Is Gravity Caused by the Motion of Particles in the Fabric of Space?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept that gravity is caused by the motion of particles in the fabric of space, suggesting that the outward motion from the Big Bang is counterbalanced by inward pressure from space, creating gravitational effects. This pressure acts equally from all directions, except where shielded by Earth, leading to the observed acceleration due to gravity. The conversation critiques general relativity's inability to predict certain astronomical phenomena and proposes a mathematical proof for gravity's mechanism based on this model. The pressure within Earth is attributed to the cumulative weight of matter above, while the external pressure creates an asymmetry that results in gravitational attraction. The thread emphasizes the need for rigorous testing of this fluid model of space to validate its implications for gravity and cosmology.
Nigel
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Particle-wave duality is caused by the motion of particles in the fabric of space. The outward motion of matter in the big bang is therefore balanced by inward directed fabric of space, maintaining a full continuity of volume, just as air moves into a suitcase when you take clothes out of it. The pressure towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions equally, except where reduced by the shielding of the planet Earth below us.

Hence, the overriding push is that coming downwards from above us, which is greater than the shielded effect coming up through the earth. This is the mechanism of the acceleration due to gravity. Thus you now know why apples fall!

Here is a brief scientific review article, prepared for submission to the Physical Review in due course, based on the longer article just published in Electronics World:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

:smile:Electronics World, Vol. 109, No. 1804 (2003), published by Highbury House Communications Plc, containing on pp. 47-52, 'The Electronic Universe Part 2' (Cook) including mathematical proofs and quantitative unification for the mechanisms of nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Available from newsagents or by subscription: Wyvern Subscription Services, Link House, 8 Bartholomew’s Walk, Ely Cambridge, CB7 4ZD, England, Tel 01353 654431; Ray Barnes, Reed Business Publishing Ltd, 475 Park Avenue South, 2nd Fl New York, NY 10016, USA, Tel (212) 679 8888, Fax (212) 679 9455; Pierre Mussard, 18-20 Place de la Madeleine, Paris 75008, France.



General relativity failed to predict the recession speeds of distant supernovas1. This paper reviews and extends the straightforward mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity, published in Electronics World1, resolving this problem. The result is compatible with general relativity and the Newtonian approximation by substituting into the Einstein field equation the proven expression for the universal gravitational constant, which is locally G = (3/4)H^2/[(pi)(rho)], where H is Hubble’s constant and rho is the average density of the surrounding universe. Gravity is proven to be dielectric pressure in reaction to the big bang – somewhat like the flow of air in the opposite direction (but with the same volume and rate) to a person walking along a corridor. This inward reaction dielectric due to the increasing speeds of stars receding at increasing distance from us is partly shielded by stars and planets, producing an asymmetry and hence ‘attraction’ to any mass. It was predicted prior to observation that because gravity is the reaction to surrounding expansion, recession of the most distant supernovas will not be slowed1.

The empirical law of gravity incorporating the universal gravitational constant has not previously been subjected to any mathematical proof in terms of a consistent mechanism. Commonplace arguments that gravity is caused by an elastic pull are easily rejected since the resulting force would increase with distance. Feynman2 however gives a qualitative pressure analogy in which gravity is the net pushing force when objects shielding one another from an all-round pressure. He correctly rejects the assumption of a particulate fabric of space, because particles deliver and receive momentum, thereby causing a drag effect. Schutz4 argues that the source of the gravitational field in general relativity may be considered to be a perfect continuum, which produces no drag: "A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighbouring fluid elements is pressure."

Molecular fluid resistance takes the forms of drag due to particles hitting surfaces and carrying away momentum with their recoil, and displacement resistance due to the displacement of fluid from their volume as they move. For a continuous fluid, only displacement resistance would occur. It is well known with dense fluids that displacement resistance is greatest in starting and stopping the motion of objects, i.e., acceleration and deceleration. In water, with a density nearly a thousand times that of sea level air, the molecules are spaced closely together and the displacement resistance clearly predominates over drag at low speeds. In moving through a fluid, the surrounding air or water flows around the object, maintaining continuity. When accelerating from zero velocity, and in decelerating, the flow of water around the submerged object is started or stopped, which increases the inertia (resistance to acceleration) of matter in a fluid. These considerations show that a continuous fabric of space would not exhibit drag effects, but would produce a displacement resistance. It is therefore possible to suggest that the displacement resistance of continuous space around subatomic particles in a vacuum is the cause of Newton’s first law, inertia.

The waves in space created by accelerated and decelerated subatomic particles are well known (photons). Spherical waves are created in particulate fluids (such as spherical diverging sound waves in air) because molecules can strike one another at random. This statistically means that for a very large number of molecules, energy will be dispersed approximately equally in all directions. However, the continuous fabric of space would not permit this mechanism to operate. This model therefore suggests why a photon does not spread out spherically like waves in fluids.

Evidence for the continuous physical nature of the fabric of space had also been stressed by Catt3, who points to the fixed 377 ohms impedance of the vacuum to electromagnetic energy. The resistance of particulate matter is expressible in ohms/metre, due to the number of particles in the material length, rather than simply ohms. This difference suggests that the fabric of space is a non-particulate continuum in which particles of matter are imbedded.

It was proposed1 that a mechanism of gravity should be developed to rigorously test all of the consequences of this semi-speculative physical fluid model for the fabric of space. This paper shall first use the proposed model to provide a step by step mathematical proof of the established general gravitational law, including the universal constant G, by calculation of the space pressure produced in response to the big bang. This paper shall then show that the proposed model uniquely predicts that the recession speeds of distant supernovae should not be gravitationally retarded.

