have a serious rethink of all of your ideas.
-
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Not true. Any medium, moving in any direction, would have altered the null result of at least one of the hundreds of repeat experiments that are done every year in undergraduate physics classes.
We all take for granted this as the earth stays very still due to the inertia and gyroscope effects stabling it.
I wouldn't have described a body spinning about its axis at 1000 mph, orbiting around the sun at a zillion miles a year, and hurtling away from other galaxies at near-light speed, as "very still". But then I'm a pedantic old physicist.
-
The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Not true. Any medium, moving in any direction, would have altered the null result of at least one of the hundreds of repeat experiments that are done every year in undergraduate physics classes.
Watch the following video starting at the 0:46 mark to see the state of displacement of the aether. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE) if the video does not appear below)
'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
""Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University."
Honey has mass and so does the aether.
What is described as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.
"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.
The aether is relativistic. Meaning, everything is with respect to it. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists. This is why the speed of light is always determined to c.
-
"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.
Robert B. Laughlin must be suggesting a type of grid structure pervasive throughout the universe as a relativistic Ether. And if what you are suggesting the Ether has mass for c then energy for c must also be part of c being a constant. A spin of c on Ether particles would satisfy light being a constant wave as is all of the EM spectrum. In that case the Ether would actually be the cause of electron motion and dilate the length between atoms. Those atoms would carry that dilation with them and rotate with a body of dilation moving the electrons within that grid pattern. Yes in a case like this there would be a null result from the MMX. But we have done so much progress without the Aether particles do we really need to go down another path?
-
"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University
Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.
Robert B. Laughlin must be suggesting a type of grid structure pervasive throughout the universe as a relativistic Ether. And if what you are suggesting the Ether has mass for c then energy for c must also be part of c being a constant. A spin of c on Ether particles would satisfy light being a constant wave as is all of the EM spectrum. In that case the Ether would actually be the cause of electron motion and dilate the length between atoms. Those atoms would carry that dilation with them and rotate with a body of dilation moving the electrons within that grid pattern. Yes in a case like this there would be a null result from the MMX. But we have done so much progress without the Aether particles do we really need to go down another path?
There is zero evidence aether is particulate.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Physics is completely screwed up because of its denial of the aether.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment.
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
-
The cause of gravity has a simple explanation. Entropy of mass. Mass causes the dilation of space (curved space). This is observed in galaxies as lensing. So dilation of space by mass is an observed phenomenon. In the center of mass is the most dilated space as observed by clock tick rates being the slowest tick rate position on a planet. Red shifted light in GR is considered to be less energy. Red shift is the greatest in the gravitational center of a planet. So we can conclude more dilated space suggests a less energy position in space as an observation. If we consider dilation of space also dilates mass that occupies that space we can understand why light and mechanical clocks both slow equally with greater distances of light and the electron to travel to create physics the same in every frame.
In that light we can consider energy being dilated (red shifted light being produced in more dilated space). Now for the potential energy as an attractive force of entropy. We can now follow gravity as simply mass being attracted to a more dilated position in space of less energy. in Relativity light bends away from and curves around dilated space while mass is attracted to a more dilated space position. Einstein appears to be correct in dilation (curvature) of space is the cause of gravity.
To give up on the cause of physics is very unscientific. It may always remain a subjective interpretation of cause but explanations need to be consistent with observations.
Hello,
We still use Einstein's general and special relativity formulas today to great effect. He was a great man years ahead of his time. The problem is that it doesn't explain how a black hole works and what happens to matter once it goes into the back hole. In our perception, even if all the spaces between the electrons and atoms are closed up and the atoms neucleus crushed also, can this go on forever? Or does the matter appear in another part of the universe. Nobody knows the answer to this question.
The second problem, as I'm sure you all know, is that even the most brilliant mathematical minds cannot inert the general relativity formulae into the quantum mechanics formulae without the solution going to infinity.
Now I am absolutely sure the if the great man was still alive he would have modified his formulae in some way to allow the two types of formulae to be compatable. It may be the quantum mechanics formulae that need to be modified or the general relativity formulae. This is another unanswered question.
I have a formula that I found out in my reasoning of the causes of gravity which involves a new constant. I called it the Universal g converter constant. It is simply
g(surface) =ugcc x density x radius
I calculated it using a backflushing method with the Nasa data sheets for all planets, our moon and the sun in our solar system. So it isn't complicated and as such the errors are small. The radius used was the volumetric radius. Even though the total error to Nasa's posted g numbers for the planets, the moon and sun was in the order 8,2 x 10 E-7 and the average error accurate to 7,47 x 10 E-8, (after the backflushing method stablised), there are still some errors in the calculated g value in relation to the posted ones. This I concluded was due to errors in the densities or radii quoted. Even so the accuracy of the average value was correct to 9 decimal places.
ugcc=0.00000000027789594900
Error :
8.22226E-07 Total error
7.47478E-08 average error
Best difference -0.014 worst +1.2 g
G on the other hand is only quoted to 2 decimal places at 6.67
When you do the same experiment using g=MG/r squared, you get similar errors to the Nasa posted g. I concluded there must be errors in the Mass quotations and radii also.
ugcc is related to G by pi ! We know pi to an enormous amount of digits and this can be put to use.
ugcc x 3 - G G= 0.0000000000663427709228449 Using this
formula and pi=
---- 3.14159265358979 correct to 14 dp
4 pi
Next I looked at the g value of a person, if we were crushed into a globe shape.
To do this we use the density, mass and work out the vulume and then the average radius.
Person Exhaled Inhaled
Density 1020 945 (interesting)
Average radius of a person 3.121885422 m
cube rooted = 1.461522997 m
Volume of a typical person 13.07692308 m3
Mass of a typical person 78 Kg
the g for a person : ugcc x density x radius = 4.14274E-07 meters / second squared
As you can see this is not very much and it would take 1.22 hours for a particle close by to reach a velocity of 0.02 m/s. So even if we stay perfectly still we can only attract particles very close to us. As we are not a globe shape our maximal attraction will be from above our heads.
This g for a person is added to the g of the earth attracting the person and it changes the value very slightly. If you jump into the air though, the air has an net attraction to the earth also and the ratio between the forces created is 4 times more for you, than the air. As such the air cannot create an equal and opposite reaction pushing on the ground to yourself with enough force to stop you slicing your way back through it to the ground.
I have reasoned that the next path to explore is the g for each atom which I will be moving onto shortly. I am attempting to link the atomic number to g.
I'll keep you posted.
Regards
Mike
-
what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??
Hello Hamza,
The jury seems to be definately out on this subject. I suggested it spins to remain stable in space but not all agree with this as the gravitational pulls from the far away stars and galaxies are very small.
I will look at the pull between the milky way and Andromeda next
Regards
Mike
-
One possibility is our system used to be binary suns where one sun was under sized and forced into fusion. The fusion sun exploded creating the higher elements in our planets, residual gasses in our giants and orbit around the remaining sun. With residual spin.
To fixate on one position without a mechanism for that position is just a wild guess on a roulette wheel.
-
The theory of relativity is inconsistent and consequently invalid, look to following link for the proof of this:
vixra.org/abs/1506.0148
Up to date, nobody managed to demonstrate that this proof of inconsistent relativity is wrong or incorrect, so it stand.
In consequence the gravity can not be explained via the general relativity way of so called "space-time" which in fact is just a redefinition of aether but in a wrong way.
-
The best explanation of what causes Gravity is this interpretation of General Relativity.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.0
-
The alternative theory is that gravitational attraction is mediated by an as yet hypothetical particle the Graviton but the mass of such a particle would be so small that there is no hope of detecting individual particles
In my "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" book, gravity is the result of dot-wave radiation where each dot-wave has a mass of 1.566E-72 kilograms. The universe slowly erases into dark energy. Only about 4 percent of the universe is left now. As the universe expands toward infinity it will be completely gon.
-
What causes gravity?
Everyone seems to have a different answer to this question. And everyone appears to believe their version is justified.
I am no different. So let me add my views to the above confusion.
As it would take too long to repeat what I have already put forward as an answer to this question in a different post, here is the link to that post.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.0
-
Hello again.
Here is my formula again which corrects Newtons second law of motion.
Force(Sorting) = g x volume object x (density object - density medium)
If there are two mediums involved then the form is
Force(Sorting) = g x volume medium 1 x (density medium 1 - density medium 2)
g(effective) = Force(Sorting)/mass object or mass medium 1
The volume object x (density object - density medium) is the interactive mass.
Force(Sorting) has magnitude and direction + = down , - = up
Next could I ask you to stand up and look down at your feet. Imagine the footprint area be the irregular area of the base of a cone with the tip of the cone at the centre of the Earth. Both cones under each foot meeting at this point. Inside each cone are billions and billions of atoms whose electron spins turn them into micro electromagnetic generators. The magnetic metal core causes these spins to be aligned and s chain swarm effect causes the atoms to produce beams of electromagnetic flux beaming through our feet and bodies. The number of atoms within our bodies with opposite electron spins must be greater than those matching the Earth so causing a net attraction. With the density of the air being much less than the solid earth at around 1000 times less dense this energy and resultant attraction force is diluted with the air density getting less and less with altitude.
I have asked NASA for help to do experiments to validate the number of atoms in materials with one electron spins direction and another to prove that this causes an attraction equivalent to 9.81 m/s squared at the surface of the Earth.
Back to the formula
We in air at sea level are subject to s g (equivalent) of 9.8 m/s squared
If we plunge into water this with our average density being the same as water reduces the g(equivalent) to zero. Our bodies decelerate in 1 to 2 seconds depending on the altitude jumped from to a full dead stop. We have to use our arms and legs to swim up to the surface.
In space the density of the medium is very low at 1 atom per meters cubed. This reverts the formula to almost force sorting = mass x g
The g effective almost to a very small amount to g
So the formula works just as well in space. Sorting forces in vectors from the planet's and the sun can be added to produce a net magnitude of force and direction.
Do a comparison with a 3m diameter air balloon with the ball on being1atom thick and made from the least dense material possible.
With a density of 1.05 m cubed per Kg it yields a Force (Sorting) of 6.95 Newtons. The g(equivalent) of 6.95/14.89 = 0.4696 m/s squared.
So the air balloon would accelerate at 4.78 per cent of the rate we fall at 9.8 m/s at sea level.
Regards
Mike Kenyon
-
Lets consider the moon with a tube ten feet in diameter going through the center to the surface at two sides. Without mass in the tube we know the potential energy decreases to the gravitational center of that moon. The gravity decreases lineally with potential energy. No mass is involved for the potential energy state of every position. there is an affect on space by mass without contact with mass. That affect is maintained throughout the tube. It is described as a field. Now we need to describe the field with a very simple decision. Is the field a physical property? Current science believes the field is an extension of mass An increase in mass extends the extension of the field. But the question comes down to fundamental energy. Do electrons move them selves? If that is the case than we live in a Universe of magic. For those unwilling to believe in magic there is only one solution. Something moves the electrons. If something moves the electrons than what is moving the electrons has motion. We know Relativity cannot be if a medium of energy has flow. We would not have the same speed of light in every direction. This is a conundrum until the realization that a medium of space spin in place satisfies, the electron motion, Relativistic affects, c as a constant, chemical reactions, clock tick rate, gravity, fields and magnetism.
They all can be described with particle spin c. Dilation of energy particles allows rods and clocks the flexibility to explain Relativity as a mechanical state. ...... in space and . . . . . in the center of mass. Rods are longer and clocks are slower in GR center of mass. The rods and clocks exactly match to allow the clocks a slower tick rate to traverse a longer rod. The larger clocks internal movement matches the external movement in every frame while c remains the same. Gravity is an attraction to a more dilated space then it currently occupies. A more energy dilated space allows for less resistance to spin and move the electrons. An electron may spend more travel distance towards the center of gravity dilation then away from the center of gravity dilation. in the center of mass the electron would spend equal length duration within a sphere of influence.
This may or may not be true but it describes Relativity mechanically. Quantum mechanics create Relativity observations.
-
Work out why when we are in water g effective is zero and explain this with your abstract formula. There is nothing on earth except atoms, no warped space time or fractions. The electron spins cause the atoms to be micro generations of electromagnetic flux. Combined, these produce beams of energy that are attracted to the atoms with electrons with the opposite spins. These cause the attraction force that yields a acceleration of g.
Regards
Mike
-
What causes Gravity? Higgs "field".
as for the most simple and superficial, anwser:
Higgs field interacting within itself on different constants...
"higgs field was perfect, utill mater took place, changing it from frozen stable state, predictable state, into twisting C...
Higgs constant controlls C, C diverges near mass for higgs start to occur in macro scale, treating a massive object as it was an electron, this delay on the world of C results in time as the size of the field grows bigger...
Perhaps photon has a special spiral confirguration, diverging from the electron, for so it recieves no mass when , allowing light to ignore higgs field, and the secund configuration ocurrs when one is traped in correlation within an electron... Not sure how the photon find the electron, but perhaps each particle is its own field...
I still looking into the subject, I just do not undertand why some were not convinced about higgs particle, if CERN confirmed? What could be possible wrong with the data they collected?
-
A Google search relieved a lot of pros and cons on this idea, some proffs saying it has nothing to cause gravity and others support it, so the jury is definitely out on this Higgs proposal causing gravity.
-
An alternative explanation for the gravitational phenomena is provided by “the theory of informatons”. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301891607_GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM_EXPLAINED_BY_THE_THEORY_OF_INFORMATONS-2)
-
Without a mechanism its just different labels for Relativity mathematics.