# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: mechanism of gravity  (Read 20677 times)

#### Robert Murray

• First timers
• Posts: 8
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #25 on: 08/03/2009 16:03:05 »

It is pretty well established that energy is not expended by bodies in the process of attracting each other gravitationally. This may be a little bit counter intuitive since a falling object gains energy as it falls. Actually it is simply exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy.
[/quote]

Let's look at potential energy.  E(P).

E(P) = mgh  (Mass * value of g * height

E(P) turns into kinetic energy, then heat

Usually, mass does not change due to falling through h, so energy is probably not derived from that source
Height is usually arbitrary, since we could choose any datum (ground level, down a mine, etc.  So that is not likely to be the provider of energy.  Height has a value of convenience only due to the presence of gravity, g.

If g is zero, then mgh is zero. So it would seem that it (g) would be the only candidate for the provision of energy for an unchanging mass accelerating in a gravitational field from an arbitrary 'height'.  That is not to say in which sense 'g' operates, except that it seems unlikely to originate in the masses affected by it.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #26 on: 08/03/2009 18:10:41 »
Quote from: Robert Murray
If g is zero, then mgh is zero. So it would seem that it (g) would be the only candidate for the provision of energy for an unchanging mass accelerating in a gravitational field from an arbitrary 'height'.  That is not to say in which sense 'g' operates, except that it seems unlikely to originate in the masses affected by it.
The mutual attraction of the two bodies does provide the energy. But nothing in either of the bodies is consumed to create the energy.

#### lyner

• Guest
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #27 on: 08/03/2009 22:59:20 »
Robert Murray
Quote
Let's look at potential energy.  E(P).

E(P) = mgh  (Mass * value of g * height
That's not really the right formula to use - it only relates to the situation for constant gravitational field - i.e. when raising an object a small distance above Earth's surface.
The correct  expression for the Gravitational Potential of a mass m at a position r from the centre of a sphere of mass M (and outside the sphere) is
E = -mMG/r
That represents the energy change when bringing an object from infinity to that height.
Moving from one distance to another, you subtract the potential at one distance from the potential at the other distance. It simplifies to your expression when the two distances are nearly the same.
It's what you need to use for any discussion of energy between astronomical objects.

ΔE =   Δm c2 will apply, of course but we're talking seriously small numbers!

#### Robert Murray

• First timers
• Posts: 8
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #28 on: 13/03/2009 13:31:17 »
Thanks for the corrections in the direction of completeness.  My engineering definition is usable for short distances, which I could choose to locate anywhere in the universe except maybe inside a black hole.

Introducing e=mc2 does complete the energy balance but then do we not have an additional manifestation of mass/energy due to motion -  More energy to be found from somewhere?   Corections to a point at infinity don't seem to address any component from which the needed energy is derived.  It still remains in debate whether the universe known to us will eventually start to contract. For the universe as a whole, there is much (force multiplied by distance = energy/work) integrated over the whole sphere of values for 'g' that must be applied for that to happen.  Is it reasonable just to say the energy is already 'there' in the form of potential energy - assuming a factor for 'h' of infinity ?   If so, why do you think it is reasonable ? - I'm most keen to learn more

#### lyner

• Guest
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #29 on: 13/03/2009 17:34:46 »
Your definition only works for small trips above the Earth's surface - cranes and escalators. You need the full definition for anything cosmological. Certainly, if you want to include the relativistic effects, you also need to include the spherical geometry of the system.
The only reason to involve infinity is that you need to define the energy in terms of an integral of work done between limits. You have to choose a starting distance and it could be zero, infinity or  some arbitrary distance.  1/0 would not be a good idea! T
he infinity idea is never really invoked because you work out the actual energy difference between two finite distances, as in
ΔE =  1/r1  - 1/r2
i.e. you never really consider the absolute Potential, just the Potential Difference

Look at wikkers for some confirmation.

#### Robert Murray

• First timers
• Posts: 8
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #30 on: 14/03/2009 17:03:20 »
Yes, your equation is in energy units.   My original scenario suggests that all gravitational relationships and mathematics would be the same as they are now.  You could not tell the differece between a pull mechanism and a field one.

The units of MLT exist in both equations, so I do not see that your refinement adds to or subtracts from the argument.

Your responses are very welcome, but you have used the term, I think, of 'befuddlement' and 'larf' whatever that means.  It would be most helpful if you are able to show where the befuddlement is in the scenario I presented before this somewhat fruitless squabble about formulae began.

#### Hei-Tai

• Full Member
• Posts: 59
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #31 on: 14/06/2009 06:33:10 »

Hi.

Little bit more of this issue.

This image i show that different what is earth and moon about that space-matter layer density.

But i think that this different is not important,,,space-matter push things to planet surface almots same power.

Different comes because earth has air-layer.

Therefore my thought is that;

1. Gravity-power dont exist.
2. This so called Gravity is only that balls goes and stays on the density-level.
3. G-value is only mathematical value that we can use to calculate this movements and etc.

