[Pincho (OP)]

We can 'tap energy' from what gravity does to mass, as using a waterfall to drive a wheel. But let us discuss it from redshift. Imagine yourself far outside a gravity well measuring light falling towards a event horizon. Will it redshift to you? Where did it lose the 'energy' you measure it to have? To what?

A immense gravity right? Now assume a waterfall again and the wheel spinning just above the Event horizon, and we will ignore tidal forces. Would you expect the waterfalls water to have more energy as it hits the wheel?

Let's go back to that light quanta, and assume that you instead observe it infalling towards you at the event horizon. Do you expect it to have more energy, becoming blue shifted, as you now observe it from the even horizon.

Are we observing the same light quanta? You can assume that it is, and we don't need to define a simultaneous 'instant' for our observations.

And what would that light quanta's 'energy' be intrinsically, changing depending on observer, or of one magnitude?]We can 'tap energy' from what gravity does to mass, as using a waterfall to drive a wheel. But let us discuss it from redshift. Imagine yourself far outside a gravity well measuring light falling towards a event horizon. Will it redshift to you? Where did it lose the 'energy' you measure it to have? To what?

A immense gravity right? Now assume a waterfall again and the wheel spinning just above the Event horizon, and we will ignore tidal forces. Would you expect the waterfalls water to have more energy as it hits the wheel?

Let's go back to that light quanta, and assume that you instead observe it infalling towards you at the event horizon. Do you expect it to have more energy, becoming blue shifted, as you now observe it from the even horizon.

Are we observing the same light quanta? You can assume that it is, and we don't need to define a simultaneous 'instant' for our observations.

And what would that light quanta's 'energy' be intrinsically, changing depending on observer, or of one magnitude?

I just wanted to go back to this. The energy change of the photon does not need to be due to a pull force of gravity. You can do the same thing with a push force. In fact, I said earlier that flow forces bend into holes. Changing the bend into Einstein's bend of space time is a very strange thing to do, almost comical. Because Einstein said that the bend creates gravity, however gravity creates the bend. We see it every day when we wash our faces, and hands. Einstein is getting Cause, and effect backwards to account for a pull force. Like I say, why is science determined to have a pull force?

[yor_on]

Yeah, nice one Simplified. If I was to assume that gravity was 'energy'  I would also have to assume that as you tapped it of its 'energy', and we do, it should transform. Transform as, while you gain something ('energy'), its origin (the gravity itself) should lose something to keep the universe in a equilibrium. But gravity doesn't 'wear out' by use, does it? Not as I know at least. Its existence seems depending on mass, accelerations (locally perceived), and 'energy', as you heating up that spring to then weight it, finding it to have gained mass, and therefore more 'gravity'.

[yor_on]

Gravity neither pull or push. It's just a preferred direction. The proof for that is any 'free fall' and measuring the forces acting on the object locally. As Pete has explained, you can transform away all gravity there is, just by changing coordinate system. You standing on a tower will feel gravity acting on you, but falling from it there will be no gravity at all (ignoring tidal forces). Just think of yourself inside a black box free falling, how will you prove the existence of a gravity?
=

To be strict we should define it as 'geodesics' instead of 'free falls', but geodesics are much more non intuitive beings than a free fall to me. If we take a bullet shoot in deep space, then as long as it is accelerating it will not be in a geodesic as I think, but as soon as the acceleration stops the geodesic will come into existence, defining its further path. (although the barrel will constrict it, so we better consider it after leaving that:)

[Pincho (OP)]

Gravity neither pull or push. It's just a preferred direction. The proof for that is any 'free fall' and measuring the forces acting on the object locally. As Pete has explained, you can transform away all gravity there is, just by changing coordinate system. You standing on a tower will feel gravity acting on you, but falling from it there will be no gravity at all (ignoring tidal forces). Just think of yourself inside a black box free falling, how will you prove the existence of a gravity?
=

To be strict we should define it as 'geodesics' instead of 'free falls', but geodesics are much more non intuitive beings than a free fall to me. If we take a bullet shoot in deep space, then as long as it is accelerating it will not be in a geodesic as I think, but as soon as the acceleration stops the geodesic will come into existence, defining its further path. (although the barrel will constrict it, so we better consider it after leaving that:)

Well what is a free fall then. How does a particle propel itself along without propagation? What are the physics of the free fall? I don't like free fall, because it's a none physical situation like a pull is a none physical situation. I am reading Geodesics, that might take me a couple of weeks to turn into Quantum Physics. So I will leave my reply on that for awhile. It's good to think about these Geodesics. I haven't had new physics to work on for awhile.

