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

[Brad_Ad23]

Just to point out in the FAQ section, when you talk about energy. E = mc² is the rest energy of any mass. E = 1/2 mv² is the kinetic energy of a mass. The true Einstein equation is

E = mc² + 1/2 mv², or often times the addition of the kinetic energy is given as the gamma constant.


Meanwhile a continued analysis of the physics that underly your idea do not seem to mesh. However your basic premise is correct, the simple Hubble constant of proportionality is NOT correct. This is because of dark energy driving an acceleration. However, it does not by any means Einstein was wrong. As I stated above, this would be the equivalent to saying Einstein was wrong with GR because it fails to predict the strenght two magnets attract each other (or they repell each other even!) Again too, your idea of a constant volume of spacetime does imply that there is no expansion to the universe, rather mass is moving apart ever faster. However, this implies either that the universe is infinitly large and infinite in time, or it is static. And black holes still cannot be explained by your method, nor is gravitational deflection of light. Mere pressure alone cannot effect photons which only deflect because the geometry of spacetime makes the shortest distance that deflected point. The 'relativistic' mass (momentum) of the photon does not alone make it succeptible to gravity. Also, how does it explain gravity's own gravity? Too many unanswered questions that GR does answer.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
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??

Forgive me, it is an interesting thought, but it is not an original thought, but it sort of has been answered, by humans.

It is the limitation upon our collective ability to know, it is found where the light ends, as we cannot "Knowledgably See" any farther.

The Universe, 'Omniverse' if you should wish, would itself not be infinite, but it would be 'within' that, whatever that actually is, the infinite,

It is, (the infinite) provably Un-Imaginable, not even in the "Imaginary" Realm, as to believe so, is a practice of a Self Deception

 

[Alias]

Forgive me for being out of my league, but my gut feeling has changed a bit in response to this thread. So here's my two cents, with the hope that it will further some of the theories in this discussion.

As the universe expands, it fills with "new" space.

Mass consumes space.

This would lead to gravitational effects at relatively small distances and expansion effects at larger distances based on the differences between the rate of "filling" and the rate of "consumption".

Also, the rate of consumption of space by particles of mass would determine the particular properties of the particle.

If these statements were true, would it not be possible to compute the volume and rate of consumption of space by a known mass by using the Gravitational constant alone?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Forgive me, it is an interesting thought, but it is not an original thought, but it sort of has been answered, by humans.

It is the limitation upon our collective ability to know, it is found where the light ends, as we cannot "Knowledgably See" any farther.

The Universe, 'Omniverse' if you should wish, would itself not be infinite, but it would be 'within' that, whatever that actually is, the infinite,

It is, (the infinite) provably Un-Imaginable, not even in the "Imaginary" Realm, as to believe so, is a practice of a Self Deception

APPLAUSE
Logic is our interpretation of the laws of nature. By observing, defining and comparing the properties of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables.

The concept of Infinity; however, lies beyond the domain of logic because it is not defined - and logic requires definition. It is not easy to fathom that although there is a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, there is no furthest point; and the very fact no ‘point of infinity’ exists serves only to validate the concept.

Infinity is not contrary to logic, it is just 'beyond its grasp'.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Alias

(SNIP) Forgive me for being out of my league, (CHOP)

WHY? that is exactly where you need to go to learn, just like all of the rest of us, forgive HA! NEVER!

(Congratulate you, NOW that I could do!)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

One last thougth?? (do you think I can do that?)

BTW gravity is a summing force, it always adds, it always adds more, it always comes out as either having more mass to play with, or as being gravitationally more powerful in the area of it's occupancy of space, hence it would be seen as the force that would win in the end of the universe as it always adds!

It uses the force of diffusion to spread heat, (and/or matter, re; explosions) but it always wins over itself in the end as it's ability to retrieve, over time, is greater then it's ability to expend, over time.

EDIT: TY Poooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Darn I forgot, it uses matter as the 'tinfoil' of the capacitor that is the retainer of heat, but along a time line, as to accommodate the energies not being "capturable" for anything other then a 'period of time'.

It uses matter to moderate the C factor in the 'energetic interchanges', that are the activities of gravity.


Have FUN!

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Darn I forgot, it uses matter as the 'tinfoil' of the capacitor that is the retainer of heat, but along a time line, as to accommodate the energies not being "capturable" for anything other then a 'period of time'.

It uses matter to moderate the C factor in the 'energetic interchanges', that are the activities of gravity.


Have FUN!

FINALLY ! ! !

Somebody realizes why I wear a tinfoil pyramid on my head to keep aliens from reading my thoughts...

Wheeeeeeeeew ! ! !

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
FINALLY ! ! !

Somebody realizes why I wear a tinfoil pyramid on my head to keep aliens from reading my thoughts...

Wheeeeeeeeew ! ! !

(PSssssssssssst Mess-i-ah! It's NOT working! they know about you! so use your secret powers to hide now!)

DON'T THANK ME, THEY WILL FIND BOTH OF US THAT WAY!





{Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, ad on, and on, etc, bye!}

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets see, there is a plethora of evidence that follows the logic of the reaoning for the Absorption of EMR by matter/mass. The Spectral absorption of EMR is well known in the evidence of the universe's light, an interaction of atoms, with the passing light.

It is thought that the re-emission is/would be found in a 'brightness' that should be detectable, even though it would be very subtle, as scattered in a larger range of waveform.

This is furthered by the fact of known knowledge of the Planets Apsorption of EMR, as Very long wave length, (radiowave) which would follow the rules of "Conservation of Energy" by compression of the waveform, to a higher level, for re-emittance as 'thermal' energy.

Or an "Ambient Energy Pressure signature", through the capacitance that is the activities of gravities inducement of thermal output.

It is a superimposition upon the thermal flow that is unseen, that is gravity, it is none the less detectable, you just have to know how.

Messiah, did your cap work?

Did you know I would write this?

Did you know that tomorrow is Good Friday? so all the people who Volonteer at the Soup Kitchens are taking a well deserved Break with there families?

DID you know?

 

[Messiah]

BACK TO BASICS

What we are discussing here are two very basic phenomenae:
1) Existence
2) Change (in position or condition)

Energy is simply another nomenclature for change - the act of (kinetic) or propensity (potential) for said phenomenon.

The photon theory of light believes photons actually travel (change in position of a particle)

It is my insane and totally unconventional belief that it is a change in condition (in the elements involved in the vector). A simple propagation.

Any comment??

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah

It is my insane and totally unconventional belief that it is a change in condition (in the elements involved in the vector). A simple propagation.

Is this meant to be a question?

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Is this meant to be a question?

No, the question was the last sentence...marked by punctuation '?'
I understand this is commonly used by convention.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
No, the question was the last sentence...marked by punctuation '?'
I understand this is commonly used by convention.

Thats what I understood, too, so that's why I asked what the question really was.

ANy comment?...No! as the statement doesn't make any real sense to me, as what we are discussing here is gravity, not "change", and how GRAVITY comes into being, and works.

Any Comments?

 

[FZ+]

If you want to carry out a private or personal conversation, use the pm system. That's what it is there for.

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by FZ+
If you want to carry out a private or personal conversation, use the pm system. That's what it is there for.

ok

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

This is what I had originally written the other day, just that the disc drives on some of the computers here went wacky with the disc, telling me it needed "formating", so I post it just the same as I felt this one was written better then the one I did post, THANKS!

17/04/2003

There is a plethora of evidence to back up this logic in observation, the spectrographic nature of the readings of light, from distance, demonstrates the principals of the absorption of EMR, by matter, as it passes it.

The interaction is thought to project a lightening(Brightening) effect upon other waves of the spectrum, but The broadcast of that would make detection more difficult as the shading effects would be exceedingly subtle.

This is further enhanced as, principal of proof, by the 'common knowledge' of the Fact that the Planet is Known to Absorb (Very) long wave (radio) EMR.

This absorption phenomenon is held to the conservation of energy rule, by shifting, frame shifting actually, and it is re-emitted as higher waveform energies, as in heat(ing), by EMR emission.

Hence we have 'prior knowledge' of the activities of Gravity that makes evidence of the fact of it being a Super-Imposition upon the immediate, and long range, temperature environment, adjudicated in the EMR, by a mass.

Messiah, did your cap work?
Did you 'predict' I would write this today?
Or did you just know that I had done it, but didn't know how you knew that?
Or was it that the cap works?
Or it Friday tomorrow?
Good Friday?, and all the soup kitchens will be closed as the staff take a well deserved break with there families.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Funny, I mention the disc, now it is so badly damaged, by one of the computers there, scan disc does nothing for it, telling me it is "no good" any more, it was just fine the other day, it is only no good as a result of the disc drives, in the machines I use that are net linked operating, well, what, from afar, cause it certainly ain't me doing it, and this is about the four, or fifth disc, that this has happened to!

Seems that someone erases the FAT files on them, for me, how sad!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW this explanation does take everyone away from the chasm that had been previously there, but it only really brings it up to the abyss, actually, and the view from *here*, is even darker, then the previous one.

There is an answer, as there is a way to resolve all of this into something that works form origins in structure(s).

Till then....

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
[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?



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

r = Ce^Ht 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.

The vacuum flux is not the fabric of space. Nor is spacetime.

The vacuum flux is matter + antimatter creation for a brief time characterised by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in its energy-time version.

Spacetime is what you get when you do four-dimensional geometry which treats the product of time and velocity of light as distance (time multiplied by velocity = distance, dimensionally).

H, Hubble constant, as stated in the paper and as defined by textbooks as velocity divided by distance, which has units of reciprocal seconds. This is not a true constant, because the stars will recede further while the light is in transit to us. The correct constant will be velocity divided by transit time of the light, and this ratio is acceleration. You will need to go through the paper step-by-step to appreciate the details, as it is not the sort of thing which can be grasped by scanning.