According to the physical fabric of space analogy already described, geometrical volume is equivalent to the sum of the its volume of fluid space plus its volume of matter. Therefore, if we accept that the stars are receding as modern astronomy shows, we must accept that the fabric of the vacuum moves in the opposite direction (towards us), maintaining the continuity of volume. If one walks down a corridor, a volume of matter V moving in one direction will be continuously balanced by a volume of air, also V, moving in the opposite direction; this is why walking does not create a vacuum!

Since distance is proportional to time (the sun being 8.3 light-minutes away, and the next star 4.3 light years, etc.), the statement of the Hubble recession constant as velocity divided by observed distance is misleading since the stars will recede by a further amount during the interval that the light is traveling to us, but a true ‘constant’ for the speed of recession is proportional to the time taken for light to reach us (which is also the time past when the light was actually emitted). Correcting Hubble’s error thus gives us a constant which has units of acceleration, and leads directly to gravity.

The pressure due to the acceleration of the fabric of space towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions equally except where reduced by the shielding of the planet Earth below us. Hence, the overriding dielectric push is that coming downwards from the stars above us, which is greater than the shielded effect coming up through the earth. This is the mechanism of the acceleration due to gravity (Fig. 1). We shall calculate step-by-step the gravitational acceleration due to one mass, i.e., the 'curvature in space-time' which causes apples and people to accelerate at the same rate...
For full maths see:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington, MA, MSc, FRS (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, p. 20.

‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180.:smile:
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Re Gravity

Nice explanation, just that if it is the pressure exerted from outside that is the cause of gravity, then how is the pressure that is within the earth, far exceeding the external pressure, generated at the levels required, for what is observed.

BTW nice use of the 'etherial' medium, without mention of it.
 
Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Nigel Cook

Well written, very interesting. Congratulations on getting it published.
 
The pressure produced in the Earth is massive. If you go 10 metres under water, the water pressure is 1 atmosphere so you have a total pressure of 2 atmospheres. Since Earth is denser than water, the pressure with depth is greater.

In answer to your question, the reason for the pressure in the Earth is the compound weight produced by all that mass. The mathematical proof gives the Newtonian formula, and you calculate the effects of gravity in the usual way.

As for the chemical ether, that does not seem relevant to me!
 
Ether is a chemical, it is also the 'old school' name for what had been surmized as being the medium of propagation of light.

If the pressure is externally generated, then the matter would not have weight itself, it would be generating the pressure, and would that not want for it to expand?
 
A further Question

You talk about area of spheres, and the idea begs the question of why the moon would experience less pressure, if the sourcing of the pressure was external, then the Earth, as both would be in the same pressurized field.

Shouldn't they both be experiancing the same/identical pressurizational effect?
 
The paper derives the gravity formula and the constant in 16 numbered steps, but you do not refer to them.

Material pressure is generated when matter has a weight on top of it pressing down. Gravity occurs when matter is accelerated by the surrounding space. The cause of the acceleration of gravity is an asymmetry in the pressure from the surrounding space:

1. Pressure from the fabric of space causes gravity as proven.

2. Pressure inside the Earth is caused by the cumulative weight of matter pushing down from above.

These two factors are completely separate! Many thanks.
 
I've just added an animated gif, showing the Hubble big bang causing gravity, which makes the acceleration mechanism clear: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
 


Originally posted by DrChinese
Well written, very interesting. Congratulations on getting it published.

Many thanks for that. It took years to get it into print!
 
  • #10
I would still like to know why there is a difference in the gravitational strengths on the moon, relative to the earth, as according to your assertions, they would both be in the same external gravitational environments, and should therefore have the same level of gravity acting upon them.

Size would not matter as any two different balls lowered into the ocean, to two atmospheres of pressure, experience the same pressure, size does not matter, in this instance, yet we know that the two bodies experience different gravities.

(P.S. My time on the computer was only just extended by 15 minutes, so I've not a lot of time to do this, bear with me please.)
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Nigel
The paper derives the gravity formula and the constant in 16 numbered steps, but you do not refer to them.

Material pressure is generated when matter has a weight on top of it pressing down. Gravity occurs when matter is accelerated by the surrounding space. The cause of the acceleration of gravity is an asymmetry in the pressure from the surrounding space:

1. Pressure from the fabric of space causes gravity as proven.

2. Pressure inside the Earth is caused by the cumulative weight of matter pushing down from above.

These two factors are completely separate! Many thanks.


So this statement, emboldened, contradicts this statement, from your page...

Originally found on Nigel's 'referenced' (above) page

[Mass of outward moving mass surrounding r]

Apparently, (It could just be me??) these two statements seem to be contradictory as one says that the mass is pressing down, the onter says that the mass is moving outwards, which is it?

I suspect you have stumbled upon a nicer version of manner of explanation, but not the right one, Because the only reason that the Mass of the Earth presses down (the reason that anything/everything has weight) is because of the gravitational pressure that the atoms of the Earth, themselves, generate.

But, as I have said, I could be wrong, so, please show me!
 
  • #12
Hmm..intriguing.

So what you are saying is that (general questions as well)

1)Spacetime is continuous on all levels?
2)Volume of spacetime is constant?
3)A pressure is the cause of gravity? If so, how does that explain gravitational lensing? Black holes?
4) How exactly is a person to remain on a surface if the body is rotating? That would imply this pressure is exerting a force only in specific directions. Otherwise it should create a tangential acceleration on body on a rotating mass, imparting an impulse upon them and driving them off the rotating body. If this pressure field is perfectly dragless, then how is it able to impart any force upon a mass as it would at some level have to undergo an interaction, resulting again in the special case of directional-preference of what is supposed to be an omni-direction field.