[yor_on]

Wish I knew that one. But I think it's a very good question to wonder about. If you use planets and suns as your (inertial) coordinate systems, a 'free fall' is something 'in motion', also called 'relative motion', relative any of those, except if they are co moving in which case they are 'at rest' with each other. Uniform motion don't expend 'energy' as I know. Earth is one of those uniformly moving objects, or unmoving, depending on your choice of coordinate system. If you look at it from energy expended then no 'relatively moving' object expend any energy, which to me then becomes a definition of 'nothing happening'. That makes them unmoving if it wasn't for the fact that we can discern different uniform motions. So we have motion, uniform and accelerations, You can split both of those into different sets of 'motion' but it is when it comes to uniform motion it becomes really interesting, or confusing, to me. Because none velocity/speed will spend any energy in them? And that makes no sense to me? But it has to make sense, as it's experimentally true.

It would be so much simpler if there was just two things, uniform motions without speed/velocity changes measurable in it, and then accelerations. But as we have different sets of uniform motion there exist 'motion', and not only 'relative motion'. Although, if you isolate any two uniformly moving objects into a 'system', their motion versus each other indeed will be relative, you are free to define which ever as moving relative the other 'unmoving', and all degrees in between. The same goes for a whole universe as i think, but it doesn't change the fact that we can find different 'speeds/velocities' to uniform motion.

[yor_on]

There is one view though from where it make sense. And that is relativity, in there you always need to compare to define a 'energy' as I'm thinking. If we now assume that any 'energy' to be measurable need a comparison between 'frames of reference' then 'energy' is a expression of your comparison between frames. But then there is accelerations? And 'gravity', locally perceived through it. What frame of reference am I comparing that 'local gravity' too? And if we use black boxes to define what is correct experimentally, then that gravity is just as real as the absence of gravity in ones fall from that tower.
==

The point to it is that as different motion exist there should be difference's in energy to them, but locally that won't be measurable. Although, as soon as you set two such objects in motion against each other you will find that kinetic energy existing, in a collision depending on 'motion', not just 'relative' but very real and differing with what 'real motion' we find them to have relative each other. And that I presume to be explained through the stress energy tensor, although I still have to see where I should place the energy physically.

[Pincho (OP)]

There is one view though from where it make sense. And that is relativity, in there you always need to compare to define a 'energy' as I'm thinking. If we now assume that any 'energy' to be measurable need a comparison between 'frames of reference' then 'energy' is a expression of your comparison between frames. But then there is accelerations? And 'gravity', locally perceived through it. What frame of reference am I comparing that 'local gravity' too? And if we use black boxes to define what is correct experimentally, then that gravity is just as real as the absence of gravity in ones fall from that tower.
==

The point to it is that as different motion exist there should be difference's in energy to them, but locally that won't be measurable. Although, as soon as you set two such objects in motion against each other you will find that kinetic energy existing, in a collision depending on 'motion', not just 'relative' but very real and differing with what 'real motion' we find them to have relative each other. And that I presume to be explained through the stress energy tensor, although I still have to see where I should place the energy physically.

I suppose that the bending of space time is supposed to be the force. I think that the new results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer  might be interesting. I'm waiting for those results.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21495800

[yor_on]

Not sure, to exist you need it to be a relation to your system. As it is not measurable locally on either of the objects, and as we define the kinetic energy as the result of their motion relative each other, then motion is energy. And as we by measuring uniform motions also find them to differ between each other, calling it relative becomes something of a misnomer to me. Motion locally exist, but the 'energy' defined to it does not.

[yor_on]

Another disturbing fact is that using 'energy' to define costs for motion etc becomes quite strange in relativity. Assume you're near the speed of light, The universe you exist in will then have shrunk physically from your frame of existence. The force you expended getting to that velocity can in no way relate to a whole universe shrinking in the direction of your motion. (Meaning that if we treat it as 'forces', and 'energy expended, what would the energy needed be for compressing our known universe one light year?) And it will stay shrunk after you stopped accelerating too, and in a uniform motion you expend no energy at all.

But there must still be a relation between that velocity, and energy expended locally, and the universe you observe.

[Pincho (OP)]

Another disturbing fact is that using 'energy' to define costs for motion etc becomes quite strange in relativity. Assume you're near the speed of light, The universe you exist in will then have shrunk physically from your frame of existence. The force you expended getting to that velocity can in no way relate to a whole universe shrinking in the direction of your motion. (Meaning that if we treat it as 'forces', and 'energy expended, what would the energy needed be for compressing our known universe one light year?) And it will stay shrunk after you stopped accelerating too, and in a uniform motion you expend no energy at all.

But there must still be a relation between that velocity, and energy expended locally, and the universe you observe.

With a push force you always account for energy, because a scalar force can be a stationary push force. That's how I imagine the Universe gets moving from a stationary start. I always account for all energy forces when I am thinking of physics. That's why I wanted to know if I had a missing physics for pull forces. It seems to me that to swap push to pull you have to come up with some very strange ideas.

