Im kind of curious of what the current theories of gravity are. Lets here
from everyone, what IS gravity and what causes it??
At least until the forces of gravity and electromagnitism are united. :-)
Gravity is a super luminary wave (faster than light) that 'rains' on us from deep space. This wave travels through space & imparts a pressure from above and we perceive it as a pushing effect into the earths crust and have given it the name of gravity. Conventional physics dictates that the earth itself creates gravity by its mass and PULLS us into the earths centre ??? !!!!! What a load of BS. How can mass create a force. Mass itself is another made up human word! Particles making up matter (fermions) are just tiny balls of dynamically changing energy that's in a continual flux with the zero-point-energy/dark matter/super luminary wave, etc surrounding the charged particle (or mass as we simply choose to call it).
A basic analogy is visualizing a flat, calm ocean representing this ubiquitous ZPE wave. This ocean has it's own entity and dimensions and as of yet, us humans haven't been able to detect it because of our archaic instrumentation. If a boat is now placed on this energy or ocean it now represents the real world that our simple minds can understand. The boat will have x,y,z axis & time. As the boat moves it reacts with the wave by creating a wake, this is a space-time distortion of which we can just begin to appreciate with CERN experiments et al. Tesla understood this connection that there is an energy all around and so small that we don't notice it's effects. My opinion is that we do notice because we are pushed from above by a force from this super luminary wave at a value of 9.8ms-1 or G.
It all makes sense if you allow your mind to think outside of the box and understand that we don't understand
These waves of energy from deep space traveling at faster-than- light speeds originate from black holes. These too are difficult to find but i bet your bottom dollar there are as many if not more black holes spewing out massless neutrinos that create this super luminary wave/ZPE/dark matter as there are galaxies and stars. For each star there must be a black hole that is the remnants of a former star. This black hole emits neutrinos as its last dying phase of completion.
Please feel free to email me directly (ksturch@yahoo.co.uk, 12th Nov, 2005) if you have any opinions as I'm fascinated by the subject. We need to evolve our attitude into deep space technology as sustainability on mother earth can't last forever. Humans are a virus of their own success.
Regards
Keith
A basic analogy is visualizing a flat, calm ocean representing this ubiquitous ZPE wave. This ocean has it's own entity and dimensions and as of yet, us humans haven't been able to detect it because of our archaic instrumentation. If a boat is now placed on this energy or ocean it now represents the real world that our simple minds can understand. The boat will have x,y,z axis & time. As the boat moves it reacts with the wave by creating a wake, this is a space-time distortion of which we can just begin to appreciate with CERN experiments et al. Tesla understood this connection that there is an energy all around and so small that we don't notice it's effects. My opinion is that we do notice because we are pushed from above by a force from this super luminary wave at a value of 9.8ms-1 or G.
It all makes sense if you allow your mind to think outside of the box and understand that we don't understand
These waves of energy from deep space traveling at faster-than- light speeds originate from black holes. These too are difficult to find but i bet your bottom dollar there are as many if not more black holes spewing out massless neutrinos that create this super luminary wave/ZPE/dark matter as there are galaxies and stars. For each star there must be a black hole that is the remnants of a former star. This black hole emits neutrinos as its last dying phase of completion.
Please feel free to email me directly (ksturch@yahoo.co.uk, 12th Nov, 2005) if you have any opinions as I'm fascinated by the subject. We need to evolve our attitude into deep space technology as sustainability on mother earth can't last forever. Humans are a virus of their own success.
Regards
Keith
"rainiing down on us"???
you have got to be kidding. then why does henry cavendish's experiment on measuring the grav. constant work? and how does your 'rainy' theory explain motion between 2 celestial bodies?
i think your theory is a load of crap
you have got to be kidding. then why does henry cavendish's experiment on measuring the grav. constant work? and how does your 'rainy' theory explain motion between 2 celestial bodies?
i think your theory is a load of crap
if it rains from deep space, as you said, it would rain in all directions, no? so sum of all forces would say that net acceleration is 0. so bodies would move in straight lines...
there are several possibilities of what gravity is. there is a theory for a particle called the "graviton." there is the theory of the curvature of space-time. to name a few.
one could link these two togethe and add a few dimensions to the mix. gravitons could leak out of this universe into a parallel universe. thus would explain the curve in space-time. this would also explain why the gravity force is so weak when compared to the nuclear forces and the EM forces.
the graviton passing in between this universe and the other(s) would also help to visualize the curve of space-time. current models show the earth resting on a "sheet" of space-time, meaning a 3-d sphere on a 2-d plane. since humans can only experience 3 spatial dimensions, it is difficult to visualize a sphere resting "on" a 3-d plane with the curvature caused by gravity shown.
if we want to know what gravity is, we have to leave this dimension to a higher one.
one could link these two togethe and add a few dimensions to the mix. gravitons could leak out of this universe into a parallel universe. thus would explain the curve in space-time. this would also explain why the gravity force is so weak when compared to the nuclear forces and the EM forces.
the graviton passing in between this universe and the other(s) would also help to visualize the curve of space-time. current models show the earth resting on a "sheet" of space-time, meaning a 3-d sphere on a 2-d plane. since humans can only experience 3 spatial dimensions, it is difficult to visualize a sphere resting "on" a 3-d plane with the curvature caused by gravity shown.
if we want to know what gravity is, we have to leave this dimension to a higher one.
So far as I am aware, there are 3 prevalent theories. keggy46 already mentioned the "push theory of gravity" which utilizes the Zero Point Energy idea as well. An easy way to visualize this theory is to think of the universe as a giant ocean. Each celestial body is a submarine swimming through the ZPE "ocean" creating a ceasless push toward its bow. I'm uncertain how this theory would allow for the development of anti-gravity.
The most accepted theory in modern science discussion is one of two theories that Einstein proposed: gravity is a function of "spacetime". In the theory, spacetime is spread out like a blanket or sheet throughout the universe. When sufficient mass is collected in a localized spot, like a bowling ball on a bed, a depression occurs which causes all things nearby to get "pulled" toward the mass. Since gravity is a function of the fabric of the universe, this theory makes any hypothesis proposing to counter gravity complete nonsense like proposing to bleach the color from black wool. (It should be noted that a long-term experiment was just completed to prove this theory. The data should be ready for presentation by 2010.)
The third theory was also proposed by Einstein and is known as the Unified Theory. In this theory, gravity is simply another form of energy like electricity and magnetism and consists of a wave/particle duality of super high energy produced naturally by matter. Polar, like electricity and magnetism, this theory allows for "anti-gravity".
To my mind, the Unified Theory seems to be the most likely of the 3 theories.
1) It acknowledges a "sea of energy" from outer space but doesn't "blame" ZPE for pushing on us. While we have successfully measured the various cosmic rays, gamma rays, and x-rays that are incessantly bombarding our planet, neither modern nor ancient scientists have yet to identify anything in space that we could identify as an ocean to enable sufficient resistance to produce the effect of gravity. (Blame our 'archaic instrumentation', if you want.)
2) It seems to explain better than the "spacetime blanket" some of the "unexplained" effects like Biefeld-Brown that are still elluding modern scientists. Even in the blanket analogy, the theory is weak since the only reason that there is a rolling toward the ball is because of gravity. (Circular reasoning.) Instead, the impression of the blanket roll can be explained when the planet is producing the gravity which weakens as you get farther from the source.
4a) It allows mass and particle physics to produce the gravitational effect at the point of the mass itself. This allows for variable gravity based on variable planet sizes because of variable compositions. Differing celestial body ingredients may produce greater amounts of gravity than other compositions for the same dimensions.
4b) Since gravity is a produced by matter, this allows for "anti-gravity" by making gravity just another form of energy rather than a function of the universe. In nature, all matter produces the gravitational effect. Like any chemical formula, we simply have yet to identify properly the conditions under which the ingredients need to be "mixed" to produce the desired result. Obviously, just because it might take a whole planet to produce a gravity discharge like Earth's, with a bit of "Yankee ingenuity" we should be able to do the same thing on a smaller scale. In the ZPE theory, gravity is always push. In the blanket theory, gravity is always toward the celestial body. In the Unified Theory, gravity is a wave/particle with some manner of polarity. Whether the regular pole produces a pull and the opposite pole produces a push or even if it's always pull, the source of the gravity would be controllable and directional.
Please also note that gravity and mass are intrinsically linked in scientific discussion. Gravity is the continual acceleration of a body. Mass is defined as a measurement of that acceleration: weight. On Earth, I weigh nearly 230 pounds. In space, my mass would be 0 although my physical dimensions and composition don't really change.
-TNF
The most accepted theory in modern science discussion is one of two theories that Einstein proposed: gravity is a function of "spacetime". In the theory, spacetime is spread out like a blanket or sheet throughout the universe. When sufficient mass is collected in a localized spot, like a bowling ball on a bed, a depression occurs which causes all things nearby to get "pulled" toward the mass. Since gravity is a function of the fabric of the universe, this theory makes any hypothesis proposing to counter gravity complete nonsense like proposing to bleach the color from black wool. (It should be noted that a long-term experiment was just completed to prove this theory. The data should be ready for presentation by 2010.)
The third theory was also proposed by Einstein and is known as the Unified Theory. In this theory, gravity is simply another form of energy like electricity and magnetism and consists of a wave/particle duality of super high energy produced naturally by matter. Polar, like electricity and magnetism, this theory allows for "anti-gravity".
To my mind, the Unified Theory seems to be the most likely of the 3 theories.
1) It acknowledges a "sea of energy" from outer space but doesn't "blame" ZPE for pushing on us. While we have successfully measured the various cosmic rays, gamma rays, and x-rays that are incessantly bombarding our planet, neither modern nor ancient scientists have yet to identify anything in space that we could identify as an ocean to enable sufficient resistance to produce the effect of gravity. (Blame our 'archaic instrumentation', if you want.)
2) It seems to explain better than the "spacetime blanket" some of the "unexplained" effects like Biefeld-Brown that are still elluding modern scientists. Even in the blanket analogy, the theory is weak since the only reason that there is a rolling toward the ball is because of gravity. (Circular reasoning.) Instead, the impression of the blanket roll can be explained when the planet is producing the gravity which weakens as you get farther from the source.
4a) It allows mass and particle physics to produce the gravitational effect at the point of the mass itself. This allows for variable gravity based on variable planet sizes because of variable compositions. Differing celestial body ingredients may produce greater amounts of gravity than other compositions for the same dimensions.
4b) Since gravity is a produced by matter, this allows for "anti-gravity" by making gravity just another form of energy rather than a function of the universe. In nature, all matter produces the gravitational effect. Like any chemical formula, we simply have yet to identify properly the conditions under which the ingredients need to be "mixed" to produce the desired result. Obviously, just because it might take a whole planet to produce a gravity discharge like Earth's, with a bit of "Yankee ingenuity" we should be able to do the same thing on a smaller scale. In the ZPE theory, gravity is always push. In the blanket theory, gravity is always toward the celestial body. In the Unified Theory, gravity is a wave/particle with some manner of polarity. Whether the regular pole produces a pull and the opposite pole produces a push or even if it's always pull, the source of the gravity would be controllable and directional.
Please also note that gravity and mass are intrinsically linked in scientific discussion. Gravity is the continual acceleration of a body. Mass is defined as a measurement of that acceleration: weight. On Earth, I weigh nearly 230 pounds. In space, my mass would be 0 although my physical dimensions and composition don't really change.
-TNF
My goodness. Well, relatively detailed, if not quite entirely accurate.
Specifically, gravity is curvature of spacetime. According to General Relativity (I hope I can abbreviate that to GR- and that you will all know what SR means if I do), "space" and "time" are dimensions- and there are four dimensions in our space, three of which we perceive as one kind of thing and the fourth as another, which actually are the same kind of thing, although arranged somewhat differently in their geometric relationship. In other words, it is more accurate to speak of "spacetime" than it is to speak separately of "space" and "time."
Time is not intrinsically different from space; it is merely arranged differently with respect to the three "space" dimensions than they are to one another. Let me explain how.
