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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nigel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cause Gravity Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the concept of gravity and its potential causes, specifically focusing on the motion of particles within the fabric of space. Participants examine theoretical models, mathematical proofs, and analogies related to gravity, including its relationship to the big bang and the behavior of matter and energy in the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that gravity is caused by the inward pressure of the fabric of space, which balances the outward motion of matter from the big bang.
  • Another viewpoint posits that gravity can be understood as dielectric pressure resulting from the expansion of the universe, with implications for the behavior of distant supernovae.
  • Some participants argue against the notion that gravity is an elastic pull, citing that such a force would increase with distance, which contradicts observations.
  • There is a discussion on the nature of the fabric of space, with references to fluid dynamics and how continuous media might behave differently than particulate matter.
  • One participant highlights the importance of displacement resistance in understanding inertia and gravity, suggesting that this could explain Newton’s first law.
  • Another point raised is the fixed impedance of the vacuum to electromagnetic energy, which some argue supports the idea of a non-particulate continuum of space.
  • Some participants propose that a rigorous mathematical proof should be developed to test the implications of the proposed fluid model of space on gravitational laws.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of competing views regarding the nature of gravity and the fabric of space. There is no consensus on a single explanation, and the discussion remains unresolved with multiple hypotheses being explored.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex theoretical models that depend on specific assumptions about the nature of space and gravity. Some claims rely on interpretations of empirical data, while others propose new mathematical frameworks that have not been universally accepted.

  • #451
Originally posted by Hurkyl
If your goal is to promote Sorce Theory... and the question of relativity's correctness is irrelevant to Sorce Theory... then why do you spend so much time harping in the incorrectness of it?

Most of my time is spent defending myself from attacks to my credibility. Otherwise I am simply offering a replacement.

Also, it is important for people to see the flaws in relativity in order to open their minds for a replacement. I realize that I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to convince the "experts", but I doubt anyone could be.

My purpose is to help those already on the path to a better theory. The people content with the standard model will never leave it.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #452
Originally posted by chroot
*ahem*

*clears throat*

Let me see if I can clear this up for you.

THIS IS THE WRONG GODDAMN FORUM FOR PUSHING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY. ALTERNATIVE THEORIES ARE WELCOME ONLY IN THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM. PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM.

- Warren

This thread was ABOUT an alternative theory until you came here and attacked me and started filling it up with combatitive banter.

I did not start the thread, but it was just fine before you got here and started making a mess of things.
 
  • #453
Originally posted by subtillioN
The people content with the standard model will never leave it.
The standard model is wrong, idiot. We all know the standard model is wrong. It must be replaced by a generalization which can include both QFT and GR as special cases. No one in their right mind thinks physics is "done," as you constantly seem to misunderstand.

Your goddamn "sorce theory" is just some hocus-pocus English prose thrown together to emulate scientific demeanor. It's horse****. It's worthless. It doesn't belong in this forum.[/color]

- Warren
 
  • #454
Most of my time is spent defending myself from attacks to my credibility. Otherwise I am simply offering a replacement.

If you weren't harping on the validity of mainstream physics, nobody would be questioning your credibility to talk about the validity of mainstream physics.


Also, it is important for people to see the flaws in relativity in order to open their minds for a replacement.

If the theory isn't good enough to stand on its own merit, then it isn't good enough to be a replacement.
 
  • #455
I did not start the thread, but it was just fine before you got here and started making a mess of things.

Aint that the truth!
You must realize Sub - My buddy Warren can't help himself.

Just ignore him - He will go away.

Or NOT!
 
  • #456
Originally posted by Hurkyl
If the theory isn't good enough to stand on its own merit, then it isn't good enough to be a replacement.

Now, that's a bit obvious, don't you think?

:wink:
 
  • #457
Originally posted by subtillioN
I do not claim to understand Relativity in its entirety nor nearly as well as you people who need it to "understand" and quantify reality. It is simply superfluous to me, thus I do not need to know its details.
I can't believe people aren't harping on this more. How do you know relativity is wrong if you (admittedly) don't understand what relativity means?
 
