[Jolly2 (OP)]

No, the earth wouldn't exist to have any gravity if you did that.

Then let's say we have a shell around the Earth. Then we inject the heat necessary to turn it into a plasma that is hot enough to dissociate nuclei. We use the necessary magnetic fields to hold the plasma away from the shell so it won't melt. So you still have all of Earth's original mass inside of the shell (plus whatever mass-energy came from the heat you used to vaporize it).

Then you would have the same gravity,  but you would also have the strong and weak necular force as well as the all the other mater like quarks and leptons.


Returning to einstein that gravity shouldn't be seen as the earth pulling but as space pushing.

Maybe it's not mass persay but space. Like if space was like a liquid. The inclusion of mass displaces the liquid. That displacement then forces space to compact between masses. That then increase a desire for space to return to its original position which it cant, but there is a force generated by the desire of space to do so.... umm

Liquid sheet. Like the bowling ball on a trampoline but the trampoline is made of a liquid.

An emergent relationship

[Kryptid]

Then you would have the same gravity,  but you would also have the strong and weak necular force as well as the all the other mater like quarks and leptons.

Then you can fill the sphere with an Earth's mass-energy worth of light. No strong or weak nuclear forces there.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Then you would have the same gravity,  but you would also have the strong and weak necular force as well as the all the other mater like quarks and leptons.

Then you can fill the sphere with an Earth's mass-energy worth of light. No strong or weak nuclear forces there.

The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless

So there would be no mass, just energy,  and the electromagnetic force.

Light is radiation, it's an end process.

[Kryptid]

Photons are massless

No, they aren't. They have a mass that depends upon their energy. It's their invariant (rest) mass that is zero.

We know for a fact that light produces its own gravitational field. Gravitational lensing is a phenomenon confirmed by observation, so we know that the Sun's gravity pulls on light. However, due to conservation of momentum, the Sun itself must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction by that same light. So, in the process, light must have its own gravity that pulls on the Sun.

[Hayseed]

Dissolving dipoles is a bad idea.  It would accelerate the earth's mass into a earth wind thru-out our system.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Photons are massless

No, they aren't. They have a mass that depends upon their energy. It's their invariant (rest) mass that is zero.

We know for a fact that light produces its own gravitational field. Gravitational lensing is a phenomenon confirmed by observation, so we know that the Sun's gravity pulls on light. However, due to conservation of momentum, the Sun itself must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction by that same light. So, in the process, light must have its own gravity that pulls on the Sun.

  wow now that's a theory "must" have it's own gravity? Could not another force be aiding lights escape?

In the end light is radiation.  It can only emerge at the end of a process, you have to have a sun, to get photons to radiate from, as light is a radiation, the weak force must play a role in the decay process. Could it not be the weak force that allows light to escape the gravity?

Either way, light Is the end result of all the other processes that cause a sun to exist .

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Dissolving dipoles is a bad idea.  It would accelerate the earth's mass into a earth wind thru-out our system.

What are you referencing?

[Kryptid]

wow now that's a theory

No, it isn't.

"must" have it's own gravity?

Yes, otherwise Newton's third law is violated.

Could not another force be aiding lights escape?

I didn't say anything about light escaping from anything.

In the end light is radiation.

So what? It still has gravity.

to get photons to radiate from, as light is a radiation, the weak force must play a role in the decay process.

No it doesn't, because nothing has to decay in order to produce photons.

Could it not be the weak force that allows light to escape the gravity?

Escape? Again, when was my argument about light escaping anything?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

wow now that's a theory

No, it isn't.

So it's a laW?

"must" have it's own gravity?

Yes, otherwise Newton's third law is violated.

Not if something else instead of gravity, another force is causing the movement by light that you see.

Could not another force be aiding lights escape?

I didn't say anything about light escaping from anything.

In the end light is radiation.

So what? It still has gravity.

to get photons to radiate from, as light is a radiation, the weak force must play a role in the decay process.

No it doesn't, because nothing has to decay in order to produce photons.

Yet other forms of decay also produce light correct? Relative to heat the colours change

Could it not be the weak force that allows light to escape the gravity?

Escape? Again, when was my argument about light escaping anything?

"so we know that the Sun's gravity pulls on light. However, due to conservation of momentum, the Sun itself must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction by that same light. So, in the process, light must have its own gravity that pulls on the Sun."