Where you say that what works in maths does not always work in reality, I agree. You get people in physics force-fitting superstring 26 dimensional tensors on to reality at the tax-payers expense (at least in the UK) for decades and failing. It is quaint to see how revered people like Archimedes are for mathematical proofs, but when it comes to the crunch, the big guys in the major scientific journals will not even read a proof. It is a bit like the problem Galileo had with the Church when they refused to put an eye to his telescope.

The existing empirical law philosophy can be supported by adding epicycles every time an error is seen, postponing progress indefinitely.

At the end of the day, proof can be ignored, so it has no real influence. It is a bit like the situation with the war with Iraq. British popular opinion was predominantly pacifist, but when you have dictators who simply ignore everything reasonable, you are eventually in a situation of facing the old dictum that "war is the extension of politics", and that nothing short of war will induce reason.

In the case of science, the superstring brigade will continue to consume taxpayers money in their Ivory Towers. The proven theory will be ignored for any reason they can think up, no matter how absurd.

The basic problem for me is that we live in an unscientific age, where the people who take the jobs of editors of scientific journals do so in the belief that their prejudices are of greater importance than facts.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

I agree on most of your points, however:

The vacuum energy does manifest itself all over the place. True it is seen in the creation of matter-antimatter pairs, but remember too that it can occur in energy, including gravity. This creates a discernable effect in any quantum theory of gravity that is referred to as quantum foam.

As for superstring theory, they're down to 11 dimensions now.

And I agree superstring theory will not be the final answer merely because it treats spacetime as an independent background. Other new theories such as the developing loop quantum gravity hold more promise.

And as I stated before, your basic premise of the Hubble constant not being in terms of velocity is a sound one, the methods and consequences of your procedure do not seem realistic.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Nigel
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.

Thank you Nigel.

These explanations deserved a reprint in your thread here!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So I wonder, if your explanation does it from the point of 'stucture' of physical reality, as it clearly has structure.

Does it?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Don't mean to be a nag, but, still waiting...tick...tick...ok!

 

[Messiah]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

This is further enhanced as, principal of proof, by the 'common knowledge' of the Fact that the Planet is Known to Absorb (Very) long wave (radio) EMR.

This absorption phenomenon is held to the conservation of energy rule, by shifting, frame shifting actually, and it is re-emitted as higher waveform energies, as in heat(ing), by EMR emission.

Hence we have 'prior knowledge' of the activities of Gravity that makes evidence of the fact of it being a Super-Imposition upon the immediate, and long range, temperature environment, adjudicated in the EMR, by a mass.

Messiah, did your cap work?
Did you 'predict' I would write this today?
Or did you just know that I had done it, but didn't know how you knew that?
Or was it that the cap works?

Is EMR particle phenomenon or propagation?
No, the cap didn't work, so I decided to stop thinking (can't read what is not there)
YES, I predicted your response. I answered it before your post.
#CFCFCF

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So I wonder, if your explanation does it from the point of 'stucture' of physical reality, as it clearly has structure.

Does it?

I'm glad that you see that it has structure. Other people don't, e.g.:

Decision on manuscript 2003-04-03576
Sent: 24/04/2003 11:49
Importance: Normal
April 24, 2003


... Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Solution to a problem with general relativity"...

... I hope that you will rapidly receive a more favourable response elsewhere...

Yours sincerely

Karl Ziemelis
Physical Sciences Editor, Nature


The interesting thing is that they will not send for peer review a proof. They are ingenious enough to fear that a referee might not be able to find a flaw in a proof, leaving them forced to print it. Notice the kindly comment that Dr Ziemelis makes, hoping that someone else will have the guts to publish it. The curious thing is that science has reached the stage that Galileo was in when he wrote to Kepler: "The Professor here refuses to look through my glass." They can sense that the paper would upset an apple cart, just as the Catholic Philosophy Professor in Galileo's day, and they place their commitment to culture above that to scientific objectivity. They are afraid that publishing something is dangerous.


[?]

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Messiah
Is EMR particle phenomenon or propagation?
No, the cap didn't work, so I decided to stop thinking (can't read what is not there)
YES, I predicted your response. I answered it before your post.
#CFCFCF

WHERE?

What I am calling a 'phenomenon' is simply something that we can measure, a propagation if you wish, something that is going on, that we can percieve, measure, and, hopefully, explain to understand it's "Raison d'etre" and/or "Modus Operandi"

Nice hide, you almost caught me!

Nigel I wonder if it's fear, the absence of the time to explain why they might not see the same result you do, the absence of re$ources to be able to have everything they get Peer reviewed, hence would want for you to have referees available, to them, beforehand, as into demonstrate that you have passed an 'informal' method of peer review. It show it to have some semblence of validity, inasmuch as you have already been able to convince others of it's worth.

But in the present political climate, well, saftey first!

Strike a match, that is a form of anti-gravity, same energy as gravity, just traveling in the opposite direction, using a different 'shape' as one travels away from a sphere, the other towards, layering like 'papier mache', over the surface of the sphere.

There may be another type of "Anti-gravity" that is actually the removal of the meduim of propagation, the EMR field that is spacial, as is 'sorta proven' out, presently, by a Black Hole's activity.