That is all for now. I'm currently reviewing the math, though at first glance it seemed ok. However, just remember as I have found out many a times, what may be true in math is not always true physically :)

good job though!
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity

So why was this not published in a Physics or Astronomy journal? Phys. Rev. or Ap. J. would be more suitable. Publishing 'ground breaking' work in journals that have no relevance to the subject matter is dubious, to say the least.

Now to the meat, as such. How does this theory explain observations adequately described, even predicted in advance, by GR. That is, precession of perihelion of Mercury, gravitational time dilation, black holes, dragging on binary neutron stars, the Hubble constant itself (remember that this is derived from conventional GR) and all the normal stuff.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So this statement, emboldened, contradicts this statement, from your page...



Apparently, (It could just be me??) these two statements seem to be contradictory as one says that the mass is pressing down, the onter says that the mass is moving outwards, which is it?

I suspect you have stumbled upon a nicer version of manner of explanation, but not the right one, Because the only reason that the Mass of the Earth presses down (the reason that anything/everything has weight) is because of the gravitational pressure that the atoms of the Earth, themselves, generate.

But, as I have said, I could be wrong, so, please show me!

The more mass, the more shielding, and the more of a net push towards the shield. The moon has a smaller mass than the Earth so smaller surface gravity.

You state that there is a contradiction between the big bang (outward motion of matter many light years away) and gravity, and try to claim that this is my contradiction. The outward motion of clusters of distant galaxies causes gravity.

If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake. The air flows in the opposite direction. An equal volume of air to my volume goes in the opposite direction to me at the same speed, filling in the void. The same occurs with moving submarines underwater. If you have an accelerating object, you get a wave of air or water accelerating in the opposite direction. The total effective volume is equal to the volume displaced by the moving object, and the speed or acceleration is the same, except in the opposite direction.


With the fabric of space, exactly the same thing is produced by the big bang: the fabric of space presses towards us because the clusters of galaxies are accelerating away (with a speed proportional to their observed distance). This pressure causes gravity as I prove, getting the law plus a formula to calculate the constant G which was never done before. My argument is that having got this formula, the problem is solved.

Dr Stanley Brown, editor of the "Physical Review Letters" claimed that the cause of gravity is a solved problem in physics, so I'm pleased that although you don't like my paper, at least we you are not prejudiced against the prospect of progress!

:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Hmm..intriguing.

So what you are saying is that (general questions as well)

1)Spacetime is continuous on all levels?
2)Volume of spacetime is constant?
3)A pressure is the cause of gravity? If so, how does that explain gravitational lensing? Black holes?
4) How exactly is a person to remain on a surface if the body is rotating? That would imply this pressure is exerting a force only in specific directions. Otherwise it should create a tangential acceleration on body on a rotating mass, imparting an impulse upon them and driving them off the rotating body. If this pressure field is perfectly dragless, then how is it able to impart any force upon a mass as it would at some level have to undergo an interaction, resulting again in the special case of directional-preference of what is supposed to be an omni-direction field.


That is all for now. I'm currently reviewing the math, though at first glance it seemed ok. However, just remember as I have found out many a times, what may be true in math is not always true physically :)

good job though!

1 & 2- The fabric of space, said Einstein in his Leyden university lecture, has "physical qualities" according to general relativity. So this cause of gravity is consistent with that. 3-Same again, we have derived the equation so we calculate with it. Black holes occur where the escape velocity = speed of light. 4-The force is not exerted in specific directions: because the Hubble recession of galaxies away from us is very uniform at large distances where the speeds and masses are greatest, the inward space pressure is isotropic. It is the shielding of this pressure by mass which accelerates you towards the mass.

You can say that the motion of the fabric of space around moving particles is a wave in space, like the wave of air flowing around a moving car or person. The de Broglie equation shows that wavelength varies with speed. However this is quantum mechanics, and the paper is about gravity and cosmology!
 
Last edited:
  • #16


Originally posted by thed
So why was this not published in a Physics or Astronomy journal? Phys. Rev. or Ap. J. would be more suitable. Publishing 'ground breaking' work in journals that have no relevance to the subject matter is dubious, to say the least.

Now to the meat, as such. How does this theory explain observations adequately described, even predicted in advance, by GR. That is, precession of perihelion of Mercury, gravitational time dilation, black holes, dragging on binary neutron stars, the Hubble constant itself (remember that this is derived from conventional GR) and all the normal stuff.

In December, the physics preprint ARXIV.ORG server automatically accepted the paper for a few minutes, then it was manually removed by someone there paid to censor out anything which is on the Inquisition Index. A lengthy email argument showed that they simply rejected anything which did not accept existing philosophy about laws of nature being unexplainable. The same came from Dr Brown of Physical Review Letters. I would be dead and buried long before Physical Review or Nature got around to publishing on this, and I don't see why I should wait until then!

Besides, Electronics/Wireless World has a reputation for printing revolutionary new theories, for example it published Arthur C Clarke's original December 1945 paper proving how space satellites can be used for global communications and TV.

As for general relativity: the comments by Einstein and Catt on the physical properties of space in general relativity (GR) motivated this. The result is an equation for the universal gravitational constant which is then substituted into the field equation of GR. Then GR does all the normal things which you refer to. The only difference occurs at very great distances, when old GR fails but GR with the equation derived in the paper correctly predicts the lack of gravitational retardation of the furthest galaxies and supernovas. This was done in 1997 and promoted in a letter to Electronics World, and then Saul Perlmutter made the experimental discovery of distant supernova red shifts a year or more later. This proved the theory. I wrote again to Nature, however, as the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Thanks for your response, however you still did not address questions

1, 2, 3, and 4.

I asked if spacetime is continuous on all levels...i.e. does your idea say it is non-discrete.

I asked if your paper implies then that the volume of spacetime remains constant (I take it to mean it does from what I read).

You still did not provide an adequate description of how this isotropic pressure can account for gravitational lensing, nor even that of a black hole...which according to your method would then wind up draining all of spacetime into itself at any rate (or at the least, the pressure gradient would then decrease as the pressure stabilized around this body).

And 4 was not even addressed in its proper physics.

I must second thed's question.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Thanks for your response, however you still did not address questions

1, 2, 3, and 4.

I asked if spacetime is continuous on all levels...i.e. does your idea say it is non-discrete.

I asked if your paper implies then that the volume of spacetime remains constant (I take it to mean it does from what I read).

You still did not provide an adequate description of how this isotropic pressure can account for gravitational lensing, nor even that of a black hole...which according to your method would then wind up draining all of spacetime into itself at any rate (or at the least, the pressure gradient would then decrease as the pressure stabilized around this body).

And 4 was not even addressed in its proper physics.

I must second thed's question.

Yes, space is continuous, as stated in the paper. I do not know what you are referring to by "at all levels" but if you mean "at all scales of distance" then the answer is yes again.

What is constant is the sum of the matter plus fabric of space within a given volume.

Gravitational lensing occurs in exactly the same way with the mechanism for general relativity as without it: light bends because it is deflected by gravity. A glass lens deflects light by altering the speed of light traveling through the varying thickness of glass across the lens. In the same way, the varying gravitational acceleration with distance from a mass - which in my paper is due to shielding from the all-round fabric of space pressure giving the equation, and in existing textbooks is just due to an empirical law or guessed field equation. This variation in gravity with distance causes gravitational lensing.

Question 4 - this spinning Earth issue applies to existing physics and the existing admission of a fabric of space. You have to tilt a telescope according to the Earth's motion to "catch" the light from a star. Gravity is weaker at the Earth's equator because of the spin acceleration = speed squared divided by Earth's radius, which slightly offsets gravity. I've already answered Thed's question (see above, it probably crossed with your last submission so you didn't see it appear before your latest).
:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #19
True, our replies crossed.

However, the thing is, the mechanism that causes light to be bent by gravity in general relativity is the curvature of spacetime :) Your mechanism does not allow for that. Without spacetime curvature there is no reason for massless objects to be impacted by gravity.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
True, our replies crossed.

However, the thing is, the mechanism that causes light to be bent by gravity in general relativity is the curvature of spacetime :) Your mechanism does not allow for that. Without spacetime curvature there is no reason for massless objects to be impacted by gravity.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Nigel

No. The curvature of the space-time continuum is a physical indentation caused by the shielding effect of a mass. The paper derives the gravity acceleration equation and uniquely the equation for the gravity constant G for one mass.

Light is deflected by the gravitational acceleration field, regardless of whether it has mass. Sorry but you are mistaken and carefully see what the paper actually does.

If I drop a grain of sand and an elephant, both accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2. The same for a ray of light, for electrons, etc, regardless of their mass! The acceleration is independent of the mass of the object being accelerated.

If you have two equal masses, then they attract each other equally.

But the most basic case is that you need only 1 mass to get a gravitational field causing things to fall towards it. That is what I do in the proof to get the gravitational acceleration equation for mass M of a = MG/r^2, where I find that G is given by a formula including the Hubble constant and density of matter in space.

To get the Einstein field metric you replace Einstein's constant G with the formula I derive. To get Newton's force equation, you use Newton's second law F = ma. This gives: F = ma = mMG/r^2.

Here m is the mass of the falling object, whereas M is the mass of the object causing the thing to fall. So m is your mass and M is the Earth's mass. What you are doing is criticising this Newtonian force equation, which is not even mentioned in my paper, which just gives the gravity acceleration formula. Please lay your blame on Newton's confusion and textbook author's ignorance of relativity, not on me!

In fact, you are also mistaken in saying that light has no mass. Light has no rest mass, but it has a transit mass given by Einstein's E = mc^2. The mass of light in motion is simply m = E/c^2. This is because any electromagnetic field has momentum and mass. Light is an oscillating electromagnetic field!

I hope that by pointing out the errors in your particular attempts at criticism of my eight years of unfunded research, you do not feel that I am trying to be in any way arrogant. The people who are arrogant are those who try to block progress by being dismissive of new ideas without taking the time to study them properly. You are being helpful to me by stimulating discussion, and I am grateful for that.
:frown:
 
Last edited:
  • #22
I looked through the paper, but there was nothing that would describe a curvature of spacetime. If we are invoking parts of relativity here, I'm going to stick with Einstein on this one.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I looked through the paper, but there was nothing that would describe a curvature of spacetime. If we are invoking parts of relativity here, I'm going to stick with Einstein on this one.

Says Albert Einstein, "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", Annalen der Physik, v. 49, 1916, section 14:

"We make a distinction hereafter between 'gravitational field' and 'matter' in this way, that we denote everything but the gravitational field as 'matter'."

I agree with him. Space time is distinct from matter, its curvature is the gravitational field. If you don't like the idea that gravitational acceleration causes the curvature of space, then I suggest that you explain what you you think you mean by curvature.

Einstein is explicit. Space-time curvature is the gravitational field. Period. When you see the gravitational acceleration in my paper you are seeing curvature. Einstein says so, and I agree with him. G(uv) = 0.5g(uv).G = -kT(uv), where G is the scalar of curvature, G(uv) is the Riemann tensor of curvature, and T(uv) is the mass-energy or matter tensor. In this we have u and v each representing the four space-time coordinates. Curvature denotes the motion of a test particle of infidesimal mass in a gravitational field. Curvature is just a mathematical way to express gravitational acceleration as the space-time path of such a test particle.
 
