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

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Gravity operates by method of 'frame shifting'.

That is probably the most valid reason why you have such difficulty with it's spatial qualities/quantities, you have no referance for what, or how, "Frame Shifting" is done/is!

Hence it would be difficult to answer a question, about gravity, (prove it) if you didn't know how that worked.



EDIT SP!

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Gravity operates by method of 'frame shifting'.

That is probably the most valid reason why you have such difficulty with it's spatial qualities/quantities, you have no referance for what, or how, "Frame Shifting" is done/is!

Hence it would be difficult to answer a question, about gravity, (prove it) if you didn't know how that worked.



EDIT SP!

You're welcome to your opinions. In fact since I prove the mechanism of gravity step-by-step, you are not talking the same language that I am. If you think that the cause of gravity is the principle of relativity, you're right that I won't give an answer. What I do answer is the cause of gravity.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

You're welcome to your opinion

Couldn't agree with you more Nigel.

As for the 'cause' of gravity, it is a Generated force, and the Modus Operandi of that generation I too, will not reveal, well, then again, considering the idiocy of the 2 (two...or more??) Politicians, that I suspect are the responcible parties for the absence in my life, I might just tell, but someone, and somewhere, else. (No offence Greg)


Been nice talking to you though Nigel, and all of the rest of the posters in this thread, nice read count too. THANKS ALL!

 

[schwarzchildradius]

how do you identify the cause of gravity from what you've done? Simply because the critical density is related to the gravitational constant does not make G a variable.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
how do you identify the cause of gravity from what you've done? Simply because the critical density is related to the gravitational constant does not make G a variable.

I don't derive, use, or mention the critical density, so forget it.

A volume of 1 cubic metre contains two things: matter (m plus E/c^2) and the dielectric of the fabric of space. (The fabric of space is what gives rise to electromagnetic constants for the permittivity, impedance, etc., of space.)

This statement of volume as a sum is a continuity equation. Hence, if you take matter out of a 1 cubic metre volume, you're going to have the dielectric of space flow into that volume.

Understand this as follows: if you are walking down a corridor, then 70 litres of air is being pushed out of the way, and is in effect flowing in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION to your motion.

Thus, the accelerative nature of the recession speeds of matter around us in all directions, results in an inward pressure of the fabric of space. The total inward directed dielectric volume is exactly equal to the outward matter volume, and the inward dielectric acceleration is exactly equal to the outward acceleration of matter.

I prove that we can calculate gravity with these facts:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

If you work through the above cited complete calculation, you can verify it yourself. Gravity is the shielding by mass from the all-round dielectric pressure. The Earth shields us partly from the upward space pressure, but not from the downward space pressure. So apples accelerate downwards.

There is a problem that you appear to think that the "critical density", which is a factor of two different from the real density, has something to do with my calculations. It does not. It is like comparing chalk and cheese. The critical density is wrong and this will eventually be proved by astronomy as the Hubble constant and density parameters are observed more accurately.

Nigel

 

[schwarzchildradius]

OK, I guess I don't get how you're using the word 'dielectric'
A dielectric is a non-conductor of electric currents, usually used in a capacitor to change the properties of the capacitor.

This statement of volume as a sum is a continuity equation. Hence, if you take matter out of a 1 cubic metre volume, you're going to have the dielectric of space flow into that volume.

If you take out the m in a volume of space, you still have the E/c², which contributes to the gravitational potential. How do you arrive at flowing space from this fact?

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
OK, I guess I don't get how you're using the word 'dielectric'
A dielectric is a non-conductor of electric currents, usually used in a capacitor to change the properties of the capacitor.

If you take out the m in a volume of space, you still have the E/c², which contributes to the gravitational potential. How do you arrive at flowing space from this fact?

The dielectric of space has an impedance of 377 ohms, and a characteristic velocity of 300,000 km/s. Alternatively, you can specify the two dielectric qualities as permittivity and permeability, which are respectively the electric and magnetic constants found in the force equations for electrostatics and magnetism.

A capacitor with a vacuum between its two plates charges and discharges with the dielectric of space. Electrolytic capacitors have greater capacitance since there is a fluid between the plates in addition to the dielectric of space.

An apple on a table, with a chair beside it, might either fall 30 cm on to the chair, or it might fall 100 cm on to the floor. The concept of gravitational potential energy is vital when considering the conservation of total energy. Potential energy is dealt with by general relativity. The cause of gravity gives the source for the gravitational field, which in turn permits gravitational potential energy to be calculated.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

OK now I see where you're coming from.

But the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability are fundamental (geometric). Why would impedence properties of space affect gravity; it ought to be (and is) the other way around - mass warps space causing light to change velocity vector.

If you're going to model space as a current, then the problem is that you've got to assign some non-zero quantity to its mass. A flowing current of space also violates the second principle of relativity, as several reference frames will not be equivalent. If space has negative mass, or if space generates more space, which it might, the flowing space hypothesis may be provable. Today, it's not, but not un-proven either.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Nigel

If you work through the above cited complete calculation, you can verify it yourself. Gravity is the shielding by mass from the all-round dielectric pressure. The Earth shields us partly from the upward space pressure, but not from the downward space pressure. So apples accelerate downwards.