Glad you responded though, Thanks!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Try this....HUH?

2003-04-26

There’s an equation from cosmology that is something like Gm/2r (or r², something like that) that has an application in chemistry, or the understanding of the nature of chemistry, from a gravitational viewpoint.

Draw a circle, and fill it with a gas, a liquid, or a solid, and you will have The three states of matter, but notice the relative densities of the matter in the space, cause the problem is that, mathematically, you will ‘reletivise’ out the differentiations, that the three states present, by means of “gravitationally regulated specializations of matter”.

This is actually the reason for the error in the weighting of Venus, it’s gaseous atmosphere is differentiated, gravitationally, because it is a gas!

The key to ‘seeing it, in this light’ is found in the EMR, and understanding that it is EMR interaction that regulates atomic/molecular spacing, one of those regulating factors is the one we call heat, and all heat(ing) is a function of gravitationally induced friction(s).

Don’t be fooled, gases are known to rebound, Very Well hence very low friction interaction coefficients.

Liquids demonstrate similar energetic interactions, on scale, the absolute fluidity effects seen in the flow of water, Gazillions of little marbles rolling around, pressurizing themselves and NOT generating very much heat from that, never mind the obvious lack of an increase in friction coefficients, based upon the fact of pressurization, to great degrees in the depths of the Ocean, Marianas (SP?) trench deep

The friction environment of atoms is gravitationally regulated, the last being solids, where gravity takes over ‘Dominion’ completely, at this stage, coefficients of friction take on new roles, as more the capacitance/assembledgecapacitor of heat itself. It is at this stage that the Equation takes rule, and the third level of the “Gravitational Collusion” takes place.

If we had a car, on the earth, the coefficients of friction of the wheel’s bearings, are from the ‘weighed’ mass, here on Earth, go to the moon and the coefficients of friction drop, relative to the moons gravity.
(the torque induced friction remain relatively the same, but there would be less, as a compensation of the Less ‘Inertial’ mass environment, soooo……..:-{)

Mathematics is “cool” as it allows us to measure the minute differences.

In a gas the gravitational environment is behaving in a dualistic manner inasmuch as it is both trying to fly apart, by well ‘energetically balanced’ rebounds, and yet still ‘coheres’, as a gas, by ‘gravitational environmenting’ (Spell checker doesn’t like that word!)

Being as such, measuring the gravity of Venus, would need that the nature of the gases contribution to the Total(s) , as gravity Always SUMS, of the mass as ‘reality inclusive’, not solely on a “perceptual” (Visibly measurable) defined basis.

Gravities neat, complicated though, that why it’s taken so long to figure it out. Humanity needed to accumulate enough Known things, before, all the pieces could be fitted together.


C YA (Disliked that one too, but who am I to be prejudicial, soooo………..!)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

26/04/2003

It is self evident in the phase transition that steel undergoes, when presented with a driver for the AEP. (Ambient Energy Pressure)

A torch flame, really a source of EMR, as the com(bine){BOOM)bustables are simply in a process of emitting quantities of EMR, cause a rise in the AEP of the immediate placement of the radiator of EMR (Put the torch head here, to heat(ing)) such that the energetic cycling, that is the function of the component parts of atoms, gains enough EMR, to cycle fast enough, to become an emitter of enough strength, as to cause the Gravitational spatializing energy to subside, and it turns liquid.

This is as a result of the gravitational (Spherical) wave front’s predominance shifting from an external shell, surrounding the atom, to a facial shell in a liquid, to an internal shell in a gas.

It is of noteworthiness to see that gases are so spatially reactive to temperature, AEP, as that helps us to realize that it is the gravitational binding that is what is the precursor (aider and abettor) to the valence shell bonds, that will form, given the proper temperature, and pressure, conditions. (To liquefy, or solidify, must lose AEP)

And that the spatial nature is definitely temperature dependant, the literal spacing of atoms/molecules being well regulated by those two qualities.

Hence all phase transitions of matter are gravitationally regulated, as I had stated previously in PF 2.0, Gravity if a variable force.

Gravity moderates heat(ing), the Neutron is the ‘thermal’ particle, (Heat(ing) is interacting/cyclic EMR) and the other forces, positive, and negative, (Proton and Electron, respectively) spark at us. (With a quality of heating, as it is still EMR)

This is still a function of Structure, sooooooo……………-:{)

More?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

If you can grasp the above then you can realize that it is the very thin covering of water, its moderation of the AEP's G/TC (Gravity/Thermal Cycle)that is the 'responcible party' (Operand) of the cause of the eruption/exuding of the Magnetic field that the Earth has. (Van Allen Belts, for all you older people!)