The three spatial dimensions are spherically symmetric. That means that both directions in all three dimensions, and therefore any combination of them, are geometrically the same, and that you can use spherical geometric functions to do spherical trigonometry in them and describe positions, and directions, and distances, and so forth in space. Time, however, while it is geometrically the same in both directions, is not spherically symmetric with respect to space. In fact, it is hyperbolically symmetric with respect to the three spatial dimensions. That means that we have to use hyperbolic geometry, hyperbolic geometric functions, and hyperbolic trigonometry to describe positions, distances, directions, and so forth in spacetime; and hyperbolic functions are essentially different from spherical ones in certain ways. When you do math with spherical geometry, you pick a direction and call it x, and pick one of the two directions of x and call it positive; and everything comes out exactly the same whatever direction you pick as x. But when you do math with hyperbolic geometry, once you have chosen a direction for your dimension, and picked one of the two directions on that dimension to be positive, you have introduced an asymmetry into your mathematical construct. It is in fact impossible to define the meaning of "the opposite direction" using hyperbolic functions. In spherical math, this is 180 degrees; but in hyperbolic math, it is infinity degrees.
Now, the reason that hyperbolic geometry, and hyperbolic symmetry, are called that, is because from the point of view of one of the dimensions, the other dimensions are all hyperbolic; whereas from the view of the other dimensions, that same single dimension forms an axis of symmetry of those hyperbolae. If you have ever seen a hyperbola, you will know that it is curved. For this reason, you will hear physicists say, "space is curved." This type of curvature, however, is not gravity; it is merely the point of view that is enforced by choosing a special direction in time and calling it "the future," and calling its opposite "the past." Once you have made such a choice, which is called "fixing a gauge," you can define rotations that will allow you to transform space and time into one another, just as you can define rotations that will turn the space dimensions into one another; however, the only directions that will be at defined angles that are described by real numbers will be at angles that point toward the future. You will not be able to define angles that point toward the past in real terms; they will be complex numbers, which contain a real and an imaginary part added together. We know what it means to give a real number as the distance to an object; but we do not know what it means to give a complex or an imaginary number for a distance. As far as we can tell, it has no physical meaning.
Now, you will immediately think, "well, that means that there is an inherent special direction in time in the universe." Not so! Because, you see, you can reverse the past and the future, and do all the calculations for the past, and the distances in spacetime that you get from events in the future to events in the past will be real numbers; it will be the distances from events in the past to events in the future that will become imaginary! Furthermore, the distances you get between events if you choose the future as your positive direction from events in the past to events in the future, will be the same distance you get from those same events in the future to those same events in the past, if you choose the past as your positive direction. The laws of physics at this level appear to be symmetric with respect to time; it is merely that one must fix a gauge from which to view it, in order to get numbers describing distances, and once one has done so, only in certain directions are the numbers real.
Another point of all of this is that time does not "pass;" after all, we do not speak of any of the other dimensions "passing." We instead speak of objects, and ourselves, "moving." So do we move in time; or at least that is how we perceive matters. Actually, from our point of view, if we define our speed in time as a second per second, the math comes out right if we translate a second in time into the distance that light moves in a second in space. In other words, we perceive ourselves (and all matter that shares our velocity in space, that is all matter that we perceive as having velocity zero with respect to us) as moving at the speed of light through time. And we describe the direction we perceive ourselves as moving in as the "future."
If you think carefully about this, you will see that energy is that which moves in space at the speed of light, and matter is that which moves in time at the speed of light. There is no reason for why light moves in space at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. Similarly, there is no reason for why matter moves in time at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. These are assumptions under relativity, not conclusions.
So whenever we perceive an object as moving relative to us, what we see is that it is rotated in spacetime, such that its "direction to the future" isn't in the same direction as ours is; in fact, it points in a direction that is partly time, and partly space. Whatever movement it makes in space, that movement is taken away from it in time; but the addition of a distance in space to a distance in time is not straightforward, because the spatial dimensions are hyperbolically symmetric with respect to time, rather than spherically symmetric as they are with respect to one another.
We therefore perceive the object as moving at "less than a second per second" in time, and as having some non-zero velocity in space. In addition, the object is rotated, although we cannot see that rotation; it is in a plane we cannot see because it is defined partly by the time axis, as opposed to the three planes we can see, which correspond to the x-y, x-z, and y-z planes. In other words, it is rotated in the x-t, y-t, or z-t planes, or some combination of them. I explained this in a recent post on another thread in terms of a spaceship changing its direction in space, and "moving more slowly in x." It's worth looking up.
Now, all of this is merely the GR description of spacetime, and of motion in spacetime; we have not yet touched gravity. In fact, since I have not discussed acceleration, this so far is merely the SR special case of GR. (Not that you can't represent acceleration in SR; however, it is difficult, and deals with "non-inertial frames," for which the math is very, very complex; in GR, this math becomes much simpler, but there are conceptual complications).
Gravity is represented as curvature, not of space, but of spacetime. Now, if spacetime is curved, then an object's velocity toward the future is only completely motion in time for one particular point in spacetime; at all other points in spacetime, from that point's point of view, its velocity in time is partly in time, and partly in space. What this means is that the object spontaneously moves, and the reason it moves is because the curving of spacetime makes its intrinsic velocity in time turn into velocity in space. It is also capable of curving the path of light, in the same way.
And that is what gravity is, according to our best theory of it, GR.
Specifically, gravity is curvature of spacetime. According to General Relativity (I hope I can abbreviate that to GR- and that you will all know what SR means if I do), "space" and "time" are dimensions- and there are four dimensions in our space, three of which we perceive as one kind of thing and the fourth as another, which actually are the same kind of thing, although arranged somewhat differently in their geometric relationship. In other words, it is more accurate to speak of "spacetime" than it is to speak separately of "space" and "time."
Time is not intrinsically different from space; it is merely arranged differently with respect to the three "space" dimensions than they are to one another. Let me explain how.
The three spatial dimensions are spherically symmetric. That means that both directions in all three dimensions, and therefore any combination of them, are geometrically the same, and that you can use spherical geometric functions to do spherical trigonometry in them and describe positions, and directions, and distances, and so forth in space. Time, however, while it is geometrically the same in both directions, is not spherically symmetric with respect to space. In fact, it is hyperbolically symmetric with respect to the three spatial dimensions. That means that we have to use hyperbolic geometry, hyperbolic geometric functions, and hyperbolic trigonometry to describe positions, distances, directions, and so forth in spacetime; and hyperbolic functions are essentially different from spherical ones in certain ways. When you do math with spherical geometry, you pick a direction and call it x, and pick one of the two directions of x and call it positive; and everything comes out exactly the same whatever direction you pick as x. But when you do math with hyperbolic geometry, once you have chosen a direction for your dimension, and picked one of the two directions on that dimension to be positive, you have introduced an asymmetry into your mathematical construct. It is in fact impossible to define the meaning of "the opposite direction" using hyperbolic functions. In spherical math, this is 180 degrees; but in hyperbolic math, it is infinity degrees.
Now, the reason that hyperbolic geometry, and hyperbolic symmetry, are called that, is because from the point of view of one of the dimensions, the other dimensions are all hyperbolic; whereas from the view of the other dimensions, that same single dimension forms an axis of symmetry of those hyperbolae. If you have ever seen a hyperbola, you will know that it is curved. For this reason, you will hear physicists say, "space is curved." This type of curvature, however, is not gravity; it is merely the point of view that is enforced by choosing a special direction in time and calling it "the future," and calling its opposite "the past." Once you have made such a choice, which is called "fixing a gauge," you can define rotations that will allow you to transform space and time into one another, just as you can define rotations that will turn the space dimensions into one another; however, the only directions that will be at defined angles that are described by real numbers will be at angles that point toward the future. You will not be able to define angles that point toward the past in real terms; they will be complex numbers, which contain a real and an imaginary part added together. We know what it means to give a real number as the distance to an object; but we do not know what it means to give a complex or an imaginary number for a distance. As far as we can tell, it has no physical meaning.
Now, you will immediately think, "well, that means that there is an inherent special direction in time in the universe." Not so! Because, you see, you can reverse the past and the future, and do all the calculations for the past, and the distances in spacetime that you get from events in the future to events in the past will be real numbers; it will be the distances from events in the past to events in the future that will become imaginary! Furthermore, the distances you get between events if you choose the future as your positive direction from events in the past to events in the future, will be the same distance you get from those same events in the future to those same events in the past, if you choose the past as your positive direction. The laws of physics at this level appear to be symmetric with respect to time; it is merely that one must fix a gauge from which to view it, in order to get numbers describing distances, and once one has done so, only in certain directions are the numbers real.
Another point of all of this is that time does not "pass;" after all, we do not speak of any of the other dimensions "passing." We instead speak of objects, and ourselves, "moving." So do we move in time; or at least that is how we perceive matters. Actually, from our point of view, if we define our speed in time as a second per second, the math comes out right if we translate a second in time into the distance that light moves in a second in space. In other words, we perceive ourselves (and all matter that shares our velocity in space, that is all matter that we perceive as having velocity zero with respect to us) as moving at the speed of light through time. And we describe the direction we perceive ourselves as moving in as the "future."
If you think carefully about this, you will see that energy is that which moves in space at the speed of light, and matter is that which moves in time at the speed of light. There is no reason for why light moves in space at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. Similarly, there is no reason for why matter moves in time at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. These are assumptions under relativity, not conclusions.
So whenever we perceive an object as moving relative to us, what we see is that it is rotated in spacetime, such that its "direction to the future" isn't in the same direction as ours is; in fact, it points in a direction that is partly time, and partly space. Whatever movement it makes in space, that movement is taken away from it in time; but the addition of a distance in space to a distance in time is not straightforward, because the spatial dimensions are hyperbolically symmetric with respect to time, rather than spherically symmetric as they are with respect to one another.
We therefore perceive the object as moving at "less than a second per second" in time, and as having some non-zero velocity in space. In addition, the object is rotated, although we cannot see that rotation; it is in a plane we cannot see because it is defined partly by the time axis, as opposed to the three planes we can see, which correspond to the x-y, x-z, and y-z planes. In other words, it is rotated in the x-t, y-t, or z-t planes, or some combination of them. I explained this in a recent post on another thread in terms of a spaceship changing its direction in space, and "moving more slowly in x." It's worth looking up.
Now, all of this is merely the GR description of spacetime, and of motion in spacetime; we have not yet touched gravity. In fact, since I have not discussed acceleration, this so far is merely the SR special case of GR. (Not that you can't represent acceleration in SR; however, it is difficult, and deals with "non-inertial frames," for which the math is very, very complex; in GR, this math becomes much simpler, but there are conceptual complications).
Gravity is represented as curvature, not of space, but of spacetime. Now, if spacetime is curved, then an object's velocity toward the future is only completely motion in time for one particular point in spacetime; at all other points in spacetime, from that point's point of view, its velocity in time is partly in time, and partly in space. What this means is that the object spontaneously moves, and the reason it moves is because the curving of spacetime makes its intrinsic velocity in time turn into velocity in space. It is also capable of curving the path of light, in the same way.
And that is what gravity is, according to our best theory of it, GR.
Here is my theory:
Gravity is an effect caused by the time gradient induced by mass in space-time.
Gravity is an effect caused by the time gradient induced by mass in space-time.