I got to tell you Nigel, I find this one interesting, as this seems to allude to the idea that if you find yourself a deep enough well, then drop an apple down it, the apple's acceleration, due to gravity, should slow down, on it's way down.

Personally, I don't believe that, not for a second.

Secondly, if the Earth is "shielding" then I should be able to find a mine deep enough, to be able to weight less, then on the surface, as I should be then shielded from the 'pressure of space'.

Never heard of, seen, known, of any reporting of anything like this occurring anywhere...not on this planet.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
I got to tell you Nigel, I find this one interesting, as this seems to allude to the idea that if you find yourself a deep enough well, then drop an apple down it, the apple's acceleration, due to gravity, should slow down, on it's way down.

Personally, I don't believe that, not for a second.

Secondly, if the Earth is "shielding" then I should be able to find a mine deep enough, to be able to weight less, then on the surface, as I should be then shielded from the 'pressure of space'.

Never heard of, seen, known, of any reporting of anything like this occurring anywhere...not on this planet.

You have definitely the wrong IDEA.

Of course, if we could dig a hole to the center of the earth, we would find out that in the center of gravity of the earth, everything is weightless!
But in calculating this effects, when going down to the center, the fact is that Newton's law and this new gravity thing (which is not a new theory, but just an addition to the law we already knew, but just explains what causes gravity) come up with the exact same results (as should be expected of course)!

The thing is of course, if you envision gravity as an 'attracting' force from all matter that acts on all matter, or as a 'pulling' force, from all surrounding space and gravity occurring as the shielding effect, are - while being conceptually different - in their effects and observed and measured phenomena, exactly the same!
It is more a choice of what do you think is more appealing. Conceptualize it as a pulling force, caused by all matter, or conceptualize it as a pushing force from surrounding (dielectric) space, where the net force of attraction between masses occur as the shielding effect of matter.

The difference is only the concept, but all observed and measureable results are entirely the same, and describe the same law of gravity!

Since Einstein we already know that space and matter are in fact two aspects of the same thing. We can for example conceptualize matter as curvature of space.

This whole new theory, therefore does not replace the known laws of gravity, but only provide a different conceptual model for the 'causes' of gravity. The law itself (in numerical predictions about how the attraction between masses occur) is exactly the same!
It's the same thing, explained in different (complementary) terms!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens

Of course, if we could dig a hole to the center of the earth, we would find out that in the center of gravity of the earth, everything is weightless!

Sorta "silly" on my part, care to prove that?

See, if you 'weight' the Earth, the weighting tells us that the densities of the rock that compose the planets mass must be higher then the densities that we find at the surface, hence the rock towards, the center must be denser (or the calculations are somehow, wrong) such that the idea of 'weightlessness', at the center, probably doesn't actualy work out to be that, for other reasons, small reasons.

By God's Grace I have an idea what Nigel is talking about, but as it has been stated, if it had been that simple, it would have already been discovered.

Aside from that, what I tell of, reveals the "why" of colors in life, as per the gravitational inter-activities of atoms, and light in addition to the explaining why we have 'three' (four actually, plasma) states of matter as they are arising, again, from a gravitational point of view.

Has Nigel done that?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Sorta "silly" on my part, care to prove that?

See, if you 'weight' the Earth, the weighting tells us that the densities of the rock that compose the planets mass must be higher then the densities that we find at the surface, hence the rock towards, the center must be denser (or the calculations are somehow, wrong) such that the idea of 'weightlessness', at the center, probably doesn't actualy work out to be that, for other reasons, small reasons.

The proof is very simple, although for an actual mathematical proof, it requires you to understand some math.

The proof was already delived by Newton. In our analogy of a hole we dig to the center of earth, the effective force of gravity excerted on our body is equal to the force excerted by the mass-sphere at the center of gravity of the earth, and radius R (our position relative to Earth's center of gravity). This simply means that the surrounding sphere above us, contributes exactly a net force of zero to the total force. In trying to understand this, you must think of taking a small part of that sphere, and draw the lines from that part to your position, and the into the opposite part of the sphere.
Now it can be calculated that the two opposing parts of this surrounding sphere, exactly contribute zero to the net force of gravity excerted on your body, and that this can be done for the sphere in total (adding up all the parts).

This means, that the mass-sphere which is excerting a net force on you when going down from Earth's surface downto the centre of gravity, will shrink, as part of the outer sphere of the Earth (all matter that is at a larger distance from the centre of gravity as yourself) will not contribute any longer to the net force of gravity.

In the center of gravity therefore, one is weighless.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
The proof is very simple, although for an actual mathematical proof, it requires you to understand some math.

The proof was already delived by Newton. In our analogy of a hole we dig to the center of earth, the effective force of gravity excerted on our body is equal to the force excerted by the mass-sphere at the center of gravity of the earth, and radius R (our position relative to Earth's center of gravity). This simply means that the surrounding sphere above us, contributes exactly a net force of zero to the total force. In trying to understand this, you must think of taking a small part of that sphere, and draw the lines from that part to your position, and the into the opposite part of the sphere.
Now it can be calculated that the two opposing parts of this surrounding sphere, exactly contribute zero to the net force of gravity excerted on your body, and that this can be done for the sphere in total (adding up all the parts).

