Proof of cause of gravity

Brad_Ad23

Anyways, to get back to Nigel.

I have a few questions for you.

1. Gravity is caused by an isotropic pressure field that is shielded by mass, so you claim. That is, no matter where you are on the surface of the earth, there will be a force coming from above to push us down. We may view this as a bunch of arrows directed towards the center of the earth. My question is, what causes those arrows (in this case the pressure) to want to push down on the earth in the first place? If we remove the earth, the vectors should still have to point towards a central point (I believe cosmologists refer to this as a hedgehog). The pressure field cannot simply revert to a no mass state, for which direction would the pressure go?


2. Regardless of the outcome of question 1, this one is alone tricky. We know that your pressure 'stuff' cannot go through mass. After all, mass is what shields us from it, and if it was able to travel through mass, it would not be able to exert the force on us. So, say we dig a tunnel down into the earth, it doesn't matter how deep. On the top of this tunnel, we put a lid, with a ball attatched to a mechanism. The tunnel is now shielded by the lid, and effectivly there should be no gravity in the tunnel now, since the pressure field cannot reach it (remember, the mass is shielding the inside of the tunnel from the force! Its as if the earth itself was there and there was no tunnel, and if it can go through the lid, then how does it exert the force on us, and how does it not interfere with itself coming from opposite directions on the earth). So, we fire the mechanism, which lets go of the ball. According to this, the ball should remain where it is. After all, no downward force from above acting on it. It is shielded by mass from below, and by mass from above. Yet, observation time and time again shows the ball still falls. How is this so?

yogi

I would concur Brad - the mass shielding rationale leaves something out - but the equation may offer insight into a holistic explanation of gravity based upon expansion - if mass reacts to expansion then the force vectors would be isotropically convergent upon the mass if the expansion were spherically symmetrical - and the strength thereof would depend upon two factors - the amount of mass and the acceleration factor G (vol accel/per unit mass). In other words, the combination of an acceleration field G and mass leads to a spatial pressure gradient as I suggested in the gravity paradox topic on the Forum. Anyway - I also would like to hear Nigel's response to your questions.

Brad_Ad23

It could indeed offer insight, but it has physical problems. A big one is number 1. The vectors cannot be arranged like that, unless they will be so for all time. And if they were to revert back to some other form if the earth were no longer there, which form and why were they directed to the earth then? Number 2 is also important. I too await some explination.

Nigel

ANSWER TO QUESTION 1: The inward space pressure is produced by the conservation of volume when there is an outward motion of mass. The first time I saw the aircraft film of the 11 megaton Castle shot 2, 28 Feb 1954, I was amazed that the steam or debris at ground level moves back towards ground zero as the blast moves outward!!!!

This is not just an afterwind due to the low pressure under a rapidly rising fireball, it is a return of air which has physically moved outward. The expansion of hot air reduces the air density near ground zero to 1 % of normal air density, and the outward-blasted air returns in a "suction" phase directed back towards ground zero. This set off my search for a similar effect in the big bang, with the fabric of space taking the place of the returning air. It is useful to have a concrete analogy in your mind to help you get through doing the maths objectively.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 2: X-rays go through your hand, which is nearly empty. Gravity is the weakest force known in the universe. The amount of shielding is exceedingly small. We do not shield the earth to any appreciable extent, nor does your tunnel lid. It takes a mass as great as the earth to cause the shielding which makes all objects fall down with the same acceleration.

I think that Mr Parsons raised a point that a sheet of steel should have a different weight standing on end than it would have if flat. This doesn't measurably happen because (1) the steel is not doing the shielding that causes the acceleration towards the earth, that is being done by the earth shielding the steel, and that shield is irrespective of the orientation of the shield, and (2) the gravitational mass points in the steel (fundamental particles) are very small, and even in a large amount of material, they will not be exactly behind one another.

If you had a big enough shield, then you could indeed do what you say. A lid with the mass of the earth placed over a tunnel would have a decent effect on the space pressure and hence "gravity" in the tunnel.

What I would like to add is that, looking back at all this, I can see why people like Newton were sensible to not say what they had, mathematically proved until pushed. I am not a clever person in terms of exam grades, but I put a lot of hard work into the gravity mechanism, and thought that it was worth publication. However, if you work on anything like this, anything basic, you are censored out. You are ridiculed. If you then hit back, you have a personality problem. Anything you do is not tolerated, and you are called intolerant if you push. Science is not fun.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Goodness, I used "Common Knowledge" to demonstrate that what Brad, and Heusdens, were saying was the manner of operation, was wrong!

I thought science was fun, because anyone who can understand/learn/explore/discover/advance it, can succeed at it!

(but you need to be able to prove it/&yourself)

Brad_Ad23

You still left a big gaping hole there Nigel. The vectors of the pressure that are supposedly being directed towards the mass have to have some reason for going that way. And what of when the mass is no longer at that point in space? How do these vectors readjust themselves to in effect return to this isotropic pressure field?


And 2 still leads to a begging question: If the shielding is so weak, and thus it can traverse through the earth, why are we not being pushed off the earth from a mysterious force that comes out of the ground? I am not referrign to the normal force either. Or does it eventually just stop? And if that is the case, where? Certainly not the non-existant center of gravity (according to Mr. Parsons). So I guess my question still remains, how does it operate inside a massive body. And for that matter in orbits? Orbits are determined by the gravitational attraction of the body. But if it is the result of some shielding, and not the geometry of spacetime being warped, why is it that orbits exist? It should seem that any object in orbit should fall immediately towards the object it is orbiting in that case, since there is a force now pushing it towards the object but no shielding in any other direction in its orbit.

Also, why is it that if say the moon is at one point in its orbit, the side of the earth opposite the moon will receive a stronger (not noticably stronger mind you) pull down? If they are already shielded from the rest of the earth, the moon should not make any difference.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Really??? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??

Brad_Ad23

Well by definition the center of gravity of a body is where the internal gravitational effects are zero, but ok. They can't cancel out at the center of gravity according to you. There.

Mr. Robin Parsons

2003-06-18

Oh!, I get it now, your all trying to limelight

LIMELIGHTERS is what ya are!

Tell me, how does YOUR theory of gravity make it compress to the center??


(Hahahahahahahhehehehehehehehehhohohohohohohohohohohhuhuhuhuhuhuhuyucky uckyucknyucknyucknyuck ad infinitum......)

Mr. Robin Parsons

Lets see, my original question was; Followed by your responce;Which proves the obvious, you can't even read.

and the red part, want to find where I stated that please, or simply admit to the above statement, as clearly, it holds more truth then you will ever admit to.

Whadda yutz!

Alexander, ever played Fuse ball?

Brad_Ad23

Right there you say you can't cancel out the forces at the center of gravity.

Again a statement claiming the net force at the center of gravity is not zero.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Funny what you quote says "at the core", not "at the center of gravity" Hummmm, wonders if Brad_AD23 can read, or not at all??


case you miss reading it again, here......
,""Really??? when/where did I state that there was no center of gravity??""

Brad_Ad23

Until it was pointed out specifically by me that we were referring to the center of gravity, the discussion was operating under the assumption center of the earth and core referred to the center of gravity.


and nobody is saying you said there was No center of gravity. By specific technicality you did however when you stated there was force there. Centers of gravity CANNOT have an unbalanced amount of force, otherwise they are no longer centers of gravity. Perhaps it is you who cannot grasp the differences.

yogi

Nigel - I would agree that trying to get across a new concept is not fun - its an uphill battle because you - like an inertial mass, will necessarily experience a counter force whenever you attempt to make a change - Now while I would agree that the ultimate cause of gravity is expansion - I, like Brad, would object to the physical explanation that involves mass shielding - By the way, your equation is identical to that of Friedmann for a universe where q = 1 (no slowing due to gravity). For q = 1/2 (critical density), the coefficient is 3/8 rather than 3/4 - and this leads to a value of H = 57 (close to Sandage's value (56-58). Are you getting any responses from the physics community following the publication in Electrons World?

yogi

Some more comments for Nigel - if anything useful is to come out of these forums, it will be because one person provokes another into thinking about things - or to examine their own theories - or contribute to another's idea which is not fully worked out, so with that in mind, let me ask the following: We will take for example a planet like the earth which travels about the Sun - according to your rationale, the Sun is acting as a shield in some manner as to the field generated by expansion. Now lets reduce the size of the Sun to a Black hole - we know that from the standpoint of its affect on the earths orbit, it makes no difference whether the mass is concentrated in a small black hole (about 1/2 a kilometer across) or whether it is very large as it is at present - but how can the small black hole act as a shield? The mass of the Sun has not changed, but the shielding absorption area is drastically reduced. All of the lines of force that were partially absorbed by the Solar size must now be focused onto a small area (again for the Solar mass, I think the black hole radius is about a half a kilometer) and the absorption (affect) must be absolutely unchanged since the orbit of the earth depends only upon G and the solar mass (not its size). The situation poses a radical change in the geometry of the rays that define the force lines

Brad_Ad23

Very nice one indeed Yogi! I had yet to think of that arguement. But it is indeed correct.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Speaks for itself, nominates himself to be "Nobody"

What actually goes on at the center I have speciffically and technically told you I would NOT tell you.

Not just a limelighter, but a "fishing" limelighter at that, So "go figure", or, "go fish", but not in my pond!