  • #24
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. That's all that is needed. There is no need to invoke some ehtereal pressure field that you claim causes gravity due to mass shielding. It is too excessive.
 
  • #25
Impressive work, Nigel
However
Gravity is weaker at the Earth's equator because of the spin acceleration = speed squared divided by Earth's radius, which slightly offsets gravity.
So you do not agree with my thread about non dependency of gravity with lattitude?https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=333
 
  • #26
Nigel you mention that the 'pressure out' is equal to the 'pressure in', but in the physical measurements of the planet it is found that the density of the rock that comprises the Earth needs be quite a bit higher then what is found at the surface as to equate with the total mass of the planet.

So if the pressure was really an 'out' factor, from within the planet, then the most dense rock would be found at the surface of the planet, and it is NOT, the lighest, and least dense, is found at the surface.

If you would wish to tell me that this is a factor of the weight of all of the rock pressing down, well, then where the heck did your pressure out go?
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Nigel

If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake. The air flows in the opposite direction. An equal volume of air to my volume goes in the opposite direction to me at the same speed, filling in the void. The same occurs with moving submarines underwater. If you have an accelerating object, you get a wave of air or water accelerating in the opposite direction. The total effective volume is equal to the volume displaced by the moving object, and the speed or acceleration is the same, except in the opposite direction.

Nigel, forgive me but your 'brilliance' is about to be 'outshined' by a candle.

Caution in all things that you do, so take a cnadle hold it in front of your chest and talk a little hike down any corridior in the world when the air is still, the Flame of the candle will reveal that there is a wind generated, actually a pressure differential, which you can prove is a vacuum space behind you, simply by walking backwards with the same candle held very close to your chest.
{That is why I caution you all first, if you try this I would suggest that you place something, a plate perhaps, against your chest, as a saftey precaution, to keep your clothing from catching fire when the flame of the candle is pushed, or pulled, towards them}

As for underwater Nigel apparently you do not have any idea of just how much money the American navy spent developing propellers that reduce the opportunity for cavitation, at pressure, under water.

They would not have spent that kind of money on a phenomenon that didn't exist.

Might I suggest that you do some further reseach Nigel, a it is not the math that is wrong, it is the "logical precepts" that direct math, that are flawed. {My opinion...Only)
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Nigel Cook

When an element at high temperature comes into contact with an element at low temperature, the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats.

It is not uncommon for elements to 'morph' to accommodate the stimulus of the other body in such a way as to imitate the condition of the other body.

Matter has a readily measurable property of density. The density of space is immeasurably small - if it even exists. Could gravity simply be space trying to assume a density and 'shrinking' when it comes into contact with matter. This would be more pronounced in the area between material bodies.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Nigel
Electronics World, Vol. 109, Issue 1804, just published, contains my mathematical proof of the cause of gravity and its solution of some cosmological problems. The mathematics, minus diagrams, are in the following paper on the internet:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Nigel Cook

Yours is a well thought out and thought through set of equations and theories about gravity. I have enjoyed it alot. Thank you for that!

Please let me ask some questions with regard to electromagnetism and gravity.

1. How is the electromagnetic field of a planetary mass generated?

2. Is pressure a form of friction? (causes heat, static etc...)

3. Is the magnetic field of a planetary mass caused by a nickel/iron core or by some other magic of mass (and pressure!?)?

4. Is it possible that the pressures you speak of help to create this electromagnetic field of a planetary body and that this results in the exhibition of what we term as being gravity?

5. Would the amount of planetary mass determine the strength of it's electromagnetic field? (ie: the amount of pressure under mass being greater according to the amount of mass in question)

Thank you again!
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Yours is a well thought out and thought through set of equations and theories about gravity. I have enjoyed it alot. Thank you for that!

Please let me ask some questions with regard to electromagnetism and gravity.

1. How is the electromagnetic field of a planetary mass generated?

2. Is pressure a form of friction? (causes heat, static etc...)

3. Is the magnetic field of a planetary mass caused by a nickel/iron core or by some other magic of mass (and pressure!?)?

4. Is it possible that the pressures you speak of help to create this electromagnetic field of a planetary body and that this results in the exhibition of what we term as being gravity?

5. Would the amount of planetary mass determine the strength of it's electromagnetic field? (ie: the amount of pressure under mass being greater according to the amount of mass in question)

Thank you again!


The electromagnetic field is the key to the whole business. The article in Electronics World is concerned with the mechanism and derivation of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the transverse electromagnetic wave electron (an electron is an electromagnetic wave trapped by its own gravitation into a tiny loop), the derivation of Maxwell's equations from that, including the mechanism for Gauss' law which is basically the electric field version of Coulomb's inverse square law. Gravity is the other thing which the paper deals with. For copyright reasons I can't re-publish the whole thing on the internet, but I have published the gravity proof from it on the internet since that has a strong link with cosmology.

You may be able to find Electronics World at a library, or wait until more can be re-published free on the internet. The mathematical proofs and diagrams that are needed to properly answer your questions are in there.

However, I've updated the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the internet page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
which contains a discussion of what Einstein did in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation in his general theory of relativity, together with a discussion of the mathematical work he did. You may find that of interest and helpful to answering some of your intelligent questions.[?]
 
  • #31


Originally posted by Messiah
When an element at high temperature comes into contact with an element at low temperature, the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats.

It is not uncommon for elements to 'morph' to accommodate the stimulus of the other body in such a way as to imitate the condition of the other body.

Matter has a readily measurable property of density. The density of space is immeasurably small - if it even exists. Could gravity simply be space trying to assume a density and 'shrinking' when it comes into contact with matter. This would be more pronounced in the area between material bodies.

Actually Messiah (Which you are not) it is as I have been telling the in these forums for some time now, it is heat that is the opposite energy form, to gravity!

