The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Another Model of Gravity  (Read 10874 times)

Offline Atom Smasher

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« on: 08/12/2009 16:19:58 »
A new model of gravity is offered at:
newbielink:http://www.my-read.com/What_is_gravity.html [nonactive].

This new model proposes that since:

(1) a body accelerating toward another body due to gravity seems driven only by the other body, i.e., something that the other body is influencing is causing it to move; and

(2) bodies accelerated in space void of gravitational fields experience gravity-like pushes on them as a result of the acceleration per Einstein's equivalence theory in general relativity, i.e., when bodies are accelerated in space, something pushes against them; and

(3) the units of the universal gravitational constant reduce down to a volumetric consumption rate per unit of mass (cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram in the mks system of units;

gravity can be modeled as the flow generated toward a mass as that mass consumes the vacuum around it. 

Mass consumes vacuum at the rate specified by the universal gravitational constant.  The greater the mass the more vacuum consumed per unit time and the stronger the flow of vacuum toward the mass.  The flowing vacuum drags unrestricted bodies with it toward the consuming mass, producing the effect of gravity.

The model acknowledges that while vacuum is not commonly thought of as a substance (not matter or energy as we know them), Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration in general relativity suggests that the vacuum does interact with matter and energy.  Vacuum is the only thing in empty space that can push against bodies.

The suggestion that mass is constantly consuming vacuum may also provide some insight into its nature.  Does mass exist because it is burning vacuum?  Is the consumption of vacuum vital to some other aspect of a stable universe and mass is a fortunate byproduct?  Who knows?

What are some of your thoughts on the proposal?
« Last Edit: 19/12/2009 20:52:56 by Soul Searcher »


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Re: Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #1 on: 09/12/2009 05:06:45 »
Gravity is a natural consequence of the quantum nature of electromagnetic fields. The nature of the field is that it always moves as a ripple of potential electric and magnetic amplitude driving points of saturation through space. Left alone, the points always move in a straight line. But when the points of saturation move through the fields of others they must reach saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the other fields.

It is a little difficult to get your head around it, but when you see it, it is logically demanded.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Re: Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #2 on: 15/12/2009 23:23:55 »
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #3 on: 17/12/2009 21:32:29 »
Yep, the troughs and heights of SpaceTime.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #4 on: 17/12/2009 22:33:07 »
Gravity is a natural consequence of the quantum nature of electromagnetic fields. The nature of the field is that it always moves as a ripple of potential electric and magnetic amplitude driving points of saturation through space. Left alone, the points always move in a straight line. But when the points of saturation move through the fields of others they must reach saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the other fields.

It is a little difficult to get your head around it, but when you see it, it is logically demanded.
Well, there is the little problem that electromagnetism doesn't work to attract everything, while gravity does. That would be an empirical problem.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #5 on: 20/12/2009 13:04:44 »
Quote from: physbang
Well, there is the little problem that electromagnetism doesn't work to attract everything, while gravity does. That would be an empirical problem.
I don't know if you read it and didn't understand it, or that you understand it and don't accept it as possible.

It seems consistent to me. Electric and magnetic fields extend out forever diminishing in amplitude as the square of distance from their point origins. The points of the fields origin are saturated electric and magnetic amplitude. Points of origin achieve saturation with the help of diminished fields in their path. So saturation happens at a very slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.

That is speculation; it may or may not be what happens; but it is consistent with observations; and it does work to produce the effect.
 

Offline Atom Smasher

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #6 on: 22/12/2009 14:34:53 »
It seems consistent to me. Electric and magnetic fields extend out forever diminishing in amplitude as the square of distance from their point origins. The points of the fields origin are saturated electric and magnetic amplitude. Points of origin achieve saturation with the help of diminished fields in their path. So saturation happens at a very slight offset toward increasing field strength of the diminished fields.

That is speculation; it may or may not be what happens; but it is consistent with observations; and it does work to produce the effect.


The observations and their implications are simple and clear.

Newton observed that massive bodies that are seemingly unconnected tend to move toward each other.  Something has to be causing the motion.  If the bodies are not connected, the simple explanation is that something exterior to the bodies must be pushing them together.

Einstein posited that a man in a closed chest, in deep space that is void of gravity, feels the sensation of gravity if a constant acceleration is applied to the chest.  Again, something in the void of space must be pushing against the man when he is accelerated.

