# The Naked Scientists Forum

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« on: 20/08/2016 20:07:33 »

We have a definition of ficticious or pseudo force which covers centrifugal force. I have seen it stated at times that gravity is a fictitious force. That magical changes in geometry cause gravity. Therefore I believe it is important to nail down a definition.
My concept of gravity is the radiated loss of mass. thus it is a physical quantity. The magical geometry I assume is the general relativity theory which may produce good numerical results but which does not give us a basic understanding of what is happening.
In the washing machine spin cycle the water is squeezed out. We could say there was a force on the water perpendicular to the tub or we could say that the water moved parallel to the tub and was constrained by the surface of the tub and forced out. Two different answers. Same math involved. Which is right? I am still studying the possibilities.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3926
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #1 on: 20/08/2016 20:30:01 »

We have a definition of ficticious or pseudo force which covers centrifugal force. I have seen it stated at times that gravity is a fictitious force. That magical changes in geometry cause gravity. Therefore I believe it is important to nail down a definition.
My concept of gravity is the radiated loss of mass. thus it is a physical quantity. The magical geometry I assume is the general relativity theory which may produce good numerical results but which does not give us a basic understanding of what is happening.
In the washing machine spin cycle the water is squeezed out. We could say there was a force on the water perpendicular to the tub or we could say that the water moved parallel to the tub and was constrained by the surface of the tub and forced out. Two different answers. Same math involved. Which is right? I am still studying the possibilities.

Firstly general relativity accurately describes the effects of gravity. Secondly, why a mass loss?

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #2 on: 20/08/2016 22:22:09 »

Firstly general relativity accurately describes the effects of gravity. Secondly, why a mass loss?
First part of the sentence sounds good to me. I have no reason to dispute it. It is a mathematical analysis of the effects of gravity which is a mathematical model.The same is true of ohms laws and the various laws of electricity. They work good. However I want to understand why and how things work.
The loss of mass is found from
F = d/dt (mv) = mdv/dt + V dm/dt
Thus a force is either a mass times acceleration or a velocity time the loss of mass per unit time. If the mass of the universe decreases with time there is a gravitational force pushing against it. thus the mass turns into energy and the universe expands and we have gravity. To me that is an explanation of why gravity works. Einsteins work is a mathematical analysis of how gravity works.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3926
• Thanked: 55 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #3 on: 20/08/2016 22:32:44 »
There can be a change in both kinettic energy and relativistic mass. However rest mass will not change.
« Last Edit: 20/08/2016 22:39:05 by jeffreyH »

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #4 on: 21/08/2016 14:54:54 »
There can be a change in both kinettic energy and relativistic mass. However rest mass will not change.
That is true. Temporarily as you increase the speed of a mass, some of the photons move in spherical patterns that look like mass. some of the photons look like photons but moving slower. I picture a spherical energy field driven by a linear energy field. Once you reduce the speed back toward zero and the object is at rest, the mass will return to rest mass. However if any energy remains as heat, the mass will be slightly larger. This is because the heat also produces spherical type energy fields. The proton is a spherical type energy field and an electron revolving around a proton also produces a spherical type energy field. this is especially true when you add billions of billions of electrons spinning around a mass.

#### William McC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 158
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #5 on: 23/08/2016 00:47:11 »
Mathematical formula for gravity are vague at best. Most of the man made satellites around the earth are actually in a light atmosphere. So you have to throw out a perfect calculation even if it were true, and factor in the light atmosphere.

Since we know there are no forces of attraction. We have to understand gravity as a pushing force. Just like we know air pushes debris into a vacuum with the pressure that is outside of the vacuum chamber. We also know that magnets do not bat their eyes and attract other magnets, although it may seem that way or look that way. We know the magnets are pushed together, into the vacuum of repulsive force created by the flow of particles of electricity, between two opposing pole magnets.

A cool experiment is to hook up a piece of hose to a water outlet, and turn on the water, then take a second short piece of the same hose, and slowly move that second piece towards the first piece outputting the water. Trying to keep them parallel and aligned to one another. As the pieces of hose start to move closer to one another, you will see that they are pulled to one another. Much like magnets are. In reality the little hose moving towards the running hose spewing water, is pushed to the running hose, by the pressure of the water that is now exiting the little short piece of hose. The magnets actually function much in the same way.

The earth stands in the way of extreme high velocity ambient radiation. The earths surface compared to its massive volume is at a strange ratio because of the formula for area and volume of a sphere. Area of a sphere being Pi D^2, and volume of a sphere being Pi D^3÷6, the large spherical earth, has little surface area compared to its mass. That means a massive bottle neck of ambient radiation takes place at the surface of the earth. Ambient radiation is forced to slow as it nears the earth, this causes both the rays to earth and the rays from earth to slow, creating different rays near the earth. By observation we know that the rays leaving the earth after positively accelerating in the vast volume of the earth, repel less, than rays from above. Similar to the thick portion of a prism accelerating white light to high velocity blue particles. The core of the earth is somewhat short of ambient radiation because of this time delay at the surface, creating at the surface of the earth a bottle neck, with only the fractions of a second the rays are delayed while entering the earth.

Now consider two heavenly bodies the earth and the moon. As they near each other, the space between them becomes void of repulsive force and they tend to move together, all without attraction. The reason is the particles leaving the two spherical bodies are not at full potential velocity, like the fresh ambient radiation that is pushing them together is. So as they move closer, each body shields the other more and more from fresh unaltered ambient radiation.

The universe is under constant pressure from flows of ambient radiation from all directions simultaneously. At least according to old school.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #6 on: 23/08/2016 23:10:26 »
The universe is under constant pressure from flows of ambient radiation from all directions simultaneously. At least according to old school.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Your explanations sounds good. If everything is exerting pushing pressure on everything else, then the area between the objects will be depleted and the objects will be pushed together.

The following users thanked this post: William McC

#### phyti

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 36
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #7 on: 07/09/2016 16:59:36 »
An interesting idea.
If a small test mass m gains energy passing through a g-field, and the g-field is formed by the presence of mass M, then M would seem to be the source of energy. After many small masses or a significant satellite, carry away energy, the mass of M would be expected to decrease. If the small masses join M then there is no net loss. Could the fact that the moon is receding 1" per year be an instance of this idea?

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 349
• Thanked: 55 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #8 on: 07/09/2016 18:04:28 »
"If a small test mass m gains energy passing through a g-field, and the g-field is formed by the presence of mass M, then M would seem to be the source of energy."

It's unlikely mass is the source of energy. What makes electrons move? Physical and light clocks stay in sync in all frames why? Light is constant why? There is a resource in space as energy that confound electrons and photons in every frame with a limit on distance of one light second length. This is measured as different lengths in different frames. Follow Relativity!!!

#### William McC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 158
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #9 on: 08/09/2016 03:28:55 »
"If a small test mass m gains energy passing through a g-field, and the g-field is formed by the presence of mass M, then M would seem to be the source of energy."

It's unlikely mass is the source of energy. What makes electrons move? Physical and light clocks stay in sync in all frames why? Light is constant why? There is a resource in space as energy that confound electrons and photons in every frame with a limit on distance of one light second length. This is measured as different lengths in different frames. Follow Relativity!!!

From the first atomic clock, my clown friends were able to regulate it from a good distance with rays. So the idea that an atomic clock was somehow perfect, accurate, or even representative of some perfect movement that we could relate perfect time to, was just a dream. Sure electronics are cool in that they can keep rather accurate time. However time is relative to the observer. No mechanical device can do it better than the observer.

http://www.rockwelder.com/atom/atomicammoniaclock.jpg

The fact they claimed ammonia was NH3 was kind of like saying they were driving the clown car, and their clock had flaws, at that time. Now there can be no doubt ammonia is NH3, none.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### phyti

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 36
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #10 on: 10/09/2016 15:33:08 »
"If a small test mass m gains energy passing through a g-field, and the g-field is formed by the presence of mass M, then M would seem to be the source of energy."

It's unlikely mass is the source of energy. What makes electrons move? Physical and light clocks stay in sync in all frames why? Light is constant why? There is a resource in space as energy that confound electrons and photons in every frame with a limit on distance of one light second length. This is measured as different lengths in different frames. Follow Relativity!!!
Why does the g-field disappear when mass M is removed?
Why is the clock sync method necessary, per SR?
Why is the national time standard an average of a few standard clocks?

#### William McC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 158
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #11 on: 13/09/2016 02:56:05 »
"If a small test mass m gains energy passing through a g-field, and the g-field is formed by the presence of mass M, then M would seem to be the source of energy."

It's unlikely mass is the source of energy. What makes electrons move? Physical and light clocks stay in sync in all frames why? Light is constant why? There is a resource in space as energy that confound electrons and photons in every frame with a limit on distance of one light second length. This is measured as different lengths in different frames. Follow Relativity!!!

Actually you cannot measure the speed of the rays that create light. You can measure how long it takes to setup a beam of light, the rays creating the light are infinitely fast. It takes over one and a half seconds to create a laser beam from the moon to earth. If something blocks that laser beam, on the moon, it stops the laser light instantly to, and on earth. That is because the rays that create the light are much faster than the visible beam. It is also why without an atmosphere stars are invisible to a camera.

You can build a camera with a little argon, helium and nitrogen between the media and the stars in space, and you can film the stars. However without it you will not see the stars. The same camera that outside the Lunar module would not film stars, filmed them just fine from inside the Lunar module. It was the atmosphere that converts the rays we do not see to light.

This was the way I learned about it in school and at the defense plant my father worked in.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #12 on: 18/09/2016 22:57:48 »
Right now I am studying a non-radiated theory of gravity in which the my sub-photons occupy all space and move at the speed of light C. The gravitational field around the Earth equals the pressure exerted by my dot-waves. Since each dot-wave has a very tiny mass/energy of 1.372E-72Kg. The Earth has a huge spectrum of waves and the space dot-waves will continually impact the Earth. This produces a gravitational force similar to the natural gas law. The Einsteins space time are merely a mathematical approximation to the complex interaction between the dot-waves which travel at C and physical matter. this does not say that Einstein is wrong but that his math is merely an excellent representation of the actual workings of matter and the space dot-waves.

#### William McC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 158
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #13 on: 19/09/2016 00:06:59 »
Years ago when they were trying to prove that Pi out to some crazy small decimal place was totally accurate. They had not only proven it was not, but also had proven they had never really built anything that had to be accurate.

They had created a large metal disc, and then measured the circumference of the large metal disc with a metal ruler that was supposed to be totally accurate. However if the ruler was totally accurate when laid out straight, then at that radius of the large disc they were measuring, because of the slight bend in the tape, the tape will almost totally expand. Meaning that the side of the tape laid up against the disc will be almost the size of the disc. However some shrinkage will occur. The outside of the tape will have grown or stretched.

Then consider in machining of ultra high quality parts, we know that there is always an air gap between two pieces of metal. So by doing that test in that way the actually had proven that pie is not 3.14159

Interesting tests I did with rounds also showed that the more perfectly round a wheel is the longer the circumference is. In other words a wheel with very small micro debris or imperfections will actually rotate more times over a given length than a perfectly round wheel. This was not accounted for in the disc the colleges used. So yes the math unless used as Einstein and his good friend Steinmetz used it, will just create a cult that is out of touch with the real world.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Radiated Mass theory of gravity
« Reply #13 on: 19/09/2016 00:06:59 »