[GoC]

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Robert B. Laughlin must be suggesting a type of grid structure pervasive throughout the universe as a relativistic Ether. And if what you are suggesting the Ether has mass for c then energy for c must also be part of c being a constant. A spin of c on Ether particles would satisfy light being a constant wave as is all of the EM spectrum. In that case the Ether would actually be the cause of electron motion and dilate the length between atoms. Those atoms would carry that dilation with them and rotate with a body of dilation moving the electrons within that grid pattern. Yes in a case like this there would be a null result from the MMX. But we have done so much progress without the Aether particles do we really need to go down another path?

[liquidspacetime]

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Robert B. Laughlin must be suggesting a type of grid structure pervasive throughout the universe as a relativistic Ether. And if what you are suggesting the Ether has mass for c then energy for c must also be part of c being a constant. A spin of c on Ether particles would satisfy light being a constant wave as is all of the EM spectrum. In that case the Ether would actually be the cause of electron motion and dilate the length between atoms. Those atoms would carry that dilation with them and rotate with a body of dilation moving the electrons within that grid pattern. Yes in a case like this there would be a null result from the MMX. But we have done so much progress without the Aether particles do we really need to go down another path?

There is zero evidence aether is particulate.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Physics is completely screwed up because of its denial of the aether.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment.
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

[Kenyonm]

The cause of gravity has a simple explanation. Entropy of mass. Mass causes the dilation of space (curved space). This is observed in galaxies as lensing. So dilation of space by mass is an observed phenomenon. In the center of mass is the most dilated space as observed by clock tick rates being the slowest tick rate position on a planet. Red shifted light in GR is considered to be less energy. Red shift is the greatest in the gravitational center of a planet. So we can conclude more dilated space suggests a less energy position in space as an observation. If we consider dilation of space also dilates mass that occupies that space we can understand why light and mechanical clocks both slow equally with greater distances of light and the electron to travel to create physics the same in every frame.


In that light we can consider energy being dilated (red shifted light being produced in more dilated space). Now for the potential energy as an attractive force of entropy. We can now follow gravity as simply mass being attracted to a more dilated position in space of less energy. in Relativity light bends away from and curves around dilated space while mass is attracted to a more dilated space position. Einstein appears to be correct in dilation (curvature) of space is the cause of gravity.

To give up on the cause of physics is very unscientific. It may always remain a subjective interpretation of cause but explanations need to be consistent with observations.

Hello,

We still use Einstein's general and special relativity formulas today to great effect. He was a great man years ahead of his time. The problem is that it doesn't explain how a black hole works and what happens to matter once it goes into the back hole. In our perception, even if all the spaces between the electrons and atoms are closed up and the atoms neucleus crushed also, can this go on forever? Or does the matter appear in another part of the universe. Nobody knows the answer to this question.

The second problem, as I'm sure you all know, is that even the most brilliant mathematical minds cannot inert the general relativity formulae into the quantum mechanics formulae without the solution going to infinity.

Now I am absolutely sure the if the great man was still alive he would have modified his formulae in some way to allow the two types of formulae to be compatable. It may be the quantum mechanics formulae that need to be modified or the general relativity formulae. This is another unanswered question.

I have a formula that I found out in my reasoning of the causes of gravity which involves a new constant. I called it the Universal g converter constant. It is simply
 g(surface) =ugcc x density x radius

I calculated it using a backflushing method with the Nasa data sheets for all planets, our moon and the sun in our solar system. So it isn't complicated and as such the errors are small. The radius used was the volumetric radius. Even though the total error to Nasa's posted g numbers for the planets, the moon and sun was in the order 8,2 x 10 E-7 and the average error accurate to 7,47 x 10 E-8, (after the backflushing method stablised), there are still some errors in the calculated g value in relation to the posted ones. This I concluded was due to errors in the densities or radii quoted. Even so the accuracy of the average value was correct to 9 decimal places.

 ugcc=0.00000000027789594900 

Error :

8.22226E-07   Total error
7.47478E-08   average error

Best difference -0.014  worst +1.2 g

G on the other hand is only quoted to 2 decimal places at 6.67

When you do the same experiment using g=MG/r squared, you get similar errors to the Nasa posted g. I concluded there must be errors in the Mass quotations and radii also.

ugcc is related to G by pi !  We know pi to an enormous amount of digits and this can be put to use.

ugcc x  3        - G               G= 0.0000000000663427709228449  Using this 
                                        formula and pi=
          ----                         3.14159265358979   correct to 14 dp   
          4 pi

Next I looked at the g value of a person, if we were crushed into a globe shape.

To do this we use the density, mass and work out the vulume and then the average radius.
Person   Exhaled   Inhaled
      
Density   1020             945 (interesting)
      
Average radius of a person   3.121885422 m   
cube rooted =   1.461522997   m
      
      
Volume of a typical person   13.07692308   m3
      
Mass  of a typical person   78   Kg

the g for a person :  ugcc x density x radius = 4.14274E-07   meters / second squared

As you can see this is not very much and it would take 1.22 hours for a particle close by to reach a velocity of 0.02 m/s. So even if we stay perfectly still we can only attract particles very close to us. As we are not a globe shape our maximal attraction will be from above our heads.

This g for a person is added to the g of the earth attracting the person and it changes the value very slightly. If you jump into the air though, the air has an net attraction to the earth also and the ratio between the forces created is 4 times more for you, than the air. As such the air cannot create an equal and opposite reaction pushing on the ground to yourself with enough force to stop you slicing your way back through it to the ground.

I have reasoned that the next path to explore is the g for each atom which I will be moving onto shortly. I am attempting to link the atomic number to g.

I'll keep you posted.

Regards

Mike

[Kenyonm]

what i mean is that is it caused by the earth's spinning motion?? or what? if not than what causes the earth to spin?? why is it spinning??

Hello Hamza,

The jury seems to be definately out on this subject. I suggested it spins to remain stable in space but not all agree with this as the gravitational pulls from the far away stars and galaxies are very small.

I will look at the pull between the milky way and Andromeda next

Regards

Mike

[GoC]

One possibility is our system used to be binary suns where one sun was under sized and forced into fusion. The fusion sun exploded creating the higher elements in our planets, residual gasses in our giants and orbit around the remaining sun. With residual spin.

To fixate on one position without a mechanism for that position is just a wild guess on a roulette wheel.

[octavian_balaci]

The theory of relativity is inconsistent and consequently invalid, look to following link for the proof of this:
vixra.org/abs/1506.0148
Up to date, nobody managed to demonstrate that this proof of inconsistent relativity is wrong or incorrect, so it stand.
In consequence the gravity can not be explained via the general relativity way of so called "space-time" which in fact is just a redefinition of aether but in a wrong way.

[Space Flow]

The best explanation of what causes Gravity is this interpretation of General Relativity.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.0

[jerrygg38]

The alternative theory is that gravitational attraction is mediated by an as yet hypothetical particle the Graviton but the mass of such a particle would be so small that there is no hope of detecting individual particles     

   In my "Gravity and the Dot-wave theory" book, gravity is the result of dot-wave radiation where each dot-wave has a mass of 1.566E-72 kilograms. The universe slowly erases into dark energy. Only about 4 percent of the universe is left now. As the universe expands toward infinity it will be completely gon.

[Space Flow]

What causes gravity?

Everyone seems to have a different answer to this question. And everyone appears to believe their version is justified.
I am no different. So let me add my views to the above confusion.

As it would take too long to repeat what I have already put forward as an answer to this question in a different post, here is the link to that post.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.0

[Kenyonm]

Hello again.

Here is my formula again which corrects Newtons second law of motion.

Force(Sorting) = g x volume object x (density object - density medium)

If there are two mediums involved then the form is

Force(Sorting) = g x volume medium 1 x (density medium 1 - density medium 2)

g(effective) = Force(Sorting)/mass object or mass medium 1

The volume object x (density object - density medium) is the interactive mass.

Force(Sorting) has magnitude and direction + = down , - = up

Next could I ask you to stand up and look down at your feet. Imagine the footprint area be the irregular area of the base of a cone with the tip of the cone at the centre of the Earth. Both cones under each foot meeting at this point. Inside each cone are billions and billions of atoms whose electron spins turn them into micro electromagnetic generators. The magnetic metal core causes these spins to be aligned and s chain swarm effect causes the atoms to produce beams of electromagnetic flux beaming through our feet and bodies. The number of atoms within our bodies with opposite electron spins must be greater than those matching the Earth so causing a net attraction. With the density of the air being much less than the solid earth at around 1000 times less dense this energy and resultant attraction force is diluted with the air density getting less and less with altitude.

I have asked NASA for help to do experiments to validate the number of atoms in materials with one electron spins direction and another to prove that this causes an attraction equivalent to 9.81 m/s squared at the surface of the Earth.

Back to the formula

We in air at sea level are subject to s g (equivalent) of 9.8 m/s squared
If we plunge into water this with our average density being the same as water reduces the g(equivalent) to zero. Our bodies decelerate in 1 to 2 seconds depending on the altitude jumped from to a full dead stop. We have to use our arms and legs to swim up to the surface.

In space the density of the medium is very low at 1 atom per meters cubed. This reverts the formula to almost force sorting = mass x g
The g effective almost to a very small amount to g

So the formula works just as well in space. Sorting forces in vectors from the planet's and the sun can be added to produce a net magnitude of force and direction.

Do a comparison with a 3m diameter air balloon with the ball on being1atom thick and made from the least dense material possible.
With a density of 1.05 m cubed per Kg it yields a Force (Sorting) of 6.95 Newtons. The g(equivalent) of 6.95/14.89 = 0.4696 m/s squared.
So the air balloon would accelerate at 4.78 per cent of the rate we fall at 9.8 m/s at sea level.

Regards

Mike Kenyon

[GoC]

   Lets consider the moon with a tube ten feet in diameter going through the center to the surface at two sides. Without mass in the tube we know the potential energy decreases to the gravitational center of that moon. The gravity decreases lineally with potential energy. No mass is involved for the potential energy state of every position. there is an affect on space by mass without contact with mass. That affect is maintained throughout the tube. It is described as a field. Now we need to describe the field with a very simple decision. Is the field a physical property? Current science believes the field is an extension of mass An increase in mass extends the extension of the field. But the question comes down to fundamental energy. Do electrons move them selves? If that is the case than we live in a Universe of magic. For those unwilling to believe in magic there is only one solution. Something moves the electrons. If something moves the electrons than what is moving the electrons has motion. We know Relativity cannot be if a medium of energy has flow. We would not have the same speed of light in every direction. This is a conundrum until the realization that a medium of space spin in place satisfies, the electron motion, Relativistic affects, c as a constant, chemical reactions, clock tick rate, gravity, fields and magnetism.   

They all can be described with particle spin c. Dilation of energy particles allows rods and clocks the flexibility to explain Relativity as a mechanical state. ...... in space and . . . . .  in the center of mass. Rods are longer and clocks are slower in GR center of mass. The rods and clocks exactly match to allow the clocks a slower tick rate to traverse a longer rod. The larger clocks internal movement matches the external movement in every frame while c remains the same. Gravity is an attraction to a more dilated space then it currently occupies. A more energy dilated space allows for less resistance to spin and move the electrons. An electron may spend more travel distance towards the center of gravity dilation then away from the center of gravity dilation. in the center of mass the electron would spend equal length duration within a sphere of influence. 

This may or may not be true but it describes Relativity mechanically. Quantum mechanics create Relativity observations.

[Kenyonm]

Work out why when we are in water g effective is zero and explain this with your abstract formula. There is nothing on earth except atoms, no warped space time or fractions. The electron spins cause the atoms to be micro generations of electromagnetic flux. Combined, these produce beams of energy that are attracted to the atoms with electrons with the opposite spins. These cause the attraction force that yields a acceleration of g.
Regards

Mike

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

 What causes Gravity? Higgs "field".
as for the most simple and superficial, anwser:
 Higgs field interacting within itself on different constants...
 "higgs field was perfect, utill mater took place, changing it from frozen stable state, predictable state, into twisting C...
 Higgs constant controlls C, C diverges near mass for higgs start to occur in macro scale, treating a massive object as it was an electron, this delay on the world of C results in time as the size of the field grows bigger...
 Perhaps photon has a special spiral confirguration, diverging from the electron, for so it recieves no mass when , allowing light to ignore higgs field, and the secund configuration ocurrs when one is traped in correlation within an electron... Not sure how the photon find the electron, but perhaps each particle is its own field...

 I still looking into the subject, I just do not undertand why some were not convinced about higgs particle, if CERN confirmed? What could be possible wrong with the data they collected?

[Kenyonm]

A Google search relieved a lot of pros and cons on this idea, some proffs saying it has nothing to cause gravity and others support it, so the jury is definitely out on this Higgs proposal causing gravity.

[ernst39]

An alternative explanation for the gravitational phenomena is provided by “the theory of informatons”.  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301891607_GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM_EXPLAINED_BY_THE_THEORY_OF_INFORMATONS-2 [nofollow])

[GoC]

Without a mechanism its just different labels for Relativity mathematics.