If the sun and light both pull each other surely light wouldn't escape.  This statement  "must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction "  is a push not a pull, from the light

[Jolly2 (OP)]

What is space? Should I start a new thread?

[Kryptid]

So it's a laW?

Conservation of momentum is a law, yes.

Not if something else instead of gravity, another force is causing the movement by light that you see.

Then why does it behave exactly as general relativity predicts that it should under the force of gravity, specifically?

If the sun and light both pull each other surely light wouldn't escape.

That doesn't make any sense. Rockets are pulled by gravity but they can still go into orbit.

This statement  "must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction "  is a push not a pull, from the light

If the Sun was pushed instead of pulled, then conservation of momentum would be violated.

What is space? Should I start a new thread?

If you want to (unless you can related it back to this thread).

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So it's a laW?

Conservation of momentum is a law, yes.

I was.suggeting the law of photnic gravity

Not if something else instead of gravity, another force is causing the movement by light that you see.

Then why does it behave exactly as general relativity predicts that it should under the force of gravity, specifically?

Correlation does not mean causation.

Looking at the sun billions of photons are radiated together,  they could be interacting and it's the electromagnetic force that drives them more then gravity.

If the sun and light both pull each other surely light wouldn't escape.

That doesn't make any sense. Rockets are pulled by gravity but they can still go into orbit.

Because the booster create a greater push then the gravity,  if the rocket was pulling not pushing it would never take off.

This statement  "must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction "  is a push not a pull, from the light

If the Sun was pushed instead of pulled, then conservation of momentum would be violated.

Conservation laws relate to energy loss, never suggested radiation from the sun was losing energy just that another process could explain what we see rather then gravity

What is space? Should I start a new thread?

If you want to (unless you can related it back to this thread).

It relates completely gravity is clearly an interplay between mass and space.

Has anyone ever gone into space with a giant jar, scooped up some space sealed it so nothing could escape and brought it back to see if there was anything strange about the jars contence?

[Kryptid]

I was.suggeting the law of photnic gravity

Conservation of momentum, along with gravitational lensing, lets us know that light has gravity (as explained before). The only way it couldn't have gravity would either be if gravitational lensing didn't exist (but we know it does), or if conservation of momentum is violated (which would go against Noether's theorem).

Correlation does not mean causation

So Einstein got the numbers right purely coincidentally? I didn't realize you were a relativity denialist.

Looking at the sun billions of photons are radiated together,  they could be interacting and it's the electromagnetic force that drives them more then gravity.

Photons very rarely interact with each other. Flashlight beams pass through each other unimpeded.

Regardless, we know from observation that gravity does affect them.

Because the booster create a greater push then the gravity

Which is (more or less) why light can escape from objects with gravity (except for black holes): they expend energy traveling up against the gravitational potential, which results in gravitational redshifting of the light.

if the rocket was pulling not pushing it would never take off.

The goes without saying.

Conservation laws relate to energy loss

That's only conservation of energy. Conservation of momentum is different.

never suggested radiation from the sun was losing energy just that another process could explain what we see rather then gravity

If it isn't gravity, then Einstein got the numbers right by coincidence.

Has anyone ever gone into space with a giant jar, scooped up some space sealed it so nothing could escape and brought it back to see if there was anything strange about the jars contence?

It should be almost completely empty (aside from a few atoms here and there).

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I was.suggeting the law of photnic gravity

Conservation of momentum, along with gravitational lensing, lets us know that light has gravity (as explained before). The only way it couldn't have gravity would either be if gravitational lensing didn't exist (but we know it does), or if conservation of momentum is violated (which would go against Noether's theorem).

I think this is applies and pears. You dont need gravity for conservation of movement, light and suns just push each other it's simply impulse.

And gravational lensing is simply that light as it is effected by gravity doesn't relate to photons having a gravity.

Its clear photons are influenced by gravity,  but are you seriously saying photons make/produce gravity?

Correlation does not mean causation

So Einstein got the numbers right purely coincidentally? I didn't realize you were a relativity denialist.

Looking at the sun billions of photons are radiated together,  they could be interacting and it's the electromagnetic force that drives them more then gravity.

Photons very rarely interact with each other. Flashlight beams pass through each other unimpeded.

Regardless, we know from observation that gravity does affect them.

Yet if you cross two laser beams you will. Bigger picture then simply saying they don't interact.

Because the booster create a greater push then the gravity

Which is (more or less) why light can escape from objects with gravity (except for black holes): they expend energy traveling up against the gravitational potential, which results in gravitational redshifting of the light.

Doesnt answer if photons are just influenced by  gravity or if they produce  gravity.

If they produced gravity they would influence each other, they would pull together, attract  each other and then focus into a beam, that doesnt happen. As you pointed out they dont
"Flashlight beams pass through each other unimpeded"

So therefore they cant have a gravity

[Kryptid]

You dont need gravity for conservation of movement, light and suns just push each other it's simply impulse.

They're not pushing each other. I think you are under the impression that I'm talking about light that is being emitted by the Sun, but I'm not. I'm talking about light from distant stars having their path deflected by the Sun's gravity. That is a pull, not a push.

And gravational lensing is simply that light as it is effected by gravity doesn't relate to photons having a gravity.

Yes it does. If photons didn't have gravity, then that same beam of light being deflected by the Sun wouldn't be able to pull back on the Sun itself. That results in a violation of conservation of momentum.

are you seriously saying photons make/produce gravity?

Yes, because conservation of momentum demands it.

Yet if you cross two laser beams you will.

What lasers have you been looking at?

Doesnt answer if photons are just influenced by  gravity or if they produce  gravity.

Yes it does. Anything that is influenced by gravity must also produce gravity. Otherwise, conservation of momentum is violated.

If they produced gravity they would influence each other, they would pull together, attract  each other and then focus into a beam, that doesnt happen. As you pointed out they dont

Do you have any idea of just how incredibly tiny the gravitational pull between two beams of light would be? Please do the math if you think it should be large enough to notice in everyday life.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

You dont need gravity for conservation of movement, light and suns just push each other it's simply impulse.

They're not pushing each other. I think you are under the impression that I'm talking about light that is being emitted by the Sun, but I'm not. I'm talking about light from distant stars having their path deflected by the Sun's gravity. That is a pull, not a push.

And gravational lensing is simply that light as it is effected by gravity doesn't relate to photons having a gravity.

Yes it does. If photons didn't have gravity, then that same beam of light being deflected by the Sun wouldn't be able to pull back on the Sun itself. That results in a violation of conservation of momentum.

are you seriously saying photons make/produce gravity?

Yes, because conservation of momentum demands it.

Yet if you cross two laser beams you will.

What lasers have you been looking at?

Doesnt answer if photons are just influenced by  gravity or if they produce  gravity.

Yes it does. Anything that is influenced by gravity must also produce gravity. Otherwise, conservation of momentum is violated.

If they produced gravity they would influence each other, they would pull together, attract  each other and then focus into a beam, that doesnt happen. As you pointed out they dont

Do you have any idea of just how incredibly tiny the gravitational pull between two beams of light would be? Please do the math if you think it should be large enough to notice in everyday life.

Right let me get this straight,  conservation of momentum that has nothing to do with gravity, proves photons have gravity, proves they produce gravity.

Even though this gravity of the photon is soo infinitesimally small it wont cause them to attract each other , yet is somehow strong enough to pull back on a suns gravity, that's your position?

I want a third opinion. Halc what do you say to this?

[Kryptid]

conservation of momentum that has nothing to do with gravity

Yes it does. Gravity is a medium by which momentum can be transferred.

proves photons have gravity, proves they produce gravity.

It isn't just conservation of momentum. Gravitational lensing is the other part of the matter.

Even though this gravity of the photon is soo infinitesimally small it wont cause them to attract each other

It does cause them to attract each other. The attraction is just too small to notice yourself. A pair of dust particles have gravity but it's so weak that you won't see them pulled towards each other with your own eyes.

yet is somehow strong enough to pull back on a suns gravity, that's your position?

The force of gravity between two objects is the product of the mass of both objects. A photon has a very small mass, but the Sun has an enormous mass. So the gravitational attraction between a photon and the Sun is many, many orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational attraction between a pair of photons.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

conservation of momentum that has nothing to do with gravity

Yes it does. Gravity is a medium by which momentum can be transferred.

As the magnetic force would be doesnt mean anything.  That which propels photons out of a sun, the impulse that starts the journey has little to do with gravity if they had gravity it would hammer their action.
Conservation of momentum for a photon does not require gravity.

proves photons have gravity, proves they produce gravity.

It isn't just conservation of momentum. Gravitational lensing is the other part of the matter.

Which is simply gravities effect on a photon as it passes through curved space.  Its gravitys effect on light, again nothing to do with light producing gravity.

Even though this gravity of the photon is soo infinitesimally small it wont cause them to attract each other

It does cause them to attract each other. The attraction is just too small to notice yourself. A pair of dust particles have gravity but it's so weak that you won't see them pulled towards each other with your own eyes.

You cant compare dust to photons

yet is somehow strong enough to pull back on a suns gravity, that's your position?

The force of gravity between two objects is the product of the mass of both objects. A photon has a very small mass, but the Sun has an enormous mass. So the gravitational attraction between a photon and the Sun is many, many orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational attraction between a pair of photons.

Sure but if photons produced gravity I doubt they would escape the sun at all.

We are just going round in circles I would like @Halc opinion on this.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

New idea Looking at the gravaton, and the "gravity" wave,(space wobble) it is merely energy expressing itself as it flows through space. So I really I dont believe it should be called a "gravaton" or linked to gravity, it effects gravity, interferes with gravities strength and influence over space but I can see it as actually gravity, just energy expressing itself as it travels in space.

So Quarks have mass which combine into larger masses and displace the space arround them?

I was thinking about the trampoline with the bowling ball, really the material of the trampoline which represents space would envelope the ball, as space envelopes planets.

Following the metaphor the material of the trampoline(space) appears to be stretched around the ball, and seeks equilibrium so squashes the ball. Seeing the trampoline material as elastic, as it is stretched around the ball it also stretches the other parts of the trampoline material. Space around the planet

Hence should you have two balls on the trampoline both enveloped by the material, the stretch they cause and the desire of the material to seek equilibrium causes them to pull at each other. If they are too close they would pull together and both become one mass enveloped and causing a greater stretch of the trampoline.

So that's a mass effect on space Side of the  gravity idea. Then you have mass itself causing attraction to other masses.

Implies the idea space is actually something,  could space be dark matter? And a "gravity wave" is an energy ripple over that matter?


I also realise when you look at it, space if full of photons, they are everywhere the universe is a photon soup.

I think We should stop calling black holes, black holes, they are surely better described as Black suns. They have 3 dimension. They are not flat discs, but black spheres.

What do you think?

Its where I am now at in my exploration of gravity as emergent.

 I mean if gravity is an emergent phenomenon of the relationship between mass and space, trying to crame gravity into quantum theory is like trying to crame a Lenox program into binary code. My best analogy so far.

[Kryptid]

As the magnetic force would be doesnt mean anything.

I don't know what you mean by this sentence, as I didn't mention magnetism.

That which propels photons out of a sun, the impulse that starts the journey has little to do with gravity if they had gravity it would hammer their action.

At no point did I say that gravity has anything to do with light being emitted by the Sun.

Conservation of momentum for a photon does not require gravity.

It does when it involves gravitational lensing.

Which is simply gravities effect on a photon as it passes through curved space.  Its gravitys effect on light, again nothing to do with light producing gravity.

It does if you want momentum to be conserved. The change in momentum of the beam of light has to be equal and opposite to the change in momentum of the Sun in order to satisfy that law. That requires that the Sun be attracted to the beam of light every bit as strongly as the beam of light is attracted to the Sun.

You cant compare dust to photons

I can in this particular example. It's a clear illustration that, just because something has gravity, it doesn't mean that the gravity must be strong enough to be noticeable by the human senses.

Sure but if photons produced gravity I doubt they would escape the sun at all.

Show the math on that, because I'm skeptical. Show that the energy of a photon (at any desired frequency) is insufficient to raise it out of the Sun's gravitational potential (consider the photon's mass equal to its energy via E=mc²).

We are just going round in circles I would like Halc opinion on this.

If you want to get his attention, you should put an @ sign in front of his name, like @Halc.

Implies the idea space is actually something,  could space be dark matter?

There is another theory that goes along similar lines. The idea is that there some kind of "fluid" that is intrinsic to all space that acts like dark matter under some circumstances and dark energy under others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid