Gravity

thenumber66

16th May 2008 - 05:18 AM

Hey every one,

I'm new here and am not sure if what I am about to bring is in the correct part of the forum but here it goes.

I know that there is a lot of proof that gravity and movement aren't...or at least shouldn't be related... but all I have ever witnessed points to the contrary. I know that Newton and what such said that it is an objects mass that make it have a gravitational pull... but this only makes a tiny bit of sense. I was reading up the other day on atoms and how they are attracted to each other and such, and learned that there is a lot of movement there...be it the "parts" of the atom it self or the energy within it. I believe that that it is this movement that attracts atoms to one another... and if it happens on the atomic level why not on a much larger scale?

Now i suppose that I should say that everything I think of is in my head...and while with what materials I have I try to confirm what I theorize, most of what I "know" is from observation. Anyway....

The next thing that came to mind was the sun... not only is the sun revolving in our galaxy but it is spinning around it's center (from what I have read two centers...but I do not know much about that) AND the surface of the sun is also in motion. Now I am sure that some of you are thinking... " But 66, if the sun's spinning creates its gravitational field then why havent we just been sucked ?".. well if you would kindly look at it as I do and think of gravity as a series of waves.

Now I do not know how many people have brought about this notion...but it seems to make sense to me, haha. I will give this analogy: Think of a ripple in a pond, or better yet, stirring a paint can with a stick... eventually when you spin it fast enough the waves that would go out to the side and come back in meet the newly created waves causing the first series of waves back out and eventually stay out and form a series of elliptical rings.... much like the orbit of the planets in our solar system! This also shows why there are planets closer to the sun that also move faster than the other... further away ones. THink of how the rippling effect in a pond first has tight concentric circles, then they are spaced much further apart. Same Idea.

So I hope you are all still with me! I just have two more points to make for your consideration.

So remember when I said that it was the motion of the atoms that attracted them to one another? Well put this on a massive scale... the Earth! Not only does the earth have an uncountable number of those atoms in it, but, it is also in motion! So this is where, I believe, mass truly comes into play. It isn't simply the "mass" of an object, but the movement WITHIN the object, meaning atoms, electrons, neutrons etc. All of this motion along with the motion of an object itself is responsible for what I call their "gravitational frequency" which is simply the rate of spin within an object. The higher the frequency the more gravity produced, which means that the fast the movement the more gravity. This can be related to how einstein said that the faster you move the more mass you gain, I think this is because the fast you move the more matter is attracted to you! So all of the gravitation, magnetic, and electromagnetic forces generated by an object, I believe are related to the speed of the atoms, electrons etc, and the motion of the object itself.

I think that tapping into certain "gravitational frequencies" can have a profound effect on the object being dealt with. I also believe this to be the cause of the Hutchison effect ( if you do not know what it is look it up, it is amazing). BUT on to my last point...

I was never a big fan of the notion that nothing can move faster than the speed of light... why is it so special? I never really understood it. I think that many things move faster than the speed of light. Namely black holes. Now going along with the rest of my theories and ideas, a black holes gravitational pull is cause by an INCREDIBLE amount of speed at the core.... so fast that not even light can escape it... ergo it is faster than the speed of light. But going on with the rest of my thoughts, since it is moving so fast, and the gravity is so intense, it pulls more and more matter to it, because it has exceeded the speed of light, and anything that fast gains matter right? So it continues to grow, and since it's mass increases so does it's speed AND gravitational pull. THAT is why I believe that black holes continue to grow.

Now I am very sorry for how long that was but very grateful to whoever read it all and not thought I was completely out of my mind! I have a bunch more theories on how this can be applied to anti-gravity and many other things if anyone is interested.

I AM OPEN TO ANY OPINIONS AND REMARKS AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT DISRESPECTFUL, I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT I HAVE SAID IS VERY OUT THERE AND THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH PROOF, THIS IS ONLY WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED IN NATURE AND FROM SOME SIMPlE EXPERIMENTS.

Thank you all very much for your time,

66

rethinker

16th May 2008 - 06:25 AM

thenumber66
Welcome and your theory has much merit in many ways.
I believe that what ever gravity is, has to be on an atomic level.
Looking at it from your stir a bucket approach, (hard to sir a bucket though)

It seems like the spin and waves would become chaotic and begin to cancel each other out.
Also the outward flow of the wave effect is conclusive to dis-assembly and breakdown effects as waves move outward.

If you watch a wave it tends to diminish and not combine. Two or more waves crossing each other will brake other waves down.

So how do you address this in your view of waves creating or compounding?
Interesting.

PS When TheDoc shows up, just continue your idea. He searches the forum and gives out neg feedback for theories outside the box.
He or she seem to think of their self as a pruning artist for new or different ideas.
No one seems to know why he wants to waste time and energy doing this instead of offering some input.

Zarkov

16th May 2008 - 07:26 AM

QUOTE

gravity as a series of waves.

indeed the planets in the Solar System are orbiting in a quantum wave which is only related to the math constant pi

Spin is definitely the cause of gravity
or more precisely gravity is the resulting force from spin... sorta like a centripetal force.

If you look up my posts on gravity you may get some idea.

Good thoughts, but they need math.... and that is where the predictions can be found and much much more.

Unfortunately I have a policy where I will only go so far in explanation.

I offered a primer on cosmic mechanics.... LOL... yes the posters asked, but then left class

they would rather throw shite.

Welcome, respect is a good opening.

thenumber66

16th May 2008 - 04:04 PM

QUOTE

If you watch a wave it tends to diminish and not combine. Two or more waves crossing each other will brake other waves down.

So how do you address this in your view of waves creating or compounding?

Hey rethinker,

I was actually thinking of standing waves, suggesting that with all the resistance out in our solar system (due to all the planets etc) the wave that is returned back (or even just the fact that there is the resistance from the planets) to the wave origin (the sun) is the same amplitude as the waves being put out by the sun in the first place. This would create the standing wave effect, allowing for the constant position of the orbits of planets and such.

Haha, and a typo on my part, I meant to stir a bucket of paint.

Zarkov,

I will definitely look into your post, your ideas sound very interesting.

Thank you both for your thoughts!

66

N O M

18th May 2008 - 05:58 AM

QUOTE (thenumber66+May 17 2008, 04:04 AM)

Zarkov,

I will definitely look into your post, your ideas sound very interesting.

No doubt you would, since you both post rubbish without any basis in science.

Agent X20

18th May 2008 - 07:54 AM

QUOTE (Zarkov+May 16 2008, 07:26 AM)

Spin is definitely the cause of gravity

Crank Speculation:

No, it's merely the affect of event horizon to singularity asymmetry caused by mutual wave-state induction - a force born of equilibrium - the singularity (point matter) simply changes position to buffer the harmonic disintegrity.

i.e; If the wave-state passes through a high conc' of energy (large mass) its event horizon from that direction forms prematurely compared to the rest of its wave-front, therefore the singularity that follows, shifts in an opposite direction i.e; towards the mass in an attempt to stabilize the status quo.

Easy-peasy when your mind is so fuckked up.

Iori Fujita

18th May 2008 - 08:19 AM

The Law of Universal Gravitation and Separation

First of all, I would like to present this fundamental working hypothesis. It is the universal force which unifies gravity and separator into one. No one ever knows about the separator force. So now, I give a definition of the law of universal separation at first.

Fs = - Sp Ea Eb / r^2 F ; the separation force
Ea ; Energy which belongs to the point a
Eb ; Energy which belongs to the point b
r ; the distance between a and b
Sp ; the separation constant
This force will not be detected on the Earth. It can be negligible even in the solar system. But it will work in the galactic scale.
Next step is to unify Gravitation and Separation into one law.

Fg = G Ma Mb / r^2 -----------------Then,
Fg+s = G Ma Mb / r^2 - Sp Ea Eb / r^2

And assume that Sp = G / c^4, because E = mc^2.

Fg+s = G Ma Mb / r^2 - (G / c^4) Ea Eb / r^2

One step forward by using the complex number formula.

F = G ( Ma + i Ea / c^2 ) ( Mb + i Eb / c^2 ) / r^2
F = G Ma Mb / r^ - (G / c^4) Ea Eb / r^2 + i ( G Ea Mb / ( r^2 c^2 ) + G Ma Eb / ( r^2 c^2 ))
The real part is Re( F ) = Fg+s, but I don't know how to deal with the imaginary part ; Im( F ) = G Ea Mb / ( r^2 c^2 ) + G Ma Eb / ( r^2 c^2 ).

So an existing substance is to be described as S = M + i E / c^2 .
In a certain independent area, if M + E / c^2 = constant ( in other words when M decreases by ΔM, E will increases by ΔE = ΔM c^2 ), then abs( S ) = will be minimum when M = E / c^2, because abs( S ) = root( M^2 + E^2 / c^4 ).

Iori Fujita
From Japan

Zarkov

18th May 2008 - 10:27 AM

Thanks for that Iori

IMO... and from math

QUOTE

Fg = G Ma Mb / r^2 -----------------Then,

Mass is NOT a direct player, and Newton's G is a scaling constant, which is also immaterial to gravity.

Mass and G are both theoretical.

so starting from theory is not the way to approach this problem.

There is only one observation that we can perform in our space and that is the LOCAL angular spin constant = r V^2 .... a volume acceleration constant
where r= distance to centre of spin and v = angular velocity at r.

In any SPECIFIC spin system this is a constant and defines all motion and also defines gravity

Note: other spin systems have a different value for this spin constant.

All spin systems differentially spin one to the next.... via Mach's principle.

I did start a thread on this but the wolves howled me down.
see http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21628

You MUST start from an observation..... you can not start by a "thought experiment"

The last person to do that set cosmology back 100 years.

LOL

Trippy

18th May 2008 - 11:03 AM

QUOTE (Zarkov+May 18 2008, 10:27 PM)

Mass and G are both theoretical.

My beer belly disagrees.

thenumber66

20th May 2008 - 03:50 AM

I completely agree with Zarkov

First off people way too often go off of what some dude said like 100 years ago, that never helps anyone move forward. All we can truly do is observe something in nature, and speculate what causes it, every now and then some crack pot is proven correct and everyone believes him.

Or every believes someone and that makes them suddenly correct.

Both are highly illogical as everyone perceives things differently... but back to the point.

I say that mass cannot have anything to do with gravity because there are some massive thing on this earth, and the only thing i see attracted to them are some silly tourists.

The only thing I can OBSERVE that seems to be constant in anything that exhibits what we call gravity is spin.

Therefore it is quite logical that spin is the prime factor in gravitational pull.

--66

Gorgeous

20th May 2008 - 09:48 AM

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Spee...m#Speed.Gravity

g.

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.