That is why I have endevoured to tell of the inside of the event Horizon of a Black Hole as being -1 K, the absence of the measurable quality that we collectively know as heat, AKA-EMR.

Fundamentally gravity is a cooling force of energy, and has the lovely ability to actually capture HEAT, hence the inside temperature of a Black Hole, the Thermosphere of the planet Earth, the Phenomenon of the Solar observation of the Photosphere, the Corona, and the Chromosphere that demonstrate to us a cool layer of energetic activity sandwiched between two hotter layers, above and below.

This is furthered by the simplistic knowledge of a question I had posed in the previous PF as to find me a place where there is NO EMR,as it is what is actually known.

Known for some time now, from the old school photographics of astronomical observations, the negatives of the exposures where what was looked at/eyeballed and they represent the universe in it's proper light so to speak, with the bodies of mass being little black points, (there own Gravity hides them in the dark, if they are weak ones, like this planet) and the rest of the interstellar spaces being flooded with light/EMR

The Modu operandi of these phenomenons is what I had been writing about back in the mid, to late, 1990's, as it arises from the structuring of atoms themselves.

Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. That's all that is needed. There is no need to invoke some ehtereal pressure field that you claim causes gravity due to mass shielding. It is too excessive.

The paper begins: "General relativity failed to predict the recession speeds of distant supernovas. This paper reviews and extends the straightforward mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity, published in Electronics World, resolving this problem."

You are welcome to your opinion. Without a cause of forces, however, we are stuck in the position that people are dropping out of science. Last year, the Physics Department at Essex University, UK, closed. The staff there were transferred to the Electronics Engineering department. This year, their maths department has been under threat. The whole problem is that they have masses of data from experiments and observations which cannot be explained, and students are resenting hard maths which lacks any proven basis.
 
  • #33
Or perhaps the recession speed is caused by something outside of GR as it currently stands. A closer analogy would have been the cosmological constant, however with the current theories dealing with dark energy it would seem to be some other force at work. As such that would be like saying GR failed to predict two magnets would attract each other so strongly.
 
  • #34
Nigel the one other thing that has been stated about gravity, for years now, is TRUE, it is an "Attraction to a Center", but the surface is not the center that it is using, the center is in the core of the planet.
 
  • #35


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...
Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force. [/B]

This is an interesting claim. J.J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron with something which is very similar to a vacuum TV picture tube.

The mass he measured was inertial, not gravitational. Some people in physics jump to conclusions too easily, and I like the fact that you do not.

When you say "electrons do not have gravity" you are making an ambiguous case, though. Do you believe:

1. That electrons are not affected by the gravity of another mass?
2. That electrons do not attract other particles to themselves?
3. Both 1 and 2 above?

Clearly, the universal gravitational constant, G, is pretty poorly known (only about 3 decimal places), so since electrons only comprise a small proportion of the inertial mass of atoms, you may be right to doubt 2. In theory, we should know whether 1 is true by the effect of gravity on electrons like beta radiation. However, I do not know of any research on this.

:smile:
 
  • #36
Originally posted by Nigel
This is an interesting claim. J.J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron with something which is very similar to a vacuum TV picture tube.

The mass he measured was inertial, not gravitational. Some people in physics jump to conclusions too easily, and I like the fact that you do not.

When you say "electrons do not have gravity" you are making an ambiguous case, though. Do you believe:

1. That electrons are not affected by the gravity of another mass?
2. That electrons do not attract other particles to themselves?
3. Both 1 and 2 above?

Clearly, the universal gravitational constant, G, is pretty poorly known (only about 3 decimal places), so since electrons only comprise a small proportion of the inertial mass of atoms, you may be right to doubt 2. In theory, we should know whether 1 is true by the effect of gravity on electrons like beta radiation. However, I do not know of any research on this.

To #1) Yes and no, dependant upon circumstances.

to #2) NO, electrons are attracted to other particles, and have interactions with them, ie; protons, but which is the attractor (outside of in a battery) is difficult to prove, because of the scale.

In what I understand about gravity, the universal constant of it is that it pulls all things to a common center, all energy that has/had been radiated.

In performing that function, it, in of itself, causes heat to be generated and radiated back out, in a cyclical nature, relative to the mass of the gravitational body/generator.

The Planet proves that, and the Moon, the Sun, Mass, the Stars, they all demonstrate the ability of being thermal capacitors, as that is what the cycle of gravitational activity performs, the capacitance of heat.

When it ends, it is in a "Big Crunch", but is is a very "COLD Big Crunch".

What is presently being thought of as 'Dark Energy', might simply be us, finally observing the activity of gravity that is the rebounding of the elastic of space itself, and the sighting of the evidence that the universe is indeed capable of reversing it's expansion, and is 'presently' (so to speak, as the distances invoke 'past' times) beginning, (or in the process of) to recontract(ing).


But all of this, is, by far, NOT all of the answer, not even close, lots of details is/are still missing.

BTW Nigel, if the medium is "Superfluid", as to afford 'no resistance' to motion, then there can be NO shadowing effect, as a shadowing effect MUST, and IS, an indication of a pressure differential.

But nice math work, just the same...a bit of the "Monte Carlo" method is it?
 
  • #37
Originally posted by Nigel
The electromagnetic field is the key to the whole business. The article in Electronics World is concerned with the mechanism and derivation of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the transverse electromagnetic wave electron (an electron is an electromagnetic wave trapped by its own gravitation into a tiny loop), the derivation of Maxwell's equations from that, including the mechanism for Gauss' law which is basically the electric field version of Coulomb's inverse square law. Gravity is the other thing which the paper deals with. For copyright reasons I can't re-publish the whole thing on the internet, but I have published the gravity proof from it on the internet since that has a strong link with cosmology.

You may be able to find Electronics World at a library, or wait until more can be re-published free on the internet. The mathematical proofs and diagrams that are needed to properly answer your questions are in there.

However, I've updated the "Frequently Asked Questions" on the internet page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
which contains a discussion of what Einstein did in uniting electrodynamics with gravitation in his general theory of relativity, together with a discussion of the mathematical work he did. You may find that of interest and helpful to answering some of your intelligent questions.[?]

Excellent! Thanks again!

It looks more like a synergistic arrangement as we could expect in a quantum equasion... leaving sequence and/or cause and effect out of the calculations. More like a support structure comprised of electromagnetic influence and gravitational influence.

It would still be interesting to do what I have already proposed which is to run a real-time superimposition of the electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields of a planetary body over one another during the introduction of a second, smaller mass.

There may be a clue as to which field creates which in the calculations of each of these field's rate of change.

Thanks again.
 
  • #38
12/04/2003

Nigel the reality of gravity is found in 'thermics', or 'thermology' the study of the flowing of energy. (As heat{ing})

In the thermosphere of the planet we find a layer of relatively high temperature space, ~2500 Degrees F, above drops to ~7 or 8 degrees K, and below it is a layer of the planets atmosphere that is something below 0.0 Degrees F. (my numbers are approximates as they are remembered 'roughly', but the point that they make still stands solid as evidence as we observe the inverse of the Solar effect inasmuch as we now see a layer of heat, sandwiched by two cooler layers)

We have a layer of space that is maintaining a temperature that is not generated by any activity that is measurable as "fire", yet we clearly know it is maintaining temperature over time, completely contrary to what the current laws of thermodynamics tells us, (all heat is radiant *) BUT a clear observable phenomenon, hence the laws of thermodynamics MUST be wrong! The planets observable characteristics PROVE that one.

What we end up finding out in this manner of observance of the universes operation of energy exchanges is that the moderator of motion is gravity, as it is the interface of the differential of energetic traveling, hence the motion of masses at speeds that are sub-light, as all of the energy travels at C (near enough, some exception) to generate the movements.

We hence see, that it is gravity that is actually the operator of time, (generator of it actually) time as it is measured by the motion/movements of masses.

As I had previously stated in other forums, “time is the illusion of movement” that is because the motion is an illusion, it is the moderation of energetic cycles that move the masses, but all of the energetic cycles occur at C, outside of masses, relative to C ( as propagating) inside masses.

(* It is, But there is a 'time' effect bearing upon the traveling of the energies at play, a generated ‘time’(ing) effect)

One body heats while the other cools because gravity will cause to arise an Energetic Ambience between the two masses, proportionately.

An “Energetic Ambience” (pressure) is normally measured using a thermometer, at least last time I heard anything about it…..Rumor had it?

It is a more complex answer then what you found Nigel, forgive me, it’s not my fault. (not yours either!)
 
  • #39
Vacuum PRESSURE!

There are similar ideas to yours posted elswhere, and going back sometime ago?

http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/bhboard/messages11/25.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nigel, electrons do not have gravity, and are not a balance of electrical and gravitational force. [/B]
Really? I thought electrons had 'mass'?
 
  • #41


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That is why I have endevoured to tell of the inside of the event Horizon of a Black Hole as being -1 K, the absence of the measurable
quality that we collectively know as heat, AKA-EMR.

Do you perceive heat to be a quality - or a condition?
I consider 'quality' to be an inherent property of an element. Heat would be a transient condition.
 
  • #42


Originally posted by Messiah
Do you perceive heat to be a quality - or a condition?
I consider 'quality' to be an inherent property of an element. Heat would be a transient condition.

So then 'Heat' as a "qualifiedly/quantifiable condition" of space,...is what?

Heat is actually referred to, or known as, in physics, "Ambient Energy Pressure", (AEP) as that is exactly what a thermometer measures.

AEP is the amount of energy that is 'cycling' be’twix all of the matter, in the (seemingly empty) space, where you measure it.

Aside form that, heat is also seen as a quality of matter, as in "That piece of steel is hot", as well as its (present) 'condition'.
 
  • #43


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

AEP is the amount of energy that is 'cycling' be’twix all of the matter, in the (seemingly empty) space, where you measure it.

I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?
 
  • #44
Thanks for the interesting replies everyone!

The paper on the internet is the mechanism for gravity, and some of the replies touch on the other two forces of nature, which have different mechanisms and force strengths to gravity. The article in Electronics World deals with 4 forces, although two of those (electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces) are already unified in so-called electro-weak theory.

Hence, there are 3 basic forces:
Strong nuclear force
Gravitational force - http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Electromagnetic force

I will briefly say something about the mechanisms and mathematical proofs I have published for the strong nuclear and the electromagnetic forces, since they relate to some of the replies above.

The mathematical proof I give (Electronics World, April 2003) demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force (137 times the electromagnetic force), while the electromagnetic force is the energy delivery by a random walk of electromagnetic fields between similar charges in the universe. Because the stars are receding, the electromagnetic momentum received continuously from spinning charges is less than they emit in anyone place, so there is an asymmetry, causing a gravity shielding-attraction effect between dissimilar charges (hence electrostatic attraction) and an excessive exchange of momentum between similar charges (hence electrostatic repulsion).

The random walk occurs because a straight line summation would encounter equal numbers of positive and negative charges, thus cancelling out. When you work out the random walk, allowing for the expansion of the universe and the constant 377 ohm impedance of free space, you find that the electromagnetic forces are bigger than gravity by a multiplication factor equal to the square root of the number of charges in the universe; the proof is in the journal.

Therefore, there are three separate mechanisms accounting for 3 different basic forces. Sometimes in the past people have attributed the real mechanism of the strong nuclear force to electromagnetism, and had the paradox of a force calculation 137 times stronger than expected. This puzzled Feynman and many other maths wizards.

They should have studied Catt's research.
 
  • #45


Originally posted by Messiah
I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?

On 9 July 1962, the United States wizards fired up a 1.44 megaton thermonuclear bomb on a missile, exploding at 400 km. Since the Earth's atmosphere is insignificant at 100 km altitude, that was in space all right. Some people are prejudiced against explosions, so they say that every point in the universe sees every other point expanding around them. This is the worst sort of conjecture, especially when they falsely try to say that Hubble proved it. In fact, as my paper shows, the Hubble "law" (ratio of speed to distance of star = constant) is false in the sense that the distance will increase while the observed light is traveling to us, while the speed may remain the same. The whole of cosmology is jinxed by the discovery that the most distant supernovas do not slow down as predicted due to general relativity. My paper resolves that, but don't expect to see it being cited in any textbooks within the next century. Science journals are more fearful of the loss of reputation by publishing a hoax than they are of the supposed embarrassment of not publishing a genuine advance.

As for what is beyond the universe - I don't know. If the gravity mechanism is correct (I think it is because the logical proof has support from what we know about the fabric of space in electromagnetism, and also the Hubble equation when corrected gives rise to acceleration) then it looks as if the universe is an explosion in pre-existing space. Whether the pre-existing space is actually infinite, or not, I cannot even try to guess. I would like to see computer modelling of the universe using a nuclear fireball computer code. By fitting the results from a computer simulation for a 10^55 megatons detonation to what is observed for the universe, something useful might be learned. At present, that area is surrounded in secrecy.

:smile:
 
  • #46


Originally posted by Messiah
I take - from the parenthetical note above - that you do not consider space to be 'non-existence' - or empty.

Does space exist 'beyond' the Universe/expansion of the Big Bang, or does Big Bang manufacture space "on the fly" so to speak?

Current cosmological understanding, as I have read of it, is that the Big Bang was/is the explosion of space itself.

Empty space, find me a place in space that is NOT filled with EMR, other then the inside of the event horizon of a Black Hole.

As for a fabric, it is both deducable, provable, and has been noted by some of the hisorically noted greatest minds known to be soemthing that the universe itself, has been telling us, is there, all along, it is simply the proving of that, with repeatablity, and standardized testing, that will end that!
 
  • #47
[q]demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force [/q]

But in your paper you claim that spacetime is continuous. Vacuum fluctuations manifest themsevles as a discreteness in the fabric of spacetime, commonly known as quantum foam. This is the central problem in quantizizing gravity and why such new developments as loop quantum gravity and any new theoretical models are tending towards a discerete spacetime that is actually formed, not independent.

Also,

Upon further reading of your paper, I must wholly protest the claim you make that the total Volume of spacetime is constant. That simply cannot be so in an expanding universe.

When you say H has units of acceleration, does that mean the units of H are meters per second per second?

v = rH = dr/dt. Hence: dt = dr/(rH).

So what you are saying then, is that the position function for r is

r = CeHt with C being some constant. So far that seems to be a nice acceleration model for the velocity. Of that I can say the math is sound going back and forth (though what an odd little constant that H is). I still have the rest of the maths to look through however. And again I urge one to remember what works in math does not always work in reality. It should be interesting to see where my analysis leads me.

Also, I hope you are not too offended by my criticisms. It is good measure to always meet new ideas with skepticism. So onward I go.
 
Last edited:
  • #48


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for a fabric, it is both deducable, provable, and has been noted by some of the hisorically noted greatest minds known to be soemthing that the universe itself, has been telling us, is there, all along, it is simply the proving of that, with repeatablity, and standardized testing, that will end that!

Does it require any more proof than already exists - or is it just a matter of getting the semantics correct?

If one defines 'exist' as 'having physical presence in the Universe', then it is already proven that space 'exists'. The fact we cannot discern any attributes other than that it has volume, location and the property of inertness (which - in itself - is a quality) is no more remarkable than the fact early man considered air to be 'nothing'.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Empty space, find me a place in space that is NOT filled with EMR, other then the inside of the event horizon of a Black Hole.

If Big Bang is expanding into space, there must be space into which BB has not yet arrived. If BB 'created' the Universe, then there should be nothing outside of the volume of BB (even EMR) except more space.

Else BB 'creates' space on the fly.

NO??
 
  • #49
Try it this way, the vessel of the universe, as we see it, is EMR, and it is currently known that this would extend beyond the range of our collective abilities to see it/ observe it.

As 'proof' of a fabric really goes, it is demonstrably provable, the semantics aside.

It is preferable to have that proof as it is evidence of the nature of the vessel of the universe's encapsulation of matter.

It's nature is important to understand as it is intimately involved in the workings of the universe.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Try it this way, the vessel of the universe, as we see it, is EMR, and it is currently known that this would extend beyond the range of our collective abilities to see it/ observe it.

As 'proof' of a fabric really goes, it is demonstrably provable, the semantics aside.

It is preferable to have that proof as it is evidence of the nature of the vessel of the universe's encapsulation of matter.

It's nature is important to understand as it is intimately involved in the workings of the universe.

Sounds reasonable - however, there may be factors in the Universe which have a direct bearing upon our measurements and those factors may NEVER be observable within the lifetime of our species.

If the Universe (some prefer omniverse, but I choose to define Universe as "all which exists") is infinite and our BB is a local phenomenon, there may be neighboring cosmic engines (BB's) beyond our detection producing systems which make neutron stars look like sponge.

Dark Matter??
 

Similar threads

Back
Top