# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: a new look at gravity  (Read 9055 times)

• Hero Member
• Posts: 724
##### a new look at gravity
« on: 15/11/2006 01:44:58 »
Hi I'm new here and this is my first post so hello!

quote

"Sometimes you have to go back back and re-examine those things taken for granted, to find the ones which are not as they seem."
Graham

I have some strange ideas about the nature of gravity and that we are viewing it from the wrong angle, and i do mean the wrong angle!
The problem is i need to ask a few questions to try and debunk the idea before i can explain a bit more.

I am having difficulty in understanding what proof we have, besides observation, that gravity is a force of attraction.

Forget Newton for now and look at it the opposite way: that gravity waves emit from all directions at once and have an effect on all matter.
Light, electromagnetic waves, radiowaves and other waves would all propagate at the speed of gravity. They sort of hitch a ride and are propelled at that speed.
That would also mean that the big constant would be the speed of gravity and not the speed of light it's just that it's the same speed.

What would happen then if gravity was a kinetic force that was pushing matter together, would the observations be the same?

Two large bodies in space would still seem to drift together as the gravity force in between them will be weaker than that outside.
A light beam would still bend while near a large mass as the mass underneath will obsorb/change the gravity waves coming from the otherside.
Sideways waves would just cancel out but the difference in strength above and below the beam would cause the light to bend.

Oh, and an atom is the smallest thing that gravity waves can compress and each holds particles that whizz around inside on captured gravity waves.
It's the gravity waves that suddenly get released in an atomic explosion, they collide with outside gravity waves and release energy.

I hope that makes sense as I'm having difficulty understanding it myself.

Strange first post eh!

"B"

#### science_guy

• Hero Member
• Posts: 701
• I'm right there... inside neilep's head!
##### Re: a new look at gravity
« Reply #1 on: 15/11/2006 16:01:40 »
nah, its a perfectly reasonable first post.  The first Post I made was a suggestion on the inner nature of black holes. been hooked for over half a year now.

Other than that, It might be plausable.  Im not a gravity expert, but what I learned that gravity is what happens when matter always effects the fabrics of space, and when the matter comes more closely together, The effects of bending space increase.  When the fabric of space is bent in this way, then matter is forced to "roll" like a ball downhill to the center of this anamoly.

Obviously these two theorys do not coincide, So it leaves me to wonder what the true one is.

Who can confirm which one is true?

#### thebrain13

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 442
##### Re: a new look at gravity
« Reply #2 on: 15/11/2006 17:22:38 »
Coming up with your own conclusions, makes you better than most of the population. Im sorray but, I do not understand what your saying.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 724
##### Re: a new look at gravity
« Reply #3 on: 18/11/2006 01:28:01 »
Sorry, a bit late, but had problems with me drive! [:(!]

Had a power cut while resizing a partition, sorted now.

OK, what I am trying to find out is why it is assumed that gravity is an attractive force, caused by mass.
Taking away pure observation, what is there to prove that it is?

"B"

#### Mr Andrew

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 206
• God was primitive man's attempt at Physics.
##### Re: a new look at gravity
« Reply #4 on: 18/11/2006 17:37:53 »
That is a very good question actually.  There is a theory out there now I believe that is very similar to the one you proposed.  It depends upon the existence of a quantum vaccuum that houses virtual particles (don't be mislead by the word "virtual."  That's just what they're called.).  The quantum vaccuum holds an infinite amount of energy but it's always the same amount.  It's energy must be conserved.  The theory is that gravity is a result of virtual particles called virtual photons becoming real photons and colliding with matter.  They then jump back into the vaccuum.  Because the energy of this vaccuum must be conserved, when virtual particles become real particles, some real particles must become virtual particles.  Anyway, this theory is similar to yours in that gravity is a push, not a pull.

Personally, I like yours better.  That virtual vaccuum is sorta sketchy.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 724
##### Re: a new look at gravity
« Reply #5 on: 18/11/2006 21:52:12 »
Thanks for the replies so far and thanks Mr Andrew, that's a new one on me [8D]

In my scenario gravity would be a very long wave, possibly the length of the speed of light (or rather the speed of gravity).
Einstein did some equations on the UFT and IIRC came up withe the conclusion that the waves were very large. I'm sure he dismissed the idea and said it was impossible for them to be that large. I think it was something also to do with the energy levels.

Each wave would also be a superstring that is constantly in motion and the waves come from all directions. These waves would impart kinetic energy on all matter pushing it together and eventually making matter round. The type and density of matter depends on how this force reacts with it.
Atoms would be held together by this force and not by binding energy.

With this idea there is no missing matter or energy (dark energy or dark matter) it's all there.
Photons, radio waves, magnetic waves and other waves are propagated by and travel at the speed of these gravity waves.