[yor_on]

Hmm.

I like relativity myself, although I doubt I understand it all, what I think I get still makes a lot of sense to me. And it turns a lot of old definitions & expressions upside down, well sort of We made the science we have from using a inertial point (Earth) and then define what forces we saw acting. That's from where push and pull comes too as I see it. And physics is more about vectors and magnitudes than that, as I read it. But wondering about 'flows' in non linear systems, and what makes them may be fruitful, that's what chaos mathematics is about.

[Pincho (OP)]

Hmm.

I like relativity myself, although I doubt I understand it all, what I think I get still makes a lot of sense to me. And it turns a lot of old definitions & expressions upside down, well sort of We made the science we have from using a inertial point (Earth) and then define what forces we saw acting. That's from where push and pull comes too as I see it. And physics is more about vectors and magnitudes than that, as I read it. But wondering about 'flows' in non linear systems, and what makes them may be fruitful, that's what chaos mathematics is about.

But you have never seen a pull force. You can't see any pull forces. The pull forces are all invisible. That's why I asked about them. If you pull anything you have to have a force behind atoms, which is a push force. Only Einstein, and Newton ever invented invisible pull forces. I would never invent a force when I could use a push force which are all visible to see. I'm very surprised that scientists believe in pull forces. They always say "Use observation." But don't follow their own rules.

[Pmb]

Why potential energy of spring has mass, but gravitational potential energy has no mass?

Gravitational energy does have mass. Who said it doesn't? It's for that reason that Einstein's Field Equations are nonlinear.

It's also for this reason that it is sometimes said that "gravity gravitates."

[simplified]

Why potential energy of spring has mass, but gravitational potential energy has no mass?

Gravitational energy does have mass. Who said it doesn't? It's for that reason that Einstein's Field Equations are nonlinear.

It's also for this reason that it is sometimes said that "gravity gravitates."

Let's consider weight on spring.Counteracting forces are equal.If you think that energy of the spring creates gravitational field then you have left nothing for the weight and its force.

[Pmb]

Why potential energy of spring has mass, but gravitational potential energy has no mass?

Gravitational energy does have mass. Who said it doesn't? It's for that reason that Einstein's Field Equations are nonlinear.

It's also for this reason that it is sometimes said that "gravity gravitates."

Let's consider weight on spring.Counteracting forces are equal.If you think that energy of the spring creates gravitational field then you have left nothing for the weight and its force.

I don't understand your reasoning. It's a fact that a compressed spring has more mass than when the spring is not compressed and as such it weighs more. The energy in the spring also creates a gravitational field. So what do you mean "you have left nothing for the weight and its force" That has no meaning for me.

[simplified]

Why potential energy of spring has mass, but gravitational potential energy has no mass?

Gravitational energy does have mass. Who said it doesn't? It's for that reason that Einstein's Field Equations are nonlinear.

It's also for this reason that it is sometimes said that "gravity gravitates."

Let's consider weight on spring.Counteracting forces are equal.If you think that energy of the spring creates gravitational field then you have left nothing for the weight and its force.

I don't understand your reasoning. It's a fact that a compressed spring has more mass than when the spring is not compressed and as such it weighs more. The energy in the spring also creates a gravitational field. So what do you mean "you have left nothing for the weight and its force" That has no meaning for me.

Does weight have gravitational energy?

[Pincho (OP)]

The spring mass is interesting to this thread. A push force is allowed to flow into the spring as energy, and sort of fill up the electrons faster, and therefore add mass. That is different to the current description of energy to mass. So here again seems to be another change in a theory based on a pull force physical interaction, compared with a flow force physical interaction. Both have a mass increase, but again the flow force seems much simpler to understand.

[Pmb]

The spring mass is interesting to this thread. A push force is allowed to flow into the spring as energy, and sort of fill up the electrons faster, and therefore add mass. That is different to the current description of energy to mass.

I quite disagree with you on this point. The spring system's mass increases as its energy increases. There are no if ands or buts about it.

So here again seems to be another change in a theory based on a pull force physical interaction, compared with a flow force physical interaction. Both have a mass increase, but again the flow force seems much simpler to understand.

I quite disagree with you here too. I can't even make out what you're tring to say. What exactly is yoru argument and why?

[Pincho (OP)]

If energy is flow like a whirlpool, the faster the flow the more water is thrown to the outside of  the whirlpool as the hole opens a bit (negatively with gravity, so it fills up more with gravity), so the more mass can be contained in the whirlpool. So gravity would be the flow force, and the electron would be the hole. It's very simple compared with the current version.

[JP]

Moderator note:

Pincho, as I asked you previously, please keep your new theories to the New Theories section of the forum.  If you continue to promote your ideas of pull/push/flow/etc. forces in this thread, the moderators will move them to New Theories.