It is also the reason why the Mag. field of Venus is so small, (Gaseous outer coverning, moderates the AEP G/TC differently) and why Mars, with very little atmosphere and no water, (Liquid form) it's AEP G/TC is at such as rate as to not cause eruption/exudance of a 'magnetosphere'. (Least not a strong one like Earth's)

Funny for me, when it goes quiet like this, is it a sign? (ooooooops that's a question for the "Ask a stuuuuupid Quetion thread")

EDITED FOR SCHPEILEINGS

 

[dr-dock]

yo man!
i don't mean to be root but:

v=dx/dt works only for v=const
a=dv/dt works only for a=const

if it wasn't so then it would have been:
dx=vdt+tdv <=> x=vt
dv=adt+tda <=> v=at

and F=ma is not true either even if a=d(dx/dt)/dt
in the gravity or the coulomb's law if you put M,m=const or q,Q=const
you'll get Fxx=const.then put x=f1(t) and F=f2(t) and look for
d(dx/dt)/dt=a_x and d(dF/dt)/dt=a_F you'll get:

a_x=-(1/2F)(xxa_F+3V_xV_F)<>F/m

where V_x=dx/dt and V_F=dF/dt.

G is not gravity constant but gravity proportionality cause you can put G=F(x/m)(x/M).you see G is function of variables.why would it be const?

see what they publish?

but what to do.IT'S HARD TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERMENT IS WRONG.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

dr-dock, I am not quite certain just why you have posted, what you have posted, there...care to 'extrapolate'...slightly?

 

[dr-dock]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
dr-dock, I am not quite certain just why you have posted, what you have posted, there...care to 'extrapolate'...slightly?

you have to be simple in English conversation with me cause it's not my native language.
i'll just assume that 'extrapolate' is something like explain.

i saw the web page with the published doc (the prove) and the equations used there.i don't agree with any equation there except the one for the gravity law.i just wanned to point out what i don't agree with and why.try to redo the calculus using x=vt and v=at and don't mention Hubble.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

OH!, So sorry.

In what I have attempted to put forward, there is a furthering of the established proof, in the evidence that I had presented in PF 2.0, when I had pointed out the re-testing of G, that had occurred back in the mid nineties.

One of the approaches, that was Novel, was the floating of the devise in a liquid medium, (Of which much is made of the temperatures) and it has registered a Consistent Variation, to the Known value of G, every time it has been tested. (Consistent, also, in the degree of variance.)

It is Because it is a liquid, that it alters the gravitational rate(s), such that, the object that floats in it, imparts some energy to the AEP, which is 'within cycled', as to tensor the edges better.

(How self centered of it...tee hee hee hee)

Gravities activities, at play!

They have had that Proof for about eight (8) years now, and they just didn't realize what it was telling them, evidence of the "proof" of it's actions, in matter(s) form(s). BTW does include the Plasma state.

Ps PF 2.0 Available from Greg, the Host, $20.00 (US)..."Cheep Cheeeeeap" say's the Rob/in (hood?)/(ed?)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Hummmm, I suspect, but it is only a suspicion, that's why they call them "Previously Unrecognised" and "Self Evident Truth(s)"

Clearly no one is at any fault for not having recognized this understanding, not in the Scientific Community. (at least)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

There is a test that can be done that furthers this proving of the realities of the G/T C and AEP functioning, (heck the fact that you can see col ours is proof of it) but it requires some test equipment, has anyone seen my flashlight?

 

[Royce]

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.


Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce

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.

Originally posted by Royce

#1) Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
#2) I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.

Agree with #1), but it has already been brought out, in this thread, in a (slightly) more detailed fashion.

Agreed with #2)

Thanks, hey, have you seen my flashlight?

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Agree with #1), but it has already been brought out, in this thread, in a (slightly) more detailed fashion.

Agreed with #2)

Thanks, hey, have you seen my flashlight?

There is no vacuum formed behind me when I walk along a corridor. Similarly, there is no snowploughing of air in front of me.

The air pressure would stop motion if air did not flow around moving objects.

Ignorance of basic physics, with people claiming that moving objects don't create waves in the surrounding medium, is manifest in physics because of the current emphasis on fiddling about with empirical equations, including general relativity and quantum mechanics such as Schrodinger's wave equation.

Take air pressure. I point out that the energy needed to create a vacuum equal to the volume you leave behind you (your cross-sectional area multiplied by the distance you travel) is more than your legs can deliver. You can only move, therefore, by virtue of the fact that the air moves out of your way, flowing around you from front to behind as you move. This is vital.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Royce

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.


Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.

The air in front of me will not know that I am coming until I push into it. It does not accumulate against me like the blade of a bulldozer pushing snow, it flows around me!

All I can suggest is that either your corridor is so small that you take up both the entire width and height, or else the corridor is normal and you are not!

Seriously, where you mention the submarine you should remember that water is virtually incompressible. It is possible to make a vacuum in air, and in water. It does not occur when you walk or swim. It does not occur when an aeroplane flies or when a submarine goes, despite the fact that it can happen in special cases. The aeroplane flies because it pushes down on the air. Aeroplanes can fly upside down. It has been shown that the old textbook stuff about a vacuum on upper wing surfaces is really just a mathematical con.

The best way to think about flight is when you fly a simple kite in a wind. The wind pressure upward on the lower surfaces exceeds those downwards on the upper surfaces, so the net force is up, counteracting gravity. The aeroplane works the same way. You make a wind by going forward into stationary air.

The formula for wind pressure is p = 0.5 x air density x speed squared. The speed is the net speed of the plane into the air. If there is a hurricane blowing towards the plane, it can remain static over one place like a helicopter. There is no worry about whether the speed is due to the aeroplace moving or the air moving. Therefore, static air is equivalent to moving air. All that matters is a net asymmetry in pressure. Air density does not vary to any significant extent: it is pushing into air, not causing a vacuum, which causes flight.

In any case, this foray into hydrodynamics strengthens my proof of the cause of gravity. People who think that they leave a vacuum in their wake cannot really be answered effectively.

[zz)]

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

The air pressure would stop motion if air did not flow around moving objects.

Ignorance of basic physics, with people claiming that moving objects don't create waves in the surrounding medium, is manifest in physics because of the current emphasis on fiddling about with empirical equations, including general relativity and quantum mechanics such as Schrodinger's wave equation.

Air pressure is resistance to motion, and it DOES create waves, pressure waves.

You do not truly create a Vacuum behind you, but you do create a "Pressure Differential", that is of a lower pressure, then the air in front of you, which you are 'driving' to a higher air pressure by your motion.

Air 'pressure' (density) isn't high enough to stop motion, you need the densities of solids to do that one.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Air pressure is resistance to motion, and it DOES create waves, pressure waves.

You do not truly create a Vacuum behind you, but you do create a "Pressure Differential", that is of a lower pressure, then the air in front of you, which you are 'driving' to a higher air pressure by your motion.

Air 'pressure' (density) isn't high enough to stop motion, you need the densities of solids to do that one.

It is air drag or dynamic pressure which resists motion. Air drag depends on your relative speed in the air.

It is properly called dynamic or drag pressure.

The reason for drag is the momentum change when an excess of air particles hit you on one side, not the normal air pressure.

Whenever you are walking at a speed which is small in comparison to the average speed of air molecules, there is no significant change in air density. The average speed of air molecules is 500 m/s at sea level.

Any air density change at walking speed is therefore going to be less than 1 %. You can accurately calculate the air resistance on the basis that the density and static pressure remain completely constant in this situation: the air drag is not due to the normal air pressure, but to the excess kinetic energy of air molecules hitting you in the direction of your motion relative to the air. Drag pressure, q = (Du^2)/2, where D is air density, and u is relative velocity.


What is important is that pressure considerations allow the calculation of the force of gravity as the effect of the Hubble expansion on the fabric of space.

Much the same thing can be seen in a sink of washing up liquid, when the bubbles that are formed nearby accelerate together; the same happens to bubbles floating on any liquid. In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Therefore, the lemonade bubbles are pushed against the sides of a rigid glass by analogy to the reason we are pushed down by gravity.

Nigel

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Don't quite know where you get some of the information, but, the bubbles insides glasses of carbonated, or otherwise 'gaseous' beverages, form on the sides because of the dirt that is there!

Prove it to yourself, clean a glass thoroughly, and notice that it does NOT form those bubbles. (Have worked in both Bars and Restaurants, sooooo...it's 'old school' waitress's knowledge!)

They stick to the sides because that is where they form, as a result of a particle of dirt, and when conditions are correct, they dislodge, and float up, through the liquid.

Your original posting, about pressure in air, stated that there was "NO MOTION" in the air, due to motion of walking, and as you seem to now admit, that is wrong.

I would agree that at times, it is small, you walking down a corridor slooooowly, but to extrapolate it out to the Hubble expansion?, speeds at how high a rate? can it still be ignored at those levels?

I suspect not.

EDIT EVERYTHING BELOW THIS___________LINE

Originally posted by Nigel

Whenever you are walking at a speed which is small in comparison to the average speed of air molecules, there is no significant change in air density. The average speed of air molecules is 500 m/s at sea level.

Then the idea of holding a 'lit candle'*, as I had responded to you in the first place, wouldn't work, because, according to what you tell me, here, the 7 ft/sec that a human can walk is simply to slow, even though if you actually try it, forwards, and backwards, walking, IT works!

Hummmm, curious!


* Remember that doing this can pose a danger, protect yourself from the risks of setting yourself on fire, when trying something like this.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Don't quite know where you get some of the information, but, the bubbles insides glasses of carbonated, or otherwise 'gaseous' beverages, form on the sides because of the dirt that is there!

...Your original posting, about pressure in air, stated that there was "NO MOTION" in the air, due to motion of walking, and as you seem to now admit, that is wrong.



The bubbles form inside the bottle when you take the cap off, and continue to slowly come out of solution for several minutes. The cause is carbon dioxide dissolved and maintained under pressure, which cannot remain dissolved when the pressure is reduced.

Add some sugar to the your lemonade and you will prove this: the liquid becomes saturated in sugar, and releases all of the remaining CO2 very quickly.

Make some bubbles by stirring your coffee. The bubbles will attract to other nearby bubbles, accelerate together and join up. Each bubble indents the surface of the liquid on which it floats, like a floating football. They shield one another from the all round pressure of the fluid. I have video of soap bubbles attracting and joining up. I will add it to the internet page shortly. But anyone can see the same thing in a sink very easily.

This analogy was used in physics demonstrations of general relativity, where the surface of the water was replaced by a rubber sheet. Place two heavy objects nearby on the rubber sheet, and they indent it, attracting together by creating an indentation. This is equivalent to saying that in facing directions they shield one another from the push of the surrounding rubber sheet.

This is the cause of gravity when you consider the fabric of space.

With regard to the walking in the air, my posting said that motion in air is impossible without the flow of air around me as I walk. If the air did not flow around me, there would be a vacuum created behind me, and an accumulation of air in front. I stated that air must flow. You now say I said the opposite!

It would be more interesting to consider the possibility that the mechanism of gravity is correct. I am certainly not doing this for personal gain, but to hit back at people who think that physics is about stagnation and status quo. If you are happy with "law of nature" causes of gravity, good for you.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

First off, congratualtions on getting published in Electronics World.

Your work is, unfortunately, not new. What you've found, based on your assummptions which are not incorrect, is first the Friedmann density, rho = (3/8)H²/G[pi]
well not exactly, because you solved only the Hubble part of the differential equation, (H = dr/rdt is part of a larger field equation) you get twice the Friedmann density in your answer (*3/4 instead of 3/8).
It's easily derivable from relativistic conservation laws (i.e. mc²=GMm/r)
and you just exchanged the rho with the G.

The conclusions you have, are possible - that the acceleration (or dynamic bahavior depending upon the class of solutions to the field equations you use) of space is caused by and is proportional to such dynamic behavior. If so, the force of gravity is caused by the acceleration of expanding space. But that does not mean that the gravitational constant is necessarily changing, because if the universe is manufacturing space, then by conservation, its size must increase.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Hence my responce. See's you tends to want to sidetrack the 'perception' though.

Originally posted by Nigel
This analogy was used in physics demonstrations of general relativity, where the surface of the water was replaced by a rubber sheet. Place two heavy objects nearby on the rubber sheet, and they indent it, attracting together by creating an indentation.

Yes, an explanation that is clearly NOT new, tell me though, is it a "Push force" or a "Pull force"??

Originally posted by Nigel
This is the cause of gravity when you consider the fabric of space.

Now Nigel, to the best of my knowledge that is the analogy to gravities curvature of "Spacetime", not a proof of it's CAUSE!


You might have found some things Nigel, but I do NOT think you found the "Proof of Gravity", But that's not your fault, nor mine.

(perhaps you should read some of what I have written, here/in, this thread)

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons [/i

Yes, an explanation that is clearly NOT new, tell me though, is it a "Push force" or a "Pull force"??

Now Nigel, to the best of my knowledge that is the analogy to gravities curvature of "Spacetime", not a proof of it's CAUSE!


Hey, what I'm saying is that Einstein is right so far as he goes, but he can go further. He didn't because sadly Hubble only discovered the recession business after Einstein had made the mistaken prediction of a static universe, based on what was known in 1915.

Einstein's maths is on the right thread in general relativity, in introducing gravity to space-time by curvature of space.

My mathematical proof, on the webpage, does prove the cause of gravity in a series of steps. The cause for the curvature is the inward directed pressure of space in reaction to the big bang.

In the Electronics World proof, I show that you can specify either a mass or an energy equivalent of space for the continuity equation.

In other words, you can have either:

(Constant geometric volume) = (Volume of matter it contains) + (Volume of fabric of space it contains);

or you can (by E = mc^2) use the equivalent expression:

(Constant geometric volume) = (Energy content of matter) + (Energy content of the fabric of space).

Either way, you get inward pressure from the fabric of space due, equal and opposite to the matter that is going away from you in the big bang.

If you take some clothes out of a suitcase, an equal volume of air goes in the opposite direction (into the suitcase!), and volume is conserved. You might object that air density changes and a vacuum forms if you rip the clothes out very rapidly, but I think you understand where the analogy is going. You send all the stars off in all directions around us. They are vacating a volume in space time.

Continuity of the fabric of space and the matter in space requires that the reduction in matter content per unit volume due to Hubble expansion be compensated by an inward motion of the fabric of space.

Hence, an all round pressure due to the fabric of space itself, which when calculated turns out to be the force of gravity complete with inverse square law and correct constant.

Just to round off, here's a quotation from Edgar Allan Poe's poem Eureka, first published in June 1848:

"... of gravitation? Newton deduced it from the laws of Kepler. Kepler admitted that these laws he guessed - these laws whose investigation disclosed to the greatest of British astronomers that principle, the basis of all (existing) physical principle, in going behind which we enter at once the nebulous kingdom of Metaphysics. Yes! - these vital laws Kepler GUESSED - that is to say, he imagined them."

Right. Kepler guessed all sorts of shapes for the orbit of Mars until he found a fit with the ellipse. He never proved that the orbit is an ellipse. Newton just used Kepler's empirical guessed approximation. The need for a proof of the gravity law, plus constant, is not an alternative to an existing proof.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
First off, congratualtions on getting published in Electronics World.

Your work is, unfortunately, not new. What you've found, based on your assummptions which are not incorrect, is first the Friedmann density, rho = (3/8)H²/G[pi]
well not exactly, because you solved only the Hubble part of the differential equation, (H = dr/rdt is part of a larger field equation) you get twice the Friedmann density in your answer (*3/4 instead of 3/8).
It's easily derivable from relativistic conservation laws (i.e. mc²=GMm/r)
and you just exchanged the rho with the G.

The conclusions you have, are possible - that the acceleration (or dynamic bahavior depending upon the class of solutions to the field equations you use) of space is caused by and is proportional to such dynamic behavior. If so, the force of gravity is caused by the acceleration of expanding space. But that does not mean that the gravitational constant is necessarily changing, because if the universe is manufacturing space, then by conservation, its size must increase.

Thanks for congratulations. I do not base anything on Friedmann. I do not get density equals (3/8) of anything. You are right that I get a value twice the density that the Newtonian theory predicted (disproved by the experimental discovery of supernova recession speeds at great distances). The most distant stars will not be pushed inward by the effect of surrounding stars, if there are no further surrounding stars.

This is an important second prediction for my proof. The first prediction was that the most distant stars are not being retarded by gravity, because gravity is a PUSHING effect, not a magic elastic band pulling effect (that violates Hooke's law, whereby the elastic band force would increase with distance instead of decreasing by the inverse square law).

When you say field equation you are confused. I derive the mechanism of gravity by fluid analogy as general relativity, not by using the field equation. See the notes at the end of the paper on the webpage in red. You substitute my formula for G into the field equation at the end. It is the source for the field equation's G and inverse square law, not a result of the field equation!

The important fact is the mechanism for gravity, which is proven uniquely.

Also, please note that general relativity made some mistakes in cosmology. It can be used for anything, from static to expanding universes, by the use of cosmological constants.

It is subjective. As a mathematical description it is better than Newton's, because it allows for the correct conservation of the gravitational field potential energy. However, it contains no proof of the cause of gravity.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Nigel I agree that Gravity is a pressure inwards, it is the force of contraction actually, and is opposed by, as I have tried to evidence in my signature, the force of 'diffusion' and/or 'expansion', so I got's no problemo with that part, BUT...

If you go to your local gas station, (I suppose they have those where you are too) here in Canada, they will tell you that the "volume (pumped is) corrected to 15 degrees C" because the underground tanks, that they store the gasoline, in is in the ground, below eight feet, and 15 degrees C, is the CONSTANT temperature, down there, winter (In Canada) and summer.

If you check you will find the the Earth's temperature has a very consistant increase, measurable, to depth increase, Gravities activities all the way down to the "Center of Gravity" of the Planet.

In one of the mines, in SA, the temp has been recorded as 56 degrees C, at better then a mile down.

Those parts must be accounted for as well Nigel.

Someone wanted to tell me that "substance state" (as I have explained in this thread) was NOT a gravitational state, as it didn't change the "pathway of the Light", but the reality is that it does.

It passes throught several miles of Atmosphere, and still provides Lumens per sq. ft, yet in penetrating ~1500 ft of Water it is diffused to oblivion, the Lights Go OUT!, the energy diffused out of the pathways, that the light followed, differently from in the Atmosphere, and yess, volume makes a differance.

Notice, that at a depth of water, the coefficients of friction do not (largly) increase even thought the density of the water HAS.

Sooo...

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Friedmann must receive credit for (in 1922) finding the general solutions to the field equations written by Einstein. His solutions predicted exponentially expanding, static, and collapsing universes.

You have not discovered a necessarily changing gravitational constant, for your equation can be derived easily algebraically by assuming that the internal energy of the universe (mc²) is equal to the gravitational energy (GMm/r). The only difference between this and the Friedmann critical density is that in your version you use mc² where Friedmann assumes that the energy of expanding space is the same as local kinetic energy, or KE=mv²/2 (where v=c). There are some cosmological theories with changing gravitational constants, but such a feature is not necessary to describe the dynamic behavior of the universe.

The most distant stars will not be pushed inward by the effect of surrounding stars, if there are no further surrounding stars.

That's only true relative to our position, but in an isotropic, homogeneous universe there are further surrounding stars.

The first prediction was that the most distant stars are not being retarded by gravity, because gravity is a PUSHING effect, not a magic elastic band pulling effect (that violates Hooke's law, whereby the elastic band force would increase with distance instead of decreasing by the inverse square law).

gravity is not a force at all, just the effect of the geometry of space on matter, and vice versa.

I derive the mechanism of gravity by fluid analogy as general relativity, not by using the field equation. See the notes at the end of the paper on the webpage in red.

you can do that but I don't see how you could come up with anything more than conservation laws that way.

Also, please note that general relativity made some mistakes in cosmology. It can be used for anything, from static to expanding universes, by the use of cosmological constants.

as shown by Friedmann