Now, where do they come from?

Earlier this year I came up with a new theory of the creation of the universe, (which should lead to a unified field theory).
Shortly after discussing it with a friend a team of scientists in the USA also published similar ideas.
A few differences though as they could not explain gravity.

I goes something like this:

We sit in a bound expanding universe that sits in an infinite universe. When our "local" universe cooled and condensed from hot plasma it created gravity and matter and was the start of our time.
Gravity is a weak force everywhere (the old fashioned ether) and causes all matter eventually to unite.
It's the empty space that these gravity waves are in and they do not emanate from matter. However some waves are trapped inside atoms, maybe antigravity waves ? from the time of it's creation.

Some of the kinetic force of these gravity waves change state as it interacts with matter. This should mean that our universal gravity will eventually become weaker over time as mass takes a bit of the force. As mass gets denser, universal gravity gets weaker as gravity gets weaker any mass will break down and fly apart, releasing energy and the universe will become a hot plasma gas again.

I think that is why the universe is expanding.

Think of our planet and that gravity waves are "pushing" it together making it round. Those waves partly change state and become weaker as they go further into the planets mass. The core is under tremendous pressure and the reaction is because there is less gravity there, causing it to emanate some gravity as magnetic waves and heat.

Sorry for the ramble, I am not a scientist, terrible at maths but have put a lot of thought into this so I hope you can understand some of it.

So, what makes gravity an attractive force besides observation?

Thinking is fun, even when wrong it teaches!

"B"

PS. Does E = M + G C2 mean anything

E = Energy
M = Mass we know exists
G = Gravity = the calculated missing mass
C2 = The speed of gravity (speed of light)

« Last Edit: 20/11/2006 20:21:26 by that mad man »

#### HeyHey

• First timers
• Posts: 2
##### Re: a new look at gravity
« Reply #6 on: 06/01/2007 18:48:54 »
Relativistically speaking, there is no ‘force of gravity’; there is curved spacetime. Yet the ‘force of gravity’ is ubiquitous in the discourse of (nonrelativistic) physics. Again, the ‘existence’ of gravity is irrelevant; its utility as a concept is the issue. Electrons may not exist ‘in reality’, but at least electrons exist in the standard model of physics. Gravity doesn’t even exist in the model. Gravity is a ‘fictitious force’; an artifact of a noninertial reference frame, similar to centrifugal force (which keeps the water in a swinging bucket), Coriolis force (which makes hurricanes spiral), and the ‘G-force’ felt in an accelerating airplane.

These are examples of theorist’s fictions: entities which we ‘know’ don’t exist, but which are useful as conceptual aids.

#### thebrain13

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 442
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #7 on: 19/01/2007 06:35:41 »
People love to say, gravity is not a force it is a change in geometry. I was just curious though, einstein showed that a uniform acceleration is equivalent to gravity. The uniform acceleration is caused by a uniform force. So what is the difference between a change in force and a change in geometry.

Why is it even necessary for people to say no it is not a force it is altered geometry, whats the difference?

#### albert

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 17
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #8 on: 18/02/2007 23:17:31 »
I've read theories (and since it was on t'internet it must be true) that gravity is caused by the drag on all particles as the 'ether' flows towards the centre of mass.

Whether the 'ether' is the same thing as the quantum vacuum I don't know.

Whether it's a load of balony, again, I don't know but I'm off to try inventing and ether-umbrella to see if I can create zero-g - now where's that baking foil...

Albert

"There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't."

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #9 on: 19/02/2007 13:18:39 »
People love to say, gravity is not a force it is a change in geometry. I was just curious though, einstein showed that a uniform acceleration is equivalent to gravity. The uniform acceleration is caused by a uniform force. So what is the difference between a change in force and a change in geometry.
Why is it even necessary for people to say no it is not a force it is altered geometry, whats the difference?
A lot, especially the consequences. If it were a Force and the geometry were not warped, that is, were Minkowskian ("flat" in 4 dimensions), then you would find, for example, that a circle's circumference is 2π times the radius. But this is not, near massive bodies. You cannot explain this with forces.

#### another_someone

• Guest
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #10 on: 19/02/2007 15:11:46 »
People love to say, gravity is not a force it is a change in geometry. I was just curious though, einstein showed that a uniform acceleration is equivalent to gravity. The uniform acceleration is caused by a uniform force. So what is the difference between a change in force and a change in geometry.
Why is it even necessary for people to say no it is not a force it is altered geometry, whats the difference?
A lot, especially the consequences. If it were a Force and the geometry were not warped, that is, were Minkowskian ("flat" in 4 dimensions), then you would find, for example, that a circle's circumference is 2π times the radius. But this is not, near massive bodies. You cannot explain this with forces.