Yep, that's what I said.
reenforcement to sir Isac newton theory of gravity.
body's attract each other with a force directly proportional to there Masses and inversely to there distance apart. Read laws of motion.
did an experiment when i was younger. it was a negative field witch used a positive field to represent the earth. the negative was the sun ,and the mass was a nut .or metal nut .tiny to represent the moon. the positive was a spinning magnet witch tried to circle the sun, wile it was spinning in a elliptical orbit. the moon and its mass did strange things to the experiment causing the earth and moon to gain momentum around the sun. 2 large magnets flipped one on top one on bottom separated by a rod. they pushed against each other.
although a form of perpetual motion you needed the moon to create the effect of the earth rotating around the sun, wile it went positive to negative in its elliptical orbit.the moon would in turn circle the earth.
i hope you try this experiment.
body's attract each other with a force directly proportional to there Masses and inversely to there distance apart. Read laws of motion.
did an experiment when i was younger. it was a negative field witch used a positive field to represent the earth. the negative was the sun ,and the mass was a nut .or metal nut .tiny to represent the moon. the positive was a spinning magnet witch tried to circle the sun, wile it was spinning in a elliptical orbit. the moon and its mass did strange things to the experiment causing the earth and moon to gain momentum around the sun. 2 large magnets flipped one on top one on bottom separated by a rod. they pushed against each other.
although a form of perpetual motion you needed the moon to create the effect of the earth rotating around the sun, wile it went positive to negative in its elliptical orbit.the moon would in turn circle the earth.
i hope you try this experiment.
that is the most idiotic thing i have ever heard!!!!!!
the way i figure it is like this..
but first why hasn't the earths core cooled to a solid. explain this and you can understand gravity. because an asteroid or meteor that is solid can be deflected by conventional means you can not influence a star, or Jupiter a gas planet. it has a magnetic molten center core. a comet smashed into it witch confirms this.
liquid molten material will not be affected as much as a solid. the heaviest stars are liquid. they also are considered to have the greatest gravitational forces.
they emit gamma and x rays produced by its dense heavy magnetic mass.
i believe the key to this is that gamma rays influence magnetics and gravity the same way electricity is produced with a magnet and vica versa.
the way i figure it is like this..
but first why hasn't the earths core cooled to a solid. explain this and you can understand gravity. because an asteroid or meteor that is solid can be deflected by conventional means you can not influence a star, or Jupiter a gas planet. it has a magnetic molten center core. a comet smashed into it witch confirms this.
liquid molten material will not be affected as much as a solid. the heaviest stars are liquid. they also are considered to have the greatest gravitational forces.
they emit gamma and x rays produced by its dense heavy magnetic mass.
i believe the key to this is that gamma rays influence magnetics and gravity the same way electricity is produced with a magnet and vica versa.
Personally I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be upon Him). It explains things so much more gracefully than all that claptrap in the Bible, and it's so much easier to understand than having to actually think or anything. Got a question? I have an answer: the Flying Spaghetti Monster! He does it all. rAmen.
Check out Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity as mentioned on Peswiki, it's worth a look.
As far as I'm concerned gravity is not a force of any kind but simply a dynamic affect of field. So gravity is a condition of field which accelerates to the center of mass.
But if you look at gravity with a critical eye you will find that there is something wrong with Newtons ideas as well as Einstein's ideas.
Einstein himself finally conceded that perhaps gravity was not itself a force of any kind, but merely the affect of a yet undiscovered underlying force.
Gravitons are just a press grab, there are no gravitons.
If you can figure out why a hydrogen balloon defies gravity you will have the anti-gravity thing licked. And lighter than air is not much of an answer.
Another good site for gravity is www.gravitycontrol.org especially if you are interested in anti-gravity issues.
As far as I'm concerned gravity is not a force of any kind but simply a dynamic affect of field. So gravity is a condition of field which accelerates to the center of mass.
But if you look at gravity with a critical eye you will find that there is something wrong with Newtons ideas as well as Einstein's ideas.
Einstein himself finally conceded that perhaps gravity was not itself a force of any kind, but merely the affect of a yet undiscovered underlying force.
Gravitons are just a press grab, there are no gravitons.
If you can figure out why a hydrogen balloon defies gravity you will have the anti-gravity thing licked. And lighter than air is not much of an answer.
Another good site for gravity is www.gravitycontrol.org especially if you are interested in anti-gravity issues.
Ummm, well, I hate to tell you this, but because it makes things that have mass accelerate, gravity is by definition a force. You know, Newton's First Law and all.
I haven't heard of Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity before; I'll have a look. Thanks.
A hydrogen balloon defies gravity because when hydrogen is at the same pressure as air, it has a lower density. Objects in a fluid that have a lower density than the fluid they are contained in move upward. This is called "Archimedes' Principle." The force that pushes an object upward in a fluid is called "buoyancy." You should be aware that if buoyancy didn't work, ships wouldn't float.
Buoyancy is caused by the fact that the pressure in a fluid is not constant with depth; for example, the atmosphere grows thinner when you climb a mountain. As a result, the pressure on the bottom of an object is greater than the pressure on the top. If the object displaces an amount of fluid that is greater than its mass, then the difference between the pressure on the top and bottom of the object will be greater than its weight, and it will rise. The math is relatively simple; let me know and I'll show it to you, if you're interested.
I haven't heard of Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity before; I'll have a look. Thanks.
A hydrogen balloon defies gravity because when hydrogen is at the same pressure as air, it has a lower density. Objects in a fluid that have a lower density than the fluid they are contained in move upward. This is called "Archimedes' Principle." The force that pushes an object upward in a fluid is called "buoyancy." You should be aware that if buoyancy didn't work, ships wouldn't float.
Buoyancy is caused by the fact that the pressure in a fluid is not constant with depth; for example, the atmosphere grows thinner when you climb a mountain. As a result, the pressure on the bottom of an object is greater than the pressure on the top. If the object displaces an amount of fluid that is greater than its mass, then the difference between the pressure on the top and bottom of the object will be greater than its weight, and it will rise. The math is relatively simple; let me know and I'll show it to you, if you're interested.
If you can figure out why a hydrogen balloon defies gravity you will have the anti-gravity thing licked. And lighter than air is not much of an answer.
why hydrogen and not helium.
helium is lighter than air.
are you trying to say that (radiant energy) act with the hydrogen and oxygen to form h2o?
why hydrogen and not helium.
helium is lighter than air.
are you trying to say that (radiant energy) act with the hydrogen and oxygen to form h2o?
QUOTE (magnetman+)
If you can figure out why a hydrogen balloon defies gravity you will have the anti-gravity thing licked.
We do- in air. Both hydrogen and helium are lighter than air, and buoyancy makes balloons filled with them float.
QUOTE (magnetman+)
And lighter than air is not much of an answer.
It's all the answer there is.
QUOTE (magnetman+)
why hydrogen and not helium.
helium is lighter than air.
helium is lighter than air.
Ummm, yeah, and the Hindenberg was filled with hydrogen and floated, and party balloons are filled with helium and float. What do you mean, "why hydrogen and not helium?" Works the same with either one, hydrogen just has more buoyancy because it's less dense than helium.
Hi everyone!
I was just wondering what relevance Hydrogen/Helium, buoyancy etc. would have, if this discussion were being conducted on the airless Moon. Ciao!
RealityCheck.
.
"vogon beer poetry number four"
well, i was sitting under this tree.
and then, WHCK! it hit me!
if there are a small group of people, whom, from within the general populace's per capita, we will call a 'weak force', could somehow influence a large group of people, or a large 'mass' of people..., these people would have a 'strong force'. and so, within this system, the weak force steers the strong force into endless perpetual loops which can crush an earth-sized planet into a the volume of a wooden match box.
and that is my theory of 'gravity', today.
i think gravity is a result of spin. no spin, no dice.
QUOTE (magnetman+)
are you trying to say that (radiant energy) act with the hydrogen and oxygen to form h2o?
What's that have to do with it?
hello,
The better answer may be that both He and H2 are much less dense than air - as the Schneibster said. This makes sense, since N2 and O2 are both much "heavier" than He and H2, since their mass numbers are greater (more protons/neutrons in their nuclei).
H2 and O2 spontaneously form H2O:
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
The ∆G on this rxn is very (-) - which is why this rxn occurs spontaneously - and so is the ∆H, so this rxn produces water in the form of vapor, since the rxn itself is pretty exothermic.
As a general guide to whether or not a rxn will go, just look at the electronegativities of the elements. Oxygen realllllllllly wants those electrons that the slut (hydrogen) is all too happy to share...
Remember that gravity is only a theory, in that it fails when the masses of the objects are no longer affected by it...it's a real great thing that gravity has no effect on electrons, protons, etc. or we would all collapse into our own nuclei!
-ss
The better answer may be that both He and H2 are much less dense than air - as the Schneibster said. This makes sense, since N2 and O2 are both much "heavier" than He and H2, since their mass numbers are greater (more protons/neutrons in their nuclei).
H2 and O2 spontaneously form H2O:
2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O
The ∆G on this rxn is very (-) - which is why this rxn occurs spontaneously - and so is the ∆H, so this rxn produces water in the form of vapor, since the rxn itself is pretty exothermic.
As a general guide to whether or not a rxn will go, just look at the electronegativities of the elements. Oxygen realllllllllly wants those electrons that the slut (hydrogen) is all too happy to share...
Remember that gravity is only a theory, in that it fails when the masses of the objects are no longer affected by it...it's a real great thing that gravity has no effect on electrons, protons, etc. or we would all collapse into our own nuclei!
-ss
FISSION .
HIGH ENERGY MAGNETS COLLAPSE ATOMS TO GET THE FIRE STARTED.
HIGH ENERGY MAGNETS COLLAPSE ATOMS TO GET THE FIRE STARTED.
And fusion using high-strength electromagnets and plasma is relevant to a discussion of buoyancy because... ?
Hi everyone!
I was just wondering what relevance Hydrogen/Helium, buoyancy etc. would have, if this discussion were being conducted on the airless Moon. Ciao!
RealityCheck.
.
Well I can imagine two things happening on the moon if hydrogen / helium gas is injected to the moon's gravitational field from the surface up. The gases will diffuse upwards from the surface and then escape from the moon due to its low gravitational force. Only much faster than on Earth.
One theory of gravity that explains how the 'aether' affects objects. In light objects the aether travels faster, causing less resistance to the object when it is moved against the gravitational field.
In heavier objects, the aether travels more slowly, resulting in more energy required to push it against the gravitational field.
So if that theory is applied to the Earth and the moon, the moon has a lower resistance to the flow of aether, which results in a weaker gravitational force generated. The Earth has a higher resistance to the aether than the moon, so its gravitational field subsequently is stronger than the moon.
That theory is from http://www.gravitycontrol.org/ and in "Gravity Idealism Blog" hyperlink
Cheers Zapper
One theory of gravity that explains how the 'aether' affects objects. In light objects the aether travels faster, causing less resistance to the object when it is moved against the gravitational field.
In heavier objects, the aether travels more slowly, resulting in more energy required to push it against the gravitational field.
So if that theory is applied to the Earth and the moon, the moon has a lower resistance to the flow of aether, which results in a weaker gravitational force generated. The Earth has a higher resistance to the aether than the moon, so its gravitational field subsequently is stronger than the moon.
That theory is from http://www.gravitycontrol.org/ and in "Gravity Idealism Blog" hyperlink
Cheers Zapper
By the Aether wave theory the gravity is the Casimir force analogy for gravitons, i.e. spacetime waves.
Try this one on for gravity!... Gravity and inertia are the result of radiation pressure created by electromagnetic radiation that permeates space. The effect we observe as gravity is a shading effect that occurs when one massive object shades another massive object or particle. The shading allows for an acceleration by radiation pressure of the massive objects toward one another, thereby creating the effect we know as gravitation.
Perhaps the hardest pill to swallow is the following because it flies in the face of all we have been taught about gravity. Assuming empirically the approximate equivalence of weight/mass and inertia, we can deduce that gravity is maxed out on the surface of Earth. This means that on another planet of Earth's mass or greater your weight would remain approximately the same.
An interesting site with more detailed explanations can be found at
[URL=www.nuphysics4u.com]
Perhaps the hardest pill to swallow is the following because it flies in the face of all we have been taught about gravity. Assuming empirically the approximate equivalence of weight/mass and inertia, we can deduce that gravity is maxed out on the surface of Earth. This means that on another planet of Earth's mass or greater your weight would remain approximately the same.
An interesting site with more detailed explanations can be found at
[URL=www.nuphysics4u.com]
It's my understanding that this is about gravity and what it's all about.....
It depends on what you want your theory to achieve, as in the example of big bang theory.
We now know that the universe is acceleratively expanding, in relation to gravity decreasing in proportion to the square of the distance, yet the theorists insist that 5 billion years ago the expansion was not accelerating, but was decelerating due to an imbalance in dark energy.
For almost 70 years we stuck with the idea that the expansion of universe was slowing or universe was deceleratively expanding, despite the fact that decelerative expansion is impossible, but no one challenged the point.
Gravity decreases in proportion to the square of the distance. But if you add in the possibility that the gravity of a system, in terms of a dynamic response determined by the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference, is decreasing due to an accelerative increase in the underlying energy focused to the center of field, you not only have an acceleratively expanding universe, but you have a universe which is both self sustaining and self perpetuating.
The idea of decelerating expansion is intended to extend the age of universe and help the theorists make their ideas fit, whether or not they are round pegs being forced into square holes or not. So this idea about decelerative expansion, which increases the gravity of universe while at the same time it is decreasing is a fudge factor.
It's like trying to get gravity to do things gravity can't do, such as slow the expansion of universe, while the universe continues to expand.
The universe is either expanding or contracting with no intermediate stage. Whether it's expansion or contraction they are both accelerative.
Gravity does not radiate or move around, gravity is merely a condition of field and not itself a force of any kind. It's a dynamic response, just like electromagnetism is a dynamic response.
Newton wanted gravity to increase to the center of the earth, not only because it made his theory easier to understand, but because it also allowed for the earth to be considered solid and permanent beneath our feet. A comforting thought....
Yet, the structural balance of the earth was not considered, because if gravity does in fact continue to increase to the center of the earth's core, there is one hell of a gravity well situated on the head of a pin, which is comparable to a black hole.
But if we notice the rotational spin of the earth is decreasing and not increasing. This indicates that the earth's gravity is decreasing proportionally, which corresponds to our acceleratively expanding universe.
And if this is the case, it would be impossible for gravity to increase to the center of the earth, as gravity increasing to the center of the earth would in itself cause the rotation of the earth to accelerate rather than decelerate.
Remember, we are talking about a dynamic system where the dynamics must remain proportionally balanced in order to effect a stable field structure.
And if gravity decreases from the surface curve to the center of the earth's core, the core itself must be very cold.
The dynamics on the inside must be inversely proportional to the dynamics on the outside in order to effect a balanced structure.
The core itself should be a gaseous mixture rarefied to the center of field in the form of hydrogen. And believe it or not, hydrogen has the highest energy potential, in relation to a ratio of energy per unit of mass, than any other known element.
So, the underlying energy of the earth's field, in terms of a relative unified field system, is focused to the center of the earth.
If you apply this to flight, you will find that gravity is not the problem, as gravity itself can be easily controlled. The real problem is our understanding of gravity, which keeps us confined to the box.
In effect the earth is itself a dynamic system, where the gravity of the earth is continuously decreasing, all be it very slowly.....
This would mean that gravity is not what holds the earth in orbit around the sun, but a differential in the underlying energy of the sun and the earth maintains the earth's orbit around the sun, as the solar field is focused to the center of the sun.
The gravity factor is simply a dynamic response to the condition of field.
Gravity is actually a non-event, as gravity itself doesn't do anything.
It depends on what you want your theory to achieve, as in the example of big bang theory.
We now know that the universe is acceleratively expanding, in relation to gravity decreasing in proportion to the square of the distance, yet the theorists insist that 5 billion years ago the expansion was not accelerating, but was decelerating due to an imbalance in dark energy.
For almost 70 years we stuck with the idea that the expansion of universe was slowing or universe was deceleratively expanding, despite the fact that decelerative expansion is impossible, but no one challenged the point.
Gravity decreases in proportion to the square of the distance. But if you add in the possibility that the gravity of a system, in terms of a dynamic response determined by the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference, is decreasing due to an accelerative increase in the underlying energy focused to the center of field, you not only have an acceleratively expanding universe, but you have a universe which is both self sustaining and self perpetuating.
The idea of decelerating expansion is intended to extend the age of universe and help the theorists make their ideas fit, whether or not they are round pegs being forced into square holes or not. So this idea about decelerative expansion, which increases the gravity of universe while at the same time it is decreasing is a fudge factor.
It's like trying to get gravity to do things gravity can't do, such as slow the expansion of universe, while the universe continues to expand.
The universe is either expanding or contracting with no intermediate stage. Whether it's expansion or contraction they are both accelerative.
Gravity does not radiate or move around, gravity is merely a condition of field and not itself a force of any kind. It's a dynamic response, just like electromagnetism is a dynamic response.
Newton wanted gravity to increase to the center of the earth, not only because it made his theory easier to understand, but because it also allowed for the earth to be considered solid and permanent beneath our feet. A comforting thought....
Yet, the structural balance of the earth was not considered, because if gravity does in fact continue to increase to the center of the earth's core, there is one hell of a gravity well situated on the head of a pin, which is comparable to a black hole.
But if we notice the rotational spin of the earth is decreasing and not increasing. This indicates that the earth's gravity is decreasing proportionally, which corresponds to our acceleratively expanding universe.
And if this is the case, it would be impossible for gravity to increase to the center of the earth, as gravity increasing to the center of the earth would in itself cause the rotation of the earth to accelerate rather than decelerate.
Remember, we are talking about a dynamic system where the dynamics must remain proportionally balanced in order to effect a stable field structure.
And if gravity decreases from the surface curve to the center of the earth's core, the core itself must be very cold.
The dynamics on the inside must be inversely proportional to the dynamics on the outside in order to effect a balanced structure.
The core itself should be a gaseous mixture rarefied to the center of field in the form of hydrogen. And believe it or not, hydrogen has the highest energy potential, in relation to a ratio of energy per unit of mass, than any other known element.
So, the underlying energy of the earth's field, in terms of a relative unified field system, is focused to the center of the earth.
If you apply this to flight, you will find that gravity is not the problem, as gravity itself can be easily controlled. The real problem is our understanding of gravity, which keeps us confined to the box.
In effect the earth is itself a dynamic system, where the gravity of the earth is continuously decreasing, all be it very slowly.....
This would mean that gravity is not what holds the earth in orbit around the sun, but a differential in the underlying energy of the sun and the earth maintains the earth's orbit around the sun, as the solar field is focused to the center of the sun.
The gravity factor is simply a dynamic response to the condition of field.
Gravity is actually a non-event, as gravity itself doesn't do anything.
Has anyone heard of the atomic expansion theory? www.TheFinalTheory.com
Thought expanding if nothing else ,however, the man's math seems to work better than that of Newton's.
Thought expanding if nothing else ,however, the man's math seems to work better than that of Newton's.
Its all over the internet if you can read/think outside the current mainstream physics box- has been since 1993!
I think Gravity is some form of time dilation, still working out how
let me see.... gravity is kinda like the apple that hit sir isaac newton on the head, although sir isaac newton was at the right moment in space and time. i like to think of gravity as an amazing contraction of the universe that only forces matter onto earth. gravity is space pushing onto earth. please dont quote me on this, i got it from a dream and i have no recollection of ever posting on this forum.
"vogon beer poetry number four"
well, i was sitting under this tree.
and then, WHCK! it hit me!
if there are a small group of people, whom, from within the general populace's per capita, we will call a 'weak force', could somehow influence a large group of people, or a large 'mass' of people..., these people would have a 'strong force'. and so, within this system, the weak force steers the strong force into endless perpetual loops which can crush an earth-sized planet into a the volume of a wooden match box.
and that is my theory of 'gravity', today.
i think gravity is a result of spin. no spin, no dice.
Futurama quote:
Fry:Stephen Hawking arn't you that physicist that invented gravity.
Stephen: Sure why not.
Thats all I have to contribute as just about every theory I have heard of has been explained.
Gravity raining down on us and me without my gravity unbrella.
Cheers
Fry:Stephen Hawking arn't you that physicist that invented gravity.
Stephen: Sure why not.
Thats all I have to contribute as just about every theory I have heard of has been explained.
Gravity raining down on us and me without my gravity unbrella.
Cheers
Stupid question alert
Does the seemingly swirling bodies like galaxies/planets/solar systems have to do with gravity or some other force? Does gravity them to swirl and if so how?
Does the seemingly swirling bodies like galaxies/planets/solar systems have to do with gravity or some other force? Does gravity them to swirl and if so how?
QUOTE (Macgyver1+Apr 19 2004, 06:35 PM)
Im kind of curious of what the current theories of gravity are. Lets here
from everyone, what IS gravity and what causes it??
gravity huh. well, its simply a downweard force caused by the inside of the earth imploding. this may sound a litlle bit xtreme, but its just a reaction of thermit oxide redudting the black, molting mantle. glad to be of a help to tou, dear friend.
BOOBIES
from everyone, what IS gravity and what causes it??
gravity huh. well, its simply a downweard force caused by the inside of the earth imploding. this may sound a litlle bit xtreme, but its just a reaction of thermit oxide redudting the black, molting mantle. glad to be of a help to tou, dear friend.
BOOBIES
Gravitation can be described a heap of the equations But there is no which allows to describe return process. Probably it isn't present. Probably, gravitation is the got property "UpToUniversal" "matter" to compress the appeared matter. 
Hey All,
Great reference Negative1 , and Newton your Vogon poetry almost made my ears bleed!
Gravity is the most enigmatic of all the known forces. Firstly it appears to be only attractive (although there are instances thought up by cosmologists that might be a form of repulsive gravity in rare cosmic events). Also gravity appears to be an extremely weak force (although it diminishes with the same inverse square law as say the electrostatic force, the constants used are many orders of magnitude different (ie G=6.67300 × 10^-11 as in (Gmm)/r^2 for gravity and Kc=8.988×10^9 as in (Kc Q1Q2)/r^2 for the electrostatic force. Furthermore gravity is the only force that we have not been able to directly detect a force carrier particle (Gluons are the force carriers for the strong nuclear force, W and Z bosons are the force carriers for the weak nuclear force, and Photons are the force carriers for electromagnetic interactions.) Gravitons are the theorized carriers of gravitational interactions, but with all the efforts put into finding them have yet to bear results. This could just be the difficulties arising from the weakness of gravity, but some theories doubt that gravity can even be considered a typical force.
Gravity as explained by Einstein is that masses distort space (and time) where matter just follows the path of distorted space, giving the 'illusion' of force. (If you've ever seen the ball on a rubber sheet analogy, you'd see what I mean.) String theory (what little I understand of it) seems to claim that gravity is the only force that permeates other dimensions (branes?) leaving us with only a partial understanding of what may actually be a much stronger force.
I hope this at least leaves you with more thoughtful questions to ask other really smart guys (and gals) on this forum (which is really on of the goals of science!)
Take care,
Ron
Great reference Negative1 , and Newton your Vogon poetry almost made my ears bleed!
Gravity is the most enigmatic of all the known forces. Firstly it appears to be only attractive (although there are instances thought up by cosmologists that might be a form of repulsive gravity in rare cosmic events). Also gravity appears to be an extremely weak force (although it diminishes with the same inverse square law as say the electrostatic force, the constants used are many orders of magnitude different (ie G=6.67300 × 10^-11 as in (Gmm)/r^2 for gravity and Kc=8.988×10^9 as in (Kc Q1Q2)/r^2 for the electrostatic force. Furthermore gravity is the only force that we have not been able to directly detect a force carrier particle (Gluons are the force carriers for the strong nuclear force, W and Z bosons are the force carriers for the weak nuclear force, and Photons are the force carriers for electromagnetic interactions.) Gravitons are the theorized carriers of gravitational interactions, but with all the efforts put into finding them have yet to bear results. This could just be the difficulties arising from the weakness of gravity, but some theories doubt that gravity can even be considered a typical force.
Gravity as explained by Einstein is that masses distort space (and time) where matter just follows the path of distorted space, giving the 'illusion' of force. (If you've ever seen the ball on a rubber sheet analogy, you'd see what I mean.) String theory (what little I understand of it) seems to claim that gravity is the only force that permeates other dimensions (branes?) leaving us with only a partial understanding of what may actually be a much stronger force.
I hope this at least leaves you with more thoughtful questions to ask other really smart guys (and gals) on this forum (which is really on of the goals of science!)
Take care,
Ron
"Newton's apple was not perfectly round."
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
A black hole has such powerful gravity that it is absorbing any matter that comes too close. Any matter in the near space is crushed to infinite density and is supposed to disappear forever. Even light can not escape the fierce gravitational pull, so they are thought to be remain black and invisible. Schwarzschild calculated how compressed a star would have to be for its gravity to trap light. This is called the Schwarzschild radius which is the radius of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole.
Extragalactic jets are thought to be from a black hole's accretion disk, not from a black hole itself. In the other case, narrow jets of particles at relativistic speeds spout out up and down, vertically or one direction.
But the gravitational potential is not formed perfectly spherically.
α|Y00|2+β|Y11|2 will make a gravitational potential figure like a cut end of an apple with two hollows up and down. Then the Schwarzschild radius sphere will have two holes from which Extragalactic or narrow jets come out.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
A black hole has such powerful gravity that it is absorbing any matter that comes too close. Any matter in the near space is crushed to infinite density and is supposed to disappear forever. Even light can not escape the fierce gravitational pull, so they are thought to be remain black and invisible. Schwarzschild calculated how compressed a star would have to be for its gravity to trap light. This is called the Schwarzschild radius which is the radius of the event horizon of a non-rotating black hole.
Extragalactic jets are thought to be from a black hole's accretion disk, not from a black hole itself. In the other case, narrow jets of particles at relativistic speeds spout out up and down, vertically or one direction.
But the gravitational potential is not formed perfectly spherically.
α|Y00|2+β|Y11|2 will make a gravitational potential figure like a cut end of an apple with two hollows up and down. Then the Schwarzschild radius sphere will have two holes from which Extragalactic or narrow jets come out.
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html
The remark on anti-gravitation:
Apparently, anti-gravitation is difficult for organizing because gravitation - consequence of action of forces which aren't present in our world.
In Russia 80-years of physics discussed influence of other dimensions on our world.
Then the Russian physicists have been anxious by that attempts of "reasonable" influence on "foreign" dimensions can destroy the Universe: avalanche mutual absorption of different dimensions can be not stopped...
Apparently, anti-gravitation is difficult for organizing because gravitation - consequence of action of forces which aren't present in our world.
In Russia 80-years of physics discussed influence of other dimensions on our world.
Then the Russian physicists have been anxious by that attempts of "reasonable" influence on "foreign" dimensions can destroy the Universe: avalanche mutual absorption of different dimensions can be not stopped...
Ok.....these discussions are quite silly. I'm not quite sure the reason for the debates, as any debate will surely not help you to arrive at anti-gravity...which is what we are all really interested in here.....I am most certain. There are no original thoughts here. Any of us can are fully capable of quoting or summing up Mr. Webster or his cousin Mr. Britanica. In your desire to break free, try to remember to also appreciate that which holds us together. We were born into gravity, as we were born into our bodies and born into this inescapable event called time. We are not yet ready to climb out of these boxes just yet for more than one reason...the least important being a lack of working technical principles. Being born into gravity only makes it more difficult to understand it. No third party perspective. Anyways...gotta go. I have much more to add to this later. Good luck.
The theory that I currently believe is correct is found at:
hxxp://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Advanced-Aerospace-Propulsion.pdf
{xx = tt}
It is a 57-page paper so be in for a long read, I don't suggest you post up until you have read it all. It's a very intresting theory from my point of view and explains gravity well from my point of view.
TheResearcher.
hxxp://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Advanced-Aerospace-Propulsion.pdf
{xx = tt}
It is a 57-page paper so be in for a long read, I don't suggest you post up until you have read it all. It's a very intresting theory from my point of view and explains gravity well from my point of view.
TheResearcher.
I attended a lecture by a professor at U.F. He talked about dark matter. He talked about CERN. He talked about how he headed the project for the creation of the particle anayzer used in CERN. The analyzer, which he said was built at the engineering department at U.F., because that engineering department was the only one in the world that could build something like that.
The dark matter explanation was likened to the fact that gravitrons might be the source of the anomaly presented by dark matter. It went something like," Dark matter is the defintion of unknown mass in the universe," he showed up a chart which said that mathamatically, roughly on third of the universe's mass was unknown, and then he went on to say, "because so much of the mass is unknown, gravitrons might present the explantion to the anomaly."Then he basically showed us some stuff about CERN, and then he finished up. [the real presentation was about half an hour, but this is meat and potatoes of it.]
After he finished, a professor for the chemistry program presented a question about whether or not the finding of the gravitron could actually be being overlooked by the CERN analyzer.
The presenter rebounded with almost being upset by the comment, like he was defending one of his theories, and then another professor at the meeting said.
In chemistry, we like to look at things that are both big and small. [I think he was reffering to the galactic soup theory, where the universe is considered something enveloped by a big all encompassing gravitational soup thing.]
DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THIS!!! This is the conversation, not a news article!
I attended a lecture by a professor at U.F. He talked about dark matter. He talked about CERN. He talked about how he headed the project for the creation of the particle anayzer used in CERN. The analyzer, which he said was built at the engineering department at U.F., because that engineering department was the only one in the world that could build something like that.
The dark matter explanation was likened to the fact that gravitrons might be the source of the anomaly presented by dark matter. It went something like," Dark matter is the defintion of unknown mass in the universe," he showed up a chart which said that mathamatically, roughly on third of the universe's mass was unknown, and then he went on to say, "because so much of the mass is unknown, gravitrons might present the explantion to the anomaly."Then he basically showed us some stuff about CERN, and then he finished up. [the real presentation was about half an hour, but this is meat and potatoes of it.]
After he finished, a professor for the chemistry program presented a question about whether or not the finding of the gravitron could actually be being overlooked by the CERN analyzer.
The presenter rebounded with almost being upset by the comment, like he was defending one of his theories, and then another professor at the meeting said.
In chemistry, we like to look at things that are both big and small. [I think he was reffering to the galactic soup theory, where the universe is considered something enveloped by a big all encompassing gravitational soup thing.]
DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THIS!!! This is the conversation, not a news article!
Wikipedia.org contains a dark matter page, and the alternative explanations section talks about explaining Dark Matter with gravitrons.
The dark matter explanation was likened to the fact that gravitrons might be the source of the anomaly presented by dark matter. It went something like," Dark matter is the defintion of unknown mass in the universe," he showed up a chart which said that mathamatically, roughly on third of the universe's mass was unknown, and then he went on to say, "because so much of the mass is unknown, gravitrons might present the explantion to the anomaly."Then he basically showed us some stuff about CERN, and then he finished up. [the real presentation was about half an hour, but this is meat and potatoes of it.]
After he finished, a professor for the chemistry program presented a question about whether or not the finding of the gravitron could actually be being overlooked by the CERN analyzer.
The presenter rebounded with almost being upset by the comment, like he was defending one of his theories, and then another professor at the meeting said.
In chemistry, we like to look at things that are both big and small. [I think he was reffering to the galactic soup theory, where the universe is considered something enveloped by a big all encompassing gravitational soup thing.]
DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THIS!!! This is the conversation, not a news article!
I attended a lecture by a professor at U.F. He talked about dark matter. He talked about CERN. He talked about how he headed the project for the creation of the particle anayzer used in CERN. The analyzer, which he said was built at the engineering department at U.F., because that engineering department was the only one in the world that could build something like that.
The dark matter explanation was likened to the fact that gravitrons might be the source of the anomaly presented by dark matter. It went something like," Dark matter is the defintion of unknown mass in the universe," he showed up a chart which said that mathamatically, roughly on third of the universe's mass was unknown, and then he went on to say, "because so much of the mass is unknown, gravitrons might present the explantion to the anomaly."Then he basically showed us some stuff about CERN, and then he finished up. [the real presentation was about half an hour, but this is meat and potatoes of it.]
After he finished, a professor for the chemistry program presented a question about whether or not the finding of the gravitron could actually be being overlooked by the CERN analyzer.
The presenter rebounded with almost being upset by the comment, like he was defending one of his theories, and then another professor at the meeting said.
In chemistry, we like to look at things that are both big and small. [I think he was reffering to the galactic soup theory, where the universe is considered something enveloped by a big all encompassing gravitational soup thing.]
DO NOT QUOTE ME ON THIS!!! This is the conversation, not a news article!
Wikipedia.org contains a dark matter page, and the alternative explanations section talks about explaining Dark Matter with gravitrons.
whoops.. posted twice!!
To answer the original question without any BS one need only read the post by Schneibster on page one. I personally believe in graviton theory indicating that gravity is a particle. If I remember correctly gravity falls under 1 of 4 fundamental forces of nature. The other three? One is the force electromagnetism between electrons and protons, another is the force that holds the nucleus of atoms together and is stronger or else protons would fly apart and the last is a force involving even smaller particles.
All have been identified as particles e.g. electromagnetism is the transmission of photon pairs between larger particles (electrons and protons). The particle that holds protons together are called gluons. So it makes sense that gravity too is a particle (a very small one) that is emitted from particles larger than itself. It just so happens that measurable amounts (since the force of just one would be unmeasurable with todays tools) have been found where particles larger than itself are in great concentration (matter with mass). So it has been concluded that anything with mass has gravity.
This makes sense in that it has already been measured between two objects in labs. Just read the works of Sir Isaac Newton. It also makes sense when it comes to distance. In order for gravity to fully work you need two objects. So both myself and the Earth emit graviton particles. These particles are received by the other then resent back out to be received by the original sender. This is what creates the attraction between objects. The farther I get from the Earth the less I feel it's gravity because with this distance the graviton density between myself and the earth become less. So the less graviton density between two objects the less gravitational force between them.
Another example would be the Earth, moon and Mars. Because the distance between the Earth and moon is far less then the distance between the moon and Mars the graviton density between the Earth and moon is far greater than the graviton density between Mar and the moon. This is why the moon orbits the Earth and is why Mars has no effect on the moon.
Though I also believe that everything is a particle of matter of some kind and that energy is only the motion these particles have. The more energy something has means the faster/more it moves. That even at absolute zero you can still find motion/vibration and this is what is called zero point energy.
All have been identified as particles e.g. electromagnetism is the transmission of photon pairs between larger particles (electrons and protons). The particle that holds protons together are called gluons. So it makes sense that gravity too is a particle (a very small one) that is emitted from particles larger than itself. It just so happens that measurable amounts (since the force of just one would be unmeasurable with todays tools) have been found where particles larger than itself are in great concentration (matter with mass). So it has been concluded that anything with mass has gravity.
This makes sense in that it has already been measured between two objects in labs. Just read the works of Sir Isaac Newton. It also makes sense when it comes to distance. In order for gravity to fully work you need two objects. So both myself and the Earth emit graviton particles. These particles are received by the other then resent back out to be received by the original sender. This is what creates the attraction between objects. The farther I get from the Earth the less I feel it's gravity because with this distance the graviton density between myself and the earth become less. So the less graviton density between two objects the less gravitational force between them.
Another example would be the Earth, moon and Mars. Because the distance between the Earth and moon is far less then the distance between the moon and Mars the graviton density between the Earth and moon is far greater than the graviton density between Mar and the moon. This is why the moon orbits the Earth and is why Mars has no effect on the moon.
Though I also believe that everything is a particle of matter of some kind and that energy is only the motion these particles have. The more energy something has means the faster/more it moves. That even at absolute zero you can still find motion/vibration and this is what is called zero point energy.
There is a push theory of gravity.
Einstein's General Relativity explains curvilinear motion by curved space. But it does not give any mechanism by which things will speed up in freefall. It only explains why things follow curves.
Drop something and it doesn't follow a curve. It simply speeds up. Why?
