The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?  (Read 10732 times)

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« on: 04/12/2015 01:38:53 »
Space Flow Theory
ARTHUR MANOUSAKIS·MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015
This Paper is the intellectual property of Arthur Manousakis. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Arthur Manousakis.

What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
What is the mechanism behind Gravity, Plagued Newton, Einstein, and still plagues all of physics today.
Newton first described it as the flow of aether into matter. After not being able to account for what then happens to this continuous flow of aether into all matter, he abandoned his intuition for an easier to prove Force description with F=MA. Which he then describes as an attractive force between Matter.
Albert Einstein described it as Matter somehow Curving and in other ways deforming the surrounding, otherwise ‘non-moving’ Physical Spacetime.
We commonly use the example of a steel ball on a rubber sheet to demonstrate that distortion. This description does not tell us how Matter manages to cause this distortion.
Albert Einstein's analogy has been difficult to apply to reality. The rubber sheet analogy doesn't work. It does not offer any explanation about the actual mechanism.
General relativity already describes the dynamics of spacetime as if it were a "classical" object. Albert Einstein with his interpretation of GR has given us a plausible mechanism for the effect of Gravity, but doesn't answer the original question. Instead by saying that the Gravity effect is caused by spacetime curvature, it changes the question to;
What is the mechanism behind spacetime curvature?
Exchanging one set of words for another in no way answers either one.
I present a different approach. An approach centred on the principle that there is no Universally non-relatively moving reference frame. Not even a set of physical coordinates assigned to a physical Spacetime.
I am going to allow Spacetime to move as everything in this Universe does, I will show how this movement achieves all the same results attributed to Spacetime curvature, and answers a lot of the mysteries physics and cosmology have been plagued with.
I will also show how this flow of Spacetime can be generated at the Quantum level, and how it applies and explains all observations at all levels.
With this interpretation of General Relativity I will also present a hypothesis that does away with the duality of Light, and explains the nature and origin of Quantum Fluctuations.
I will describe the bridge that elegantly unifies Quantum Physics and relativity, and also explains Black Hole Event Horizons.
Within this explanation of the mechanism behind Gravity, being a proper and complete explanation of Gravity, is the very simple answer for the mystery we have labelled "Dark Matter".
...
I intend to stay guided by the notion that for a new theory to be worthy of consideration, it has to answer as well or better “all” questions answered by the existing theory.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Hypothesis I now put forward is totally my own.

Gravity is a push, not a pull
We as Humans on Planet Earth are not being pulled towards it’s centre but pushed into it’s denser than us surface, by the torrent rushing and accelerating through and past us, into the rest of the planet.
Matter attracts spacetime. Not only does Matter attract spacetime it consumes it. It recycles it. Spacetime is matter's food. Every Quark, Every Proton, Every Neutron, Every atomic nucleus in combination with the electron fields they set up around them, constitute Space/Energy pumps. To give one description every time an electron shell jumps to a higher orbital it encompasses a larger volume of spacetime. By returning to it’s lower state it imprints on that spacetime it’s own signature and sends it on it’s way as a global electromagnetic shockwave, at the same time as drawing in more spacetime to replace it ready for the next cycle. Just one of the sub-atomic processes that pumps spacetime.
In this way spacetime is quantised, and comes in all flavours defined by amplitude and frequency of the combination of Electromagnetic Shockwaves (light), going through any one spot at any one time. All Matter suck’s in the appropriately configured Spacetime to power their internal processes (that which resonates with a subatomic process) and each outputs new spacetime carrying the information of the status of the structure that caused the output, generally in the form of an Electromagnetic Wave. An Electromagnetic wave that either is, or is analogous to, a Shockwave. This Shockwave carries the Electromagnetic signature characteristics of the subatomic or atomic structure that made it. It propagates out from every source at the maximum Electromagnetic shockwave propagation speed of “spacetime”. (What we refer to as the speed of light). Because this Shockwave is Light. The spacetime maximum shockwave transmission  speed is matter density dependant and slows as matter density within spacetime increases.

Any coordinates in spacetime can be referred to as a frame of reference and follows all the relativity rules. No Universal reference frame is available because all spacetime everywhere is on the move relative to any other coordinates. The closest that can be found to a static frame would be the centre of the largest available “empty” void. (If such really exists). A coordinate in spacetime can disappear forever into matter where it is transformed through matter’s ability into a traveling energy wave. This way Timespace is made to flow.

This process is also why expansion affects only the Voids and not the structures of matter. The flow rate of spacetime into matter makes the expansion rate which happens “everywhere the same”, totally insignificant in the vicinity.