But i can be wrong also.

« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 06:42:44 by Hei-Tai »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #32 on: 14/06/2009 08:08:53 »
Hei-Tai - I have to thank you for finding this thread.  Where was it?  I am always amazed at the new topics that come up which, in fact, have been debated for some time.  How does one find old threads?

And Robert Murray - may I congratulate you on the pure eloquence of your argument in the opening thread.  I am a rank amateur of physics but passionately interested.  I sincerely hope you still follow this thread.  I'd hate to lose you.  For the record - it is the first time since joining this forum that I have found anything so lucid, logical and simple without being simplistic.  I have always believed that good physics must be clear.  Truly I am blown away.

I now have to study your opening post again.  What a pleasure.

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #33 on: 14/06/2009 08:15:35 »
How does one find old threads?
Simply type keywords into the search box at the top right hand corner.

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #34 on: 14/06/2009 08:19:25 »
Many thanks Chemistry4me.  Finally!! I often read your posts.  They're good.  I wish you'd update your profile.

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #35 on: 14/06/2009 08:22:24 »
They're good.

Haha, I wish!

I wish you'd update your profile.

Nothing special, just a nobody.  [:-'(]

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #36 on: 14/06/2009 09:06:50 »
Chemistry4m - nobody?  We've got another machine operated poster?  You've marshalled that POIS link with exceptional vim and vigour.  And I see you follow EVERYTHING.

Still like to see an update.

#### Chemistry4me

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 7709
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #37 on: 14/06/2009 09:08:42 »
And I see you follow EVERYTHING.

And I see you do too.

------

We've got another machine operated poster?

Not just one. Hundreds of them.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20389.0

It's no longer a new theory any more.
« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 09:12:08 by Chemistry4me »

#### witsend

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 418
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #38 on: 14/06/2009 09:11:18 »
Indeed.  So.  Where's that update?

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 735
• Thanked: 22 times
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #39 on: 14/06/2009 16:30:18 »
Quote from: angst
Indeed. What I was trying, in a very roundabout way, to say earlier is that alot of the 'new theories' regarding gravity are simply an expression of befuddlement. That there is an urge to want to understand gravity in a very simple form, one that can be visualised within a simple three-dimensional paradigm.
In my case it wasn't befuddlement; I was simply examining an old hypothesis, that I suspect, originated with Maxwell. Hypothesis: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

I put together a hypothesis about gravity, but it wasn't the urge to understand more about gravity. I was trying to solve the puzzle of whether it is possible to describe all the forces of nature within the electromagnetic field, using no other concept.

It turns out that it is possible to do that. Within that concept, gravity can be the result of photon's reaching saturation amplitude within the fields of other photons. The points of saturation are offset toward increasing field strength.

We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negativecomponents.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #40 on: 14/06/2009 17:45:02 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negative components.
That works for the EM-nature concept. I needed a mechanism that didn't require modification of the field. Saturated points within fields of all other points worked. All the fields contribute toward saturation. So saturation must occur at an offset toward increasing field strength.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 735
• Thanked: 22 times
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #41 on: 14/06/2009 21:10:03 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negative components.
That works for the EM-nature concept. I needed a mechanism that didn't require modification of the field. Saturated points within fields of all other points worked. All the fields contribute toward saturation. So saturation must occur at an offset toward increasing field strength.

There are several ways of looking at the gravitational field. I do not quite understand what you are saying. From a photonic viewpoint we could say that all the photons continually hit everything. A mass is constantly losing mass/energy. Thus it continuously loses photonic energy. These photons react with the photons of space causing a back pressure.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #42 on: 14/06/2009 21:25:40 »
Okay; let me try again. Visualize a photon, or even a dot wave, moving through fields of electric and magnetic amplitude.  The fields get stronger in one direction and weaker in the other. Points of saturation reach saturation amplitude as the photon moves along its path. The fields of electric and magnetic amplitude contribute toward the amplitude of the points. This contribution causes the points to reach saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength. This offset causes migration toward increasing field strength.

In other words; the field amplitude in the photon's path does not reset to zero as the photon begins to interact with them. They start the photon amplitude where the photon found them. Since the amplitude they finally reach is a constant, the photon reaches this amplitude more quickly. It has a head start.

We have to describe a photon a little differently than any previous description, but it still adheres to all the rules.
« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 21:33:02 by Vern »

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 735
• Thanked: 22 times
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #43 on: 14/06/2009 21:43:23 »
Okay; let me try again. Visualize a photon, or even a dot wave, moving through fields of electric and magnetic amplitude.  The fields get stronger in one direction and weaker in the other. Points of saturation reach saturation amplitude as the photon moves along its path. The fields of electric and magnetic amplitude contribute toward the amplitude of the points. This contribution causes the points to reach saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength. This offset causes migration toward increasing field strength.

In other words; the field amplitude in the photon's path does not reset to zero as the photon begins to interact with them. They start the photon amplitude where the photon found them. Since the amplitude they finally reach is a constant, the photon reaches this amplitude more quickly. It has a head start.

We have to describe a photon a little differently than any previous description, but it still adheres to all the rules.
Today I have been cleaning up my shed. Then I run in to look at your answers. These words are not clicking in my brain.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #44 on: 14/06/2009 22:05:10 »
Here's a few different descriptions of the fundamental force of gravity as a photonic action.

Here's Filbert Wagman's take on it

Think of a photon as it ripples through space and concentrate on the peak amplitude point. As that point swims through the remnient fields of other photons, them remnient fields gotta be part of peak amplitude. If the remnient fields are stronger in one direction the swimming point must be slightly offset toward that stronger direction because of the contribution from the remnient fields.

Here's Vernon Brown's take on it

A photon moving through radiated fields (photon flux) of other photons must then reach its positive and negative amplitude limits taking into account the existing photon flux. Because of this each photon's point of maximum amplitude is offset toward increasing field strength of the photon flux. That is the cause of gravity. It cannot possibly be otherwise.

Massive objects, comprised as they are of field-radiating photons, must gravitate toward each other because of the saturation offset of photons. This is one way of looking at gravity in a photonic universe.

Here's Professor Willis Thompson's take on it

Gravity:

Photons in a "mass" emit the electric and magnetic fields just as do photons free in space. Photons traveling through the same local area must share the available "action" of that area since the action is a property of space and not a property of individual photons. A photon reaches saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields present in this local area. This causes photon paths to bend toward massive objects and since massive objects are comprised only of photons, massive objects change direction toward increasing photon field strength. So they approach each other or are attracted.
« Last Edit: 14/06/2009 22:18:51 by Vern »

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 735
• Thanked: 22 times
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #45 on: 15/06/2009 00:43:18 »
Here's a few different descriptions of the fundamental force of gravity

Photons in a "mass" emit the electric and magnetic fields just as do photons free in space. Photons traveling through the same local area must share the available "action" of that area since the action is a property of space and not a property of individual photons. A photon reaches saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields present in this local area. This causes photon paths to bend toward massive objects and since massive objects are comprised only of photons, massive objects change direction toward increasing photon field strength. So they approach each other or are attracted.

[/quote]

Thanks for the info. I think I got what you are saying but I disagree with it. The forces you describe would cause objects to repell each other. Thus photons from the sun and photons from the earth bombard eachother and cause a replusive action.

As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.

#### Hei-Tai

• Full Member
• Posts: 59
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #46 on: 15/06/2009 19:14:28 »

We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negativecomponents

Who understand and who dont. [:o)]

One question.

Is so called "gravitational field" matter or not matter. [?]

Is so called "electromagnetic field" matter ot not matter.  [?]

My point is;

Nature dont has exist "gravitational force".

Therefore G-value is not existing thing value,,,,only mathematical value which help us to calculate motion and speed and etc.

Electric is matter-flow motion process.

My thought,,,, [:o)]can be right or wrong. [:I]

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 735
• Thanked: 22 times
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #47 on: 15/06/2009 20:19:23 »
Here's a few different descriptions of the fundamental force of gravity

Photons in a "mass" emit the electric and magnetic fields just as do photons free in space. Photons traveling through the same local area must share the available "action" of that area since the action is a property of space and not a property of individual photons. A photon reaches saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields present in this local area. This causes photon paths to bend toward massive objects and since massive objects are comprised only of photons, massive objects change direction toward increasing photon field strength. So they approach each other or are attracted.

Thanks for the info. I think I got what you are saying but I disagree with it. The forces you describe would cause objects to repell each other. Thus photons from the sun and photons from the earth bombard eachother and cause a replusive action.

As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.
[/quote]

Overnight I had to change some of my ideas. In my post today on the gravitational force vector, I came to realize that gravity is similar to a skin effect. The grav-photonic waves meet at a common point. This produces a force tending to shrink the planar surface.

#### Vern

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2072
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #48 on: 15/06/2009 20:58:25 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.
I think there is a problem working out orbital dynamics along the lines of gravity being the result of the expanding universe.

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 735
• Thanked: 22 times
##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #49 on: 15/06/2009 21:32:16 »
Quote from: jerrygg38
As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.
I think there is a problem working out orbital dynamics along the lines of gravity being the result of the expanding universe.

One book I just read said the explanations must be background independent. So I had to change to high energy dot-waves which are independent of the expansion of the universe and low energy dot-waves which depend upon the radius of the universe.

In a similar manner, my cosmology of the universe has a gravitational field which depends upon the big bang and the expansion of the universe.
Now that I feel that the local gravitational effect is caused by photonic fields which bend, I feel that what you say is correct. If we can come to a simple local effect, then we can leave the gravitational component due to the expansion of the universe to cosmology.
It may very well be that gravity has several components. At out level and measurements the local effect is sufficient to explain gravity.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### mechanism of gravity
« Reply #49 on: 15/06/2009 21:32:16 »