  • #458
Originally posted by russ_watters
I can't believe people aren't harping on this more. How do you know relativity is wrong if you (admittedly) don't understand what relativity means?

You will never know because I am done discussing irrelevantivity.

I did not seal the chamber tight enough so I let a bit of reality into "muddy" up the mix. This is forbidden by the headmasters so I did not meet the stringent qualifications. poor me... I cannot discuss the theory of irRelevantivity.

:wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #459
Originally posted by subtillioN
You will never know because I am done discussing irrelevantivity.
:wink:
Well, at least we now know your fight or flight response when backed into a corner. :wink:

I submit to you however, that a good scientist when backed into a corner he sees no escape from, doesn't run but stays and figures out HOW and WHY he got into that corner and LEARNS from it where he went wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #460
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, at least we now know your fight or flight response when backed into a corner. :wink:

I submit to you however, that a good scientist when backed into a corner he sees no escape from, doesn't run but stays and figures out HOW and WHY he got into that corner and LEARNS from it where he went wrong.


Please tell me where I went wrong, Russ. Though I already know the bulk of the answer and I have already stated it.

A good scientist is curious about an alternative explanation of reality and not fearfull as has been exhibited so often on this board. That is the only way he can learn where he went wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #461
Originally posted by subtillioN
A good scientist is curious about an alternative explanation of reality and not fearfull as has been exhibited so often on this board. That is the only way he can learn where he went wrong.
Yes. And if you strive to be a good scientist, you eventually will.
 
  • #462
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes. And if you strive to be a good scientist, you eventually will.

If you learn Sorce Theory then I will learn Relativity Theory... deal?


:wink:
 
  • #463
Originally posted by ofikn
Hello again!
...
Every time I write that I am _NOT_ trying to attack you, I am trying to get you to change the _FORM_ of your paper to one that could be published.
You claim that there is a problem with the supernovae data, but nowhere in the pdf do you give the numbers, then you claim that your equations solves this discrepancy in the numbers, but you never show that part of the math. I believe you may you have solved that problem, but you do not present this data. Just sending me back for the 5th time to the pdf (which is on my desktop) will not get you published.

A potential title to a publishable paper:
A potential solution to the discrepancy between general relativity and the supernovae recession data.

An abstract:
According to measurements by ... and ... it can be shown that the quantity _____ is ______ where G.R. predicts it to be ... (with references of course) The equation ... derived in this paper shows that this can be repaired with the results of the calculation given as ... with a relative error of ... This set of equations is consistent with other measurements such as the Mossboher (sp) effect etc.

If the numbers check out then this will be published.
...
Start small, and correct then build up to your final theory.

Have a great weekend! I am off to sunnier climes for a few weeks, so keep up the good work, and maybe try to change just a little. (My shrink told me not to be confrontational you should try it!)

Ofek

It's always the people off on holidays who have the clever dick answers. Actually, I started off small, with a paper similar to the one you discuss.

I started off 7 years ago, writing a paper about the cause of gravity and timidly called it something similar to your idea of "A potential solution..." Editor's reply: "Sorry but we don't have time to read, let alone publish speculations. Get lost."

You have to be bold to get anywhere.

Remember, it has been published. Not by Nature, but by a journal which is prepared to do the honourable thing, despite establishment objections from pseudoscientists obsessed with superstrings. :smile:
 
  • #464
Time to put this topic out of its misery.

Further topics about alternative theories will be moved to the theory development forum.

Hijacked topics will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

As always, throwing around personal insults is against PF policy.

I give a lot of leeway, but I got to draw the line somewhere.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Is Space a Fluidic Medium?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad On gravity and the conservation of energy
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Graduate Is Fatio–Le Sage's theory of gravitation an entropic gravity?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
High School What Causes Mass to Exert Gravitational Pull?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Doublet flow in Fluid Dynamics between two spheres or cylinders
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
What's the most likely cause for this carbon seal crack?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
897
High School Spacetime curvature due to acceleration causing gravity?
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Undergrad Work - Energy Principle Application to Fluid Flow
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Graduate Bernoulli, lift and cause & effect
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Undergrad Energy conservation in Doppler (NOT cosmological) redshifts?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K