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

[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)]