It is being pushed by space. Curved space is accelerating space accelerating the things that occupy it.
Curvilinear motion is explained by Einstein's curvature but speed up is not. Einstein simply says that it happens and that it is geared to timerate but this is not a complete explanation in any way shape or form.
Einstein's General Relativity explains curvilinear motion by curved space. But it does not give any mechanism by which things will speed up in freefall. It only explains why things follow curves.
Drop something and it doesn't follow a curve. It simply speeds up. Why?
It is being pushed by space. Curved space is accelerating space accelerating the things that occupy it.
Curvilinear motion is explained by Einstein's curvature but speed up is not. Einstein simply says that it happens and that it is geared to timerate but this is not a complete explanation in any way shape or form.
With all due respect to "Precursor562," physics isn't a realm of "beliefs." It is a realm of science, investigation, theories, questions and solutions.
Theories of the cause of gravity abound. Could it be particle-based? Perhaps, but the only honest answer anyone can make to the question, "What causes graivty?" is "No one knows."
Theories of the cause of gravity abound. Could it be particle-based? Perhaps, but the only honest answer anyone can make to the question, "What causes graivty?" is "No one knows."
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 14 2005, 05:55 AM)
My goodness. Well, relatively detailed, if not quite entirely accurate.
Specifically, gravity is curvature of spacetime. According to General Relativity (I hope I can abbreviate that to GR- and that you will all know what SR means if I do), "space" and "time" are dimensions- and there are four dimensions in our space, three of which we perceive as one kind of thing and the fourth as another, which actually are the same kind of thing, although arranged somewhat differently in their geometric relationship. In other words, it is more accurate to speak of "spacetime" than it is to speak separately of "space" and "time."
Time is not intrinsically different from space; it is merely arranged differently with respect to the three "space" dimensions than they are to one another. Let me explain how.
The three spatial dimensions are spherically symmetric. That means that both directions in all three dimensions, and therefore any combination of them, are geometrically the same, and that you can use spherical geometric functions to do spherical trigonometry in them and describe positions, and directions, and distances, and so forth in space. Time, however, while it is geometrically the same in both directions, is not spherically symmetric with respect to space. In fact, it is hyperbolically symmetric with respect to the three spatial dimensions. That means that we have to use hyperbolic geometry, hyperbolic geometric functions, and hyperbolic trigonometry to describe positions, distances, directions, and so forth in spacetime; and hyperbolic functions are essentially different from spherical ones in certain ways. When you do math with spherical geometry, you pick a direction and call it x, and pick one of the two directions of x and call it positive; and everything comes out exactly the same whatever direction you pick as x. But when you do math with hyperbolic geometry, once you have chosen a direction for your dimension, and picked one of the two directions on that dimension to be positive, you have introduced an asymmetry into your mathematical construct. It is in fact impossible to define the meaning of "the opposite direction" using hyperbolic functions. In spherical math, this is 180 degrees; but in hyperbolic math, it is infinity degrees.
Now, the reason that hyperbolic geometry, and hyperbolic symmetry, are called that, is because from the point of view of one of the dimensions, the other dimensions are all hyperbolic; whereas from the view of the other dimensions, that same single dimension forms an axis of symmetry of those hyperbolae. If you have ever seen a hyperbola, you will know that it is curved. For this reason, you will hear physicists say, "space is curved." This type of curvature, however, is not gravity; it is merely the point of view that is enforced by choosing a special direction in time and calling it "the future," and calling its opposite "the past." Once you have made such a choice, which is called "fixing a gauge," you can define rotations that will allow you to transform space and time into one another, just as you can define rotations that will turn the space dimensions into one another; however, the only directions that will be at defined angles that are described by real numbers will be at angles that point toward the future. You will not be able to define angles that point toward the past in real terms; they will be complex numbers, which contain a real and an imaginary part added together. We know what it means to give a real number as the distance to an object; but we do not know what it means to give a complex or an imaginary number for a distance. As far as we can tell, it has no physical meaning.
Now, you will immediately think, "well, that means that there is an inherent special direction in time in the universe." Not so! Because, you see, you can reverse the past and the future, and do all the calculations for the past, and the distances in spacetime that you get from events in the future to events in the past will be real numbers; it will be the distances from events in the past to events in the future that will become imaginary! Furthermore, the distances you get between events if you choose the future as your positive direction from events in the past to events in the future, will be the same distance you get from those same events in the future to those same events in the past, if you choose the past as your positive direction. The laws of physics at this level appear to be symmetric with respect to time; it is merely that one must fix a gauge from which to view it, in order to get numbers describing distances, and once one has done so, only in certain directions are the numbers real.
Another point of all of this is that time does not "pass;" after all, we do not speak of any of the other dimensions "passing." We instead speak of objects, and ourselves, "moving." So do we move in time; or at least that is how we perceive matters. Actually, from our point of view, if we define our speed in time as a second per second, the math comes out right if we translate a second in time into the distance that light moves in a second in space. In other words, we perceive ourselves (and all matter that shares our velocity in space, that is all matter that we perceive as having velocity zero with respect to us) as moving at the speed of light through time. And we describe the direction we perceive ourselves as moving in as the "future."
If you think carefully about this, you will see that energy is that which moves in space at the speed of light, and matter is that which moves in time at the speed of light. There is no reason for why light moves in space at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. Similarly, there is no reason for why matter moves in time at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. These are assumptions under relativity, not conclusions.
So whenever we perceive an object as moving relative to us, what we see is that it is rotated in spacetime, such that its "direction to the future" isn't in the same direction as ours is; in fact, it points in a direction that is partly time, and partly space. Whatever movement it makes in space, that movement is taken away from it in time; but the addition of a distance in space to a distance in time is not straightforward, because the spatial dimensions are hyperbolically symmetric with respect to time, rather than spherically symmetric as they are with respect to one another.
We therefore perceive the object as moving at "less than a second per second" in time, and as having some non-zero velocity in space. In addition, the object is rotated, although we cannot see that rotation; it is in a plane we cannot see because it is defined partly by the time axis, as opposed to the three planes we can see, which correspond to the x-y, x-z, and y-z planes. In other words, it is rotated in the x-t, y-t, or z-t planes, or some combination of them. I explained this in a recent post on another thread in terms of a spaceship changing its direction in space, and "moving more slowly in x." It's worth looking up.
Now, all of this is merely the GR description of spacetime, and of motion in spacetime; we have not yet touched gravity. In fact, since I have not discussed acceleration, this so far is merely the SR special case of GR. (Not that you can't represent acceleration in SR; however, it is difficult, and deals with "non-inertial frames," for which the math is very, very complex; in GR, this math becomes much simpler, but there are conceptual complications).
Gravity is represented as curvature, not of space, but of spacetime. Now, if spacetime is curved, then an object's velocity toward the future is only completely motion in time for one particular point in spacetime; at all other points in spacetime, from that point's point of view, its velocity in time is partly in time, and partly in space. What this means is that the object spontaneously moves, and the reason it moves is because the curving of spacetime makes its intrinsic velocity in time turn into velocity in space. It is also capable of curving the path of light, in the same way.
And that is what gravity is, according to our best theory of it, GR.
That is a very elegant description.
Specifically, gravity is curvature of spacetime. According to General Relativity (I hope I can abbreviate that to GR- and that you will all know what SR means if I do), "space" and "time" are dimensions- and there are four dimensions in our space, three of which we perceive as one kind of thing and the fourth as another, which actually are the same kind of thing, although arranged somewhat differently in their geometric relationship. In other words, it is more accurate to speak of "spacetime" than it is to speak separately of "space" and "time."
Time is not intrinsically different from space; it is merely arranged differently with respect to the three "space" dimensions than they are to one another. Let me explain how.
The three spatial dimensions are spherically symmetric. That means that both directions in all three dimensions, and therefore any combination of them, are geometrically the same, and that you can use spherical geometric functions to do spherical trigonometry in them and describe positions, and directions, and distances, and so forth in space. Time, however, while it is geometrically the same in both directions, is not spherically symmetric with respect to space. In fact, it is hyperbolically symmetric with respect to the three spatial dimensions. That means that we have to use hyperbolic geometry, hyperbolic geometric functions, and hyperbolic trigonometry to describe positions, distances, directions, and so forth in spacetime; and hyperbolic functions are essentially different from spherical ones in certain ways. When you do math with spherical geometry, you pick a direction and call it x, and pick one of the two directions of x and call it positive; and everything comes out exactly the same whatever direction you pick as x. But when you do math with hyperbolic geometry, once you have chosen a direction for your dimension, and picked one of the two directions on that dimension to be positive, you have introduced an asymmetry into your mathematical construct. It is in fact impossible to define the meaning of "the opposite direction" using hyperbolic functions. In spherical math, this is 180 degrees; but in hyperbolic math, it is infinity degrees.
Now, the reason that hyperbolic geometry, and hyperbolic symmetry, are called that, is because from the point of view of one of the dimensions, the other dimensions are all hyperbolic; whereas from the view of the other dimensions, that same single dimension forms an axis of symmetry of those hyperbolae. If you have ever seen a hyperbola, you will know that it is curved. For this reason, you will hear physicists say, "space is curved." This type of curvature, however, is not gravity; it is merely the point of view that is enforced by choosing a special direction in time and calling it "the future," and calling its opposite "the past." Once you have made such a choice, which is called "fixing a gauge," you can define rotations that will allow you to transform space and time into one another, just as you can define rotations that will turn the space dimensions into one another; however, the only directions that will be at defined angles that are described by real numbers will be at angles that point toward the future. You will not be able to define angles that point toward the past in real terms; they will be complex numbers, which contain a real and an imaginary part added together. We know what it means to give a real number as the distance to an object; but we do not know what it means to give a complex or an imaginary number for a distance. As far as we can tell, it has no physical meaning.
Now, you will immediately think, "well, that means that there is an inherent special direction in time in the universe." Not so! Because, you see, you can reverse the past and the future, and do all the calculations for the past, and the distances in spacetime that you get from events in the future to events in the past will be real numbers; it will be the distances from events in the past to events in the future that will become imaginary! Furthermore, the distances you get between events if you choose the future as your positive direction from events in the past to events in the future, will be the same distance you get from those same events in the future to those same events in the past, if you choose the past as your positive direction. The laws of physics at this level appear to be symmetric with respect to time; it is merely that one must fix a gauge from which to view it, in order to get numbers describing distances, and once one has done so, only in certain directions are the numbers real.
Another point of all of this is that time does not "pass;" after all, we do not speak of any of the other dimensions "passing." We instead speak of objects, and ourselves, "moving." So do we move in time; or at least that is how we perceive matters. Actually, from our point of view, if we define our speed in time as a second per second, the math comes out right if we translate a second in time into the distance that light moves in a second in space. In other words, we perceive ourselves (and all matter that shares our velocity in space, that is all matter that we perceive as having velocity zero with respect to us) as moving at the speed of light through time. And we describe the direction we perceive ourselves as moving in as the "future."
If you think carefully about this, you will see that energy is that which moves in space at the speed of light, and matter is that which moves in time at the speed of light. There is no reason for why light moves in space at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. Similarly, there is no reason for why matter moves in time at the speed of light; it is a characteristic of the universe that it does so. These are assumptions under relativity, not conclusions.
So whenever we perceive an object as moving relative to us, what we see is that it is rotated in spacetime, such that its "direction to the future" isn't in the same direction as ours is; in fact, it points in a direction that is partly time, and partly space. Whatever movement it makes in space, that movement is taken away from it in time; but the addition of a distance in space to a distance in time is not straightforward, because the spatial dimensions are hyperbolically symmetric with respect to time, rather than spherically symmetric as they are with respect to one another.
We therefore perceive the object as moving at "less than a second per second" in time, and as having some non-zero velocity in space. In addition, the object is rotated, although we cannot see that rotation; it is in a plane we cannot see because it is defined partly by the time axis, as opposed to the three planes we can see, which correspond to the x-y, x-z, and y-z planes. In other words, it is rotated in the x-t, y-t, or z-t planes, or some combination of them. I explained this in a recent post on another thread in terms of a spaceship changing its direction in space, and "moving more slowly in x." It's worth looking up.
Now, all of this is merely the GR description of spacetime, and of motion in spacetime; we have not yet touched gravity. In fact, since I have not discussed acceleration, this so far is merely the SR special case of GR. (Not that you can't represent acceleration in SR; however, it is difficult, and deals with "non-inertial frames," for which the math is very, very complex; in GR, this math becomes much simpler, but there are conceptual complications).
Gravity is represented as curvature, not of space, but of spacetime. Now, if spacetime is curved, then an object's velocity toward the future is only completely motion in time for one particular point in spacetime; at all other points in spacetime, from that point's point of view, its velocity in time is partly in time, and partly in space. What this means is that the object spontaneously moves, and the reason it moves is because the curving of spacetime makes its intrinsic velocity in time turn into velocity in space. It is also capable of curving the path of light, in the same way.
And that is what gravity is, according to our best theory of it, GR.
That is a very elegant description.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 17 2005, 07:23 AM)
Ummm, well, I hate to tell you this, but because it makes things that have mass accelerate, gravity is by definition a force. You know, Newton's First Law and all.
I haven't heard of Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity before; I'll have a look. Thanks.
A hydrogen balloon defies gravity because when hydrogen is at the same pressure as air, it has a lower density. Objects in a fluid that have a lower density than the fluid they are contained in move upward. This is called "Archimedes' Principle." The force that pushes an object upward in a fluid is called "buoyancy." You should be aware that if buoyancy didn't work, ships wouldn't float.
Buoyancy is caused by the fact that the pressure in a fluid is not constant with depth; for example, the atmosphere grows thinner when you climb a mountain. As a result, the pressure on the bottom of an object is greater than the pressure on the top. If the object displaces an amount of fluid that is greater than its mass, then the difference between the pressure on the top and bottom of the object will be greater than its weight, and it will rise. The math is relatively simple; let me know and I'll show it to you, if you're interested.
Is it truly a force? Or could it just behave like a force?
I haven't heard of Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity before; I'll have a look. Thanks.
A hydrogen balloon defies gravity because when hydrogen is at the same pressure as air, it has a lower density. Objects in a fluid that have a lower density than the fluid they are contained in move upward. This is called "Archimedes' Principle." The force that pushes an object upward in a fluid is called "buoyancy." You should be aware that if buoyancy didn't work, ships wouldn't float.
Buoyancy is caused by the fact that the pressure in a fluid is not constant with depth; for example, the atmosphere grows thinner when you climb a mountain. As a result, the pressure on the bottom of an object is greater than the pressure on the top. If the object displaces an amount of fluid that is greater than its mass, then the difference between the pressure on the top and bottom of the object will be greater than its weight, and it will rise. The math is relatively simple; let me know and I'll show it to you, if you're interested.
Is it truly a force? Or could it just behave like a force?
Gravity is result of moving space (vacuum).
Space flows in direction of center of Earth, Sun and catch up matter...
Regards
M.C.
Space flows in direction of center of Earth, Sun and catch up matter...
Regards
M.C.
Here's my theory which I offer humbly:
From Einstein's "Equivalence Principle" we find that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. If the feeling you get of being pushed backward in your seat in an accelerating vehicle is, in all respects, indistinguishable from the feeling you get from gravity, then the force of gravity and the force of acceleration are in fact the same phenomenon and arise from the same cause (the universe not being inefficient). Gravity = acceleration.
But, how can gravity equal acceleration if we feel gravity even when we're not moving? In the classic sense, we associate acceleration with movement (a change in distance and/or direction) because that's what we are most familiar with. But there are two variables in the acceleration equation, distance (d) and time (t) (A = d/t²). Vary either one of those variables and you introduce a change in acceleration. Here on Earth we don't think of time as progressing at different speeds, but it does; the farther you are from a mass, the faster you reach the future. Hence, unless we are at the center of Earth's mass, we are in a non-uniform, non-symmetrical space-time environment, a state of relativistic stress if you will, a state of acceleration with respect to Earth.
Gravity then is the natural tendency of all objects to seek a symmetrical space-time environment. Most people think of gravity as an attractive "force," but I would characterize it as a "state" of stress, instability or unrest in the strange world of curved space-time.
Space and time are two manifestations of the physical environment necessary for the existence of real things. Space-time is the "container" of real things (matter and energy). In order for anything to exist it must occupy both space and time. That is, it must necessarily exist "somewhere" in the universe and for "some period of time." Without space-time, without a "container," there can be no mass.
Einstein said that mass “bends” space-time. I believe mass “creates” or generates its own space-time environment necessary for its very existence. Take away all the mass (matter and energy) in the universe and empty space (and time) would disappear (collapse) as well, leaving nothing - non-reality. We cannot separate mass from space-time. They are fundamentally inseparable, having a non-exclusive relationship. There can't be one without the other.
Let’s suppose there were just one object in the universe, a single, super-giant star for example. The space-time created by that mass would extend outward in a non-linear fashion. That is, its effect, its "strength," its "dimension" would diminish with distance-time. Space shrinks and time passes more quickly as one travels farther away from the mass. Hence we use the terms, "curved" and "non-linear" when describing space-time. (note that if a traveler could venture far enough away from this hypothetical single mass, eventually time would progress at such an ever increasing rate that the traveler could never reach the outer bounds of this space-time environment within the realm of eternity. Hence, to the traveler, the universe would seem infinite.)
Now place another, much smaller mass, a tiny planet, nearby. The smaller mass will create its own local, weaker, curved space-time environment, but still be within and under the influence of the larger space-time created by the larger mass. And because the smaller mass is not at the center of the larger mass, its overall space-time environment is not perfectly symmetrical.
An observer standing on the tiny planet, looking back toward the star would observe time progressing at a slow pace. When the observer turns around and looks in the opposite direction, out into empty space, the observer would notice time passing at a faster pace. Only at the center of the large mass would an observer see time passing at the same rate in every direction Only at the center of the large mass would an observer find spherical space-time symmetry (and since we've added a smaller mass, even that's not entirely true).
Blow a soap bubble into the air and it will take on a spherical shape because its surface tension seeks uniform equilibrium and, in the process, creates the smallest possible surface for its volume. Its volume (size) quickly expands or shrinks until air pressure, inside and out, equalizes. In a similar (but not the same) sense, a mass seeks equilibrium with regard to curved space-time. If space-time is dilated more so in one direction than another, the mass will move toward an area of space-time symmetry in order to achieve relativistic equilibrium. We call this phenomenon "gravity" and experience it as an attractive "force." We say that the larger mass is "pulling" the smaller mass, but it is space-time symmetry that masses seek to relieve relativistic stress.
From Einstein's "Equivalence Principle" we find that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. If the feeling you get of being pushed backward in your seat in an accelerating vehicle is, in all respects, indistinguishable from the feeling you get from gravity, then the force of gravity and the force of acceleration are in fact the same phenomenon and arise from the same cause (the universe not being inefficient). Gravity = acceleration.
But, how can gravity equal acceleration if we feel gravity even when we're not moving? In the classic sense, we associate acceleration with movement (a change in distance and/or direction) because that's what we are most familiar with. But there are two variables in the acceleration equation, distance (d) and time (t) (A = d/t²). Vary either one of those variables and you introduce a change in acceleration. Here on Earth we don't think of time as progressing at different speeds, but it does; the farther you are from a mass, the faster you reach the future. Hence, unless we are at the center of Earth's mass, we are in a non-uniform, non-symmetrical space-time environment, a state of relativistic stress if you will, a state of acceleration with respect to Earth.
Gravity then is the natural tendency of all objects to seek a symmetrical space-time environment. Most people think of gravity as an attractive "force," but I would characterize it as a "state" of stress, instability or unrest in the strange world of curved space-time.
Space and time are two manifestations of the physical environment necessary for the existence of real things. Space-time is the "container" of real things (matter and energy). In order for anything to exist it must occupy both space and time. That is, it must necessarily exist "somewhere" in the universe and for "some period of time." Without space-time, without a "container," there can be no mass.
Einstein said that mass “bends” space-time. I believe mass “creates” or generates its own space-time environment necessary for its very existence. Take away all the mass (matter and energy) in the universe and empty space (and time) would disappear (collapse) as well, leaving nothing - non-reality. We cannot separate mass from space-time. They are fundamentally inseparable, having a non-exclusive relationship. There can't be one without the other.
Let’s suppose there were just one object in the universe, a single, super-giant star for example. The space-time created by that mass would extend outward in a non-linear fashion. That is, its effect, its "strength," its "dimension" would diminish with distance-time. Space shrinks and time passes more quickly as one travels farther away from the mass. Hence we use the terms, "curved" and "non-linear" when describing space-time. (note that if a traveler could venture far enough away from this hypothetical single mass, eventually time would progress at such an ever increasing rate that the traveler could never reach the outer bounds of this space-time environment within the realm of eternity. Hence, to the traveler, the universe would seem infinite.)
Now place another, much smaller mass, a tiny planet, nearby. The smaller mass will create its own local, weaker, curved space-time environment, but still be within and under the influence of the larger space-time created by the larger mass. And because the smaller mass is not at the center of the larger mass, its overall space-time environment is not perfectly symmetrical.
An observer standing on the tiny planet, looking back toward the star would observe time progressing at a slow pace. When the observer turns around and looks in the opposite direction, out into empty space, the observer would notice time passing at a faster pace. Only at the center of the large mass would an observer see time passing at the same rate in every direction Only at the center of the large mass would an observer find spherical space-time symmetry (and since we've added a smaller mass, even that's not entirely true).
Blow a soap bubble into the air and it will take on a spherical shape because its surface tension seeks uniform equilibrium and, in the process, creates the smallest possible surface for its volume. Its volume (size) quickly expands or shrinks until air pressure, inside and out, equalizes. In a similar (but not the same) sense, a mass seeks equilibrium with regard to curved space-time. If space-time is dilated more so in one direction than another, the mass will move toward an area of space-time symmetry in order to achieve relativistic equilibrium. We call this phenomenon "gravity" and experience it as an attractive "force." We say that the larger mass is "pulling" the smaller mass, but it is space-time symmetry that masses seek to relieve relativistic stress.
ZetaTalk: Gravity
Note: written on Feb 15, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans think that gravity is a simple, singular force, but gravity has many aspects and varies depending on the composition of the objects in question and their distance from each other.
Gravity differs between objects of different compositions. Like compositions attract each other more, due to the compatibility of their makeup. They have no extraneous dramas to resolve. Metals figure heavily in this, no pun intended, as a magnetic component enters into the equation. Where there is flexibility for the objects to turn, one or both will maneuver such that they are magnetically aligned. This takes time, however slight, and thus an iron ball may appear to fall more slowly in a vacuum than an object of comparable weight that has but a slight magnetic retention. Organic compounds also react to gravity in a different manner than in-organic compounds, and this is due to the complex bonding between the atoms. Bonding involves tying up the electrons, which are used as glue in that they are shared by more than one atom. Thus, organic material in general will not experience the interference that matter with free electrons does during a gravity attraction. Inorganic material in essence takes time out to shed or take on electrons, slowing its movement.
In general, the heavier an object, the greater the gravity force generated within it for another object. The gravity force is more than compounded, equivocally, but this fact is lost by those viewing the drama because most of the drama takes place within the object itself. Why would this not be the case? Why would matter only reach out to matter not contiguous, with its attraction, and not matter near at hand? Some call this internal gravity compression, but this is merely gravity working to pull each atom toward the greater bulk, which in the case of an orb, like a Sun or planet, is generally toward the center. As the force of gravity reaches in all directions, the larger or heavier object is emitting more of a come-on than a smaller or lighter object. When several objects are involved in giving each other the come-on, the contention causes all of the bodies to dither, but an equilibrium is established in accordance with the mass and composition of the objects and their distance from each other. Humans find their understanding of gravity to be incomplete because they are not taking into consideration the repulsion force that large bodies, such as planets, generate toward each other.
ZetaTalk: Gravity Particles
Note: written on Jan 15, 1997.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravity is particles, moving, just as magnetic fields are, and there is a polarization in gravity, which we have explained as the repulsion force. Before mankind discovered that magnetism was polarized, they discovered it as an attractive force. Metallic items stuck to the sides of magnetized rock - how curious. After centuries of digging about in this phenomena, humans have satisfied their curiosity to the extent that they understand that magnetism is a force field, has a flow out from one pole and in at the other pole, that the Sun and some other planets are magnetized and line up with each other. They still don't understand the cause of this force field, or its nature. Magnetism is caused by a particle, in motion, as we have explained. What other explanation is there for a force that reaches out and affects another? Magic?
The bi-polar aspect of magnetism is only apparent when what occurs in nature can be countered in the laboratory. You force magnetized objects to do what they do not want to do - touch north pole to north pole or vice versa. Then you can observe the bi-polar nature. In gravity, you are seeing but one aspect in the positioning of the planets, and dealing with a phenomena that does not lend itself to easy experimentation. However, experimentation is possible, in space and away from the surface of the planet. The repulsion force fills the gap in some of your other theories where you have no explanation for discrepancies.
In magnetism, the simple flow of particles creates more than a force for alignment, it creates an attraction. The gap is filled. Like water in a stream, where flotsam eventually lines up in the center, evenly spaced, just so magnetized objects do not keep their distance when free to move. They approach each other, and attach like a string of pearls. Likewise the phenomena of gravity, where the desire to fill the gap causes objects to approach one another. It is only where this gap is overfilled, by the presence of two large objects coming near, that the repulsion force is expressed. There is no room for the flow of gravity particles, so the objects stay apart!
ZetaTalk: Gravity Flow
Note: written on May 15, 1998. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flow of gravity particles is not unlike the magnetism model, but with several significant differences. In magnetism, particle flow is related to the shape of atoms, such as iron, which allow a flow to begin in the first place, and is related to the types of bonds these atoms commonly lock themselves in. Magnetic particles surge out of a break in the rhythm of subatomic particles such as electrons circling the nucleus, a surge which does not occur in other atoms that have a more even balance in their halo of orbiting electrons. Magnetism thus produces a field, with a flow, and this flow is discernible to the degree that one could almost imagine a river, watching magnetized particles on the river position themselves according to the flow.
Gravity particles produce a flow but produce no discernible flow, and have no irregularities in the pattern. Does your Earth not pull evenly from all parts of its surface? And if there is a flow, then at what point does the flow reverse, such that surface particles are pushed away? In fact there is a reversal, but the outward streams are propelled, with a force and at a speed so much greater than the downward drafts that this occurs over less of a surface area and without engaging the mass of the object. A laser of gravity particles, versus a floodlight upon the return. So why would the weight of returning particles be the only ones mankind is aware of, and why would they not feel the violent lift of the updrafts? The updrafts blast through, tearing a hole as it were, where the returning particles do not tear what they press upon, and so have the greater effect.
Gravity particles, in their motion, do not affect what they move against or through, the effect being in essence mechanical. The upward drafts push aside other matter, letting it return upon completion of the updraft, leaving no trace of the temporary tear. The downward push of gravity particles returning to the large mass they are attracted to, the core of the Earth for instance, spread out upon objects they encounter, taking some time to drift through these object and with a constant downward press during the motion of this drift. Thus, returning particles, due to the time they spend upon and within the surface objects, and due to their continual direction of motion, are a mechanical force that is stronger, overall, than the updraft of particles that quickly pass through the surface objects, essentially pushing them aside rather than engaging them.
The nature of this gravity flow is what determines the repulsion force we speak of. It is a complement of gravity only when large bodies are close to each other. The updrafts, when encountering a large body also exuding updrafts of gravity particles, hold the bodies apart. This occurs at what humans would call a distance from each other, as small objects such as satellites do not exude updrafts and if far enough from the surface of a gravitational giant such as a planet, find a down-draft and updraft of gravity particles in balance, what humans might term in their ignorance a zero gravity field, weightlessness. At this point the updrafts are still tearing through, but at a slower rate, so that a mechanical push upward is involved, and the down-drafts are more thinly dispersed over the surface as they work their way through the density of these objects in space. Large bodies, exuding their own updrafts of gravity particles, create a situation where their updrafts and the updrafts from another sun or planet bump against each other, creating a buffer and preventing the gravity masses from touching or even approaching each other except at great distances.
Within black holes, the down-draft still exceeds the updraft, and thus the same rules apply.
Note: written on Feb 15, 1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humans think that gravity is a simple, singular force, but gravity has many aspects and varies depending on the composition of the objects in question and their distance from each other.
Gravity differs between objects of different compositions. Like compositions attract each other more, due to the compatibility of their makeup. They have no extraneous dramas to resolve. Metals figure heavily in this, no pun intended, as a magnetic component enters into the equation. Where there is flexibility for the objects to turn, one or both will maneuver such that they are magnetically aligned. This takes time, however slight, and thus an iron ball may appear to fall more slowly in a vacuum than an object of comparable weight that has but a slight magnetic retention. Organic compounds also react to gravity in a different manner than in-organic compounds, and this is due to the complex bonding between the atoms. Bonding involves tying up the electrons, which are used as glue in that they are shared by more than one atom. Thus, organic material in general will not experience the interference that matter with free electrons does during a gravity attraction. Inorganic material in essence takes time out to shed or take on electrons, slowing its movement.
In general, the heavier an object, the greater the gravity force generated within it for another object. The gravity force is more than compounded, equivocally, but this fact is lost by those viewing the drama because most of the drama takes place within the object itself. Why would this not be the case? Why would matter only reach out to matter not contiguous, with its attraction, and not matter near at hand? Some call this internal gravity compression, but this is merely gravity working to pull each atom toward the greater bulk, which in the case of an orb, like a Sun or planet, is generally toward the center. As the force of gravity reaches in all directions, the larger or heavier object is emitting more of a come-on than a smaller or lighter object. When several objects are involved in giving each other the come-on, the contention causes all of the bodies to dither, but an equilibrium is established in accordance with the mass and composition of the objects and their distance from each other. Humans find their understanding of gravity to be incomplete because they are not taking into consideration the repulsion force that large bodies, such as planets, generate toward each other.
ZetaTalk: Gravity Particles
Note: written on Jan 15, 1997.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravity is particles, moving, just as magnetic fields are, and there is a polarization in gravity, which we have explained as the repulsion force. Before mankind discovered that magnetism was polarized, they discovered it as an attractive force. Metallic items stuck to the sides of magnetized rock - how curious. After centuries of digging about in this phenomena, humans have satisfied their curiosity to the extent that they understand that magnetism is a force field, has a flow out from one pole and in at the other pole, that the Sun and some other planets are magnetized and line up with each other. They still don't understand the cause of this force field, or its nature. Magnetism is caused by a particle, in motion, as we have explained. What other explanation is there for a force that reaches out and affects another? Magic?
The bi-polar aspect of magnetism is only apparent when what occurs in nature can be countered in the laboratory. You force magnetized objects to do what they do not want to do - touch north pole to north pole or vice versa. Then you can observe the bi-polar nature. In gravity, you are seeing but one aspect in the positioning of the planets, and dealing with a phenomena that does not lend itself to easy experimentation. However, experimentation is possible, in space and away from the surface of the planet. The repulsion force fills the gap in some of your other theories where you have no explanation for discrepancies.
In magnetism, the simple flow of particles creates more than a force for alignment, it creates an attraction. The gap is filled. Like water in a stream, where flotsam eventually lines up in the center, evenly spaced, just so magnetized objects do not keep their distance when free to move. They approach each other, and attach like a string of pearls. Likewise the phenomena of gravity, where the desire to fill the gap causes objects to approach one another. It is only where this gap is overfilled, by the presence of two large objects coming near, that the repulsion force is expressed. There is no room for the flow of gravity particles, so the objects stay apart!
ZetaTalk: Gravity Flow
Note: written on May 15, 1998. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flow of gravity particles is not unlike the magnetism model, but with several significant differences. In magnetism, particle flow is related to the shape of atoms, such as iron, which allow a flow to begin in the first place, and is related to the types of bonds these atoms commonly lock themselves in. Magnetic particles surge out of a break in the rhythm of subatomic particles such as electrons circling the nucleus, a surge which does not occur in other atoms that have a more even balance in their halo of orbiting electrons. Magnetism thus produces a field, with a flow, and this flow is discernible to the degree that one could almost imagine a river, watching magnetized particles on the river position themselves according to the flow.
Gravity particles produce a flow but produce no discernible flow, and have no irregularities in the pattern. Does your Earth not pull evenly from all parts of its surface? And if there is a flow, then at what point does the flow reverse, such that surface particles are pushed away? In fact there is a reversal, but the outward streams are propelled, with a force and at a speed so much greater than the downward drafts that this occurs over less of a surface area and without engaging the mass of the object. A laser of gravity particles, versus a floodlight upon the return. So why would the weight of returning particles be the only ones mankind is aware of, and why would they not feel the violent lift of the updrafts? The updrafts blast through, tearing a hole as it were, where the returning particles do not tear what they press upon, and so have the greater effect.
Gravity particles, in their motion, do not affect what they move against or through, the effect being in essence mechanical. The upward drafts push aside other matter, letting it return upon completion of the updraft, leaving no trace of the temporary tear. The downward push of gravity particles returning to the large mass they are attracted to, the core of the Earth for instance, spread out upon objects they encounter, taking some time to drift through these object and with a constant downward press during the motion of this drift. Thus, returning particles, due to the time they spend upon and within the surface objects, and due to their continual direction of motion, are a mechanical force that is stronger, overall, than the updraft of particles that quickly pass through the surface objects, essentially pushing them aside rather than engaging them.
The nature of this gravity flow is what determines the repulsion force we speak of. It is a complement of gravity only when large bodies are close to each other. The updrafts, when encountering a large body also exuding updrafts of gravity particles, hold the bodies apart. This occurs at what humans would call a distance from each other, as small objects such as satellites do not exude updrafts and if far enough from the surface of a gravitational giant such as a planet, find a down-draft and updraft of gravity particles in balance, what humans might term in their ignorance a zero gravity field, weightlessness. At this point the updrafts are still tearing through, but at a slower rate, so that a mechanical push upward is involved, and the down-drafts are more thinly dispersed over the surface as they work their way through the density of these objects in space. Large bodies, exuding their own updrafts of gravity particles, create a situation where their updrafts and the updrafts from another sun or planet bump against each other, creating a buffer and preventing the gravity masses from touching or even approaching each other except at great distances.
Within black holes, the down-draft still exceeds the updraft, and thus the same rules apply.
Gravity is 1 dimensional bending of space, hence why it has no time or mass.
It is an over flow of quantum mechanics, point particles at the Plank Scale have a very tight fit gravity, as they have no radius. The connection or creation of a Lagrangian point as these point particles join to create mass produces an excess of 1 dimensional bending (geodesics) which forms the gravity shell we observe.
Einstien is right but not specific.
It is an over flow of quantum mechanics, point particles at the Plank Scale have a very tight fit gravity, as they have no radius. The connection or creation of a Lagrangian point as these point particles join to create mass produces an excess of 1 dimensional bending (geodesics) which forms the gravity shell we observe.
Einstien is right but not specific.
Want to know more about gravity, see posted, "Why is gravity all attraction toward earth?
jsaldeea12
5.16.09
jsaldeea12
5.16.09
QUOTE (jsaldea12+May 15 2009, 05:31 PM)
Want to know more about gravity, see posted, "Why is gravity all attraction toward earth?
jsaldeea12
5.16.09
Since that post is total garbage, which has nothing to do with any theories of gravity, I would ask, why bother?
jsaldeea12
5.16.09
Since that post is total garbage, which has nothing to do with any theories of gravity, I would ask, why bother?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.