Excuse me for asking silly questions, but how do you measure the radius in a strong gravitational field?

You could measure that path light takes from one side of the circumference to the other, but this assumes that light is travelling in a straight line.  If you remove that assumption, then how do you know what a straight line is, and thus what constitutes the true radius of the circle?

You could also suggest that it is the shortest equidistant point from all the points of the circumfence, but in reality you can only say that no point with a shorter distance can be measured, not that such a point cannot exist.  If you measure the circumference and radius of a circle drawn on the surface of the Earth, it will not be a ratio of 2π, but that assumes you do not have the technology to tunnel through the Earth, it does not say anything so much about the geometry of space as about the limitations of the technology that bind you to a surface.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2007 15:18:20 by another_someone »

• Hero Member
• Posts: 724
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #11 on: 19/02/2007 23:38:09 »
Hi.

Thanks Hey Hey.

Newton's and Einstein's ideas are changed here as they both believed that mass causes gravity and is a force of attraction. Is the apple pulled down by attraction or pushed down by the force of gravity from above?

What I am trying to say is that I think that gravity is a weak kinetic force and is everywhere: a bit like background radiation or the old fashioned "ether", it is everywhere in space coming from all directions at once. It is not created by matter but has an effect on matter, the greater the matter the greater the gravity is shows.

Nothing really changes here except observation and our idea of what gravity is, but it could also explain much more.

Lets say the large object is the earth and the smaller one the moon.

We know that the tides would be influenced at point B by the moon but is the gravity at A and B the same?

TMM

#### lightarrow

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4586
• Thanked: 7 times
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #12 on: 20/02/2007 18:46:49 »
People love to say, gravity is not a force it is a change in geometry. I was just curious though, einstein showed that a uniform acceleration is equivalent to gravity. The uniform acceleration is caused by a uniform force. So what is the difference between a change in force and a change in geometry.
Why is it even necessary for people to say no it is not a force it is altered geometry, whats the difference?
A lot, especially the consequences. If it were a Force and the geometry were not warped, that is, were Minkowskian ("flat" in 4 dimensions), then you would find, for example, that a circle's circumference is 2π times the radius. But this is not, near massive bodies. You cannot explain this with forces.
Excuse me for asking silly questions, but how do you measure the radius in a strong gravitational field?
You could measure that path light takes from one side of the circumference to the other, but this assumes that light is travelling in a straight line.  If you remove that assumption, then how do you know what a straight line is, and thus what constitutes the true radius of the circle?

You could also suggest that it is the shortest equidistant point from all the points of the circumfence, but in reality you can only say that no point with a shorter distance can be measured, not that such a point cannot exist.  If you measure the circumference and radius of a circle drawn on the surface of the Earth, it will not be a ratio of 2π, but that assumes you do not have the technology to tunnel through the Earth, it does not say anything so much about the geometry of space as about the limitations of the technology that bind you to a surface.
I have some difficuly in understanding exactly what you mean, probably because those concepts are not very clear even to me. If what I will say now don't explain your questions, explain them better.

You are in a point C (centre) and you send a laser beam to another point P1. The path followed by the light beam is the geodesic between C and P1. You measure the lenght of this path and you call it R. Then you send the laser beam to another direction, changing slightly, let's say one degree, the angle of it; you move of R metres along this direction and you find the point P2.

Repeating this procedure many times, you find many points, P1, P2, ...P360. All the points are equidistant from C. Then you move from point P1 to P2 in a geodesic (so, along the path taken by a laser beam from the 2 points), and then from P2 to  P3 and so on to  P360 and then to P1.

The total lenght of the path along the points approximate the circumference. The more points you take, the better your path approaches the circumference with R as radius and C as centre.

#### jolly

• Guest
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #13 on: 23/02/2007 23:05:51 »
deleted as inapproprate
« Last Edit: 06/03/2007 00:47:49 by jolly »

• Hero Member
• Posts: 724
##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #14 on: 24/02/2007 16:47:13 »
From reading I find that the moon has little magnetism and a very weak magnetic field, what magnetism it does have seems to be in pockets scattered about its surface.

If that is so then how can magnetism effect it?

Magnetism does not affect the tides but the gravitational effect of the moon does. It effects the mass of the earth as it moves round and as the tides are fluid the effect is more pronounced and measurable. The earth's core is also fluid so would gravity also effect that?

Its the reason I would like to know if the gravity at A and B would be different as the moon moves round the earth.
I would have thought that the gravity at B would be less than A but don't know!

TMM

« Last Edit: 24/02/2007 16:49:11 by that mad man »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### a new look at gravity
« Reply #14 on: 24/02/2007 16:47:13 »