The acceleration a body A imparts on body B is proportional to the mass of body A, and the inverse of the square of the distance separating A and B.  The dimensions of the proportionality constant (the universal gravitational constant), Newton-meters-squared per kilogram-squared, simplify to cubic-meters per second-squared per kilogram, which implies that each kilogram of mass is processing a volume of something per unit time.  Since the constant is negative, the processing the mass does appears to be either draining or consuming something.

Together, these seem to suggest that something in empty space, or space itself, pushes against matter to create the effect of gravity.  Since there is no indication of coulombs involved in the observations, it seems unlikely that gravity involves electromagnetism.  Because gravity seems to be pushing masses together, the motive force appears to originate away from, and move towards, the gravity source, like water moving toward an open drain, pushing objects with it.  This seems contrary to the idea of the source mass emanating particles (gravitons) that interact with objects they encounter, causing the objects to move toward the gravity source.  Both of these approaches to gravity have been pursued for many years with no conformation; which seems to suggest that, perhaps, they do not represent the true nature of gravity, just good approximations on some level.
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #7 on: 22/12/2009 15:52:31 »
Atom Smasher, I appreciate your efforts and will spend some time evaluating your theory. But I see a few problems with your theory. For one how do you explain the link between gravitation effects and the electromagnetic effects? For example, when objects travel near a gravitational mass, their acceleration is doubled as they reach the speed of light.

Sir Arthur eddington's observation of the bending of light around the sun during a solar eclipse was considered the first proof to einstein's theory of gravitation. However, the important fact of that experiment was that light appeared to bend twice as much as gravity would of bent a stationary object relative to the surface of the sun. That's why it is said that gravity is a bending of space itself, gravity has an additional component for relative velocities. Your theory provides a conceptual picture for an acceleration, but that picture doesn't appear to add up when you consider moving sources.

The other problem I have with your theory is that it doesn't appear to have a purpose. It's not simpler, and it doesn't predict anything new. So why this model of gravity?
 

Offline Atom Smasher

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #8 on: 22/12/2009 17:56:48 »
Atom Smasher, I appreciate your efforts and will spend some time evaluating your theory. But I see a few problems with your theory. For one how do you explain the link between gravitation effects and the electromagnetic effects? For example, when objects travel near a gravitational mass, their acceleration is doubled as they reach the speed of light.

Sir Arthur eddington's observation of the bending of light around the sun during a solar eclipse was considered the first proof to einstein's theory of gravitation. However, the important fact of that experiment was that light appeared to bend twice as much as gravity would of bent a stationary object relative to the surface of the sun. That's why it is said that gravity is a bending of space itself, gravity has an additional component for relative velocities. Your theory provides a conceptual picture for an acceleration, but that picture doesn't appear to add up when you consider moving sources.

The other problem I have with your theory is that it doesn't appear to have a purpose. It's not simpler, and it doesn't predict anything new. So why this model of gravity?

Please provide a reference for the point made in your first paragraph. I am not aware of an observation supporting this claim, nor can I see how it connects gravity to electromagnetism based on what you offered.

The claims made by Eddington from his photographs of the eclipse in 1919 are commonly referenced as proof of the bending of light predicted by general relativity.  However, there have always been questions surrounding the validity of those claims.  The quality of the images on the photographic plates and the quality of the evaluation of the images continue to be questioned even today.  Not saying that it is wrong, but many people then and now were not convinced of the result reported.

Finally, the purpose of the theory is to explain the source of gravity.  Not how gravity behaves, but what causes gravity to happen.  Newton conceded that he did not know what caused gravity and Einstein's warped space still does not explain why the space warps, only that it does around massive bodies.  As far as I know (and I admit I don't know everything there is to know), the mechanism that causes gravity is still unknown.  We've spent a lot of time and money trying to devise experiments to validate what we desire gravity to be in order to support our theories, but I haven't heard that it has been pinned down yet.  If you know something different, please share it with me.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #9 on: 22/12/2009 21:15:30 »
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are much more easily explained without it.
« Last Edit: 23/12/2009 12:44:59 by Vern »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #10 on: 22/12/2009 22:58:33 »
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are easily explained without it.

Even time dilation?
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #11 on: 23/12/2009 05:48:34 »
well atomsmasher, if you don't believe that gravity bends moving objects more than stationary ones than we are at an impasse. We disagree as to what experimental evidence says.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #12 on: 23/12/2009 12:42:54 »
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are easily explained without it.

Even time dilation?
Yes; especially time dilation. It is case number six in the evidence.
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #13 on: 23/12/2009 13:12:51 »
If something has to push on another to make it move, how do you explain the effects of quantum entanglement? Quantum Entanglement shows that objects here can affect objects way over there. And recent experimentation, has shown that it's not just random spins that are affected.

