[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Here's a video I made to help explain my theory I posted before:

[jerrygg38]

Here's a video I made to help explain my theory I posted before:


1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYXXinW_w7w

Wouldn't it be better if you gave us a brief description of your theory to get people interested in your video. I for one would not want to both looking at a video before I had some idea what it was about.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Hi Jerry, here's the text to the video in case anyone is interested:


A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time
Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in
The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark
A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet
When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge
This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field
The quark is continuously pulled in as the lavers of space time are denser the closer to the planet

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If you'll notice in the drawing in the video, the space-time of the gravity field around the planet and the quark can be looked at as a 2 dimensional perspective drawing of the ball on a large sheet experiment that causes other objects placed on the sheet to slide towards the ball as well as a 3 dimensional representation of the idea of space-time becoming denser when acted on by the planet or the quark, both ideas look the same when you draw them on paper.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

does this proves that the description is how gravity works and what quarks are made of?

[Colin2B]

does this proves that the description is how gravity works and what quarks are made of?

No, what you are offering is only conjecture not a proof.
You need to devise and carry out a series of experiments that would demonstrate that your ideas are correct.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

this is significant also in solving why two objects of different mass fall to earth at the same speed

[nilak]

Your video seems to show what a quark is. You still keep the GR concept of gravity as curved spacetime. However, your quark looks weird. In GR, energy (therefore matter and light) curves spacetime. Your model shows a spacetime curvature that exists without any cause, but I don't think it is impossible, in principle, but quarks have other features that show they shouldn't be just free space, like mass, charge and 1/2 spin.

I have posted a brief description of some features of gravity that I think are very important, but these should be discussed on a separate thread.
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/A-hypothesis-on-how-gravity-works

You've shown your hypothesis on how a planet generates gravity and it is true that most of the constituents of a planet are quarks, but in fact most of the gravity generated by an atom comes from quarks energy not from quarks rest mass.

How do you think light generates gravity?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Your video seems to show what a quark is. You still keep the GR concept of gravity as curved spacetime. However, your quark looks weird. In GR, energy (therefore matter and light) curves spacetime. Your model shows a spacetime curvature that exists without any cause, but I don't think it is impossible, in principle, but quarks have other features that show they shouldn't be just free space, like mass, charge and 1/2 spin.

I have posted a brief description of some features of gravity that I think are very important, but these should be discussed on a separate thread.
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/A-hypothesis-on-how-gravity-works

You've shown your hypothesis on how a planet generates gravity and it is true that most of the constituents of a planet are quarks, but in fact most of the gravity generated by an atom comes from quarks energy not from quarks rest mass.

How do you think light generates gravity?

this is a post I made earlier that fully describes the theory https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67254.msg490170#msg490170

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Your video seems to show what a quark is. You still keep the GR concept of gravity as curved spacetime. However, your quark looks weird. In GR, energy (therefore matter and light) curves spacetime. Your model shows a spacetime curvature that exists without any cause, but I don't think it is impossible, in principle, but quarks have other features that show they shouldn't be just free space, like mass, charge and 1/2 spin.

I have posted a brief description of some features of gravity that I think are very important, but these should be discussed on a separate thread.
https://dwgtheory.quora.com/A-hypothesis-on-how-gravity-works

You've shown your hypothesis on how a planet generates gravity and it is true that most of the constituents of a planet are quarks, but in fact most of the gravity generated by an atom comes from quarks energy not from quarks rest mass.

How do you think light generates gravity?

I was earlier thinking the idea that the spin would create an area around the quark where space time was crushed by the super dense quark passing through it and it was this region of crushed space time that sort of radiated the squeezing effect of a gravity field.
As for the weight of electrons I believe that north and south magnetic poles prove there is a magnetic energy lining space time. the weight of an electron squeezing on this lining creates the effect of gravity and that light is a squeezing on the grid itself not a pressure on both space and time as electrons are before there mass is converted to light.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

The resilience from the squeezing of the outer layers of two objects gravity fields touching, is dependent on the mass of those two objects and hence which one has the more attractive force.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

I regret using the term quarks to describe the smallest particles of matter. Quackery.

[mad aetherist]

I regret using the term quarks to describe the smallest particles of matter. Quackery.

What word would u now use?

Anyhow u talk of density of spacetime.
Is density of ST a mainstream Einsteinian thing, or do u think that it is slightly heretical?

I have heard of the bending of ST.  I have heard of the fabric of ST. But can ST stretch?  Can ST compress?  Can ST shear?  Can ST distort? Can ST change density?
What do u think?
 
If we bend something it stretches on say top, & it compresses at bottom, & suffers a shearing in other directions. The density changes in some places, in some directions.  If we bend ST then i wonder whether we get a similar stretching compression shear etc, ie as for when we bend a something?

Or praps if we bend ST we get a change of shape but no stretching compression shear etc.
What do u think is the mainstream Einsteinian view or views?

I wonder whether a LIGO GW is made up of lots of changing bendings together with associated stretchings & bendings. Or whether a GW is made up of lots of stretchings & compressings with no bending.

If your quarks-particles are made of density of ST, then i think what we have is that density of ST tells ST how to bend, & the bending of ST tells ST how to densify.
Which do u think came first?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

I regret using the term quarks to describe the smallest particles of matter. Quackery.

What word would u now use?

Anyhow u talk of density of spacetime.
Is density of ST a mainstream Einsteinian thing, or do u thinkg that it is slightly heretical?

I have heard of the bending of ST.  I have heard of the fabric of ST. But can ST stretch?  Can ST compress?  Can ST shear?  Can ST distort? Can ST change density?
What do u think?
 
If we bend something it stretches on say top, & it compresses at bottom, & suffers a shearing in other directions. The density changes in some places, in some directions.  If we bend ST then i wonder whether we get a similar stretching compression shear etc, ie as for when we bend a something?

Or praps if we bend ST we get a change of shape but no stretching compression shear etc.
What do u think is the mainstream Einsteinian view or views?

I wonder whether a LIGO GW is made up of lots of changing bendings together with associated stretchings & bendings. Or whether a GW is made up of lots of stretchings & compressings with no bending.

If your quarks-particles are made of density of ST, then i think what we have is that density of ST tells ST how to bend, & the bending of ST tells ST how to densify.
Which do u think came first?

Nice to hear from you mad aetherist. I think the popular idea of space-time bending is a description of how light travels across a gravity field. The path of the light bends so they say that space-time is bent at that particular spot. I think if your going to talk diffraction its well understood that the path of something diffracting bends because it hits a something that is denser, in this case space itself is denser. I don't imagine space being bent any way though.

[mad aetherist]

Nice to hear from you mad aetherist. I think the popular idea of space-time bending is a description of how light travels across a gravity field. The path of the light bends so they say that space-time is bent at that particular spot. I think if your going to talk diffraction its well understood that the path of something diffracting bends because it hits a something that is denser, in this case space itself is denser. I don't imagine space being bent any way though.

My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent.  Same for objects i think.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent.  Same for objects i think.

How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand

[mad aetherist]

My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent.  Same for objects i think.

How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand.

And i dont understand SR & GR. I am not sure whether space can be bent, but Einsteinologists say that spacetime can be bent (by the nearness of mass).  The space in spacetime i think refers to the dimensional relativity measured radially to & from mass. The time in spacetime i think refers to the ticking relativity measured both radially &  tangentially.  Relativity means that u have to in some fashion apply Einstein's gamma to the dimension or to the ticking (which Einsteinologists call time) to contract the dimension or to contract the ticking (which they call dilating the time).  Relativity also means that u have to base gamma on the relative velocity (if a dimension) or the relative speed (if a ticking).

Einsteinologists allude to the bending of the fabric of spacetime, & say that that bending is real, & that it gives the illusion of gravity, & the illusion of a gravity force.  But u ask re whether bending of light passing throo a varying density of gas is a real bending.  A good question. I think that here there are four answers or four questions or four cases or something. We have..
(1) An object passing say Earth goes straight but we are tricked into seeing the illusion of bending.
(2) An photon passing say the Sun goes half straight, half its bending is real & half is an illusion.
(3) An photon passing throo a varying density of gas is bent & we see the bend & it aint an illusion.
(4) The truth, which is not Einsteinian (ie it does not involve SR or GR).

(3) is i think a Huygens thing.  Einstein used Huygens for a half of the bending in (2), but that half of (2) is the illusion half. So, Einstein in effect said that that same effect (Huygens) is in one case (3) not an illusion, & in another case (half of (2)) it is an illusion, go figure.

[Colin2B]

How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand

Space is flat. Spacetime can be curved (not bent).

[A-wal]

My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent.  Same for objects i think.

How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand

Gravitation is described as objects following straight paths through curved spacetime but this is a meaningless interpretation because the curvature of spacetime can only ever be measured (in principle) by the paths of the worldlines though it, so it's exactly the same as saying that objects follow curved paths through flat spacetime. It's not wrong to model it as straight paths through flat spacetime, it's just equivalent to curved paths through flat spacetime. Either way, mass curves worldlines towards it proportional to their distance.

A lot is made of general relativity not including a description of how mass is able to curve spacetime (curve worldlines) but nobody question how energy does the same thing. If it's not an issue for energy then it shouldn't be an issue for mass given we know there's an equivalence between the two.

[pasala]

Gravitation is described as objects following straight paths through curved spacetime but this is a meaningless interpretation because the curvature of spacetime can only ever be measured (in principle) by the paths of the worldlines though it, so it's exactly the same as saying that objects follow curved paths through flat spacetime. It's not wrong to model it as straight paths through flat spacetime, it's just equivalent to curved paths through flat spacetime. Either way, mass curves worldlines towards it proportional to their distance.

A lot is made of general relativity not including a description of how mass is able to curve spacetime (curve worldlines) but nobody question how energy does the same thing. If it's not an issue for energy then it shouldn't be an issue for mass given we know there's an equivalence between the two.

It is surprise to see how quarks influences spacetime.  If quarks are capable of developing gravity field, why they fail on some of the planets.