Matter does not attract Matter
Instead it behaves like a vacuum cleaner, sucking in “globally” the amount of spacetime that it requires to meet the requirements of every subatomic/atomic particle that is considered a part of a whole unit. Be that a single atom in intergalactic space, a planet orbiting a star, a black hole in a galaxy, a super cluster of galaxies or a human being on the surface of Planet Earth.
Where there is a lot of matter concentrated in a relatively small space this effect becomes pronounced. It turns into a current/torrent of the surrounding spacetime as it flows into matter. In the process carrying with it anything it contains that does not have the angular momentum necessary to avoid smashing into the cause of the flow.
If two masses end up close enough to each other to be trying to suck in from the same area of spacetime (because they need an even global intake), a low pressure/low density region will form between them. They reduce the available density of spacetime in that direction, and so to balance the global intake rate (maintain a geodesic), the bodies will move in that direction bringing them together. If they have the necessary angular momentum to avoid crashing they will orbit each other, always moving to globally balance their spacetime intake. (“Their” Geodesic)

This phenomenon has always been attributed to the “indisputable” fact (Because you could see it was so) That "Matter Attracted Matter”.

This flow is also responsible for Einstein’s conclusion that matter distorts the surrounding spacetime. The result is exactly the same. Instead of curvature we have funnelling flow rates. Instead of an attractive force we have flow rates and paterns. Things like Lagrange Points can be explained Hydro-dynamically as the interference pattern caused by the interaction of two different flows. The whirlpool that is the Earth’s intake, existing and operating within the much larger whirlpool that is the spacetime flowing into the Sun and inner planets. In fact flowing inwards past the Earth to service the needs of all the Mass inside the Earth’s orbit (Mainly the Sun). Every other mass in space operates under the exact same conditions. From a single atom to the biggest Galaxy cluster.

As more mass accumulates in a smaller space the local flow rate increases to accommodate. Enough flow rate and large inward pressures (as gravity) can be felt by anything resisting the flow. (Like the surface of a planet, or Star).  We have some very good theories backed up by observation of the way Matter behaves as Gravitational pressure increases.

We can pack just under 1.4 solar masses into a small space and have it get no smaller, as the strength of the EM field maintains a certain amount of spacetime between a nucleus and it's associated electron/s. (Electron Degeneracy Pressure)
When that compact mass reaches 1.4 Solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit), the inward pressure, represented by the flow rate at which spacetime has to rush in, to supply the demand of so much matter in such a small area, overcomes the EM force's ability to maintain that spacing and forces the electrons to recombine with the protons in the nucleus, forming just Neutrons. The whole thing then very rapidly gets compressed further until it tries to compress the Neutrons.
We now have a neutron star. Tremendous pressure inwards being held at bay by Neutron Degeneracy Pressure. In other words by the Neutron's need of personal space.
If the mass is or builds to a couple of solar masses, the inward pressure becomes so massive that the "Pauli Exclusion Principle", the requirement by every Neutron to maintain a certain amount of personal space, is overcome.
Neutrons in giving up this space can no longer exist as Neutrons.
A Black Hole is born.
Now we can't see anything. The surface if such exists is hidden by the fact that the speed of light is not fast enough to escape the inward flow rate of spacetime. An event horizon is thus formed and all we have are our equations.
Black Holes are not singularities but compressed matter that has reached the maximum possible input rate. Matter that still makes use of spacetime. The event horizon may then be taken as an actual surface. A balance point between the demand of the representative mass for spacetime and the inward pressure represented by the maximum possible supply rate per unit area possible. This flow rate may or may not be related to, and as such may or may not be limited to, the transmission rate of EM shockwaves through the vacuum of spacetime.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65123.0
At this stage it remains possible that spacetime may be capable of flowing faster than this transmission rate. When the appropriate mathematics that can properly describe this flow is developed, along with observational and maybe future experimental results, we may quantify this property.

“The speed of light is not "the" constant”. The transmission rate of Electromagnetic Shockwaves in the medium of Spacetime is the constant, and lightwaves just obey it. If we measure the speed of an object moving through spacetime by the doppler effect of light, it is in no way different to measuring the doppler effect of light moving against the flow rate of spacetime created by a massive object (Gravitational doppler effect).

“Spacetime is not nothing”. It is something. It can always be described by it’s coordinates so it is something. It just is not something static that just gets bent and twisted by matter. It flows, it swirls into vortices, it runs like a current within an ocean, and is a really efficient transmitting medium for “Electromagnetic Shockwaves” (Light). Similar in a way to sound waves in water. (Just an analogy)

I can see the need for a new branch of science to study and map out those currents and whirlpools (Vortices) of spacetime in our Universe. We could start with the data sets already compiled and still actively seek to map, what we refer to as “Dark Matter”. In the above model “Dark Matter amounts to no more than turbulence and back-eddies, vortices caused by the intake of matter and counter vortices and other disturbances caused by the flow itself and the turbulence induced by intervening matter on the main flow”s way to the centre.
The Bullet Cluster often used as evidence of Dark Matter is no more than the turbulance created when two fast flowing whirlpools of spacetime impacted on each other. The result is a very turbulent region with huge counter vortices to where the flow is still being sucked up by matter in colision trying to maintain supply. It’s a mess that will take a while to resettle into orderly flow patterns.
As an aside I also believe that such an environment as the bullet cluster would make galactic scale space travel a lot more economic. If the turbulent flows could be mapped it would just be a matter of picking the right fast flowing current to your destination. (Like most cheap transport systems, you may have to expend some energy on current  jumping at appropriate times.
Perhaps we could call the new field of study:- “SPACETIME FLOW DYNAMICS” :)

We Humans live in an accelerating spacetime current. Akin to living on a mesh stretched across the 9.81m/s/s current funnelling into the Earth.
By standing up we defy that current and we balance in the flow of spacetime taking out of it what amount we require for our own processes.
The natural state of matter is Free-fall. Anything that changes that free-fall condition is felt as an Acceleration/Gravity. There is absolutely no detectable difference between standing your whole life in a current that is flowing past you at an accelerating rate of 9.81 m/s/s, and being in a spaceship constantly accelerating past spacetime at 9.81 m/s/s. Either way you would be in an accelerated flow rate of spacetime of 9.81 m/s/s. Discounting the relativistic effects due to increased relative speed, it would feel to all our senses identical.

Following your Geodesic
Any freely moving or falling particle always moves along a geodesic. For every representative quanta of Mass/Energy in the Universe that in the absence of an outside force this is a straight line through spacetime described by two factors. Angular momentum and a balanced inflow of spacetime from all directions. It takes an input of energy to change this. Matter will always maintain angular momentum and will remain in the balance point of even spacetime flow input. Even if to an outside observer this translates to relative movement towards another Mass. It's geodesic can be an orbit not because it is falling towards a larger Mass, but because space time itself is flowing. If a concentration of Mass is spinning, what we now call frame draging is the inflowing spacetime is forced into a  vortex. It is imposible to drop something from infinity into the centre of any rotating object. Because any rotating object can be viewed as a number of sub atomic to atomic vacuum pumps they will always create a whirlpool effect on the spacetime surrounding them. Therefore any object aproaching in a direct line, following it’s own geodesic will follow the flow of spacetime around the whirlpool. Making a direct bullseye hit impossible, no matter how well aimed it starts. This effect is predicted by General Relativity (Frame draging), and was proven by the “Gravity Probe B” experiment.

The Casimir effect
“The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is claimed to be due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948.”   It is also the main argument presented as observational proof that Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations exist.
Now if we view the same experiment with Space Flow, it immediately becomes obvious that such exotic phenomena as Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, are not necessary to make the two plates move towards each other. By having them so close together we are causing an extreme low spacetime pressure region between them. All Matter wants to absorb an equal amount of spacetime from all sides. The Low pressure between the plates, will naturally cause spacetime to be unable to meet that demand. The plates must then be drawn together, because of pressure differences between one side and the other. The vacuum is intensified by Matter’s demand and the one sided lack of spacetime available to meet it. The closer the plates are the more this effect intensifies.

The other thing this point of view would change is the age old  John Archibald Wheeler quote:- “Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”
It would now have to read:-
--Matter tells spacetime how to move; Spacetime tells matter where to go.--

Arthur Manousakis
« Last Edit: 20/01/2016 09:22:30 by Space Flow »


 
The following users thanked this post: Razza, MattFaw

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #1 on: 05/12/2015 02:28:50 »
100 years after Albert Einstein Unveiled General Relativity, a new interpretation surfaces.
One that fills in the gaps and answers the questions still unanswered in 100 years.
An interpretation that provides answers even to questions we would not normally have thought in General Relativity's influence.
A simple modification to what we thought General Relativity was telling us, that is going to have far reaching consequences for all of Physics, Astro Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Theory, Most of science...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #2 on: 05/12/2015 13:29:33 »
100 years after Albert Einstein Unveiled General Relativity, a new interpretation surfaces.
One that fills in the gaps and answers the questions still unanswered in 100 years.
An interpretation that provides answers even to questions we would not normally have thought in General Relativity's influence.
A simple modification to what we thought General Relativity was telling us, that is going to have far reaching consequences for all of Physics, Astro Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Theory, Most of science...


''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True
GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False
GRAVITY IS: A force... False
GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''


What sorry?   


I will start here at the beginning of your post,

''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True''

Not true, gravity is a constant force, any change in free fall is a change in acceleration,

''GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False''

True that is false, because we say mass is attracted to mass

''GRAVITY IS: A force... False''

Untrue, gravity is a force,



'GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''''


False. acceleration is a product of force and gravity is the force.



 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #3 on: 05/12/2015 22:20:28 »
I will start here at the beginning of your post,

''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True''

Not true, gravity is a constant force, any change in free fall is a change in acceleration,

A change in free fall is a change in acceleration? Really? Only if you consider a change from "0" acceleration at free fall.
You may be confusing acceleration with an outside observer's view of a change in speed relative to them. Acceleration can be detected by the Mass being accelerated. Speed is relative to another observer.
There is no acceleration while in a state of free fall. Any change from a state of free fall constitutes an acceleration.
There is no difference between acceleration (Pushing past Spacetime) and resisting the push of spacetime by standing on the surface of a planet. "Gravity". Your Geodesic changes in respect to spacetime in exactly the same way.

If I was to put you in a sealed box and applied "no" force, you would have absolutely no way of knowing whether you were free falling in intergalactic space or rapidly descending into a Black Hole. (Geodesic)
Same if 9.81 m/s/s of constant acceleration was applied to that box. You would have no way of telling if you were stationary on planet Earth or on a spaceship approaching the speed of light. (Constantly changing Geodesic = acceleration).

''GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False''

True that is false, because we say mass is attracted to mass
You have made a distinction between Matter and Mass but made no effort to justify that distinction.
What is the difference between Matter and Mass?
My statement above makes no such distinction but if it pleases you I will say
GRAVITY IS: An attraction between Mass and Mass. FALSE.
I know that we say Mass attracts Mass. That is the whole point of a new theory. To change our understanding about something. So read the Hypothesis and disprove anything it claims, but please don't take the attitude that this is what we have always believed so it must be true. We are not still in the Dark ages, and our understanding and approach to the truth should be guided by Observation and evidence, not established "belief".

''GRAVITY IS: A force... False''

Untrue, gravity is a force,

Newton talked about a gravitational force,but he was never clear what that force was.
What was the mechanism behind Newton's "Universal Force of Gravity.

One way of phrasing Einstein's theory, is as a search for an answer to that question.
What is the mechanism behind Gravity?

And He's answer in 1915 was:-
There is no force.
There is nothing that pulls.
It's the curvature of spacetime itself which we experience as Gravity.
So it's all pure geometry.
That is all it is.

So you contradict the only man that has never been proven wrong and declare that Gravity is a force. On what evidence?
Now I know we have tried every means at our disposal to falsify General Relativity.
I was just not aware that we have ever succeeded as your statement seems to imply. If this has really happened can you please link me to that revolutionary evidence.
I know there are many that would agree with you. But there is not one shred of evidence to support that "Hypothesis".

'GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''''


False. acceleration is a product of force and gravity is the force.
So it is gravity that provides the force for a rocket to accelerate in Space? Do you even read what you write.

Again all that I said above still applies. General Relativity say's so. Please link me with the evidence that General Relativity has been proven false to allow such a statement to be considered as fact.

Now unless you have other objections as to the points I set out, that the theory bellow those statements attempts to make clear, maybe you can read that theory and hopefully offer insight as to where and how it can be falsified.

And "no" I do not take your's or any other preacher's word as gospel. I gave that up with religion.
I accept logical argument, Observational, and Experimental evidence. If you find you can play by these simple rules I welcome any contribution, if not and you just want to make unsubstantiated statements please annoy someone else.

Thank you for your so far in depth appraisal though..
« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 01:41:39 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #4 on: 06/12/2015 02:51:20 »



A change in free fall is a change in acceleration? Really? Only if you consider a change from "0" acceleration at free fall.

An object falls for the first meter a9.82m/s, the second meter it falls a9.82m/s*2 , the third meter it falls at a9.82m/s*3   etc etc, until the falling object reaches terminal velocity.  That is what acceleration is,

Have you ever heard the expression F=ma? 

Force=mass * acceleration

''You have made a distinction between Matter and Mass but made no effort to justify that distinction.
What is the difference between Matter and Mass?''


Matter is that of physical substance (things), and you  may be confusing this with  the ordinary use, definition of mass, but in physics the definition and use of the word mass is different, it means a property of matter that science uses to measure force etc.

''GRAVITY IS: An attraction between Mass and Mass. FALSE.
I know that we say Mass attracts Mass. That is the whole point of a new theory. To change our understanding about something. So read the Hypothesis and disprove anything it claims, but please don't take the attitude that this is what we have always believed so it must be true. We are not still in the Dark ages, and our understanding and approach to the truth should be guided by Observation and evidence, not established "belief".''


Lol you have obviously not read any of my posts, I am pretty much known has the anti-science, no need to get defensive I will come to  the rest of your post in all good due time. 

Mass attracted to mass is experimentally proven by the Cavendish experiment, it is hard to deny this when  it is  hard evidence .


''One way of phrasing Einstein's theory, is as a search for an answer to that question.
What is the mechanism behind Gravity?

And He's answer in 1915 was:-
There is no force.
There is nothing that pulls.
It's the curvature of spacetime itself which we experience as Gravity.
So it's all pure geometry.
That is all it is.

So you contradict the only man that has never been proven wrong and declare that Gravity is a force. On what evidence?''


Well, I contradict most science, Newton included, gravity is a force, my ideas are negative mass and positive mass and neutral mass.  But if you want to observe gravity pulling, google a comets tail bends towards gravity, comets tails can be visually observed being pulled towards a body while the comet is flying a linear path past the body. Also you can google solar flares curving back to the sun by pull.  Also the moon pulls the oceans , where do you think tides come from?


''So it is gravity that provides the force for a rocket to accelerate in Space? Do you even read what you write.''

What?  Rockets are propelled by the huge output of energy from their rear ends, its called thrust.

« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 03:06:18 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #5 on: 06/12/2015 03:48:06 »
An object falls for the first meter a9.82m/s, the second meter it falls a9.82m/s*2 , the third meter it falls at a9.82m/s*3   etc etc, until the falling object reaches terminal velocity.  That is what acceleration is,

Have you ever heard the expression F=ma? 

Force=mass * acceleration
Can you not see that all this is true whether the "Force" applied is a push or a pull? And in a closed box except for air resistance you would feel no acceleration?
In your own reference frame there is nothing you can detect to tell you that you are about to meet a planet? Acceleration is change over time. You do not experience any change without experiencing the application of force. In that box you don't experience any change.
Matter is that of physical substance (things), and you  may be confusing this with  the ordinary use, definition of mass, but in physics the definition and use of the word mass is different, it means a property of matter that science uses to measure force etc.
Interesting drivel. Show or describe this supposed difference. Teach me something.

Lol you have obviously not read any of my posts, I am pretty much known has the anti-science, no need to get defensive I will come to  the rest of your post in all good due time. 

Mass attracted to mass is experimentally proven by the Cavendish experiment, it is hard to deny this when  it is  hard evidence .

No I have not as yet read any of your posts. If indeed you are anti-science I would prefer that you wasted someone else's time.
If you had understood what Flow Theory is saying and applied it to the Cavendish experiment, you would have got the exact same results for different reasons. The Cavendish experiment proves Flow Theory as much as it proves curved space.

What?  Rockets are propelled by the huge output of energy from their rear ends, its called thrust.
At least I don't have to explain that.
Read the theory (it may even answer your comet tail and how the moon manages to pull on the ocean) and then ask questions about any part you don't understand. "Your solar flares involve a lot of electromagnetic fields that combine with the flow to give you what you see".
If you believe you can falsify any part of it then please present what you base things on.

I put this theory up to see if it can stand up to reason and observational evidence.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 04:22:05 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #6 on: 06/12/2015 10:56:20 »


No I have not as yet read any of your posts. If indeed you are anti-science I would prefer that you wasted someone else's time.
If you had understood what Flow Theory is saying and applied it to the Cavendish experiment, you would have got the exact same results for different reasons. The Cavendish experiment proves Flow Theory as much as it proves curved space.

I will help you, consider moving an object, space itself pulls together to fill the space with space where the object was....and objects contain space and energy, energy pushes, space pulls.


You are rather rude, consider yourself lucky somebody is even engaging your post when you are ''anti-science'' with your post.   

You asked if I understood your idea, about push and pull being just push. I have wrote your idea myself before and explained it in much more  depth using comparisons as such has magnetic bottling and monopole fields.

Your ''theory'' is not even a theory, it is a basic thought written down, a fundamental idea.   


I have suggested we live inside a nuclear reactor, centripetal force/magnetic bottling ''pushing'' everything together, then ''centripetal'' force, also pushing things away from each other. One push no pull, so yes of course I understand your idea, but this does not  make it so. You know why?  because it would be pure guess work of what is after the ''edge of space firmament''.


And in explanation of matter and mass, mass is that of ''convertual'' energy, matter is just materialistic waste.


P.s I will help you, consider space, move an object and space pulls together filling the space where the object has left. space pulls space together and is in objects and energy pushes,





« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 11:09:53 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #7 on: 06/12/2015 11:08:46 »
Maybe I chose the wrong Forum to post this...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #8 on: 06/12/2015 11:12:09 »
Maybe I chose the wrong Forum to post this...


Actually my friend, other forums will call you names, call you stupid, insult you, then ban you.   Trust me I have been there and you will be wasting your time ,  This forum is the best forum, they allow you freedom of speech.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #9 on: 06/12/2015 11:20:48 »
I prefer a good critical analysis of what I am presenting.
I have been trying to make this theory fall over for a couple of years now and failed.

I now want others to have a go but not with BS. Criticise with logical thinking and observational evidence.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #10 on: 06/12/2015 11:28:30 »
I prefer a good critical analysis of what I am presenting.
I have been trying to make this theory fall over for a couple of years now and failed.

I now want others to have a go but not with BS. Criticise with logical thinking and observational evidence.

I understand mate, I am an amateur , there is only so far we take an idea.   I use axiom logic, I will show how it really works in my opinion in a diagram, you will recognise a construction of your similar idea.



I will give you a hint to forum life, when posting an idea, try to make it clear within only a few sentences. State is clear and brief. Add a diagram if you can.







« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 11:33:07 by Thebox »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #11 on: 06/12/2015 12:44:13 »
In my opinion, a simpler way to explain gravity is to first consider forming matter and anti-matter from a photon of energy. For example, say we form an electron and a positron (positive electron) from a single photon of energy. In terms of potential, the electron and positron are at higher potential than the starting photon of energy, since the reaction, as temperature lowers, will spontaneously reverse back to energy; annihilation to reform energy.

In terms of space-time reference, matter and anti-matter exist in inertial reference, while energy exists in a speed of light reference. Matter and anti-matter cannot move at the speed of light; special relativity. While the speed of light is the same in all references. There is a gap that separates these two references.

If we combine this gap with the hierarchy of potential above, this implies the inertial reference of matter and anti-matter is at a higher potential than the speed of light reference; matter and anti-matter and their inertial reference will spontaneously return to the energy and the speed of light reference.

When the universe formed, there was a slight asymmetry resulting in our observed matter dominated universe. Matter without anti-matter is very stable but it still exists at a potential that is higher than energy. Gravity is simply one way for matter, lacking anti-matter, to return to back to the speed of light reference. When mass concentrates even by your mechanism, and space-time contracts and curves via GR, space-time is heading in the direction of the speed of light reference. In Special relativity V=C has the same reference as high mass contained in a singularity.

All the other forces of nature give off energy when matter lowers potential with these. All roads lead to Rome as matter finds ways to return to the C reference, while lacking the direct path offered by anti-matter. If anti-matter appears matter will gladly take that path since this is the fast lane back to C.
« Last Edit: 06/12/2015 12:46:39 by puppypower »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #12 on: 08/12/2015 03:31:09 »
All the other forces of nature give off energy when matter lowers potential with these. All roads lead to Rome as matter finds ways to return to the C reference, while lacking the direct path offered by anti-matter. If anti-matter appears matter will gladly take that path since this is the fast lane back to C.
You know even though I never really thought about it that way, I can see some sense in this view. Interestingly the Universe continues to cool, and consequently there is more and more spacetime as matter concentrates into smaller and smaller regions within this expanding spacetime.
What your implying if I get you right is, even though the average temperature of the Universe is going down, the average temperature of Matter is going up. It would have to if the potential is pushing matter towards c.
I don't know what this has to do with my post, but an interesting idea to contemplate.
How do you propose this can be tested?
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #13 on: 12/12/2015 13:23:50 »
Just the claim of either push or pull is useless without a mechanism to explain gravity in the first place. What is pushing?
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #14 on: 12/12/2015 22:37:59 »
Just the claim of either push or pull is useless without a mechanism to explain gravity in the first place. What is pushing?
GoC, The whole concept of Space Flow Theory comes from the fact that a mechanism is described to explain it.
What is doing the pushing is Spacetime itself on it's way into Matter.
Maybe I have to make that part clearer as you obviously somehow missed it.
I will have to work on that.
In the mean time, have another read because it is in there.
Spacetime in this Theory acts like a compressible fluid, but that is going past what you asked.
Re-read. The answer to your question is there.

As a hint get back to what you know about the behavior of electrons around an atomic nucleus. When they change from a higher (more energetic) orbital to a lower one, they don't do it gradually. They are claimed to do it without crossing the space in-between. As if that space suddenly vanished. Like it was no longer there. That is because it is no longer there. New space automatically moves in to replace it. So we have a spacetime pump.

Hope that helps.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #15 on: 13/12/2015 04:36:52 »
Just the claim of either push or pull is useless without a mechanism to explain gravity in the first place. What is pushing?

Pulling without a mechanism bothered Newton, but it was accepted until Einstein's mathematical description of the effect became accepted as the cause; and that is not a mechanism, either. Now you want a mechanism?  :o

Fatio & Lesage postulated gravitons (ultra-small, ultra-numerous, ultra-fast elastic spheres) imparting momentum to masses as they bounce off, like 100% elastic billiard balls. Van Flandern calculated the speed of gravity (and gravitons) to be at least 20 billion times the speed of light, to explain why Earth accelerates in the direction (relative to the stars) where we saw the Sun 8 minutes ago, not the direction where we see it now.

If the gravitons are that fast, then for or a particle to accelerate at a mere 1 g, it would have to absorb energy (momentum times the speed of gravity) equivalent to its mass in every picosecond.

Another failing of the Fatio/Lesage model is their fallacious belief that perfectly reflective spheres in a uniform white room should see each other as shadows against the background graviton flux. Easily disproven mathematically.

Van Flandern postulated some pretty strange solutions. He did, however, inspire me to come up with a more viable model.

I accept Van Flandern's speed of gravity (minimum 20 billion c) as the speed of aethereal pressure waves. If there is an aether, as there certainly must be, then light propagates as a transverse shear wave (S-wave). Has no one before me considered that a medium of shear waves might also be a medium of longitudinal pressure waves (P-waves)? I am aware of no such postulate in any previous aether model. I believe this is a major failing of past aether models; no wonder they have all failed. 

Try this though experiment:

Imagine a vast expanse of a transparent solid acoustic medium, with a rectilinear grid of dots representing the space through which waves  propagate relative to the medium. For shear waves to propagate the medium must be deformable; as an S-wave passes, it wiggles the medium side to side; not much but not zero. Likewise, a P-wave wiggles the medium forward and back.

Let's look at a thin slice of the medium; call it the xy plane.

Imagine an S-wave creeping up the y axis at the speed of a snail. Along comes a P-wave horizontally, left to right along the x axis at the speed of light. (Actually, that snail is the speed of light; the P-wave is moving at the speed of gravity.) Part of the P-wave propagates upwind, so to speak, passing thru the part of the S-wave which is moving right to left; downwind on the part that is moving left to right. This causes part of the P-wave to end up ahead of the other part. Consequently, the P-wave is very slightly distorted as it exits to the right.

The amount of distortion of the P-wave must be unimaginably slight, yet it must be responsible for all the forces of nature.

I postulate that the wiggles imparted to the P-wave by passing thru the S-wave affect the momentum of the P-wave. (Anyone here up to the challenge of proving that mathematically?) For momentum to be conserved, an equal and opposite momentum must be imparted to the S-wave. If P-waves are that much faster, then they must carry greater momentum, and the exchanged momentum must be a greater fraction of the S-waves momentum, while having little effect on the P-wave. The P-wave's direction is nudged ever so slightly, while the S-wave is nudged billions of times more strongly.

The magnitude and direction of the exchanged momentum depends on the angle between the P-wave's path and the S-waves polarity.

If the flux of incoming P-waves is uniform in all directions around the S-wave, then the momentum imparted to the S-wave from all P-waves must add up to zero, and the S-wave does not change its energy or momentum.

If the P-wave flux is stronger in one direction, then the S-wave may receive more momentum from P-waves coming from that direction. (I don't know if that amounts to a push directly away from where the P-wave flux is greater; perhaps in some other direction.)

This kind of momentum exchange between aethereal waves can account for the acceleration of gravity without imparting a lot of energy. However, I'm jumping way ahead. Gravity is a tiny residual imbalance of all the short-range forces at distances beyond their effective range. And all those other forces result from the exchange of momentum between aethereal P-waves, AKA dark energy, and aethereal  S-waves, AKA electromagnetic waves or photons.

The simplest forces result when a pair of S-waves of compatible wavelength pass close enough to each other with their planes of polarity optimally aligned. Each S-wave then feels more or less P-wave flux from the direction of the other. This may cause the two S-waves to accelerate either toward or away from one another. (Or perhaps another direction.)

If such a force of attraction is strong enough, it may lock the two S-waves in orbit around one another, thus forming a fundamental particle of matter; the energy of the two S-waves remains with them and becomes the proper mass of the particle. The two S-waves fall toward one another into a vacuum-energy well, and some of that energy may be ejected as an S-wave.

Fast forward: The otherwise uniform P-wave flux continues to be distorted around each S-wave as before; but now that flux disturbance is being spun into a spiral, spreading outward at the speed of P-waves. Those spreading spirals may mesh like gears at close range to form larger particles. Each species of particle is a strange attractor in the chaotic mix of S- and P-waves.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #16 on: 13/12/2015 22:00:47 »
I suspect gravity does not have a speed. It would just be a dilation of space as a field that moves with mass when mass moves.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #17 on: 13/12/2015 23:22:17 »
GoC, I suspect you are partly right.
Mass moves with Spacetime. Spacetime is not static. Nothing in the Universe is.
Gravity as a flow of spacetime has a speed dependent on the amount of mass and the distance from the centre of that mass. It can be so slow it wouldn't be measurable, like for a single Hydrogen Atom in interstellar space, it could flow so fast that the speed of light is not fast enough to make any headway through it, like a Black Hole.
It is just flow rate.

Now having said that we know the speed that light is transmitted through it, in my view as an EM shockwave.
What we don't know is if the disturbances that moving matter causes (Gravity Waves) is in the form of a shock wave as well in which case it may have a transmission speed equivalent to light, or if they are analogous to movement relative disturbances, in which case they would only travel at the speed given to them by the moving masses, which would make them a local effect that would get destroyed (swallowed up) by the flow.
If it is the second of these, it may explain why our efforts to detect GWs have so far failed.

Lots of new questions...
« Last Edit: 13/12/2015 23:25:38 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #18 on: 14/12/2015 03:11:21 »
I suspect gravity does not have a speed.

The lack of a speed-of-gravity factor in general relativity amounts to an assumption that whatever mechanism carries the force of gravity is either infinitely fast or nonexistent. I am of the opinion that there is a mechanism, and it has a finite speed.

There are claims that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. I think that error comes from applying general relativity to a hypothetical vanishing star's gravity. Suppose the star's mass is suddenly released as a uniform sphere of light, expanding at the speed of light. Freeing the energy from its bondage in massive particles does not eliminate the the gravitational mass of the star. Instead, each photon carries away its share of gravitational mass. From Newton's shell theorem, we surmise that an observer outside the expanding shell of light will continue to feel the same gravity as before the star vanished;
be he will be observing the gravity of expanding light sphere, not the gravity of the vanished star. As soon at the light sphere envelopes the observer, the shell theorem says he will no longer feel the gravity of the light sphere. That explains why there should be a speed of light time delay if a hypothetical star could suddenly be converted to light equally in all directions.

Newton's shell theorem, however, tacitly assumes that the speed of gravity is infinite. If it is finite, then another parameter must be added to the shell theorem. My intuition says that the gravity of the light would resemble that of an expanding ellipsoid of light, and I'm not sure if that would spell the same sudden drop in gravity or a gradual drop after entering the shell.

It would just be a dilation of space as a field that moves with mass when mass moves.

Math is God? I think not. There is a deeper reality. 
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #19 on: 14/12/2015 18:11:58 »
There are claims that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. I think that error comes from applying general relativity to a hypothetical vanishing star's gravity. Suppose the star's mass is suddenly released as a uniform sphere of light, expanding at the speed of light. Freeing the energy from its bondage in massive particles does not eliminate the the gravitational mass of the star. Instead, each photon carries away its share of gravitational mass. From Newton's shell theorem, we surmise that an observer outside the expanding shell of light will continue to feel the same gravity as before the star vanished;be he will be observing the gravity of expanding light sphere, not the gravity of the vanished star. As soon at the light sphere envelopes the observer, the shell theorem says he will no longer feel the gravity of the light sphere. That explains why there should be a speed of light time delay if a hypothetical star could suddenly be converted to light equally in all directions.

In that vanishing act I would agree that the effect would dissipate at the speed of light. But the light sphere is not gravity. Light bends around gravity. If light burns out in a sun and only mass is left gravity would still exist. Light is a force it can push. Gravity pulls you down or pushes you down but you do not need light for gravity.

Which is indistinguishable from a field that remains with mass.



Newton's shell theorem, however, tacitly assumes that the speed of gravity is infinite.
Math is God? I think not. There is a deeper reality.

Sorry I have no opinion for what a God represents.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #20 on: 15/12/2015 13:40:53 »
To find the speed of gravity you need to determine why the dimension of the entropy of a black hole does not change with the radius of the event horizon. Then you need to relate this to a Planck mass sized black hole. Otherwise you are using wild speculation.
 

Offline GoC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 342
  • Thanked: 51 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #21 on: 15/12/2015 14:23:11 »
Black holes are not governed by relativity. Consider a star that grows beyond 300,000 km/sec attraction at the surface. This creates the condition of energy not being able to keep atoms apart any longer. So a black hole is the ultimate element or an electron in a different size dimension that considers us their Aether. No movement inside would be the ultimate entropy. Dilation of space would start at the surface of the black hole by the inverse square of the distance. How would that affect planks length?

Everything is speculation. Even what you think you know for certain.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #22 on: 15/12/2015 15:36:44 »
To find the speed of gravity you need to determine why the dimension of the entropy of a black hole does not change with the radius of the event horizon. Then you need to relate this to a Planck mass sized black hole. Otherwise you are using wild speculation.

VanFlandern calculated a lower limit on the speed of gravity based on the lack of parallax in planetary systems. If gravity propagated at the speed of light, Earth would be pulled toward the direction where we see the Sun now, not where we saw the Sun 8 minutes ago. With the Sun's gravity pulling us forward, our orbit would move farther and farther out until we lose sight of the Sun. The existence of planetary systems proves that gravity is many times faster than light.

I realize that some of VanFlandern's theories, like spontaneously exploding planets, are pretty wild, but his reasoning on the speed of gravity is not wild speculation. I believe he got this one right.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #23 on: 15/12/2015 16:26:24 »
I am not unhappy with superluminal gravity but within reason. There has to be a logical basis for any proposed speed and it HAS to be related to black hole entropy. It is within such an environment as the event horizon of a black hole that gravitational waves will be generated. If the waves travel faster than c then detection may well be impossible as the effects on the CMBR may be too weak to detect. If it can be determined what the magnitude of the waves are likely to be, an amplitude so to speak, then we will have a better idea of how to tune detectors.
« Last Edit: 15/12/2015 23:35:01 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #24 on: 15/12/2015 17:10:42 »
Considering that the wavelengths associated with gravitation are longer than the wavelengths of light then we can take c as the speed of light and g as the speed of gravitation.

Then we should be able to formulate the following equation.

e240a5c99597e1875b9941e80ab22ded.gif

Here lambda_0 is a specific wavelength of light and lambda_1 is a specific wavelength of gravitation. Finding the correct ratio will then give the speed of gravitation. Not easy. Not all the factors are taken into account by this simplistic relationship.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
« Reply #24 on: 15/12/2015 17:10:42 »

 

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