There is a new experiment that shows that objects can entangle momentum together. Meaning if you had two objects entangled regardless of how far apart they were their velocities would affect each other. Not many people know of this yet though, modern theory has some catching up to do. But even without this new experiment that appears to fly in the face of ether/stationary frame logic (and a lot of other things as well). I really don't see any reason why ether is needed to explain any experiment. It's also a step in the "more complicated" direction, you have to assume one more thing.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #14 on: 23/12/2009 18:21:06 »
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Of course that is the mainstream view. My only problem with it is that you must consider space-time as variable. I have never found it necessary to do that. All the workings of the universe are easily explained without it.

Even time dilation?
Yes; especially time dilation. It is case number six in the evidence.

If I've understood that explanation correctly, the relationship between movement and time-dilation should be linear i.e. the degree of time-dilation is proportional to the speed, but the experimental evidence supports the Lorentz solution where the degree of time dilation is proportional to the square root of the speed.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #15 on: 24/12/2009 17:00:21 »
The Lorentz solution is exactly correct. I think your assumption about linear speed is invalid. It doesn't take into account the forward to back reduction in distance. Taken together the two causes follow the Lorentz transforms.
« Last Edit: 24/12/2009 17:03:01 by Vern »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #16 on: 25/12/2009 00:37:05 »
"There is a new experiment that shows that objects can entangle momentum together. Meaning if you had two objects entangled regardless of how far apart they were their velocities would affect each other."

Link it.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #17 on: 25/12/2009 11:00:20 »
The Lorentz solution is exactly correct. I think your assumption about linear speed is invalid. It doesn't take into account the forward to back reduction in distance. Taken together the two causes follow the Lorentz transforms.

It's not a question of linear speed but of the relationship between the speed and the degree of time dilation, which appears to be linear.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #18 on: 25/12/2009 12:06:16 »
I understood your first response. I suspect that the relationship is not linear because the distortions do not operate independently but must be taken together. Each distortion affects the other. The interrelationship requires the Lorentz solution. It is interesting that Poincare who completed the Lorentz transforms knew the possibility of the electromagnetic nature of the universe.

 
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #19 on: 26/12/2009 13:31:20 »
Quote
If something has to push on another to make it move, how do you explain the effects of quantum entanglement? Quantum Entanglement shows that objects here can affect objects way over there. And recent experimentation, has shown that it's not just random spins that are affected.
Your statement is not correct. It is only theory. The idea that a remote object takes on a certain state when its entangled partner is observed is theory. There is no experimental evidence of it.

Statements like this show up continuously because the underlying philosophically unsound Quantum theory is never questioned.  However, there has never ever been a single experiment that upholds this most fundamental part of the theory.

Edit: Most fundamental part: An object with equal probability of existing in several states takes on the observed state at the time of observation.  Before observation it exists in a superposition of all its possible states.

The observed states of entangled particles could have existed from the time of the particles creation. There is no experimental evidence that suggests otherwise.
« Last Edit: 26/12/2009 13:53:54 by Vern »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #20 on: 27/12/2009 13:15:31 »
I understood your first response. I suspect that the relationship is not linear because the distortions do not operate independently but must be taken together. Each distortion affects the other. The interrelationship requires the Lorentz solution. It is interesting that Poincare who completed the Lorentz transforms knew the possibility of the electromagnetic nature of the universe.

But I'm afraid it's not good enough to say "I suspect" or talk about "distortions" without defining exactly what those distortions are and explaining why and how they occur.  I'm sorry, but I think this represents a big gap in your explanation.

The Lorentz solution explains the relationship between speed and the degree of time dilation by saying that the sum of the speed through space-time is always 'c' i.e. the sum of the vectors of the rate of movement through space and time always equals 'c'.

Without your 'distortions', the relationship between the rates of movement through time and space appears to be linear to me, and need these undefined and unexplained distortions to account for the anomaly.  But you have just replaced one anomaly with another.
 

Offline latebind

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
  • Hello World
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #21 on: 27/12/2009 13:44:25 »
I really like your theory atom smasher.

I just can't get my head around 1 thing....

If the sun (for example) was consuming the vacuum around it, then why don't the planets move closer to the sun?

In classic gravity, they have diagonal momentum which keeps them in orbit, but if the space between them and the sun is shrinking then they would move closer wouldn't they?

I think its a really creative theory and deserves more readers, its a good start and you on your way to something big I hope.
 

Offline Atom Smasher

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #22 on: 28/12/2009 22:06:58 »
I really like your theory atom smasher.