This means, that the mass-sphere which is excerting a net force on you when going down from Earth's surface downto the centre of gravity, will shrink, as part of the outer sphere of the Earth (all matter that is at a larger distance from the centre of gravity as yourself) will not contribute any longer to the net force of gravity.

In the center of gravity therefore, one is weighless.

As I had stated, could you please PROVE that!

By God's Grace, I already know the 'math', that, all by itself is NOT proof, merely 'speculation' tied/backed up with/by a numerical POSSIBILITY that remains UNTESTED, ergo Unproven!

Aside from the simplest of notions, that that particular notion, could be compeltely wrong!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As I had stated, could you please PROVE that!

By God's Grace, I already know the 'math', that, all by itself is NOT proof, merely 'speculation' tied/backed up with/by a numerical POSSIBILITY that remains UNTESTED, ergo Unproven!

Aside from the simplest of notions, that that particular notion, could be compeltely wrong!

What PROOF then do you want? Dig a hole in my backyard that extends to the center of gravity of earth, and their test for weighlensness in the center of the earth?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
What PROOF then do you want? Dig a hole in my backyard that extends to the center of gravity of earth, and their test for weighlensness in the center of the earth?

Hey sounds cool, going to "Go for it"??

Yes, I realize that it is difficult to prove, hence my reservation for anything that does not account for what is the observed reality, that being the known density of the rocks, and how that indicates that there is a mechanism that hasn't yet been fully explained, properly. (I suspect!)


EDIT SP

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hey sounds cool, going to "Go for it"??

Yes, I realize that it is difficult to prove, hence my reservation for anything that does not account for what is the observed reality, that being the known density of the rocks, and how that indicates that there is a mechanism that hasn't yet been fully explained, properly. (I suspect!)


EDIT SP

The "mechanism" is very simple and very clear, and has been known since Newton invented the law of Gravity.

But I think it can be proved. You don't have to dig a hole to the Earth's core, but perhaps some kilometer. Then the upper layer of rocks above that all around the earth, don't contribute to the nett force of gravity, and we should be able to detect a somewhat weaker force of gravity there.

I don't know if it has been ever done. Maybe the difference is too small to detect. On the other hand, we can also detect differences between the force of gravity between the poles and the equator. But that is for a large part due to the fact that the Earth is rotating, and not because the difference in distance to the Earth's center of gravity.

If not, we could also do the experiment on an astroid, and dig a hole to it's center of gravity.

By the way, I think you are partly confused because of the density and pressure, which of course is gradually building up when digging deeper in the Earth's crust. This is because this force accumulates from the weight of the stones above it. Same as it happens when going into deeper water, the water pressure risis there.

It stands apart from the local force of gravity at that depth.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Think about the conceptual aspect of this here for a second. You have equal amounts of mass all around you at the center of mass. This is equivalent to being in equillibrium by the gravitational forces, i.e. the net force is 0. When the net force is zero, you experience no acceleration. None of that, and you weigh nothing.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Think about the conceptual aspect of this here for a second. You have equal amounts of mass all around you at the center of mass. This is equivalent to being in equillibrium by the gravitational forces, i.e. the net force is 0. When the net force is zero, you experience no acceleration. None of that, and you weigh nothing.

Yes, I already explained that.

But it seems Mr Robin Parsons ain't buyin this kind of logic but wants actual proof. Perhaps even EXPERIENCE weighlessness himself in the interior of Earth befoe actually BELEIVING that such a thing is actually true.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

He can be my guest to try out that one!

 

[heusdens]

Anyway, this thread is not about Newton mechanics, but about discussing this proposed new theory of gravity, as a pushing force from outer space that pushes on all mass. The same gravity laws can be drawn out of that mechanism, because the shielding of masses causes them to be pulled together.

The theory is an example of the application of the idea of complements or complentarity. We think of the universe in terms of two substances: masses, which behave like pointlike particles, and the non-mass that is spread out in all directions all to infinity, we call space. Now in such a conceptual world we can see that the concept of masses pulling each other, or the concept of the surrounding non-mass (=space) pushing to all masses, are equivalent. The same net force results, we call gravity.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Would a current of space then violate the 2nd principle of general relativity? Not necessarily. define current as dspace/dtime, a velocity.
if KE=PE at this velocity, v²=2GM/r
Substitute this v into the Lorentz transformation and you have relativistic formula for homogeneous mass M a distance r from M's C.O.M.
If space inherently expands by the rule H = dr/rdt, where H is a constant, then any first distance ro will become exponentially larger with time.
H(t-to) = ln (r/ro)
The first derivative of r is the instantaneous 'velocity' of space
u = dr/dt = Hroe^Ht
And so on..

 

[heusdens]

Here is another discussion on this topic:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4869"

It mentions the work of Matthew R. Edwards about a book on the theory of Pulling Gravity. http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm"

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Do you think there might be a way to measure cosmological constants by studying the Cassimir effect?

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by heusdens
Here is another discussion on this topic:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4869"

It mentions the work of Matthew R. Edwards about a book on the theory of Pulling Gravity. http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm"

Heusden, hi, I was under the impression that, by the laws of physics, there is no such thing as "pull" and that, in fact, "pull" is simply a push from behind.

I imagined, when i remembered this, that a field of gravity must act similarly to that of a field of electromagnetic origin by extending out, beind a smaller mass than the one generating the most gravity and "pushing it from behind" toward itself.

Schwartschildradius, hi, am I way wrong or what?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Heusden, hi, I was under the impression that, by the laws of physics, there is no such thing as "pull" and that, in fact, "pull" is simply a push from behind.

Well actually there is no noticeable difference of course.
Both a shielding effect of masses under pushing gravity, explain the same net attracting force between masses.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, I already explained that.

But it seems Mr Robin Parsons ain't buyin this kind of logic but wants actual proof. Perhaps even EXPERIENCE weighlessness himself in the interior of Earth befoe actually BELEIVING that such a thing is actually true.

Ahem the reason why I don't 'Buy' this kind of logic is because it implies that the center of the Earth should be hollow and siesmic information clearly tells us that it is NOT!



Simple enough for you?

Aside from that, the 'postulate' could simply be wrong, as the Modus Operandi of gravity might give it a very different operand then has been assumed.

Further to that, try to grasp the reality of this, cause it fits in with all of the thermal stuff I have been presenting, gravity is the force of contraction, heat is the force of expansion, and all matter is subjected to those forces.

Heat a rock and it expands, allow it to cool and it contracts, gravity, and it's opposite force component heat, at work/play.

Some of you have stated that Nigel's work says gravity is a 'push' force, from space, so how does a 'push force from space' curve the void around it as to cause the bending of traveling light?

Nigels work is something I have resisted reading, as it might lead to problems, for me, later, when I present all of what I have on the subject.

Lets try it this way, tell me if gravity 'pulls' (all matter) towards a "common center", or does it detract from the same center, and how could it accomplish both without creating a hollow mass??

Anyone?

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Well for one there is pressure. Ever try to crush something and see how it does not give in after awhile? That's why the Earth is not hollow, and why in black holes all goes to a point.

Also, nowhere does there being zero g at Earth's center imply it be hollow. In the absence of one force, there are still others acting on the substances in the center point...namely convective heat currents.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

push or pull only works in a classical sense. If you change the geometry of space dependant on the proximity and magnitude of masses in space the forces vanish. You just get particles moving in 'straight lines' from their perspective.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Well for one there is pressure. Ever try to crush something and see how it does not give in after awhile? That's why the Earth is not hollow, and why in black holes all goes to a point.

Also, nowhere does there being zero g at Earth's center imply it be hollow. In the absence of one force, there are still others acting on the substances in the center point...namely convective heat currents.

I have agreed that there would be pressure, but you are the one pointing out that it becomes a "detracting" pressure, ergo a pressure from the materials above pulling the central materials outwardly, (hence the reason why I would experience zero G) and this amount, if you figure, even simply, the math, leads to a view that the majority of the mass, would be the 'above' mass, hence the (remaining) 'central' mass would not have the gravitational energy to hold itself together against the greater pull of the overhead mass, hence it would hollow itself out.

No matter how you do it, (Your analogy above is 'just so wrong' Crushing something) if you do the math properly, then you MUST have a hollow center, if you think that the gravitational potential energy can detract from itself, no other way.

Never mind just that, if your postulate, (not yours actually, the one you are promoting herein) holds as 'true', then the weighting of all of the Universe's mass, as we currently know it, is wrong! (And possibly a little bit more then just that!)

EDIT SP! (what else is new?)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ahem the reason why I don't 'Buy' this kind of logic is because it implies that the center of the Earth should be hollow and siesmic information clearly tells us that it is NOT!

It does not imply that the Earth at the center is hollow. That would namely be the case of the force of gravity would be 'negative' there (in the direction of the Earth's core), but that is not the case. At the centre of earth, the gravity is simply zero, there is no nett force of gravity there.
The Earth's core consist of fluid materials, which means that to some extend material can flow in and around the Earth center of gravity.
Even though right at the center, the gravity excerts a nett fore of zero, you have to take into account that the pressure builts up from the core to the center in a cumulative way. The downfall of gravity towards zero only slows down the pressue built up.

 

[pelastration]

... there several path to the top of the mountain.

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
However, just remember as I have found out many a times, what may be true in math is not always true physically :)
good job though!

I agree nice job of Nigel.

But Nigel some questions:

In 16. you state: This constitutes a proof of the physical mechanism of gravitation . Great.

Nigel, I also appreciate that you really take your time to explain in referring to 3D-world examples (Corridor, apple/chair/ground, air in closet, bubbles, ...).

1. But what's this gravitation mechanism? Where or how is the physical coupling happening?

If you answer with measurements ... great ... repeatable observations ... that's a first step, but if you refer to forces, fields (then I will ask: what's the physical mechanism of 'forces', 'fields' and how is the physical coupling of forces, fields, ...etc.). So whatever mathematical self-covering new definitions you will give ... I will always again ask: what's their mechanism.

I like to know what the max. speed of a Mercedes is, it's model, it's weight, it's color, height, type of tiers, tint of the windows, number of lamps, ... that's however describing outside properties ... but that's not explaining how I can BUILD the complete Mercedes.

Building ... or the engineering design, that's what really interests me.

So what's you idea about that engine? (not just 'pressure': that's mathematical semantics again, not the 'fabric of space': that's another name to say I don't know . I refer here for example to: " The fabric of space is what gives rise to electromagnetic constants for the permittivity, impedance, etc., of space.". ;-) See? The frame of the Mercedes has in the front some curvatures, doors and windows.

You said before: "1 & 2- The fabric of space, said Einstein in his Leyden university lecture, has "physical qualities" according to general relativity." Of course ... the Mercedes is RED.

... the engineering picture(s). Since we live in a 3D world ...

Originally posted by Nigel
Einstein is explicit. Space-time curvature is the gravitational field. Period. ...
Curvature denotes the motion of a test particle of infidesimal mass in a gravitational field. Curvature is just a mathematical way to express gravitational acceleration as the space-time path of such a test particle.

Nice, I like that.
So each inertia frame (ie. with only one test-particle) has it's own space-time curvature? Bundling frames create matter. Where is here the magic Higgs boson? It should be a graviton particle (0,0)... but only an empty frame, correct? A single empty frame just on it's own ... hanging there without a connection and still having the possibility to pull or to push ... seems not logic ... except if it is part of a 'membrane' which is then the space-time curvature.
Does this make sense to you? Please correct if I made a illogic step.

Originally posted by Nigel
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).

As Schwarzschild said. It's your positioning. And positioning is also relative.

Gravity is although embedded also in the smallest particles, and if connected to or part of a elastic membrane they may be pulled, or even been pushed from a gravitational inside.

Even this paradoxical situation to the observer: a test particle pulled to a distant reference frame ... that has a large acceleration in the opposite direction of the pull direction. (shall I rephrase?).

Now and on the "magic band pulling effect" I have to say this: by elastic deformation of a medium it is possible.

The elastic performances will depend :
(1) from the fixing of the position (cfr. Poincare),
(2) from the degree of stretchability (which can be on it's limits),
(3) from bundling with other reference frames,
(4) from the magnitude of the reference frames (level of manifolded membrane).

So don't throw away this alternative. (cfr. your FAQ: If gravity was caused by magical elastic bands, the elastic force would increase in proportion to the amount of stretching (Hooke’s law), instead of decreasing with the inverse square of distance. Therefore, if gravity was an elastic pulling effect (instead of the pushing effect proven above), the furthest planets would have to move the fastest to maintain their orbits, and the universe would be completely different to the way it actually is!).

And what about The Einstein-Rosen Bridge? This "wormholes" may connect two parallel universes, or even distant parts of the same universe, ... so the PUSH can be in fact a PULL from another direction passing through a wormhole :-0.

Nigel, I designed such an "elastic' approach, only based on ONE postulate.
You can find this with some images on http://hollywood.org/cosmology/principles.html

In short:
The multi-dimensional Universe consists basically of a giant unbreakable, almost infinite stretchable membrane of "gravitons" (to been seen as tiny tubes/3D strings). The giant tube - which is in essence the membrane itself - will restructure itself in many divisions and sub-divisions. We call these divisions: Islands.

The engineering system to reach them is a manifolding (tube parts of the membrane penetrate other parts of the membrane). Since the membrane is unbreakable the penetration provokes that the impacting tube receives a second skin all his further trajectories. This second layer comes from the receiving part of the membrane.

I call this coupling system a pelastration (PEnetration + ELAstic + STRAda). You can see it as a pressure valve. We can also say that this is a 'white hole'.

Each island contains the complete historical layering from the previous hyperspaces from which is founded. This way we can say that the system always keeps it's INTEGRITY.

Each island has it's own time frame.

Each island has it's own space curvature (depending from the layers embedded).

Each island has to follow a number as universal constants related to the proprieties of the membrane (such as the limits in stretchability).

Since the internal and external 'skins' move as two or more coupled moving systems they create between them FRICTION. That friction creates an overhaul oscillation which amplitude will depend from the internal (topological) structuring of the layers depending from their degree of membrane stress. This explains RESONANCE.

Next to that the membrane can create 'locally' also new tiny tubes which will act as membrane tentacles vibrating after the overhaul frequency of that specific island. We can call these outer-island tubes: Field tubes (because they represent the electro-magnetic and radiation fields). They can capture other tubes (coil, strangle, knot, etc.) or pelastrate other tubes or be pelastrated themselves.

Because the layers press upon each other they create 'tension', thus DENSITY. This way the various combinations between energy and matter can be explained. The shift between energy and matter happens thus as follows: couple (white hole of A+B)-> de-couple (Black hole separation A and B) -> re-couple (New white hole A+X) and/or (new white hole B+Y).

The membrane is thus Gravity, and all what follows - by pelastratic - manifolding is restructured gravity.

Thus with ONLY one postulate a kinetic mechanism is shown which explains how from almost 'nothing' a universe of self-organizing can be build.

Nigel, this simple approach explains some basics. All experimental measured events will be confirmed in this approach ... but this is an engineering picture.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
It does not imply that the Earth at the center is hollow. That would namely be the case of the force of gravity would be 'negative' there (in the direction of the Earth's core), but that is not the case. At the centre of earth, the gravity is simply zero, there is no nett force of gravity there.
The Earth's core consist of fluid materials, which means that to some extend material can flow in and around the Earth center of gravity.
Even though right at the center, the gravity excerts a nett fore of zero, you have to take into account that the pressure builts up from the core to the center in a cumulative way. The downfall of gravity towards zero only slows down the pressue built up.

Ever study the seismic information on the Earth's core, recent studies of the anisotrophic nature of seismic wave propagation (Earthquake induced) have revealled a solid mass that has a structure that is thicker on one half the sphere, then the other side of the same sphere. Plus revealations of differential rotation of other elements of/at the center.

Further to that, in a space that would be as HOT as that particular space would be, gravity would not be zero, that is a 'mathematical' result, (reality tends to differ) the gravity that would be there would be as a result of the "Iron Gas" that would exist there as either a peusdo plasma, or completely plasmatic state.

Within that the accreation of heavier elements that would be fusing into higher order elements, because of the extreme gravitational/thermal environment.

Can you Imagine Brad_AD23 "Iron Gas", sounds like the name of a heavy metal band, with there first 'instant classic' being "Fusion".

Actually the proper term would be Gaseous Iron, or Fe.

The only place you would find anything like 'zero' gravity, inside matter, (when You are attracted to the mentor in these forums?) is where you should be finding "fussion" occurring.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ever study the seismic information on the Earth's core, recent studies of the anisotrophic nature of seismic wave propagation (Earthquake induced) have revealled a solid mass that has a structure that is thicker on one half the sphere, then the other side of the same sphere. Plus revealations of differential rotation of other elements of/at the center.

Further to that, in a space that would be as HOT as that particular space would be, gravity would not be zero, that is a 'mathematical' result, (reality tends to differ) the gravity that would be there would be as a result of the "Iron Gas" that would exist there as either a peusdo plasma, or completely plasmatic state.

Within that the accreation of heavier elements that would be fusing into higher order elements, because of the extreme gravitational/thermal environment.

Can you Imagine Brad_AD23 "Iron Gas", sounds like the name of a heavy metal band, with there first 'instant classic' being "Fusion".

Actually the proper term would be Gaseous Iron, or Fe.

The only place you would find anything like 'zero' gravity, inside matter, (when You are attracted to the mentor in these forums?) is where you should be finding "fussion" occurring.

It doesn't matter what is inside there near the center of gravity, still the gravity is zero at the center of gravity, and it builts up in every sphere surrounding the centre of gravity. Nowhere it is exactly zero, but at that point in space, called center of gravity.

All your arguments against that fact make no sense.

 

[pelastration]

balance

Maybe you can better say: in balance , not zero.

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by pelastration
Maybe you can better say: in balance , not zero.

Thanks for your lengthy post above. It is possible to produce various tests and demonstrations to the model I proposed.

One way is by simulation in a computer.

Another, perhaps more dramatic but less accurate way, is to put a large number of small objects around a pressure gauge and a couple of nearby rigid containers at a fixed depth in a large water pool, and have them pulled outwards (using a system of pulleys), away from the pressure gauge, with a velocity that increased in proportion to their distance, like the Hubble recession of stars.

What will happen is an increase in pressure in the middle, and an attraction of the two rigid containers towards one another. This will produce a visual demonstration of the model to be filmed for simple illustration of the mechanism of gravity, and how it relates to the Hubble equation and the fabric of space.

This may force people to read the mathematical proof before trying to criticize it. Getting the water pool experiment scaled realistically will be hard, but at least the principle can still be illustrated.

Nigel

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
It doesn't matter what is inside there near the center of gravity, still the gravity is zero at the center of gravity, and it builts up in every sphere surrounding the centre of gravity. Nowhere it is exactly zero, but at that point in space, called center of gravity.

All your arguments against that fact make no sense.

That is exactly the point that you seem to keep missing, because your sticking to a mathematical concept that leads you to believe in something that is NOT actually there, "A center of Gravity", because it is at that point that gravity is acting to produce more matter, thereby capturing more heat/thermal energy.

In what you call 'zero' gravity, gravity is acting...so how can it be 'zero'?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That is exactly the point that you seem to keep missing, because your sticking to a mathematical concept that leads you to believe in something that is NOT actually there, "A center of Gravity", because it is at that point that gravity is acting to produce more matter, thereby capturing more heat/thermal energy.

In what you call 'zero' gravity, gravity is acting...so how can it be 'zero'?

1. Nett force is still zero at center of gravity.
2. Matter creation in center of eart? You must be kidding!

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Nigel
Another, perhaps more dramatic but less accurate way, is to put a large number of small objects around a pressure gauge and a couple of nearby rigid containers at a fixed depth in a large water pool, and have them pulled outwards (using a system of pulleys), away from the pressure gauge, with a velocity that increased in proportion to their distance, like the Hubble recession of stars.
This may force people to read the mathematical proof before trying to criticize it. Getting the water pool experiment scaled realistically will be hard, but at least the principle can still be illustrated.
Nigel

I suggest Nigel that you make a small or several images of such a test set-up, and publish that on your website. This will show that you are not affraid of real tests. Maybe you will find a motivated finacier by doing so. ;-)

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Ok, maybe another consideration is required.

You are at the center of gravity of the earth. Divide the Earth into 4 equal pieces. By the Newton system, refer all these masses to point masses, at their respective centers. The sum of the forces of gravity that all 4 points exert on you will sum to 0.

Or

The Einstein way. Mass/energy curves spacetime causing gravity. When you are at the center of gravity, we have an equal amount of Mass/Energy density all around us. That is more to the point. We are not talking about the exact center of the Earth per se. The center of mass and center of gravity need not be at the true center. Perhaps that clarifies things. Due to density distribution it is unlikely even. However at the center of gravity that is the case, the amount of mass/energy density is the same all around you in any frame hence a uniform gravitational force is exerted on you from all directions meaning you experience zero net force.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ok, maybe another consideration is required.

You are at the center of gravity of the earth. Divide the Earth into 4 equal pieces. By the Newton system, refer all these masses to point masses, at their respective centers. The sum of the forces of gravity that all 4 points exert on you will sum to 0.

Or

The Einstein way. Mass/energy curves spacetime causing gravity. When you are at the center of gravity, we have an equal amount of Mass/Energy density all around us. That is more to the point. We are not talking about the exact center of the Earth per se. The center of mass and center of gravity need not be at the true center. Perhaps that clarifies things. Due to density distribution it is unlikely even. However at the center of gravity that is the case, the amount of mass/energy density is the same all around you in any frame hence a uniform gravitational force is exerted on you from all directions meaning you experience zero net force.

Yes Brad, clearly you are schooled in the manners in which this is taught, so tell me Brad, what if reality is doing it in a manner that neither of those two propositions explain.

Tell me Brad, what if atoms half the way into the Earth are focusing 70% of their Gravitational energy towards the center, and not 50%in/50%out. what if that if actually the path of it's operation?

Do you leave the door in your mind open enough to accept even so little as the possiblity? (cause that is how you learn to explore!)

Aside from that, a "center of gravity" is a conceptual thing, being a concept does NOT gaurantee that it is a reality, nor does it gaurantee that it works that way!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes Brad, clearly you are schooled in the manners in which this is taught, so tell me Brad, what if reality is doing it in a manner that neither of those two propositions explain.

Tell me Brad, what if atoms half the way into the Earth are focusing 70% of their Gravitational energy towards the center, and not 50%in/50%out. what if that if actually the path of it's operation?

Do you leave the door in your mind open enough to accept even so little as the possiblity? (cause that is how you learn to explore!)

Aside from that, a "center of gravity" is a conceptual thing, being a concept does NOT gaurantee that it is a reality, nor does it gaurantee that it works that way!

Yeah Sure! IF atoms or gravity behaves like that, you are right.

And IF I have a millions bucks, I can go on a long vacation.

Fact is I don't have a million.

And fact is, gravity and atoms don't behave like that.

You are just assuming something out of the ordainry for which you don't have proof. Why would atoms and gravity behave any different in the inside of the earth?

Unless YOU come with proof of that, we don't believe you!

So, better start digging that hole...!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by heusdens
Yeah Sure! IF atoms or gravity behaves like that, you are right.

And IF I have a millions bucks, I can go on a long vacation.

Fact is I don't have a million.

And fact is, gravity and atoms don't behave like that.

You are just assuming something out of the ordainry for which you don't have proof. Why would atoms and gravity behave any different in the inside of the earth?

Unless YOU come with proof of that, we don't believe you!

So, better start digging that hole...!

The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, let's put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.

If so much was/is known about gravity, then why am I the first person to tie/connect gravitational energy to the 4 States of Matter?

Male you a different deal, if I prove it, you dig the hole!

PS. you mention "We won't believe you", did you poll them to get permission/right to express their opinions, for them?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW Heusdens, you mention "gravity and atoms", most of what I have heard about gravity and atoms is that atoms have gravity because they have mass, but that it is too small to measure at that level.

So it is quite possible that the method of activity/actions of "atomic level gravity" is different, than is currently, unknown actually.

Thanks... have you started diggin yet, you might just need the head start in time as it's a long ways down.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Well seeing as the center of gravity no longer exists according to you, I guess if I balance this book at the center of gravity it will not stay balanced.

*does so*

Oops...it is balanced.

If there were no center of gravity orbital mechanics would become very unstable, and there would be no center of gravity in any mutli-body system either (which there are and we take advantage of many times in satellite operations by placing them in these zero net force locations so that we don't have to haul up propellent as well). Mr. Parsons, you obviously need to do some careful thought experiments and learn some real physics, or you need to get a shovel and start digging. Do some searches for information about this phenonmena. Gravitational energy is symmetric and atoms cannot make 70% go one way and 30% the other. If that was the case the inverse square law would not hold, and indeed, atoms would be much more unstable than they are, as would molecules. Thus far we have shown gravity is classical in the micro-scale size, and even once we enter the realm of the atomic size it should still operate more or less classically. Quantum gravity effects don't come into play until about the size of quarks.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_AD23

"...And once we get into the Atomic scale..."

OOoooooops, you mean you aren't there yet??

Well, when you get there, you'll know, cause you'll see my tracks!


Hey, what an incredible analogy, the balancing a book (as having a center of gravity, Obviously at Zero G as you have so far insisted is the 'truth'!) as an analogous entity, to the gravitational effects upon the core of a 6.6 Sextillion ton planet.

I see you have a little, what? dyslexia with scales??

Other then that, I'm really glad you don't believe me...actually!

Thanks!

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Ah the hubris of the defeated...can't seal your arguments so let's resort to attacking the other guy.

I have been operating on any scale, and yes, that is called a transistion statement.

Maybe if you read my anaology a bit closer, you'll understand it. IF there was no center of gravity in the book, then it would be impossible to balance (hence when applied to orbits, there would be no stable orbit). At the book's center of gravity because the gravitational forces are equally balanced, if they weren't, it would imply an imbalance and lead to the book shifting around, again unbalanced.

So I say again, learn what you are talking about here. No where at all is it even remotely disputed that what the rest of us say is not true. And no, this isn't one of those "Well that thinking keeps new ideas down." This is the most basic of all things, and if it were not so, then all of our obrital mechanics and satellites orbiting, or in centers of gravity would not function as they should. Evidence favors us.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ah the hubris of the defeated...can't seal your arguments so let's resort to attacking the other guy.

Let's see, I sort of made fun of your badly woven analogy, including a remark that you seemed to be missing scale knowledge, as clearly you even admit you have "no atomic scale theory", at least I do!

And I could very easily seal the argument, from a greater base, and foundation, of human knowledge then you realize. Just that, for some time now, I have been unwilling to place a complete TOE on the net, as author, my perogative.

I have been operating on any scale, and yes, that is called a transistion statement.

Maybe if you read my anaology a bit closer, you'll understand it. IF there was no center of gravity in the book, then it would be impossible to balance (hence when applied to orbits, there would be no stable orbit). At the book's center of gravity because the gravitational forces are equally balanced, if they weren't, it would imply an imbalance and lead to the book shifting around, again unbalanced.

Most of the orbiting masses are round/spherical in shape, hence playing with the idea of a center of gravity in a box shape, a book, seems rather inane, as to equate it to "no stable orbit"

So I say again, learn what you are talking about here. No where at all is it even remotely disputed that what the rest of us say is not true. wanted to place a huge Bwahahahah in here, what a con job that statement is, "No where is it remotely disputed..." and no where is it proven either, (explitive deleted!) what kind of a RUBE falls for lines like that? And no, this isn't one of those "Well that thinking keeps new ideas down." This is the most basic of all things, and if it were not so, then all of our obrital mechanics and satellites orbiting, or in centers of gravity would not function as they should. Evidence favors us.

evidence favors me, as you have none, as what you cite, here as evidence, is outside gravitational activities, NOT INSIDE, But apparently you cannot tell the difference!

Have a nice evening, I, God willing, will!

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, let's put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.

If so much was/is known about gravity, then why am I the first person to tie/connect gravitational energy to the 4 States of Matter?

Male you a different deal, if I prove it, you dig the hole!

PS. you mention "We won't believe you", did you poll them to get permission/right to express their opinions, for them?

Gravity is a force vector, which can be (including all the other forces) sum to zero. That is why there is weighlessness.


And your hypothese can be easily disprooved by measuring force of gravity at some depth, it should drop the deeper we get.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

There is no difference. Gravity is gravity be it inside OR outside. As I said before 2 times now, and for the 3rd time, take some classes in the basics.

And I could very easily seal the argument, from a greater base, and foundation, of human knowledge then you realize. Just that, for some time now, I have been unwilling to place a complete TOE on the net, as author, my perogative.

That is rich.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
evidence favors me, as you have none, as what you cite, here as evidence, is outside gravitational activities, NOT INSIDE, But apparently you cannot tell the difference!

You are very very disorganised mentaly, based upon these statements.
Your very own statement was that there was no proof (which also means lack of disproof) for the center of gravity of Earth having a balancing (all force vectors of gravity, as with respect to the gravity excerted by the atoms of Earth themselves, and not the outside universe, there balance to exactly cancel themselves out, creating weithlesness at the exact center of gravity) force of gravity.

So, on other words, you now claim YOU BEEN AT THE CENTER OF EARTH AND MEASURED A NON-ZERO FORCE OF GRAVITY?
So what was the amount of the force and direction of this force then?

It simply can't direct to any specific direction, cause all directions would be equally likely. That just argues for why the force there should be zero.

And , please, don't come up with the quantum effects of gravity, since as we know, nothing happens inside the Earth that urges us to take into account quantum gravity!

Nuclear fusion processes, for instance, do NOT occur inside earth, neither we are on a NEUTRON star, so any out of the ordinary behaviour of gravitation is not expected inside earth.

This in fact means that all gravitational effects happening inside of earth, are no different then that happen outside of earth, which have been explored profoundly and deeply.

Have a nice evening, I, God willing, will!

Calling upon 'Divine interventions' or the 'superatural' will not be of much help to you, to save your argument.

Better start digging that hole...