0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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.
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?
I'm holding out for the relativistic view of it being the non-linear shape and density of space-time.
Quote from: LeeE on 15/12/2009 23:23:55I'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.
Quote from: Vern on 22/12/2009 21:15:30Quote from: LeeE on 15/12/2009 23:23:55I'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?
Quote from: LeeE on 22/12/2009 22:58:33Quote from: Vern on 22/12/2009 21:15:30Quote from: LeeE on 15/12/2009 23:23:55I'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, although I disagree on vacuum not being 'real' Or maybe you meant that it was real after all?You comparing it to imaginary numbers confuse me a little.To me it contains distance, therefore it exist as a constituent of SpaceTime. Therefore it is real, as 'real' as anything else that have a geometrical form.But your idea of vacuum creating mass is definitely a new one to me.So where would you think that infinite supply of vacuum would come from?
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.
Well, there's no saying you're wrong, but there's no saying you're right either. At this level we're dealing with concepts below what is known to be fundamental; it's all speculation until someone comes up with a provable experiment.(Oh yeah - and the funds to conduct the experiment)