I just can't get my head around 1 thing....

If the sun (for example) was consuming the vacuum around it, then why don't the planets move closer to the sun?

In classic gravity, they have diagonal momentum which keeps them in orbit, but if the space between them and the sun is shrinking then they would move closer wouldn't they?

I think its a really creative theory and deserves more readers, its a good start and you on your way to something big I hope.

The model does not change the way gravity works in space, it tries to explain what causes it to work.  The vacuum in space is like water in a bathtub, and the sun is like an open drain.  As the water in the tub drains, all of the water moves toward the drain and tends to carry objects in the water toward the drain.  As the sun consumes vacuum, all of the vacuum in space moves toward it, tending to drag the planets (for example) with it.  Because the planets are in orbits, they have orbital velocities which creates centrifugal accelerations that counters the drag and keeps them in their orbits.

Note that since the sun is consuming vacuum at a constant rate, near the sun, vacuum is moving at a faster rate toward it than at distances far away from the sun.  The rate the vacuum moves toward the sun through a sun-centered spherical surface with radius R is 10,000 times faster that that of a sun-centered spherical surface of 100R. This is the case with the orbits of Mercury (58 million km) and Pluto (5,800 million km) around the sun.  The orbital speed of Mercury is 48 km/s, which makes its centrifugal acceleration (v^2/r) about 4E-5 km/sec^2, whereas the orbital speed of Pluto is about 4.7 km/s, making its centrifugal acceleration about 4E-9 (about 1/10,000 that of Mercury).  This indicates that at very large distances from the sun, for all practical purposes, the vacuum is not moving toward the sun at all.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #23 on: 29/12/2009 01:08:08 »
Now either you model vacuum as something intrinsically empty or as something containing a hidden energy?
Which of them do you see it as Atom Smasher?

And then you seem to say that this vacuum gets eaten by mass (invariant) if i got it right?

Assuming that vacuum, even if empty, still contains and constrains 'distances' like between the moon and Earth and the Sun,you still need to define it as 'something' as it contains that distance. This 'something' must then somehow replenish itself as we otherwise would shrink all distances as the vacuum gets 'eaten' by mass.

If you assume that it contains a hidden energy you must also somehow explain why the concentration of that 'energy' doesn't show up as f ex. a disturbed 'space' around mass, containing a higher 'density' of 'virtual photons'?

As for entanglement, don't know about that Vern. There seem to have been some experiments done. Here is two.
nonlocality and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory.
Physicists Demonstrate Quantum Entanglement In Mechanical System

But there seems still to be a heated discussion about the original 'Aspect's experiment' Predictive quantum gravity built upon observational facts

And there you will find her PDF too.

As for the rest of it I will need to reread this thread when I'm more awake I think :) and see what sense I will make..

 

Offline Atom Smasher

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #24 on: 29/12/2009 03:37:04 »
Now either you model vacuum as something intrinsically empty or as something containing a hidden energy?
Which of them do you see it as Atom Smasher?

And then you seem to say that this vacuum gets eaten by mass (invariant) if i got it right?

Assuming that vacuum, even if empty, still contains and constrains 'distances' like between the moon and Earth and the Sun,you still need to define it as 'something' as it contains that distance. This 'something' must then somehow replenish itself as we otherwise would shrink all distances as the vacuum gets 'eaten' by mass.


I am proposing that vacuum is "something", but not what we traditionally think of as "something".  It is not matter or energy, the things we normally consider "something", but it does exist as an entity in the universe that can affect what we commonly think of as "something" (matter and energy).  A crude analogy may be found in real and imaginary numbers.  Imaginary numbers are not real numbers, but operations performed with just imaginary numbers can produce, and therefore affect, real numbers (e.g., i*i = - 1).

The dimensions of the gravitational constant suggest that each kilogram of mass a body possesses is somehow associated with a volume of "something" being consumed per unit time.  I am suggesting that since there does not appear to be matter (as we know it) disappearing, that it is the vacuum (discussed above) being consumed.

I am further suggesting that the existence of matter may be tied to the consumption of vacuum.  I am speculating that mass is the product (or byproduct) of the vacuum consumption process.  In other words, the gravitational constant may be indicating the amount of mass that is produced as a result of a volume of vacuum being consumed or used by an, as yet, undiscovered physical process.

As for the supply of vacuum, for now I am assuming an infinite universe provides an infinite supply of vacuum.  Consequently, the vacuum that is used up by gravity is continuously backfilled by the infinite supply.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Another Model of Gravity
« Reply #24 on: 29/12/2009 03:37:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums