What exactly gravity is?

  • 104 Replies
  • 5194 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #50 on: 23/10/2016 13:57:56 »
Hello,

I do not question your attestments about gravity, and I agree with your explanation. I admit I do not quit understand everything but seems logical to follow the group.

 Although, what Jerrygg suggested about photon and possible configuration diverging from light to mass, and the opposite too, sort of make sense....

 I'm just trying to visualize, that if someone would be able to prove that not for logic.
  Not attesting, only considering, if photons are to have different configurations, and if photons most likely are construction of space, seems quite possible, if real, for photons being mass...
  Follow this, may be subjection: Space creates photons on itself on the presence of energy (light)
 Now you have a universe that has no matter and only light, there would be no significant mass, or in a better sense there wouldn't be presented, at thta point, references as stars and planets...
  Let's advance to where matter already does exist, for I do not know why it exists, or how it was formed..
  Now you have the exactly same universe, with the addition of a "not massive" object made of matter, lets suppose, following the concept even if incorrect, that the atoms that form the planet alone have no mass, only electromagnetic bounds, strong bounds, given to them by the particles...
 Probably the spinning of those very particles, given to them by C itself since the very beginning of their existence...
 What I have in mind is one could say that a brick for example, does not posses weight nor mass, only atomic structure, and that by "existing space within its atoms" it, the brick, seemed to have mass, when infarct there was only photonic mass, lets say, flowing trough the brick...
  Something like the atomic structure of the brick, its atoms, resonating with the empty space that is existing "now" within this atoms, given to them a special shape, and the configuration of those atoms, diverging from the ones on the environment, defining what that specific configuration of atoms is...
  I do not know how to put in words to explain once, and that is from my limited English.
 The question is, if there is only one source of mass? That mass being photonic mass, from space, and comprehending all that is, mass of any given object, mass of anything, dark matter...
  What I mean is, what if we are observing dark matter or theorizing it from the wrong point of view? If could be possible that space is there happening fine at C with the photons arranged for light, and than matter comes in, and "gives" a center, a point of reference to this photons, lockingg them within the atomic structure, by giving them configurations that diverges from C... I mean, a ray of light with photons moving at C, lets say that there was a structure (a wall) that could not stop the motion) but instead, something that is able to capture and hold it on place, still being at C, and this the source of the rotation of the other particles including the electron?

 I do understood what you explained about part of the mass licking trough space as the planet moves...
 But what if is the opposite? Matter being a combination of particles and atoms, and each one of those components, receiving "potential mass" from the photonic space surrounding them? So why do not say, that if was possible that space is giving "mass" to matter, by existing within the gathered atomic structure, why not, "photonic mass"...
 The question should be, couldn't be that dark matter, if they are correct only miss interpreted, is "mass of space" happening "freely" on space, due N factors, one of them as being the presence of numerous particles and atoms, like on a gas cloud or maybe even due the presence of too much "light" crossed between stars on a specific sector of space?
  IF possible, that all mass is given and provident from space by being constantly producing this second configuration for photons, couldn't be also the case that too much light, eventually and gradually starting to form particles, consequently atoms.. What I have in mind, is possible that all that dark matter, is "similar" to the first stages that are necessary to form particles, atoms and eventually matter?

 Thin about it, they are considering that is missing matter, because there would be missing mass right, so they come up with dark matter to compensate and it sort of match, they can only feel the gravitational effects it has...
 Well it occurred me, clean up an area of space, and now set the planet earth on the center, at distance one is observing the dilatation in function of its mass. Now disband the planet separating each particle from the other and distribute all those particles trough the entirely area, now...
 For a distant observer, particles wouldn't have quality of light enough to be visualized, although, the effect on gravity can be observed, correct? For the earth that was there, on the future, is already there, past, the only difference is that its mass is still disparced trough the whole region...

 I do not believe that, but I'm considering, what if the black holes are not the end of the chain of events? it's natural to us, our scale, to believe that our scale is absolute, that we have purpose, maybe even the last purpose... But with a universe this big, couldn't be the case that only "we" consider the black holes, (center of galaxies) as being the end of the line?
 There is so much thing we do not know, that I usually allow myself to wonder, if we are not looking at galaxies from the wrong perspective. If galaxies as we call and see, isn't but a coincidence, that we are live, seems to be perfect, but maybe we woke up in half of the way, maybe universe is not done yet, perhaps black hole, if on the right conditions can give birth to a star... Sounds weird but the truth is, "Galaxy" could very possible be as any other star formation we observe "a simple gathering of particles to form something else"...
 All this, can be happening in large scale, at the afterwards of a ordinary massive super nova expansion of a fraction of what we would consider to be minutes, and after billions of years for us, we wouldn't be able to know...

 it's just a lot of doubts, but what had never occurred me, is what Jerrygg mentioned, a possibilities, of the configuration of photon, diverging straight flat linear wave light, to spherical spiral sipping particle when "trapped" by atoms and particles (matter), photons(space) given it shape, composition, frequency and also mass...
 Is possible photons be linear wave light on space, and at the instant (constantly) they (space) interact with atomic structure they absorbed the spinning of this second configuration of photons (spherical like particles(Space spinning at C)presented on matter? And if so,could normal space (linear) when in interaction with this second configuration (indeed not from matter, but provided by ts existence on space). The rebouncing of both configurations "happening in free space" resulting in local gravity?
 Gravity existing because of the mass, mass existing because the existence of atoms, this mass promoting the gathering of those atoms towards a center, and eventually after the formation, all the mass be still present but most of it outside the object, like space resonating and responding to the planet like if it was a single atom? Producing its mass on the exterior(space), and this mass "constantly" happening around the planet as it moves trough space? Dark mass?

 If possible, once one have stars and matter that is spinning faster, is quite possible that they are moving so fast that the mass that should be happening more at the surroundings is being left behind as they move, this being the impression of dark matter and its effects? The relative mass of a moving object on space (minus) C(speed of light)?
 Can something, any object, left behind its mass as it moves around another?
 Or is dark matter, the proportional photonic mass of super massive objects, as in black holes?

 Or more precisely, is the mass truly on the atoms that form matter? Or any given amount of atoms is constantly subjected to a "proportional mass" due their existence in space-time?
Is possible add this two configurations light/mass for the photons, without violate "only the base" relativity?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #51 on: 23/10/2016 14:54:05 »
    Macro mass and micro mass are different things because the mass of the atom always remain the same. Micro mass has to be a organized system for macro mass to reliably follow relativity. There would not be a change in micro mass if there was no macro mass. Macro mass disturbs micro mass to create ripples (waves) for the spectral identity. Dilation of that micro mass (dark mass energy) energy to move the electrons of mass. We need to follow all of relativity in the mechanics of the universe.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #52 on: 23/10/2016 15:57:30 »
    Macro mass and micro mass are different things because the mass of the atom always remain the same. Micro mass has to be a organized system for macro mass to reliably follow relativity. There would not be a change in micro mass if there was no macro mass. Macro mass disturbs micro mass to create ripples (waves) for the spectral identity. Dilation of that micro mass (dark mass energy) energy to move the electrons of mass. We need to follow all of relativity in the mechanics of the universe.

 Following the possibilitie of the mass of an atom be provinient from space(photonic mass/potential mass), of two atoms would not interfere with the number of atoms presented, being that number 1 or 1 towusand of them, macro mass would be the result of the sum of individual potential mass of each atoms that is forming matter?
 I'm not suggesting this photonic configuration within atomic structure as being static, more like each space within the atoms being the whole universe, flowing trough the objects, constantly producing "where they exist" two different types of mass provident from the same source, space... 1 Kg of iron, should have the same mass in wherever given location, at least inside heliosphere, although, the weight of this mass can be increased by the dilatation of space where it exists, but, wouldn't be weight and mass two different things?
 What I'm asking is, the electrons keep one atoms to touch the other, there is always empty space among normal matter, other than that one have fusion, fusion may be forcing the atoms to combine and in the process strait much more energy from the photons(space within the atoms)..
 Isn't, even if not correct, imagine a system where the mass of any giving atom is given by it from space, making use of the construction we call as photons... One system where each atoms is built to be equal the other atom of the same kind, with particles and charges making sure that they nerver fuse one with the other, isn't that an organized system?

 You have a spherical rock, it does have space within its atoms, than you add a spherica layer, a cover of dust, and another of gases, another of liquid, it's irrelevant for matter, micro mass would still remain organized as long there is space within the atoms that formed the rock(potential mass), but should be truth that if one keeps increasing the number of layers, there would eventually start to occur a delay in C, there would take considerable time for space to flow from the exterior to the center of this layers(the rock in the example).
 Isn't possible that this gap on C, from outside in a planet for example, stared to reduce the micro mass, and consequently start to fuse the atoms one with the other by gradually, from inside out the planet, removing the space within the atomic structure on the inner layers of a planet, resulting in a conversion of atomic structure into energy...
 Al tough that energy would not be able to transfer itself very easily or escape the center, not from pressure or compression, but because its medium was the space within the atoms of the other layers, so I imagine that a planet is able to conserve heat energy because due the density of its layers, it cannot transfer the energy from the interior to the exterior, for there is a gap within it (a lack of space), without that all that energy should not be able to convert into mass, for mass would have being from interaction with space?

 I'm not assuming that relativity is wrong, there is no basis for that, I'm considering N possibilities for the high probabilities that relativity is "misinterpreted"...
 More precisely, and I can't proof or be sure neither, the photonic experiment of Einstein was miss interpreted ed, the wave/particle should be correct indeed, but something is suggesting that Light/mass should  also be of the same...
 For this above, I'm also considering what I already doing for a while, that "temperatures" are properties excursively of "space" within and outside matter, every temperature that is, ( and I do acknowledge that temperature is a feeling), I'm just picking the world temperature, to cover all sorts of (irradiation and transfer), being it radiation, heat, any sort of "transfer of energy" I'm comprehending on "temperature"...  As I human I agree that could is the absence of heat, but also I cannot even closely agree with that...
 If you have a sphere of "spinning" energy, pure energy, and you do not have much "Space" around of it, to transfer that very energy as heat properly, that very energy will remain conserved on the interior, gradually expanding itself as the sphere grows, or as the sphere receives more "proportional mass" as the field(heliosphere) that is containing the sphere is changing the "proportional mass"...
 Although I'm not sure if mass is from space neither, only that if it is, and electromagnetism(magnetosphere) can infarct control space within the field, is acceptable that the earth may be expanding when compared with the early earth, for the sun may be considerably smaller now than it was on the past. Assuming that is not the universe that is expanding but instead a smaller heliosphere, not only for our sun but for all stars we are observing... As the sphere reduces, the planets are submitted to an "bigger proportional mass", as this happens more energy is stored in the interior, expanding the planet...

 I'm wondering that the planet stays together and spherical from within, for energy is less dense than matter, or has lower mass at the very center... Earth would than be, a external layer of rock and molten rock around a center( a gap) of pure energy that is trapped there, unable to transfer for it was formed there, unable to transfer the energy for there is motion and basically no "space" within the atoms of the outer layers surrounding it...
 Drill a hole to the very center of earth, shoot a laser, strong volcanic activity, or even a wrong burn of elements at the center that may result in a strong shock wave that crack up to the surface... In resume not different from any sun, crack open a direct path from the exterior to the interior and depending on the conditions you'll have a collapse of the planet (waiting for reformation) or you'll have a nova, for all that trapped energy will find the meanings to immediately be transferred...

It's much of speculation, but it suggests an inner core that explains everything else, right bellow our feet.
 I tend to believe that wherever is "truly" happening there would solve or confirm any other possible question about the universe...

 For having no proof I'm still on your side with relativity, but we do have to pay attention, for all the work over relativity has "light and a photonic universe as its basis" with has proven to be most likely correct, although it's not completely closed to misinterpretations, that when corrected, would lead to the same relativity we do accept...
 If I decide that a car is a motorcycle, and keep that tough for one hundred years, to eventually discover that it wasn't a car, none of that changes everything I observed and experimented within at that period, the only significant change is that "I" not relativity that was incorrect, our understanding of it...
  For not having proof other than thoughts, I stick with your opinion and knowledge with relativity, although, I'll natural always question the reasons behind relativity, for the creator also did not knew neither...

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #53 on: 23/10/2016 18:32:38 »
Mr GOC
As said by you,
"Mass and energy are two separate systems working together to create relativity".

In GRT Mass and energy relevance is expressed as:
"The equivalence between mass and energy, as expressed by the formula E = mc2, is the most famous consequence of special relativity. In relativity, mass and energy are two different ways of describing one physical quantity. If a physical system has energy, it also has the corresponding mass, and vice versa. In particular, all properties of a body that are associated with energy, such as its temperature or the binding energy of systems such as nuclei or molecules, contribute to that body's mass, and hence act as sources of gravity".

This equivalence principle is impossible, except in gravitational field only.  Unless, otherwise outside energy supports and boosts energy it never equates mass.  It is true that mass and energy are two different physical quantities and enjoys unique qualities.  Mass is less dynamic and mostly static.  Where as energy is more dynamic. Each and every mass carry's certain amount of energy and it varies product to product.  This energy, stored inside mass gives dynamism and it start attracting electromagnetic waves in the open area.  However it is far limited and it mainly depends on the external source of energy. 

Here, on the earth where there is huge concentration of fundamental energy, whatever experiments we are doing is influenced by the gravity field.  Suppose we are sending light on a metal, here light itself is being influenced by the gravity.  In the absence of gravity, there is no scope for light at all.  Small amount of electrons  released by you has no capacity to create a light ray.  Small amount of energy released by us, creates pressure on the existing rays and a light ray is formed.  Further reflection against metal is being done by the gravity waves only.  For this gravity waves, metal is an important object only.  When light is forcussed, metal is excited and absorbs upto certain amount of energy and there after electrons start taking a different shift and already existing rays in the opposite direction are high lighted.

If we keep this in mind in our research, in my view quantum theory will take a different approach.

Yours
Psreddy   

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #54 on: 23/10/2016 18:45:00 »
Mr Alex,
Thank you, for the elaborate explanation. 

Well, i think your feelings are affected. 

Actually, whatever you have said is within the frame work of general relative only. 

Here, every thing presented by me is simply mine ideas only and they have no relevance to your
explanation to jerrygg.

Yours
Psreddy




*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #55 on: 23/10/2016 21:59:11 »
Mr. pasala,

  I do not believe mass has any energy. Energy is of space. c is of space and move electrons. This is the only way electrons and photons can be confounded to measure the same speed of light in every frame. We can not believe mass can move at c if relativity is correct. A photon can have no mass from the atom.

You cannot get a photon moving faster then the electron that produced it if fundamental energy is from mass.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #56 on: 23/10/2016 22:05:48 »
Mr Alex,
Thank you, for the elaborate explanation. 

Well, i think your feelings are affected. 

Actually, whatever you have said is within the frame work of general relative only. 

Here, every thing presented by me is simply mine ideas only and they have no relevance to your
explanation to jerrygg.

Yours
Psreddy

 Perhaps you're correct, yes you're correct, I have a big limitation for my perception, there is no way I can produce math for those toughs, although if I share the thoughts with other people that actually can figure out the math, maybe one of those can come up with something.
 No necessity to happen immediately, no need to quote as reference, can happen years from the moment they read or maybe the next half hour, at the other hand may not happen at all, could mean nothing...
 I do not know how to bridge toughs with formulas, I do understand what they mean, I just do not know how to focused on those letters for more than a few minutes. Al tough if one describable the equations as what they mean, the way most of the other members do, I can easily visualize it "happening" within my thoughts, and even when I'm able to visualize a different possibility, I lack the attention necessary to built the math, so the only option left is to share...
 I got a lot of general knowledge, never had the necessity to advance much further on a specific mater, although as days pass by one and another piece of technical information I "borrow" from each post, specialty in new theories topic, goes adding and increasing those glimpses, as much more, the better..
 My apparently necessity with alternative incoherent "magic" comes from the fact that to try to glimpse the logical visualization within my thoughts, I need to know as many possible information about what defnetly cannot be out here and a short explanation of why.
 I need as much incorrect information as possible, to get closer of what "could happen", otherwise I do not know that see, nor even how to compose it...

This is the main reason behind my apparently attestments and false claims, I can guarantee that I'm correcting and revising them as fast as I'm typing the words...
  For those, like you who actually understand the math behind those equations, the best way to do it is to ask on a proper manner, for you have the understanding, the tools for it...
 I'm a simple Worker, I do study a lot but using my free time and my own methodology, in fact I never come to finish the last half year on high school, not until I reached 25 years old, not using as a excuse but as for explanation of why my claims are not reality, are in fact question, it's the way I trained my mind to operate, constant meditation... I sort of feel envy when other people come up with complex formulas, for I do understand most of it, although I can never hope to built or correct any, reason why you'll not find a single commentary of my under any topic that involves complex equations...

 Just a few mounts here, thanks for the kindness of all of you, into answer and correct my misinterpretations, I can each day more easily understand what is not correct on the frame...
 As the gin-clear concept of The Box, the Box experiment itself within its meaning, the energy base of jerrybb, this member seems to have a great piratical knowledge of energy and particles he's an EE after all, he also does a lot of question which is very helpful, for each member question is one thing else on the frame, and also one thing less(impossible to be) to worry about, the commitment of GOC with relativity along with the concept of fundamental energy, his commitment is so great and he seems to only have problems with mainstream, so it's very helpful tho have someone "stood" within relativity, that is basically our only stick at the moment. Most of users with great knowledge tend to be impatient with ignorance, and even those who actually answer, seems to be able to do it only once at best, for specific reasons, as much as one, as myself, keeps coming up with different possibilities formed within my toughs, he dispose to correct it, and more explain why not...
You seems to work in the same way, although you're seems to sound too much open to new ideas, I did read your post more than once, as I do every day with all the others... Do not get me wrong, you add information as anyone else, but you do not fight back the claims I usually do, witch is much appreciated, although, for someone with my "actual" knowledge of universe, provide me the right answers I not as effective as correct my own mistakes...

  For an example, today I set a new solar panel at my roof, i sit there for almost an our, luckily I live on a German colony here in South Brazil so we have a lot of opportunities to do anything without concern with society, with is very helpful... So, I sit there for about an hour, observing the panel, changing the format of the ray of light was hitting it, "even considering what a ray is? Is correct to refer to it as "a" ray of light? and if so is correct to assume that light here is formed by many rays of light, or by a single ray of light? What's light? Electrons being released from one side of the cell to the other? Photons hitting the electrons? New electrons forming from nowhere? What about that nonsense of photonic mass and carrier, what if the "shape" photon does release the energy into the matter that for the cell and a electron is ejected for the energy contained on the carrier was transferred and assumed the place of the electron? What is an electron "in fact"? What of the surroundings of the cell if a carrier of light spinning at C transferred its energy, would the missing energy on the "shape" of the photon to disband back into the "aether"? Whould than the abrupt stop of the spinning C, cause dilatation of the space"ripples" where the carrier was disbanded? Perhaps heat(irradiation) is related to that? Isn't heat energy of space that different from an atom, or exactly for not have an atom available nor energy enough to join, could be heat energy of space without a point of reference? heat!? I know what it is, to the point sounds logical to refute this idea and search other possibilities! Could be heat the natural "temperature/state" of space when it is not at C? Nearby particles and atomic structure, due to their mass? Mass?
 In resume i mentally visualize the ray of light hitting the panel, even projecting myself to watch myself watching the panel in order to visualize how the ray, rays, or "light" have reached my eyes...

For this very reason fell free to comment on every single over explained explanation, I do it so to be able to better express a tough due my lack of mathematical representation. The reason and only expectation behind those explanations, is not to be correct, is both a gamble that someone else will read, and think about it, and harvest knowledge to my own visualization...

 As for your question, i cannot prove nor be sure, but I do frame that the answers, the missing piece, is right bellow our feet, it's not an obsession, everything I glimpse Saturn orbiting the sun, how and why Neptune exchange orbits, why there is gravity, anyway a sum of everything it almost 90% of the time, and its a lot of time, it always point me the center of those objected, and perhaps my subjection or not always tend to point back to the "photonic everything about it", all the rest has even if incorrect has being corrected since than for it can be visualized, I'm not focused on light, we know what it must be, I want to become able to complete an logical orbit around the sun, this without in half of the way earth do not fade, explode, desperate, stop, implode, become a sun, any many other possible outcomes...
 As much one explain why not something, anything, longer earths survive within my toughs...
 For this also considering if the very existence of planets, even if I'm alive because of it, is a good thing at all, is this what this "place" was meant to be, are galaxies a post graveyard of massive objects, or under the right conditions a super massive black hole is able to "become something else", for this also considering that it could also be causality that follows the rules, considering also for this that the physical laws we know could also be causality, left overs, all this happening at the afterwards of a super nova expansion of a older hyper massive sun, that exploded all those planets we now call stars, given the scale what seems to be billions of years to us, due our universal speed of light, could comprehend within hours on an past higher scale, is there past? Past?  What about that big time dimension he was wondering about? Parallel with physical?
See? there is no much left to me once I cannot express this with math, but words.

The logical answer is to spend most of my time here reading on silence, and I have to admit, here in my country we do not have any good source of updated information, not even close to the one, you guys make available here...

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #57 on: 23/10/2016 22:24:12 »
Mr. pasala,

  I do not believe mass has any energy. Energy is of space. c is of space and move electrons. This is the only way electrons and photons can be confounded to measure the same speed of light in every frame. We can not believe mass can move at c if relativity is correct. A photon can have no mass from the atom.

You cannot get a photon moving faster then the electron that produced it if fundamental energy is from mass.

 Let me ask you, all this you state falls in into the question:
 What if space seems to be empty and massless right because it is at C, what if the atom has not its energy from its own, what if the atom is formed(on space) by the interactions particles, by gathering together sort of, slowing down C...
 The proper question should be, consider for a minute that mass is from space, what are the chances of mass of any given object, dark mass, any mass, being "space when it is not at C" due the presence of atomic structure? Supposing that the electron is infact "borrowing" its energy from C(Photon) on some sort of cooperation, as the electron is constantly borrowing the spinning C, from the photon(space) and on this process, to be releasing space energy(trough the photon), in the same frame as the photon has it's acceleration borrowed by the electron, it goes out from the state of C, and this change on C, only within the presence of atomic structure, as the source of mass as we know?

 What if dark matter, is the effects of all the matter (including gas and particles) gathered on a certain open area, such particles would not posses quality of light to be visualized, could be that the presence of too much distributed particles, occasional to remove space from the state of C just on a specific area? And the difference between dark matter and the mass of any matter, as being only the possibility of being visualized in open space? I mean you can't look inside a piece of rock or any given object made of matter, how to know than that dark matter isn't mass(its effects)visually exposed?
« Last Edit: 24/10/2016 01:26:55 by Alex Siqueira »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #58 on: 24/10/2016 23:19:37 »
Mass is created in suns from fusion by a process similar to what you expressed as dark mass. Fission is the opposite process to change mass beck to dark mass energy.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #59 on: 30/10/2016 15:00:06 »
About time dilation:

It is true that Einstein proved in his General relativity that time is not a universal law of physics and it dilates from
place to place, it may be due to gravity or velocity.  He has taken two places, one point A on the top of a hill station and the other, point B low lying area.  He compared ticking of clocks at the both places and found variations. 

Here, time dilation is due to gravity.  On the high hill area where gravity is weak, ticking of clock is faster. Where as on the low lying area, where gravity force is high ticking is slow.  This is due to gravity effect on the clock. 

But, here we have to remember one important point that high hill area is not  free from gravity.  It is also reeling under gravity pressure only.  But when we move to low lying area, gravity pressure/force increases.  Due to this pressure/force, ticking of clock is slowed down. 

Let us presume that we are in a zero state of gravity.  Here, how clock works is an important point.  In zero gravity, everything is in free state.  Suppose if we are using atomic clock.  Here, basic function of atomic explosion is controlled by the gravity.   Electrons released due to atomic explosion, have no control over atomic clock. Here we have to remember one important point that without gravity force/pressure electrons never splits automatically.

In fact very functioning of the atomic clock depends on the gravity.  It is in the grip of gravity.  Existing energy rays in the open area, have already deeply penetrated into the clock.  When the electrons are freed, they joins the existing rays and pushes them in upward direction.  It is due to this force/pressure that clock is working. 

In low lying area, where there is high gravitational field, pressure/force on the clock is increased.  Energy rays in the open area are more potential when compared to the inside the clock.  So, naturally pressure/force towards clock is more when compared to pressure/force of electrons.  Here electrons have to gain more strength, when compared to outside pressure to come out and to move the clock. 

This is the reason why at the centre of earth, gravity is less when compared to poles. 

Einstein used this function simply to compare how time dilates from place to place.  If we understood, "what exactly gravity is", so many things will come out.

Yours
Psreddy

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #60 on: 31/10/2016 15:10:43 »
Quote
About time dilation:

It is true that Einstein proved in his General relativity that time is not a universal law of physics and it dilates from
place to place, it may be due to gravity or velocity.  He has taken two places, one point A on the top of a hill station and the other, point B low lying area.  He compared ticking of clocks at the both places and found variations.
True

Quote
Here, time dilation is due to gravity.  On the high hill area where gravity is weak, ticking of clock is faster. Where as on the low lying area, where gravity force is high ticking is slow.  This is due to gravity effect on the clock.
 
This is false. g=a in equivalence between SR and GR. Gravity is stronger on the hill not weaker. You are confusing increased dilation with gravity and that is just wrong. Many scientists view this the same as you do. In GR dilation is the greatest in the center of mass and reduces to the surface of mass. You would be weightless in the center of the earth no acceleration at all. More dilation of space energy the slower the tick rate. Clocks would tick the slowest in the center of the earth.

Here is the SR equivalence to show gravity is not due to acceleration. Acceleration of a space ship causes gravity and the increase in speed slows your clock. The clock remains slow with vector velocity. Now you decelerate and produce gravity. Your clock speeds up in gravity until you are at relative rest from the starting point.

So increased position in more dilation in GR reduces potential energy by reducing attraction. Dilation causes gravity. That is Einstein's curved space.

Quote
But, here we have to remember one important point that high hill area is not  free from gravity.  It is also reeling under gravity pressure only.  But when we move to low lying area, gravity pressure/force increases.  Due to this pressure/force, ticking of clock is slowed down. 

Once again backwards gravity attraction is lower in the valley and greater dilation of potential energy of space.

Quote
Let us presume that we are in a zero state of gravity.  Here, how clock works is an important point.  In zero gravity, everything is in free state.  Suppose if we are using atomic clock.  Here, basic function of atomic explosion is controlled by the gravity.   Electrons released due to atomic explosion, have no control over atomic clock. Here we have to remember one important point that without gravity force/pressure electrons never splits automatically


Fission creates its own temporary dilation of space.

Quote
In fact very functioning of the atomic clock depends on the gravity.  It is in the grip of gravity.  Existing energy rays in the open area, have already deeply penetrated into the clock.  When the electrons are freed, they joins the existing rays and pushes them in upward direction.  It is due to this force/pressure that clock is working.

Gravity starts with the very first atom and electron. The electron flows out into space and dilation decreases causing more resistance to the electron in the form of friction. This causes the electron to curve when the velocity reaches the resistance point where it returns to more dilated space. The electron returns to the proton. This pushes out another electron for the cycle to start again. More atoms increase the total dilation of space and cause an increase in the electron travel distance. The creation of light with the longer travel distance is the red shift.

Quote
In low lying area, where there is high gravitational field, pressure/force on the clock is increased.  Energy rays in the open area are more potential when compared to the inside the clock.  So, naturally pressure/force towards clock is more when compared to pressure/force of electrons.  Here electrons have to gain more strength, when compared to outside pressure to come out and to move the clock. 

This is the reason why at the centre of earth, gravity is less when compared to poles.

Gravity attraction is non existent in the center of the earth.


Quote
Einstein used this function simply to compare how time dilates from place to place.  If we understood, "what exactly gravity is", so many things will come out.

On this we agree

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #61 on: 31/10/2016 15:40:41 »
Gravitational lensing:

"Well, gravitational lens bends to the maximum light that passes closest to its center, and to a minimum light that travels furthest from its center. Gravitational lens has no single focal point, but a focal line. The term "lens" in the context of gravitational light deflection was first used by O.J. Lodge, who remarked that it is "not permissible to say that the solar gravitational field acts like a lens, for it has no focal length". If the (light) source, the massive lensing object, and the observer lie in a straight line, the original light source will appear as a ring around the massive lensing object.

Even before his breakthrough in the formulation of general relativity, Einstein realized that due to light deflection it was also possible that a mass could deflect light along two different paths causing the observer to see multiple images of a single source; this effect would make the mass act as a kind of gravitational lens.

Gravitational lenses act equally on all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, not just visible light. Weak lensing effects are being studied for the cosmic microwave background as well as galaxy surveys. Strong lenses have been observed in radio and x-ray regimes as well. If a strong lens produces multiple images, there will be a relative time delay between two paths: that is, in one image the lensed object will be observed before the other image".
 
If light is distorted near the gravitational field means, it may be due to attraction or force acting against it.  When a strong light ray passes earth, it will bend near earth and an arc in the shape of earth is formed.  When the light ray reaches near earth, it gets touch with the gravitational field and gets merged in it along the line and an arc is developed.  Since the light ray, near the earth is merged in gravitational field, light is boosted temporarily and arc is developed.

When the gravitational field affects strong light passing outside the earth, what about inside earth.  Earth is not free from gravity.  Why do not this gravity influences light.  If it is so means in what way and how it influences. 

It is true that gravity is influencing each and everything on this earth.  At present we are of the opinion that natural magnets emits light.  Actually natural magnets have got no capacity to emmit light and it is due to with the support of gravity only. 

In the case of electro magnetic circles also, we are of the opinion that they are self generated.  When electricity is supplied through copper or aluminum cable, a magnetic circle is formed around it.  How these circles are formed.  At present we are of the opinion that, due to obstruction in the passage electrons are moving out into the open area and it is forming as a circle. 

When strong gravity waves is influencing each and everything, why do not they influence these cables carrying electricity.  Strong electro magnetic circles around the cable is due to gravity only.  For the gravity waves, cables are also its objects only.  Electrons passing on the surface of the cable are influenced, looses control, joins the gravity waves and a circles is developed.

At present we are of the opinion, if we switch on a light it gives light.  But it is not at all correct.  We are sending small amount of electrons, but we are getting lot of light, and  it due to the support of gravity only.  This is the reason, why light varies from place to place. 

If strong energy beam is send into open area, a spectrum is developed.  This is also with the help of gravity only.

Light rays coming from sun and moon are not free from the influence of gravity.  After facing hydrosphere, strong light rays coming from sun are weakened.  When they enters earth gravity, gravity waves joins these weak rays and they are boosted.  This is the reason, at the centre of the earth where strong gravity waves are present, light is also more.  Where as at the poles, sun rays fails to get support from gravity waves, and light formation is weak.

Yours
Psreddy 



*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #62 on: 31/10/2016 16:36:24 »
Quote
"Well, gravitational lens bends to the maximum light that passes closest to its center, and to a minimum light that travels furthest from its center. Gravitational lens has no single focal point, but a focal line. The term "lens" in the context of gravitational light deflection was first used by O.J. Lodge, who remarked that it is "not permissible to say that the solar gravitational field acts like a lens, for it has no focal length". If the (light) source, the massive lensing object, and the observer lie in a straight line, the original light source will appear as a ring around the massive lensing object.

The reason for light bending around a massive body is dilation of energy like a onion ring. Light wants to follow the path of dilation it was on and that path curves around the body of mass. The focal point is in the center of mass where dilation is the greatest.

On to the real focal point in astronomy using galaxy lensing were the focal point is viewable with light, astronomers use one galaxy to magnify a galaxy behind. So the focal point of dilation is available under the correct circumstances.

Quote
Even before his breakthrough in the formulation of general relativity, Einstein realized that due to light deflection it was also possible that a mass could deflect light along two different paths causing the observer to see multiple images of a single source; this effect would make the mass act as a kind of gravitational lens

Yes but you need to understand the focal point is not visible so the image rotates around both sides due to the extreme bending of a body of mass.

Quote
When the gravitational field affects strong light passing outside the earth, what about inside earth.  Earth is not free from gravity.  Why do not this gravity influences light.  If it is so means in what way and how it influences.

Light created in dilation is red shifted and follows the curve of dilation which is indistinguishable from straight for us.

Quote
Gravitational lenses act equally on all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, not just visible light. Weak lensing effects are being studied for the cosmic microwave background as well as galaxy surveys. Strong lenses have been observed in radio and x-ray regimes as well. If a strong lens produces multiple images, there will be a relative time delay between two paths: that is, in one image the lensed object will be observed before the other image".

Yes energy of space carries all spectrum signals at c. Mass causes a resistance to c and c carries the propagation wave of that resistance at c.

Quote
When strong gravity waves is influencing each and everything, why do not they influence these cables carrying electricity.  Strong electro magnetic circles around the cable is due to gravity only.  For the gravity waves, cables are also its objects only.  Electrons passing on the surface of the cable are influenced, looses control, joins the gravity waves and a circles is developed.
There are Doppler waves in SR but gravity is dilation of space. While gravity is a gradient, it is not a wave. Doppler is just a propagation wave through space same as light.

Quote
At present we are of the opinion, if we switch on a light it gives light.  But it is not at all correct.  We are sending small amount of electrons, but we are getting lot of light, and  it due to the support of gravity only.  This is the reason, why light varies from place to place. 

Light as electron propagation violates Relativity.

Quote
If strong energy beam is send into open area, a spectrum is developed.  This is also with the help of gravity only.

While you cannot have mass without gravity that is not the cause of light.

Quote
Light rays coming from sun and moon are not free from the influence of gravity.  After facing hydrosphere, strong light rays coming from sun are weakened.  When they enters earth gravity, gravity waves joins these weak rays and they are boosted.  This is the reason, at the centre of the earth where strong gravity waves are present, light is also more.  Where as at the poles, sun rays fails to get support from gravity waves, and light formation is weak.

It appears you have trouble distinguishing reflection of light from creation of light. The center of the Earth has no gravity since g=a there is no attraction. Basically weightlessness due to maximum dilation of space energy. There is no potential attraction energy at that point.


*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #63 on: 31/10/2016 16:55:42 »
Mr GOC,
Thank you,
"Gravity attraction is non existent in the center of the earth".

Simple correction to your statement, if there is no gravity then the things will float.  At the centre of the earth, where dilation of energy is more, it pushes existing gravitational waves, resulting in weak gravity.  It is not due to centrifugal force but due to dilation of energy only.

For others also:
These are new ideas proposed me within the frame work of new gravity theory proposed by me.  Most of them completely deviates from GR and SR and they have no relevance at all.  If further research is taken up in this angle, most of them will be proved.

Yours
Psreddy

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #64 on: 31/10/2016 17:23:33 »
I am a firm believer in Relativity.

Quote
Simple correction to your statement, if there is no gravity then the things will float.

That is the consequence of no attraction to a lower energy state if you follow Relativity.

Quote
At the centre of the earth, where dilation of energy is more, it pushes existing gravitational waves, resulting in weak gravity.

Differences in dilation is gravity. In the center of dilation there is no gravity. There are no gravity waves in GR. There are Doppler waves in SR that would appear as gravity waves. GR is just a gradient attraction to the center of gravitational masses lowest energy potential. No attraction in the center. Your mass becomes the center of gravity afloat in space same as outer space but less energy more dilated than outer space.

Quote
It is not due to centrifugal force but due to dilation of energy only

Mass gravity creates a dilation curve like an onion of gradient dilation to the center of mass. Centrifugal force is the creation of mass curving through the straight lines of space energy. The space energy resistance to the curve of mass creates attraction of mass from the front to the back of the curved position wanting to go in a straight line of space. A curve is a resistance to space energy. There is no such thing as a circle in 3d space.

Quote
These are new ideas proposed me within the frame work of new gravity theory proposed by me.  Most of them completely deviates from GR and SR and they have no relevance at all.  If further research is taken up in this angle, most of them will be proved.

Since relativity has never failed to explain an observation it is the mechanics of Relativity that need an explanation not yet another relativity denier without a understanding of relativity.

*

Offline Alex Dullius Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 189
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #65 on: 31/10/2016 21:41:12 »
Mr GOC,
Thank you,
"Gravity attraction is non existent in the center of the earth".

Simple correction to your statement, if there is no gravity then the things will float.  At the centre of the earth, where dilation of energy is more, it pushes existing gravitational waves, resulting in weak gravity.  It is not due to centrifugal force but due to dilation of energy only.

For others also:
These are new ideas proposed me within the frame work of new gravity theory proposed by me.  Most of them completely deviates from GR and SR and they have no relevance at all.  If further research is taken up in this angle, most of them will be proved.

Yours
Psreddy

I'm not deep in relativity as GOC. But even so, my first insight was almost everything he described, I did not follow equations or math, its just logic, and by erroneous conclusions, I started by reaching the same weightless concept... I just not sure how the sun perform his influence over this weightless inner core...

 GOC is there any chance that the sun "somehow" due its dilatation and our existence within its horizontal plate, be converting this weightless state of almost zero gravity into acceleration?
 I also visualize a inner core that should be floating, and the rest of the planet along with it.
 My doubt is what's the role of the sun on all this system patterns we do observe? I mean, why?
 Ignoring life, why do we need suns, or are suns the only meaning of the universe and planets causality?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #66 on: 01/11/2016 02:40:11 »
   
Quote
GOC is there any chance that the sun "somehow" due its dilatation and our existence within its horizontal plate, be converting this weightless state of almost zero gravity into acceleration?

The only issue with dilation is the ratio where the dilation between the earth and the sun is the least. Of course the dilation of the sun extends to the end of the solar system And contributes to the total galaxy dilation lens. On the Earth scale within the Earth the dilation only affects mass on the earth for gravity. The dilation of the sun affects the earth scale body. Out in space away from a planet the suns dilation gradient is very slight for the size of a human so the attraction would be insignificant to that difference in scale. Earth's dilation while slightly affected by the gradient of the sun is similar to the moons affect on the ocean lifting the ocean six inches to produce the tides. The sun only moves the apparent center of gravity slightly towards the sun. The sun does not cause gravity on the Earth.

Quote
Ignoring life, why do we need suns, or are suns the only meaning of the universe and planets causality?

Hydrogen gas expelled from super nova's could be the seeds for new star formation. A star has a life cycle. It starts with hydrogen. Then fusion produces hydrogen from space energy. The fusion produces higher elements until either a red giant or super nova is produced and the life cycle ends. It depends on the mass of the sun when first produced. That determines its end.

Half of the stars in the galaxy are binary. I suspect a difference in star pair masses cause one to blow creating planets from the blown star. I find it difficult to attribute higher elements in planets during hydrogen star formation. Our sun wobbles through space like it used to have a companion. he Earth might be part of that companion. Pure speculation.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #67 on: 13/11/2016 17:42:33 »
Well, thank you mr.GOC

You are having excellent knowledge in GR and SR.  But i do not know why it is, my mind never accepted them and has taken a 'U' turn and a bad notion developed in my mind that if you steps into the shoes of GR and SR, then you will become a piece of a big cloth.  Actually i had not studied them perfectly.  But it is true, to wage a war you cannot do it with empty hands. 

Ok, let us discuss one simple and known incident.  Suppose if we threw an electric bulb, which contains vacuum, it break with big noise.  It is known reason that it is due to atmosphere pressure.  There is heavy pressure in the open area and it tries to occupy empty space of the electric bulb, where pressure is low. 

In another example to test the power of dark energy or vacuum, things are taken differently.  Let us take water in a bucket, close the bucket by another empty bucket.  Now remove air, in between 1st one and 2nd one.  Water in the bucket escalates.  Here we are taking the power of vacuum as reason for escalation of water. 

In the 1st instance, outside atmosphere pressure is taken as reason.  Where as in the 2nd instance it is the vacuum power  counted. In the second example atmosphere pressure is ignored completely. When air is removed, atmosphere pressure on the water is lost and it escalates.

Suppose if we take the electric bulb into space and break it, it makes no noise at all.  In the case of water also, if the same test is done in space, where outside pressure is low, there is no scope for any escalation of water.

Here we have to remember on important point that vacuum or dark energy has got no power/strength at all.  It gains strength due to the outside pressure only.
 
ABOUT BLACK HOLES:
According to General Relativity, heavier and denser objects like planets, stars, and galaxies produce a greater warp in space, in essence giving them a stronger gravitational pull. A black hole is a hole in the fabric of space-time, like a deep well into which matter and energy may fall but may never exit.

But, actually not much is known about Black holes, how they are formed, but existence is confirmed. 

In my view Black holes are also due to the reason of high and low pressure effects only.  When two neutron stars, existing nearby dilates huge amount of fundamental energy into the space, it start spreading to wide area.  These two forces, coming from different directions, tries to meet at any one place.  Here, dark energy and dark matter raises and it takes a well shape. This is the reason, how and why black holes are formed on Sun.

Ok, let us study some of the things happening on earth only.  During summer season, low pressure develops and start drawing matter and energy.  Slowly, after some time it neutralizes.  For that, cyclones are also due to this reason only. 

Actually we have to remember one important point that these low pressures are developing due to atmosphere pressure only. In fact atmosphere is not created by these low pressures, but they are created by the atmosphere.

Schwarzschild found that if you squeezed enough mass into a small enough volume, its gravity would become almost infinitely strong. It would warp the space around it so strongly that nothing could escape from it.  Here, we have to keep in mind that this is done on earth, where there is strong gravity.  When the mass is squeezed in a small volume, it start emitting fundamental energy into open area, due to gravity, a strong gravity field is developed.

So, we have to keep in mind that Black holes are not creators of this universe, but created due to the forces in the universe.  Due to the presence of strong fundamental energy, it exerts strong gravitational pull.  But its effect is limited up to certain specific area only.  Suppose if a cyclone is developed nearby England, its effect is up to England and another country adjacent to UK only.  For that, most of its effect is up to certain area only. 

Yours
Psreddy 



*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #68 on: 14/11/2016 14:36:15 »
Quote
You are having excellent knowledge in GR and SR.  But i do not know why it is, my mind never accepted them and has taken a 'U' turn and a bad notion developed in my mind that if you steps into the shoes of GR and SR, then you will become a piece of a big cloth.  Actually i had not studied them perfectly.  But it is true, to wage a war you cannot do it with empty hands. 

Ok, let us discuss one simple and known incident.  Suppose if we threw an electric bulb, which contains vacuum, it break with big noise.  It is known reason that it is due to atmosphere pressure.  There is heavy pressure in the open area and it tries to occupy empty space of the electric bulb, where pressure is low. 

In another example to test the power of dark energy or vacuum, things are taken differently.  Let us take water in a bucket, close the bucket by another empty bucket.  Now remove air, in between 1st one and 2nd one.  Water in the bucket escalates.  Here we are taking the power of vacuum as reason for escalation of water. 

In the 1st instance, outside atmosphere pressure is taken as reason.  Where as in the 2nd instance it is the vacuum power  counted. In the second example atmosphere pressure is ignored completely. When air is removed, atmosphere pressure on the water is lost and it escalates.

Suppose if we take the electric bulb into space and break it, it makes no noise at all.  In the case of water also, if the same test is done in space, where outside pressure is low, there is no scope for any escalation of water.

Here we have to remember on important point that vacuum or dark energy has got no power/strength at all.  It gains strength due to the outside pressure only.

I have an advantage to my way of thinking. To me Electrons do not move by themselves. That would be magic. So if they do not move by them selves than quantum mechanics moves them. The dimension of quantum mechanics is below the electron. It has to be a quantum spin state because vector motion would violate relativity as Einstein pointed out. I look at the universe as motion of time is from space and not mass because energy to move electrons have to come from space. The electron and photon are confounded in every frame to produce the same measurement of light in a vacuum. This can be shown using plane geometry of vector velocity. So what ever you want to call it time, dark energy or Spacetime all energy comes from space. Unless you believe in magic of course. Time measurement begins at planks distance of motion. Motion = time = energy. Macro mass energy is a conduit from space spin energy. The space spin pattern rotates electrons in vector motion. While this is my opinion it follows relativity and combines quantum mechanics with Relativity as mechanics and not just postulates.

The pressure of atmosphere and the attraction of gravity combine to create a sphere in liquids. Gravity being a dilation of space energy to the center of mass and mass attracted to the lower energy density of space.

Quote
According to General Relativity, heavier and denser objects like planets, stars, and galaxies produce a greater warp in space, in essence giving them a stronger gravitational pull. A black hole is a hole in the fabric of space-time, like a deep well into which matter and energy may fall but may never exit.

I view this slightly different. Photons bend around black holes never falling into black holes. Photons follow the curvature of space energy. There is no energy in black holes. Time = energy so there is no time in black holes. Density of a proton to electron is a marble to a football field. A black hole is a football field full of marbles for density. Curves space to the max. But it is still the inverse square of the distance.

Quote
But, actually not much is known about Black holes, how they are formed, but existence is confirmed. 

If you look at the universe through a hammer everything looks like a nail. If you look at the universe as atoms what would you expect?

Quote
In my view Black holes are also due to the reason of high and low pressure effects only.  When two neutron stars, existing nearby dilates huge amount of fundamental energy into the space, it start spreading to wide area.  These two forces, coming from different directions, tries to meet at any one place.  Here, dark energy and dark matter raises and it takes a well shape. This is the reason, how and why black holes are formed on Sun.

My view of course is changing energy density of space. Fusion is absorbing energy of space to create electrons, protons and neutrons. Mass comes from space but not as a BB. Suns fuel themselves while creating a life cycle of heaver elements from dark mass energy by compression.

Quote
Ok, let us study some of the things happening on earth only.  During summer season, low pressure develops and start drawing matter and energy.  Slowly, after some time it neutralizes.  For that, cyclones are also due to this reason only.

 There are two sides to energy. All energy comes from space would suggest macro energy comes from friction with micro quantum energy.

Quote
Schwarzschild found that if you squeezed enough mass into a small enough volume, its gravity would become almost infinitely strong. It would warp the space around it so strongly that nothing could escape from it.  Here, we have to keep in mind that this is done on earth, where there is strong gravity.  When the mass is squeezed in a small volume, it start emitting fundamental energy into open area, due to gravity, a strong gravity field is developed.

While I agree with the affects I do not agree mass emits fundamental energy and only changes energy density of space energy.

 
Quote
So, we have to keep in mind that Black holes are not creators of this universe, but created due to the forces in the universe.  Due to the presence of strong fundamental energy, it exerts strong gravitational pull.

To me of course it is the loss of fundamental density of energy causing gravity. Fundamental energy being c.






*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #69 on: 15/11/2016 17:01:59 »
Mr GOC
As said by you: 
"Mass gravity creates a dilation curve like an onion of gradient dilation to the center of mass. Centrifugal force is the creation of mass curving through the straight lines of space energy. The space energy resistance to the curve of mass creates attraction of mass from the front to the back of the curved position wanting to go in a straight line of space. A curve is a resistance to space energy".

It is wonder to see, when mass creates/develops gravity curve, what the space energy is doing.  Actually space energy is the least one. 

There is every need for us to discuss, how mass creates gravity curve.  Basically earth is not free from gravity. Total mass Micro to macro is being influenced by this gravity.  Our research/focus must start from zero gravity.  But Einstein started his research basing on the existing conditions.  Apple is already pushed and is not going to be pushed or may be pushed by the space energy.

Initially, Einstein ruled out attraction of mass as gravity.  He carried out number of researches and came to a conclusion that fundamental energy as the root cause of gravity.  But where is the source. Naturally he looked at space and linked it to space energy.  In fact, some of the important theories such as E=MC2 mislead him.   Actually he forgeted that this is being done in gravity field.   

It is true that:
"Physicists understand gravity in great detail and with great accuracy, but they suspect they’re missing something—something big enough to change or even unify our most comprehensive theories of the universe".

The above statement is 100% correct.  If the gravity problem is solved than it will answer so many unanswered questions.  If an atom bomb, 1 tonne is detonated so much energy is coming out, basing on this Einstein developed E=MC2.  This is possible due to gravity only.
 
Actually physicists tried to draw a straight line of research, but they have drawn a circle and where we are means, we are there only.

Yours
Psreddy.




*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #70 on: 16/11/2016 00:23:59 »
Quote
It is wonder to see, when mass creates/develops gravity curve, what the space energy is doing.

Gravity starts with the first atom. The electron moves away from the proton into less dilated space. The proton causes dilation of space. The distance is relative. A proton being a marble compared to a football field distance the electron travels. The energy density increase beyond the football field curves the electron back to the proton.

Quote
There is every need for us to discuss, how mass creates gravity curve.

Space energy c moves the electrons of mass. In moving electrons energy is conserved by dilation of the space energy. The energy per volume of space becomes less. Less dense fundamental energy. Expanding the mass relative to the increased electron distance traveled. This allows a different tick rate of your clock but remains relative to the distance the photon travels.

Quote
Basically earth is not free from gravity. Total mass Micro to macro is being influenced by this gravity.
Micro mass is that which becomes dilated. The dilation of space (curve) tells macro mass how to move.

Quote
Total mass Micro to macro is being influenced by this gravity.  Our research/focus must start from zero gravity.  But Einstein started his research basing on the existing conditions.  Apple is already pushed and is not going to be pushed or may be pushed by the space energy.

There is a gradient pull to the center of mass. The center of mass has the highest dilation. Mass is attracted to the more dilated space. Very simple.

Quote
Initially, Einstein ruled out attraction of mass as gravity.  He carried out number of researches and came to a conclusion that fundamental energy as the root cause of gravity.  But where is the source. Naturally he looked at space and linked it to space energy.  In fact, some of the important theories such as E=MC2 mislead him.

E=c of space. C x electron movement =CM. So c x CM=    E=MC^2

Quote
It is true that:
"Physicists understand gravity in great detail and with great accuracy, but they suspect they’re missing something—something big enough to change or even unify our most comprehensive theories of the universe".

Quantum mechanics move electrons and spin at c. Quantum mechanics is the cause of Relativity. Quantum mechanics is uniform through out the universe.

Quote
If an atom bomb, 1 tonne is detonated so much energy is coming out, basing on this Einstein developed E=MC2.  This is possible due to gravity only.

 I suspect this is incorrect because in space E=c.

Quote
Actually physicists tried to draw a straight line of research, but they have drawn a circle and where we are means, we are there only.

Yes science today is traveling in circles and will until it is understood that something moves the electrons. They do not move themselves.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #71 on: 26/11/2016 14:19:44 »
Mr. GOC,
I think we are moving away from the basic idea of "what exactly gravity is". 

Ok, let us first decide, what exactly gravity is, and then move to other things.

Gravitation is the attraction of two objects with mass.  Newton's inverse square law states:
"The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their  distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them".

Newton extended this principle as Universal law of gravitation, saying:
 "I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth"

It is true that any two similar masses attracts each other.  Inverse square law mainly describes the process by which it is happening.  Actually Newton generalised it and he did not specify the distance upto which this attraction works. Ok, let us assume that there are two masses, m1 and m2.  It is true that these two masses attracts each other.  But,  gravity start working only when two masses comes near to each other.   

They have named this attraction of masses as gravity.  But this attraction is least one. However it is playing key role in the existence and functioning of various things in the universe.  It is due to this force  that water molecules are keeping together,  we are able to get minerals at one place.  In fact this force is keeping the planet together. 

But its attraction is far limited.  As long as the apple is in the tree, this attractive force has no role to play.  When the apple touches earth than gravity start working. 

Newton's theory up to inverse square law  is 100%  correct.  But, universal law of gravitation  is not incorrect.  Actually Newton extended his inverse square law, as universal law of gravitation without any base.  If the Newton's universal law of gravitation is laid on a perfect foundation than there is no scope for Einstein's theory or other theories.  Einstein utilised this gap perfectly and carried out number of experiments, but he could not locate "Original source" and taken us to a different world and mesmarised scientific world with his writings.   

Einstein has taken a different approach:
As per GR:
"Gravity is not as a force but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy".

Einstein realised that attraction of masses is far limited and he did not accepted Universal law of gravitation.  He carried out number of experiments, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational red shift of light.  Soon, he realised that it is the energy momentum as the reason for gravity on earth.  But he could not find the source and moved to spacetime.

01  Gravitational time dilation:  Einstien carried out number of experiments on time dilation at different places.   He found, time dilating differently at different places.  While carrying out these experiments, he ignored that he is doing this in a gravity field and he is measuring variations in gravity only.  Well, Newton knew that gravity is already working and it is pulling the apple, but Einstein looked differently and has taken relativity as the cause. 

02  Gravitational lensing:  Through his experiments, Einstien proved that light bent near the gravity field.  But he forget that we are already in the gravity field and it is influencing each and everything including light.  Gravitational lensing is going on the earth continuously.

03  Dark energy:  While carrying out these experiments also they have forget that they are doing these experiments in a gravity field and it is influencing it.  It is true that 75% of the universe is covered by Dark energy, and if it is having that much strength means, it would have been different and the very existence of universe itself will be in question.  Actually water in the bucket is not influenced by the Dark energy, but water is relaxed, in the absence of pressure and raises and pressure inside water tries to occupy the gap.

As per General relativity curvature of the space time is decided by mass. In other words mass tells space time how to curve. Newton's law of gravitation clearly says gravitation is the attraction of two masses, which is known to us, and it is appearing before us.  Where as Einstein's curvature of space time is an imagination and its presence is not known.  For quite long time it is a mystery, whether space time is a curved one or horizontal. 

CURVATURE OF SPACE TIME:
Ok, now let us discuss, on the curvature of space time.

For me, quite long time, it is a basic doubt 'how mass decides curvature of space'.  It is true that Einstein's theories are not baseless, and must have been developed taking into certain practical implications.

Well, recently while giving a reply, Mr.GOC:
"Mass gravity creates a dilation curve like an onion of gradient dilation to the center of mass. Centrifugal force is the creation of mass curving through the straight lines of space energy. The space energy resistance to the curve of mass creates attraction of mass from the front to the back of the curved position wanting to go in a straight line of space. A curve is a resistance to space energy.

How mass dilates energy:
Actually, we know how much energy mass posses.  How this small amount of energy comes out and forms as a curve.  If the energy has to create a curve means, it must be freed from the atoms.  But energy remaining within atom, a curve is formed.

We have to remember one important point that we are already in the gravity field and therefore mass acts differently.  It is fully under the influence of gravity.  It is true that earth is dilating lot of energy into the open area and there is permanent "Energy Base" or potential energy on this earth.  Due to the climate, energy dilated by earth is not moving out.  Hydrosphere present in the space is acting against this "Energy base" and it is undergoing lot of stress.  Each ray of energy is undergoing lot of stress,  and in turn it is accelerating against mass.

In fact, earth is fully in the grip of energy base.  Earth is not rotating, but being made to rotate by the gravity waves. Earth rotation means, it is gravity waves, hydrosphere and everything.  Energy rays in the open area are not present loosely, they are present with lot of stress/force. It is influencing micro to macro mass.  In fact it is penetrating deep into the entropy of the mass.  However this concentration

varies according to mass, depending upon the entropy of the mass and photon structure of the mass.  Fundamental energy in the open area, due to force, penetrates, disturbs the internal energy of the mass, and when it exceeds internal capacity, a part of which comes out, and a curve in the shape of mass is developed.  This is the gravity of the mass.

Well, atoms of the atom bomb are not free from this gravity.  Due to the pressure, gravity waves are already deeply penetrated into the atoms and electromagnetic waves are already present in that area.  When an atom is detonated, energy dilates, pushes existing energy rays and these rays gets charged.  If another atom is split, some more energy rays gets charged  at that particular place.  It results in the boosting of  energy and other atoms start detonating automatically and this is chain reaction.

At the dawn of 20th century, lot of research was going, on the explosion of atom bomb.  Einstein was surprised to see, dilation of so much energy, when an atom is split.  It is true that originally an atom contains very small amount of energy and naturally, when it is detonated,  it has no capacity to make any wonders.  But release of huge energy, surprised scientists.  Actually it is big wonder to all the researchers at that time.  Einstein presumed that there are sub atoms within the atom and they are detonated later.  Basing on this, he proposed E=MC2. 
But this is incorrect.  Actually they have forget that they are doing this research in a gravity field and it is influencing everything. 

The best way to test it, explode a grenade in the open area, check the amount of energy released by it, and explode another grenade in deep caves where gravity is weak, and now check the difference.  Suppose if you explode same grenade on the moon, where climate is weak, you cannot get similar results.  For that if you explode, same grenade in space where energy exists in free state, results are weak and also it is not straight, but spreads to all sides equally. 

This is also the best test for the "What exactly gravity is" proposed by me.

What exactly gravity is:
In my view attraction of two masses may be  termed  as "Gravity".   But the pressure/force, being experienced by us on the earth is different one and this cannot be called as "Gravity".  We have named this pressure as  "Climate force". 

Basically, dilation of energy by the earth plays key role in the formation of climate.  Due to the pressure/force of this energy, water is taking 3 stages.  Hydrosphere, in turn never allows this fundamental energy to escape that much easily.  This resulted in the formation of "Energy Base" or stored energy or potential energy.  This "Energy base" is being strengthened by the energy coming from the Sun. 

Most of the energy dilated by earth is at the centre only.  This energy in turn moves to north and south poles.  There is continuous flow of energy towards north and south poles.

The energy base is in turn creating pressure/force on the things.  At present we are studying this pressure/force also as Gravity.  But this is not correct.   This pressure/force mainly depends on the climate of a planet.  This is the reason if we move in upward region, pressure/force goes on decreasing. 

Functioning of universe:
In my view, each universe is created/started functioning individually.  Local Big bangs are the starting point for the creation of universe. Suppose if the fundamental energy remains within atoms, planets may not be controlled.  Due to Big bang, all the planets started dilating huge energy into open area and it started spreading to wide area.  One of the planets, which is in gaseous form dilated most of the energy and it started spreading wide area, and taking control of other planets.  Here also, fundamental energy dilated by the planets, developed as a "energy base" and it remained permanently.       

There is every need for us to study gravity and climatic forces separately as such and they should not be mixed. 

Yours
Psreddy.




*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #72 on: 28/11/2016 14:08:42 »
Quote
It is true that any two similar masses attracts each other.  Inverse square law mainly describes the process by which it is happening.  Actually Newton generalised it and he did not specify the distance upto which this attraction works. Ok, let us assume that there are two masses, m1 and m2.  It is true that these two masses attracts each other.  But,  gravity start working only when two masses comes near to each other.

Distance to attraction is based on the dilation differences of space energy. The affect is the inverse square of the distance. Dilation is a gradient and the cause of gravity (Einstein's curved space). Your question becomes is there enough dilation gradient to move an object? We are attracted to the center of the Earth because of the dilation of energy is greatest in the center of the Earth. There is less energy per volume of space in the center. The suns dilation affects the Earth trying to pull it away from a straight line. The orbit is the equilibrium between gravity and centrifugal force.

Quote
Newton's theory up to inverse square law  is 100%  correct.  But, universal law of gravitation  is not incorrect.  Actually Newton extended his inverse square law, as universal law of gravitation without any base.
But there is a basis. Geometry of space. Look at everything that works on the inverse square law. Look at a ball, double the distance and the ball is one quarter the visual size. Double the diameter you get four times the mass. All spectral signals work that way including magnetism. The math of geometry follows the observations. 

Quote
Einstein realised that attraction of masses is far limited and he did not accepted Universal law of gravitation.  He carried out number of experiments, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational red shift of light.  Soon, he realised that it is the energy momentum as the reason for gravity on earth.  But he could not find the source and moved to spacetime.

Yes, spacetime is an indicator of the energy state when you use a clock. What do we measure with a clock? c as the energy state of your frame. Dilation of energy in GR is an increase in distance between energy accelerators of electron motion. Electrons, protons and neutrons are attracted to greater dilation of energy. Greater dilation causes less friction to spacetime for moving electrons. Mass creates dilation of space energy and mass is attracted to a greater dilation of space energy. Its extremely simple.

Quote
Gravitational lensing:  Through his experiments, Einstien proved that light bent near the gravity field.  But he forget that we are already in the gravity field and it is influencing each and everything including light.  Gravitational lensing is going on the earth continuously.
Lensing is the visual threshold of dilation of energy between mass spacetime mc and spacetime c E=mc^2. Mass is a conduit for spcetime energy by moving electrons.

Quote
Dark energy:  While carrying out these experiments also they have forget that they are doing these experiments in a gravity field and it is influencing it.  It is true that 75% of the universe is covered by Dark energy
I suspect 100% of the universe is covered by dark mass energy (spacetime). Time = Motion = Energy

Quote
As per General relativity curvature of the space time is decided by mass. In other words mass tells space time how to curve. Newton's law of gravitation clearly says gravitation is the attraction of two masses, which is known to us, and it is appearing before us.  Where as Einstein's curvature of space time is an imagination and its presence is not known.  For quite long time it is a mystery, whether space time is a curved one or horizontal. 
Energy being point to point would be horizontal and vertical. We know it is point to point because there is no perfect circle. Just points closer together to create space. Pie is our proof.

Quote
How mass dilates energy:
Actually, we know how much energy mass posses.  How this small amount of energy comes out and forms as a curve.  If the energy has to create a curve means, it must be freed from the atoms.  But energy remaining within atom, a curve is formed.
Two completely separate systems. Think of a black hole and the rest of the galaxy. Spacetime has order mass follows the dictates of that order. Spacetime is quantum mechanics that force mass into the motions we call physical laws.

Sorry got to go.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #73 on: 04/12/2016 15:23:02 »
Thank you GOC,

But i could not understand why "Sorry got to go".  Please give your opinion without any hesitation.  It appears that your feelings are hurt. 

Hereby, I would like to inform you that  i had no idea of critising Einstein, but presenting mine ideas only.

SOURCE OF GRAVITY:
When the apple fell on the ground, number of doubts came in the mind of Newton.  Why do not the apple stay in the tree itself, and what force caused it to came down to earth. He realised that there is certain force is working on the apple.  This idea itself is great and extra-ordinary.  But he could not found the source.  At that time he
was doing research on Inverse square law, so naturally he thought that the earth is a huge mass and it is attracting each and everything towards it.

To find out the source, Einstein carried out number of experiments.   Soon, he realised that it is the Energy momentum as responsible for gravity.  But where is the source.  For us, people on the earth sun is the main source of energy.  But, Sun energy is not raising radiation abnormally and it was ruled out as main source of
gravity.  So, Einstein looked at Space energy as responsible for Gravity.  But space energy is far limited.

Before attempting gravity, i had written number of theories but faced lot of criticism.   When i had started writing gravity, i could not get the source/medium by which it is happening and i had placed a full stop for several years.  Luckily, by virtue of blessing of god, one simple incident that happened in the early days came back to my mind.  It was a severe winter season,  Total area of the house is one compact and there are no barriers/separations.  Fire wood was used to cook food in the evening, and the charcoal continued to emit radiation upto 4 am.   This small amount of radiation, with the help of existing energy base in that area, was able to resist cool breeze up to certain area. 

It is true that Earth is not a burning firewood, but a burning charcoal only.  Earth is dilating small amount of energy into open area, and it is joining existing energy base and  is not allowing hydrosphere to occupy earth.    Hydrosphere carry's weight and it is creating pressure on Energy base and Energy base in turn accelerating
against objects.  "THIS IS THE SOURCE FOR GRAVITY". 

CLIMATE AND GRAVITY:
Suppose, if anybody ask you, why gravity is weak on moon, instantly you will reply that climate is weak.  If you threw an electrical bulb, it will break with big noise.  In this case we are saying that it is due to climate forces. These are not two different subjects and there is direct link in between these two.  Unless climate is developed
on any planet, there is no gravity at all. 

As long as the apple remains in the tree, it is fully in the grip of climate forces i.e, fundamental energy and when it comes down to earth gravity start working.   

Newton's Inverse square law is 100% correct, but without source, he simply extended this theory to Universal law  of Gravitation and thus knowingly or unknowingly he has drawn a big circle.  We are all moving in this circle.  Actually Einstein tried to came out of circle, but he could not found the source and this resulted as a setback
to his research.   

It is true that climate is exerting lot of force on the nature.  We all knew that without this force, water will not take 3 stages, and impossible to pump water from a borewell.  Here too, physicists have drawn a big circle in the name of "pressure of air" and left other things to gravity.

When i had attempted gravity, soon realised that it is the base for all other theories.  It is influencing each and everything, micro to macro mass on earth.  Whatever experiment you have done or going to do, we have to keep in mind that it is being influenced by the gravity.

Ok, i request the physicists, to break the silence, come out openly and start thinking in this angle, so that we can break this circles and draw a straight line of research.  I am sure it will pave the way for future research in big way.

Once again, Mr GOC, i had no idea of criticising anybody, please continue the discussion.

Yours
Psreddy

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #74 on: 04/12/2016 18:02:37 »

  You cannot hurt my feelings. "Got to go" I was late for work. I do not care whom you criticize or do not. I follow relativity, you can or cannot if you like but I use Relativity as a basis for quality of understanding. Spacetime in my estimation is the foundation energy to move electrons with angular motion as a vector. So discussing weather patterns is secondary and not the cause of gravity to my mind. Gr dilation is the attractive force to my mind. mass being attracted to the inverse square distance to the most dilated position (center of mass). This is Einstein's curved space.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #75 on: 18/12/2016 15:13:27 »
GRAVITATIONAL LENSING:
"A gravitational lens is a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant light source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source as the light travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity"

Although either Orest Khvolson or Frantisek Link  is sometimes credited as being the first to discuss the effect in print, the effect is more commonly associated with Einstein, who published a more famous article on the subject in 1936.

Unlike an optical lens, a gravitational lens bends to the maximum light that passes closest to its center, and to a minimum light that travels furthest from its center. Consequently, a gravitational lens has no single focal point, but a focal line. The term "lens" in the context of gravitational light deflection was first used by O.J. Lodge, who remarked that it is "not permissible to say that the solar gravitational field acts like a lens, for it has no focal length". If the light source, the massive lensing object, and the observer lie in a straight line, the original light source will appear as a ring around the massive lensing object.

The first observation of light deflection was performed by noting the change in position of stars as they passed near the Sun on the celestial sphere. The observations were performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington, Frank Watson Dyson, and their collaborators during a total solar eclipse.  The solar eclipse allowed the stars near
the Sun to be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa. The observations demonstrated that the light from stars passing close to the Sun was slightly bent, so that stars appeared slightly out of position.

It is true that we are in a strong gravity field.  At present most of our concentration is on "how light bent near strong gravity fields" such as stars.  When this strong gravity influences outside light moving near to it, what about light withing the gravity field. 

In the evening, when the lights were switched on in the streets,  so many things came to my mind.  When the light bulb is at 10 feet, how so much of light is coming to the ground.  It is true that capacity of light bulb is very weak and it is capable of spreading light upto small area only.  To my surprise, when observed most of the light
is coming to the ground.  Actually bulb was not fully bent towards the earth, but slightly bent. 

When taken, amount of light spread by the bulb,  in my view 60% is coming to the ground.  Actually the bulb is at the height of 10 feet, and the capacity of bulb is also weak, so naturally only 20%  has to come to the ground.  But there is a gap of 40%.  This is due to gravitational lensing only.

Suppose if there is no gravitational lensing, then we have to arrange bulb near to the ground and in straight lines. 

After coming into the house, i had observed deflection of light towards the ground.  Here too, tube light was at almost 9 feet height.  But most of the light is on the ground only.  Actually gravity is weak inside the house, but deflection is going on.

Lensing of light can be observed in the case of sun light also.  In the morning and evening there is deflection of light towards ground.  Actually, when earth and sun are in straight lines, most of the sun light is to move above the surface of the earth.  But it is not happening so.  Here, most of the light is also concentrated at the plain
areas where there is strong gravity field.

METHOD OF DEFLECTION:
Basically we have to keep in mind one important point that we are already  in the strong gravity field.  Gravity is not going to be created, or may be created and it is already working on us.   Due to strong climate, there is strong fundamental energy on this earth.  This fundamental energy is influenincg each and everything including
light.   Hydrosphere is exerting pressure/force on this fundamental energy and in turn it is accelerating against things on the earth. 

For this energy, light bulb is also an important object only.  When light start coming out of the bulb, strong energy rays moving towards earth influences and takes them to ground. 

Gravitational lensing when studied on the stars, it is extra-ordinary and something interesting.  But gravitational lensing is not new and is happening on the earth continuously.

Friends, this is big circle, please break the circle and pave the way  for a straight line of  research.

Yours

Psreddy


*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #76 on: 25/12/2016 15:33:41 »
Friends this is not for criticizing anybody but for discussion purpose only.

Well, this thing happened at early school days.  Actually, the teacher, to explain the lesson in a better way, performed a simple experiment.  He lighted a candle, closed it by a glass.  When the fire was put off, he started explaining how things need oxygen to burn.  This is the simple and best experiment to show how things need oxygen to burn.  When the teacher left the class, out of interest i had started reading and understanding the lesson.  Right from starting, i am not having the habit of reading lessons seriously for the sake of exams.  I take lessons casually and go by concept only.  This type of approach badly affected my studies and turned out as an  average student and for the sake of livelihood i had to adjust with a commerce graduation and finally a clerk in a Bank.   But i did not left this habit of casual reading and understanding  gist.   I had started presenting my own ideas/theories and got lot of criticism.  Fearing criticism, i left everything and kept quiet for several years.  one of my friend who read all the theories written by me, surprised and commented that these are not ordinary and "move setters".   In fact it gave lot of confidence to me. 

After the class,  i went home and  read the lesson again and again and finally came to a conclusion that it is not the oxygen but other forces are helping the fire and the glass is coming in between them.  In my view, oxygen may burn, but it does not mean or matter that oxygen aids burning of things. 

At present we take fire as a chemical action, combustion of material when exposed to source of heat.  Once ignited, a chain reaction must take place whereby fire can sustain its own heat by the further release of heat energy in the process of combustion.

When i started writing Gravity, clarity came over fire also.  What ever i had thought at the school days is 100% correct.  It is the gravity waves that are turning out as flames.  We have already discussed that there is stock of potential energy on this earth.  This energy due to the weight of hydrosphere, is penetrating deep into the  things.  For this waves, match stick is also an important object only.  When we use force to rub the stick against box, a layer containing atoms are destroyed and energy within them is freed.  Due to pressure/force, outside energy tries to occupy the gap and freed energy joins them.  This results in boosting of energy concentration at a particular place.  Since energy is moving towards earth, concentration is high at the starting and goes on decreasing. 

However it mainly depends on two important points:
01  Stock of energy present in the outside and
02  Energy dilated by the material due to destruction.

Here, influence of gravity is indispensable and fire changes accordingly.  Suppose in a plain area, where gravity is strong, fire is also strong and it generates more heat and light.  If we move to high hill areas, where gravity is weak, fire is also weak.  To get equal light and heat, we have to use more material than what we have used in a plain area. 

Fire mainly depends on two things, internal energy of the material and presence of outside energy.  In a summer season outside energy is so strong that even simple change can cause fire and it is very difficult to put off. 

At present we are taking gravity,  as helping  fire, but we have to remember that gravity is the basic thing behind fire and not a agent supporting fire.

We are studying fire, explosions as different subjects,  but they are one and the same.  For all these activities gravity is base. 

01  If the material releases internal energy slow and study, than it is fire
02  and if the material releases internal energy suddenly and withing short time than it is explosion.

Both of them depends on the outside energy and varies according to gravity.  Gravity is having roots in number of other theories also.  Basically we are not in a position to decide "what exactly gravity is".   Newton could realise that a force is working on the apple, but he could not tell what type of force and how it is working. 
He simply extended his inverse square law, as universal law of gravitation, thereby leaving sufficient gap.

Where as Einstein has taken  "gravity not as a force but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in lower (stronger) gravitational potential".   

But Einstein also failed to explain "source" or medium by which it is happening.  Well, time dilation is simply a instrument to test the variations in gravity.  Suppose in plain areas, where strong gravity field exists, time dilates slowly and on all high hill areas, where weak gravity is present, time dilates at a faster rate.  This simply says that there is variations in gravity at different places on the earth.  But this never explains, how original gravity is created or working on this earth.

Here again Einstein equated mass and energy.  Actually mass never equates energy.  Huge amount of energy dilated by mass is due to outside energy only.

Suppose let us assume that there are subatomic particles in an atom than it has to dilate equal or similar amount of energy at all places.  But it is not happening so.  If you detonate an atom bomb on high gravity area, heat and energy released by it may not equate with the heat and light that of detonated in low gravity place. 

For comparison, there is no need to go atom bomb, take low explosive material and compare it. 

European institute is investing huge amount on the project "CERN" to find out fundamental constituents of matter.  Basic and main idea is how an atom dilates so much energy.  Here i would like to place simple suggestion to scientists working at "CERN", once again i would like to tell that it is suggestion only, why explosions varies from place to place according to gravity.  Suppose if you detonate an atom bomb on moon, where gravity is weak, you may not get similar results.  Any explosions mainly depends on the outside potential energy.  In my view, in this situation, scientists may not get far exceeding results, unless and otherwise if any thing, not expected is invented.

Yours
Psreddy
« Last Edit: 25/12/2016 17:32:28 by pasala »

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #77 on: 26/12/2016 17:56:15 »
Quote
If we move to high hill areas, where gravity is weak,

If we follow relativity the closer we get to the center of the Earth the less gravity we feel. So a high hill would feel the attraction more not less. Pressure becomes less in higher mountains but gravity attraction becomes greater. Just the opposite of what you are suggesting. There is no gravity in the gravitational center of the Earth. In the form of attraction. There you would be weightless.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #78 on: 09/01/2017 03:08:51 »
Well, GOC
As per General relativity  it is true that if we move to the centre of the earth, gravity comes down and if we move to the poles gravity increases and the same is proved scientifically.  But the way and method by which it is happening is different and is not as assumed by our predecessors.  They have carried out number of practical experiments which in fact mislead them and taken to a wrong direction. 

For example, we have already discussed about force/strength of Dark energy.  Actually Dark energy has got no capacity to accelerate upon other forces and to create pressure. It is due to the force or pressure of outside energy that dark energy gains strength, which we have already discussed at length.

They simply forgot that they are already in the gravitational field and it is influencing each and everything.  When we are doing any experiment on Atom means, we must keep in mind that it is also undergoing influence of gravity.  Simply thinking that if an atom is split, huge energy is generated, misleads us.  Actually an Atom contains very, very small amount of energy and when detonated, it has to dilate "similar physical quantity" only.  We have to take different options and study them.  But we are not changing our mind set, simply concentrating on Atom, and we are feeling that Atom contains sub-atoms and they are detonated later.  Well, i am not against study of atom.  I am sure that there is every need for further research.  But research is different from fact.  The fact is that there is huge gravity force working on each and everything including atom which we cannot deny it.  While studying/carrying out research we cannot omit  this fact.     

Ok, about gravity variations on Earth:
As said by you:
"If we follow relativity the closer we get to the center of the Earth the less gravity we feel. So a high hill would feel the attraction more not less. Pressure becomes less in higher mountains but gravity attraction becomes greater. Just the opposite of what you are suggesting. There is no gravity in the gravitational center of the Earth. In the form of attraction. There you would be weightless".

At present we are of the opinion:
The Earth is not a perfect sphere, but is slightly flatter at the poles while bulging at the Equator: an oblate spheroid.  A perfect sphere of uniform density, or whose density varies solely with distance from the centre, would produce a gravitational field of uniform magnitude at all points on its surface, always pointing directly towards the sphere's centre. . There are consequently slight deviations in both the magnitude and direction of gravity across its surface.

If we take Inverse square law, gravity must be high at the centre of the Earth and must decrease as we move towards poles.  But it is not happening so, the reason is Earth is rotating.  It is true that Earth is a huge mass.  It is not simply standing at a particular place.  There is a huge force, which is keeping Earth at a particular place.  Do Earth is rotating against this force.  No, in fact Earth has got no  capacity to move. 

Suppose let us assume that Earth is rotating against this force, then what happens, nothing will remain on the surface of the Earth.  We must keep one important point that Earth is not rotating, but being made to rotate by the gravity waves.  There is lot of different between "to rotate" and "being made to rotate".   If we forget this difference than everything goes waste.   Ok, let us assume that we are traveling by Bus and the same is compared to Earth.  Here, Bus is moving against gravity waves.  There is a force/pressure of gravity against Bus.  Where as in the case of Earth, which is huge in size, is being thrown to weightless state by the gravity waves.  Here, in the case of Bus, gravity waves are working against it and it is moving with lot of force. 

Gravity waves are  holding the Earth perfectly from all sides.  Earth is not rotating, but being made to rotate by this Gravity waves.  When Earth rotates, it is not Earth alone, but Gravity waves, and the hydrosphere seated against it. 

We have already discussed that there is huge "Energy base" on this Earth.  This Energy base, due to the weight of the hydrosphere is accelerating against things on the Earth.  It is true and known fact that most of this "Energy base" is contributed by the Earth only.  Since Earth is cooling from sides, most of the energy is dilated at the centre only.  Energy is having important quality of  moving from high to low area and there is continuous flow from the centre of the Earth to poles.  At the centre, energy dilated by the Earth is pushing the gravity waves and it is resulting in weak gravity.  Where as if we move to poles, as there is no ant-igravity waves, only standard gravity persists. 

Gravity at any place mainly depends on the distance between surface area and hydrosphere.  In all plain areas, the gap between earth and hydrosphere increases, and gravity waves have to bear more weight and resulting in high gravity.  Where as on the high hills, the gap decreases and gravity waves have to bear less weight, resulting in less gravity.  This is the main reason, why gravity goes on decreasing, if we move in upward direction.  This gap between hydrosphere and Earth increases in summer and comes down in winter. 

 Yours
Psreddy






*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #79 on: 09/01/2017 13:21:43 »
What exactly gravity is ?
I have concluded in my paper that everything is electromagnetic.
The field vector E and H indicate the arrow of time. Energy is always conserved during constructive or destructive interference because if the E field cancels due to interference then the H field doubles its amplitude. 
This enables a perfect energy conservation mechanism. The electromagnetic medium seems like pretensioned to enable propagation at c.
The medium is homogeneous otherwise we would see the relativistic effects.

Because the energy conservation mechanism looks very clear, I consider that adding a third field as gravity, could destroy this ballance, hence gravity is a interaction between field values in the medium that creates the appearance of a force. Also magnetic and electric pure forces are also aparent and  not forces. The concepts of force an inertia are defined  by newtonian mechanics that assumes object in space are bodies that travel through empty space. The reality is quite different as everything in the universe propagates.

http://vixra.org/abs/1612.0239

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #80 on: 10/01/2017 13:48:54 »
What exactly gravity is ?
I have concluded in my paper that everything is electromagnetic.

Electromagnetic is a name. What is electromagnetic?

pasala

I generally only speak in relativity terms as a physical process of which your understanding is not a relativistic understanding as I understand. Pressure is caused by gravity but gravity is not caused by pressure. I would hope you are guided by logic of examples. I will try one more time.

Consider there is a hollow tube through the earth that a sealed ball with you in it could come to rest. With air in the shaft you would come to rest in the center after oscillations caused by entropy. The center of gravity (middle) is where you would rest weightless. It is also the highest pressure of air. So this leaves us with does the pressure cause your position? Now lets seal the tube with the sealed ball and create a vacuum through the tube. You would still end up in the gravitational center weightless. This logically suggests that pressure of mass does not cause gravity.

Every time someone suggests relativity is incorrect I have found their understanding of relativity to be incorrect.

Its most difficult to find yourself in a position of understanding and find it to be incorrect. Consider main stream being incorrect. To change the mind of  the scientific community would be the same as trying to convince the Pope there is no God. I would suggest you study relativity with the understanding it is correct although the subjective opinions of other than Einstein is just an opinion. Light measured to be the same in all frames and c as a constant. Follow the math but not the interpretations of the math given by main stream. Especially the reason for contraction and time dilation. They lead you down an impossible path with paradoxes.

As a realest there is only one paradox. If it takes something to create something where did the first something come from?

*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #81 on: 10/01/2017 15:20:43 »
The universe doesn't care about what the mainstream thinks.
I may be wrong, but these are my conclusions at the moment.
I admire Einstein and his work including Relativity, but unfortunately my conclusion is, Relativity doesn't quite tell the right story. However, it is a huge step forward from newtonian mechanics and  it passed numerous tests.
I'm sure Einstein wouldn't have ignored the results of these new experiments.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #82 on: 11/01/2017 11:57:26 »
You need to understand electromagnetics before you interpret your understanding of photons. Neither are physically understood.

*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #83 on: 11/01/2017 12:42:55 »
You need to understand electromagnetics before you interpret your understanding of photons. Neither are physically understood.
Yes, I'm currently looking at possible issues with Maxwell equations.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #84 on: 15/01/2017 15:41:25 »
Friends,
In the previous reply, i had mentioned climate as the base for gravity.  If you ask anybody, why gravity is weak on moon, without taking time and thinking he will certainly reply that "climate is weak".  But for all practical applications, gravity and climate are taken as two different subjects and there is no relationship in between them.  Actually when i had taken climate as base for gravity, some of the people who were having little confidence might have lost it.  Here there is every need for me to substantiate my statement.

Initially, when i started, 'What exactly gravity is', i had taken care not to mention about climate, dark energy, dark matter, block holes and space time.  If i had done so, i would have been necked out fromt the forum without hesitation.  Slowly, i have been presenting, strength or power of dark energy, and on block holes.  Ok, now let us discuss about climate.

It is true that atmosphere on any planet is not created/developed within short time.  I think, as of now there is no exact theory that tells us how atmosphere is created/developed on any planet.  Ok, let us discuss with simple example.

Let us assume that there is a poor family from rural UK.  In severe winter, they have used firewood to raise temperature inside the house.  Suppose, let us assume that they have used four sticks and temperature raised to keep the family in comfort.  In case, they have used six sticks, temperature raises abnormally and brings in discomfort for the people living there within the house.    Ok, in case if they have used two sticks only, temperature is low and cool winds still haunts them. 

Now, let us discuss about the climate within the house and the one outside.  We have taken samples of air within the house and from outside climate and tested them.  What it will say, Carbon-di-oxide, corbon-mono-oxide and other gases increased within the house.  Here samples,  simply describes contents of air at any place at a particular time.  But it wont tell you, how temperature is raised within the house.   Suppose if we uses thermometer, it says temperature within the house is 20 degrees and outside it is 0 degrees.

It is true that north and south poles are  completely covered by ice.  At present we are of the opinion that earth is elliptical in shape and sun energy is not hitting directly.  This is untrue, suppose if there is dilation of fundamental energy by the earth at poles, there is no scope for formation of ice and it is simply evaporated into water molecules.  In the example, discussed by us, if they have not used firewood, temperature never raises.  By burning firewood sticks, fundamental energy is dilated into the open area.  This fundamental energy develops a base, and creates pressure on the hydrosphere.  Here, Hydrosphere is not moving away, without any force/pressure.  Slowly, if the fundamental energy  stored within the house weakens, hydrosphere occupy's it. 

On the Earth,  fundamental energy released by Earth is pushing the hydrosphere.  At the poles, as there is no dilation of fundamental energy, hydrosphere occupied it completely.  At the centre of the Earth, where dilation of energy is more, hydrosphere is pushed upwards to new heights.   As we move towards poles, Energy base start weakening further and further and hydrosphere bent down towards Earth.  Energy is having important quality of moving from high area to low area, consequently there is continuous flow of energy from centre of the Earth to Poles.   

Formation of climate on Earth:
In the example discussed by us, if they have used eight sticks, what happens, it is unbearable.  After huge explosion, Earth started burning like anything.  However luckily, Earth was blessed with more hydrosphere than other planets and it started cooling at a faster rate.  Hydrosphere started developing as a thick layer, and it never allowed fundamental energy dilated by Earth to escape that much easily.  It led to formation of strong climate on the Earth.  Here, suppose if there is no fundamental energy, radiation is very difficult, water never evoparates and it remains in the stage of ice. 

Ok, let us take Mercury.  Climate on Mercury is weak and sun rays hits directly and temperature raises upto 430 degree celcieus and during night time temperature drops upto -180 degrees.  Here as  climate is weak, control over the planet, by the gravity waves is lost and rotation and revolution is also slowed down.   Suppose if there is strong climate, even simple change can cause a momentum, since Planet is completely in the grip of Gravity waves.  Strong climate never allows sun rays to hit the planet directly and at the same time it also never allows temperature entering the planet to escape that much easily.  It appears that this planet is moving towards the final stages of 'death of a planet'.

Now let us take another planet, Saturn where average temperature is -288 degrees.  It is completely covered by ice.  Suppose, let us presume that if the planet dilates internal energy, then how ice remains without melting.  If the water molecules are separated, than air movement gains and paves way for formation of climate on the planet.  Since internal energy is far limited, planet is completely occupied by hydrosphere.  Here role of Sun energy is far limited and it acts as a supporting agent only. 

About Climate:
At present we are taking samples of air and testing its contents in laboratory.  We are taking this as climate, at a particular place at a time.  Actually, we are enjoying hot, wet and comfortable climate on the Earth.  How this comfortable climate is created is important.  This point is different from testing of samples at a particular place. Testing of samples, never tell you how this climate is developed. 

In case if there is no climate on earth, as is happening on Mercury, sun rays hits Earth surface directly and temparature raises abnormally.   Since Mercury is having weak climate, its gravity is also weak. 

Strong climate on any planet paves the way for strong gravity.  Actually on Earth also, once we were having strong climate which is slowly weakening and gravity is also coming down.  Climate on any planet mainly depends on its internal energy and hydrosphere. 

Even today, creation and development of climate on any planet is a mystery only and much focus is not yet laid by scientists. 

If much research is taken up in this angle, it will be soon proved that climate and gravity are not two different subjects. 

Yours
Psreddy











*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3257
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #85 on: 16/01/2017 11:01:26 »
                                       What exactly gravity is

Friends, herewith i am placing a revised theory on gravity, taking into consideration ideas of newton and einstein as well.  Feel free to post your opinion.

In Newton's description of gravity, the gravitational force is caused by matter.  In Einstein's theory and related theories of gravitation, curvature at every point in space time is also caused by whatever matter is present. Here, too, mass is a key property in determining the gravitational influence of matter. But in a relativistic theory of gravity, mass cannot be the only source of gravity. Relativity links mass with energy, and energy with momentum.

In special relativity, energy is closely connected to momentum.  if energy is a source of gravity, momentum must be a source as well.  Taken together, in general relativity it is mass, energy, momentum, pressure and tension that serve as sources of gravity, they are how matter tells space time how to curve. In the theory's mathematical formulation, all these quantities are but aspects of a more general physical quantity called the energy–momentum tensor.

Newton's main focus is on matter only.  Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses but also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Where as Einstien has taken mass and energy as key points in his study on gravity. He has also taken energy for momentum in his special relativity.  He has taken energy and momentum as one of the four dimentional aspects.

In my view matter and energy are two different things which cannot be combined while calculating gravity and it is energy alone plays key role in gravity.  There is huge amount of energy on this earth, which i had already termed it as "energy base".  Suppose if anybody says that there is no energy base on this earth than what is bearing the weight of the hydrosphere.  It is true that mass of the hydrosphere carrys weight and if there is no obstruction than it will come down to earth. 

How this energy is created:
It is true that Sun is the important source of energy.  However, see our universe which is spread to far away places and there is energy throught the universe. If there is no energy than there is no scope for planets also.  In space, planets cannot exist.  Suppose, if the energy for any reason dwindles and area comes down than planets existing at the end of the universe, gains weight, looses control and start traveling with maximum speed. 

Well, how this huge amount of energy is created.  At present most of our calculations are on the basis of existing things only.  We are forgetting one key point that without "Big bang" there is no scope for formation of any Universe including ours.  After Big bang, devastating fire started on all the planets, including sun, and energy packed within masses started coming out. This energy started spreading to far away places.  Slowly planets started cooling and climate developed against them.  At present Sun is not a burning firewood, but burning coal only.  Other planets are still burning and are in the stage of  burning coal covered by ash.

Huge amount of energy present throught the universe is not created within short time but over a period of time.  This is the "Energy base". 

First of all let me tell you one simple incident which happened in my early days which helped me to recognise this energy base. This incident happened when i was 13 or 14 years age.  Ours is a tiles house and total area, bed room, dining, cooking everything in that only.  In severe winter, i.e., may be in the month of January, that day night i could not get sleep, seeing at my suffering father called on me to come near to him and he was sleeping near to the kitchen.  When i went there, it was surprise to note that it was hot, and wet.  When asked father replied, firewood is still burning.  But i could not find any firewood burning, removed ashes and found coal in red colour.  Cooking was stopped in the evening itself, however this small amount of fire, that too deep inside ashes was able to save so much area.  In fact i did not slept that night and started measuring area. This can be compared to all our planets as well, including sun.  Ones, our planets are also firewood only, after shedding lot of energy into open area, they have cooled now.  Energy released by planets turned out as "Energy Base" and is playing key role.

Energy movement:
There is strong energy base against sun.  When fresh energy is released due to burning it adds to the existing base.  It creates pressure on the existing rays and a momentum is gained.  If the addition is small/weak than it stops further movement and in case if the addition continues than it will move to farther and farther places. Some of these rays, if pressure/force continues than it will cross our universe and reaches other universes in the space.

Energy base on the Earth:
Our earth is also ones a ball of fire only and it shed lot of heat and energy into space.  However our earth is blessed with more hydrosphere than other planets and it started cooling at a faster rate when compared to other planets. Strong Hydrosphere helped in the development of climate on earth.  Strong hydrosphere never allowed free movement of energy into open area.  This led to formation of local "Energy base" on earth.  This energy base remained permanently on earth.  It is true that earth is still burning and is releasing lot of energy into this energy base.  Energy rays coming from sun are also bringing energy and it is addition to our base. Some of the strong energy rays taking movement from earth are taking away energy from this base.

Suppose if there is no energy base on earth than hydrosphere comes down to earth.  Strong energy rays coming from sun hits earth directly.  In case if there is no climate, strong energy rays coming from sun penetrates deeply and creates pressure/force on earth.  As there is no climate, on the other side it gains weight and a momentum is gained and start moving away from our universe.

About Gravity:
Development/creation of climate itself paves way for Gravity.  It led to formation of strong Energy Base.  This Energy base is nothing but presence of energy rays.  These rays carry energy from one place to other place.  It is true that energy is of object oriented and start concentrating against earth.  For this energy even minute cells are also its objects only. 

These rays not only concentrates against objects but also penetrates deeply.  Suppose, let us think that if we are in inertial position, millions and millions of our body cells are all objects of energy rays.  Generally our body temperature will be lower than outside pressure and therefore it leads to more concentration.

Energy rays coming from sun initially faces hydrosphere, weakens and comes out into earth atmosphere.  These weak rays start gaining with the help of energy existing on this earth.  Earth is an important and huge object for these energy rays. Concentration of energy is boosted on earth and it turns out as light.  In fact light is nothing but charging of energy rays. 

In my view gravity is nothing but pressure/force applied on objects/things.  We are all living within the Energy base and for this base, earth is huge object. There is complete concentration against each and every minute cell of earth.  It is penetrating upto deep area of earth.  So earth is completely within the grip of this Energy.  Human beings living within  this base, are also its objects only.  Energy rays pools/concentrates against human beings from all sides.  Since there is continuous flow of energy towards earth, long energy rays concentrating against human beings creates pressure and pushes from upside towards earth.  This force/pressure is gravity.  It is very difficult to escape from these rays.  Since these rays are object oriented, if we remove air, along with objects than only we can escape from these rays. 

It is true that earth is still burning deep inside and releasing lot of energy into open area.  Since earth is already
cooled from sides, most of the energy released is at the centre only.  As there is continuous flow of energy, long energy rays are developed and these rays are creating upward motion on things.

Rotation and Revolution:
Due to energy pressure from all sides, earth already lost most of its weight.  Now it is in energy grip.  Let us presume that in inertial condition, long range energy rays coming from sun with the help of existing energy on earth is holding almost upto 50% of earth in its control at any point of time.  It is simply like a basket ball player, to have control he must keep his hand upto 50% of the ball, or otherwise ball may not be in his control.  Suppose if his control over ball is less than 25 to 30 percent than ball moves in opposite direction.  In case if he takes the ball with the help of both the hands than the ball is fully in his control. 

Earth is simply like a soft in electrical motor.  To move motor there must be movement of electrons.  It appears that energy rays coming from sun are not hitting directly, there is bent or curvature of these rays and are hitting in a curved manner and there fore it is causing rotation of earth.  Einstien rightly presumed this and incorporated it in his General relativity theory.  He thought that gravity is due to pressure/force created by energy in a curvated manner.  Well, when it is about revolution, it is also in the control of sun energy only.  Suppose in inertial condition, earth is simply in static condition without any movement.  Suppose when it rotates, its fresh area comes into the control of the fresh energy rays.  So, movement of revolution starts against the energy rays.  In case for any reason, if these energy rays, which are holding earth, dwindles than earth comes near to sun. Moon is not having strong climate.  It is under partial control of sun.  Suppose if it is having strong climate means it would have turned out into a independant planet.  Strong energy rays moving from earth are hitting moon directly.  In a static condition these rays decides distance of the moon from earth.  Since earth is rotating, energy rays moving from earth, are not parallel and bents in a sloped manner and creates pressure at a different place.  It is causing movement of energy and thus rotation of moon on its axis.  This rotation against  the energy rays of earth, makes it to rotate against earth.

Finally:
Newton's universal law of gravitation is a different subject.  It mainly deals with attraction in between two objects. Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  So here distance plays a key role.  Newton might have thought that Earth is a huge object and therefore it is attracting moon keeping aside distance.  In my view this is not correct.  But this theory rightly explains attraction of particles.  This is root cause for the existence of hydrosphere, energy moving in the form of rays, existence of mines, for that very existence of this universe itself.  But gravity is a different one, it is due to the movement of energy/force applied on objects.

Einstein came out from this fundamental thinking and proposed that energy force/pressure is causing gravity.  However he could not recognise huge amount of energy force present on this earth. So he has taken energy force as one of four dimensions.

If we say that there is no energy base than who is bearing the weight of hydrosphere.  It is true that water carrys weight and it is not staying at that height without any support.  Energy is also key player in Fire, explosions, light and the process which we will discuss separately.

Yours
psreddy


I will just say one thing.  ''energy'' is expansive from itself, Matter and energy are interwoven to create gravity.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #86 on: 16/01/2017 14:50:19 »
Mr Thebox,
Thank you,

I too, accept that it is Fundamental energy and matter are playing key role.  But where is the exact source and method by which it is happening.  Ok, let us not move outside our climate and see how fundamental energy plays its role.  Actually we start with uneven distribution of energy and matter, goes to space time, talk about space fabric, talk about black holes and about neutron stars.  We also look for energy dilated by Neutron stars, as a source of gravity.  When it is the source, gravity must be equal at all places, but it varies from planet to planet.  When we have equated Mass with energy, how can we attribute key role to mass in gravity.

Friends, this is not for criticizing,  but to have a meaningful discussion.  When there is no source, where ever we go, we have to come to the original place only.

We knew that gravity is weak on moon due to weak climate only.  This is scientifically proved. 

Let us start thinking about the relationship between, climate and gravity.

I once again reiterate that this is not for criticizing anybody, in case if anyone feels that i hurt their feelings, i am ready to extend 'sorry'.

Yours
Psreddy   
« Last Edit: 22/01/2017 17:10:08 by pasala »

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #87 on: 12/02/2017 13:28:22 »
Friends,
For quite long time, i could not understand how Einstein incorporated gravity into relativity.  Recently, i could read the following which clarified so many doubts.

As per Einstein:
"Einstein’s ground-breaking realization (which he called “the happiest thought of my life”) was that gravity is in reality not a force at all, but is indistinguishable from, and in fact the same thing as, acceleration, an idea he called the “principle of equivalence”. He realized that if he were to fall freely in a gravitational field (such as a skydiver before opening his parachute, or a person in an elevator when its cable breaks), he would be unable to feel his own weight, a rather remarkable insight in 1907, many years before the idea of free fall of astronauts in space became commonplace.

A simple thought experiment serves to clarify this: if an astronaut in the cabin of a spacecraft accelerating upwards at 9.8 metres per second per second (the same acceleration as gravity imparts to falling bodies near the Earth’s surface) were to drop a feather and hammer they too would hit the floor of the cabin simultaneously (in the absence of air resistance), exactly as would have happened if they had fallen on Earth under gravity.  That, and the feeling of his feet being glued to the ground just as they would be in Earth’s gravity, would be enough to convince the astronaut that the acceleration of the spaceship was indistinguishable from the pull of gravity on the Earth".


The above equivalence of Einstein is great. It is true that a skydiver before his parachute is opened,  unable to feel his own weight.  Here the fact of gravity is different one and the principle of equivalence is different one.  The principle of equivalence simply says, how one can escape from gravity. 

Einstein takes gravity not as a force, but an indistinguishable form due to equivalence.  Suppose let us take a person, A is standing in the elevator.  As long as he is in inertial position, he feels gravity.  When the cable is cut, acceleration speeds up and looses weight.  Here, important point is gravity is lost due to accelerat1ion only.  But, there is no change in the gravity in that particular place. 

Einstein's main idea is that the person, skydiver falling freely or the person dropping in the elevator,  if the gravity is by Earth   they should not loose it due to acceleration. 

Here for validity of Equivalence principle:
"IT IS NOT, CHANGE OR MOVEMENT OF THE PERSON EXPERIENCING GRAVITY BUT THE GRAVITY ITSELF".

Here gravity it constant whether a person is in constant position or in acceleration.  Actually the person is able to escape gravity due to his action of acceleration.  Skydiver, before opening his parachute, he is unable to feel his gravity, not due to change in the gravity but due to the acceleration or momentum.

As long as he is in inertial position, he is fully in the influence of gravity, when there is change in his position, gravity looses control or he is escaping gravity temporarily.  Here, actually an important point is that "there is no change in the gravity".  Gravity is constant at any time, at a particular place whether any person or thing is at inertial position or in acceleration. 

Einstein assumed that gravity is due to ripples of gravity waves, caused by space time.  Suppose let us assume that if the gravity is due to the ripples, than different persons in different  places must experience gravity differently whether they are in constant position or in acceleration.   One more important point is, if it is in the form of ripples, than it must be high at the starting point and decrease at the end. 

If the ripples are due to the force, whatever it may, EMF or any other  it must be strong at the starting point and must decrease as it moves.  For that we must experience high gravity in the sky and not on the ground. 

Time dilation:
This is also one of the important lab test used by Einstein for checking gravity.  In  all plain areas, where gravity is high, time dilates slowly and in all high hill areas where gravity is low, time dilates at a faster rate.  Here, interesting point is that Gravity influences our clocks. 

What Exactly is gravity:
Einstein theory of relativity helps us to understand that gravity is not due to the attraction of Earth but due to the gravity waves.  He carried out number of experiments such as time dilation, gravitational lens to find out exact source.  But he could not.  Relative theory is far better and excellent when compared to Newton gravity.   Newton simply extended his Inverse square law as universal law of gravitation.  Most of the theories, proposed by Einstein are practically proved.

However, it appears that relativity could not take a perfect landing on gravity.   Here Lab tests are different and the source is different.  Source is like a base, whatever construction you may carry out, it is very difficult to withstand in the longer period. 

Ok, now let us see how gravity works.  Let us assume that weight of Mr. A is 60 kgs, his mass weight is 10 kgs and gravity weight is 50 kgs.  When gravity is adding 50 kgs weight  to Mr. A, how can we imaging that Gravity is not due to force or pressure.  When the skydiver, dives in, before opening the parachute or after opening the parachute gravity is constant at that place.  Gravity continues to exert influence on the person, but due to his action of acceleration,  pressure or force of gravity decreases till he comes to constant position. 

The climate on the Earth is like a pressure cooker and it is being boiled by the Energy from the Earth.  When the temperature raises,
pressure/force increases on the things to be cooked.  Here temperature is high at the bottom, but pressure\force is exerted on all the things to be cooked.  Suppose if it is rice,  pressure is on all the grains.  In case if the rice grains moves upward, it may temporarily escape pressure but  it continues to be within the pressure or force.  Walls of the pressure cooker works like space fabric.  Nothing can escape from the pressure/force.

Yours
Psreddy

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #88 on: 12/02/2017 14:21:56 »
Pressure is a result of gravity and in no way the cause. That would be circular reasoning. Your dilation is not ripples but a somewhat non linear reduction of energy density to the center of a planet or any mass. Dilation of spacetime is an accurate explanation and the gamma term in relativity. Time is related to energy we view as tick rate. The tick rate slows as we descend a gravity well. So the available energy becomes less dense per volume (dilation). Energy moves electrons and this causes friction to energy. In more dilated space there is less friction. Mass is attracted to the dilation of less friction with energy. Mass causes its own dilation and the more accumulation of mass the more dilation in the center of mass where all mass is attracted.

Pressure causes mass to be more compact and more dense mass less dense spacetime energy. But pressure does not cause gravity. Your cooking the wrong meal.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #89 on: 12/02/2017 16:17:47 »
Mr GOC,
Thank you,
It is true that Pressure or force cannot be created or developed out of nothing and it is gravity only. 

In time dilation, time dilates due to gravity, in other words, gravity is influencing functioning of our watches, mechanical or electrical.  In a gravity well, force or pressure of gravity on watch increases and tick rate slows down.  Any way final result is one and the same only.

Well i am trying to cook perfect meal only, but in relative terms it may not.  Today, it may not be Pasala, some body will come and prove it. 

Yours
Psreddy

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #90 on: 12/02/2017 16:38:34 »
Gravity causes pressure. Pressure does not cause gravity. Dilation of energy increases the distance of the electron cycle. This slows the tick rate of clocks. c is constant in relativity. Distance for c changes in GR so your measuring stick increases to measure the same speed of light in every frame.

This is an abstract issue which the observations of pressure do not follow the relativistic nature of light.

*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #91 on: 15/02/2017 14:47:51 »
Gravity causes pressure. Pressure does not cause gravity. Dilation of energy increases the distance of the electron cycle. This slows the tick rate of clocks.
If you are at a hight h1 and go down to  h0<h1, how do you explain the dilation of energy? What does energy dilation mean, energy density decrease or energy decrease?
Say we want to measure the energy of an electron around an atom.
My concept suggests the energy is constant, energy density decreases and instruments change: a meter stick will be longer by gamma(v1):gamma(v0). The electron orbiting time will increase by the same factor.γ1:γ0. I don't know the exact mechanism for the clock, because it is related to the frequency of the photon that the electron emmits during orbital transition, but it must be proportional to the same factor for my concept to work.
A stationary observer at h1 will indeed see an energy desity dilation compared to the original atom.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #92 on: 15/02/2017 18:26:37 »
There is zero potential to measure v0. That is the basis for relativity using one dilation against another for a relative value.

*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #93 on: 15/02/2017 23:56:03 »
There is zero potential to measure v0. That is the basis for relativity using one dilation against another for a relative value.
Then how do you know whether it is a dilation or not?
How do you explain Energy dilation?

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #94 on: 16/02/2017 17:49:03 »
There is zero potential to measure v0. That is the basis for relativity using one dilation against another for a relative value.
Then how do you know whether it is a dilation or not?
How do you explain Energy dilation?

The position between galaxies the furthest away from each other would have the least dilation of energy by just following relativity. Mass creates dilated energy. Called curved space as a two dimensional explanation of a three dimensional effect.

Energy dilation is energy particle expansion between particles of energy. Light has to go further and electrons have to go further to slow the tick rate of a clock. This allows equivalence between light and the electron being confounded to measure the same speed of light in every frame. No matter that frames tick rate. c and distance of c particles determine tick rate = to the vector velocity of light. Relativity

*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #95 on: 16/02/2017 20:36:37 »
Light has to go further and electrons have to go further to slow the tick rate of a clock. This allows equivalence between light and the electron being confounded to measure the same speed of light in every frame. No matter that frames tick rate. c and distance of c particles determine tick rate = to the vector velocity of light. Relativity
That is exactly what my model says about fermions. The helical length increases with velocity or when lower in a gravity well and causality wave (c)  that composes these fermions has to travel more, exactly like OAM light beams do. For OAM light beams, causality wave is a pure EM wave. For charged particles it is a bit more complicated to explain this wave.

*

Offline GoC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 561
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #96 on: 16/02/2017 21:19:26 »
hen where doe your theory differ from relativity?

*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #97 on: 17/02/2017 18:58:11 »
hen where doe your theory differ from relativity?
My conclusion is that all relativistic phenomena are produced by angular momentum which creates a path length increase of the particle Poynting vector exactly like the path increase used in relativity. These paths explain both speed limit c  and time dilation with speed. Because everything happens in a flat Euclidean space, there is a different explanation for length contraction which is only relative and it is seen by the object that moves faster. In the absolute reference frame only length dilation happens.

*

Offline pasala

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 60
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #98 on: 19/02/2017 08:17:53 »
Mr. Nilak

Well, It is true that time dilates due to two important factors, gravity and velocity.  Einstein has used the clock as a lab instrument in measuring gravity variations. In other words gravity is influencing  functioning of our clocks.  When gravity influences clocks, why do not it influence mass.  Actually mass dilation of energy is due to gravity only.  In fact. think how small amount of energy, entropy comes out to form a space time. 

In normal conditions, mass is not having any capacity to dilate energy by itself, unless otherwise it is detonated or destroyed due to force.  But here mass dilates energy by itself to form a space time.  As per GR space is filled with mass and energy and mass decides curvature of space time. 

In all references, we are taking speed of light 'c' as a standard reference in all our frames.  Do light really travels from one place another place.  Suppose let us assume that, you have switched on a battery cell and light comes out.  Here, can we take that outside  is empty and a fresh ray is only created.  Here there are so many unexplored things.  When gravity influences clock,  how can we think that it is not influencing torch, battery and light.  Here important point, we have to keep in mind that light varies according to gravity.

Ok, we will discuss about velocity and time dilation later.

Yours
Psreddy


*

Offline Nilak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 329
    • View Profile
Re: What exactly gravity is?
« Reply #99 on: 19/02/2017 14:19:30 »
Mr. Nilak

Well, It is true that time dilates due to two important factors, gravity and velocity.  Einstein has used the clock as a lab instrument in measuring gravity variations. In other words gravity is influencing  functioning of our clocks.  When gravity influences clocks, why do not it influence mass.  Actually mass dilation of energy is due to gravity only.  In fact. think how small amount of energy, entropy comes out to form a space time. 

In normal conditions, mass is not having any capacity to dilate energy by itself, unless otherwise it is detonated or destroyed due to force.  But here mass dilates energy by itself to form a space time.  As per GR space is filled with mass and energy and mass decides curvature of space time. 

In all references, we are taking speed of light 'c' as a standard reference in all our frames.  Do light really travels from one place another place.  Suppose let us assume that, you have switched on a battery cell and light comes out.  Here, can we take that outside  is empty and a fresh ray is only created.  Here there are so many unexplored things.  When gravity influences clock,  how can we think that it is not influencing torch, battery and light.  Here important point, we have to keep in mind that light varies according to gravity.

Ok, we will discuss about velocity and time dilation later.

Yours
Psreddy

Gravity actually doesn't reduce clocks rates by the strength of the gravitational field. Only if you travel from one height to another you will experience these effects, in a constant, gravitational field where all field lines are parallel. Therefore the gravitational potential causes a relative time dilation.
My concept says that if an atom travels from a height H1 to H0, the electron wavefront accelerates, and its wavelength increases. The wavelength increase is associated with a clock rate decrease. The frequency of the electron also increases relative to the initial frequency because the wavefront is faster.

The concept also explains the causality c. If the causality is constant, what happens with it within the structure of an electron or any other 1/2 spin particle? How can the electron move slower than c? Can the causality be slowed down? I believe not. Only the helical path can explain it which ensures this causality remains constant. The helix unfolded to a triangle is responsible for all the phenomena that relativity explains using the same triangle. The helical path of the Poynting vector only applies to 1/2 spin particles.

« Last Edit: 19/02/2017 14:29:21 by Nilak »