Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proof of cause of gravity

  1. Apr 6, 2003 #1
    Particle-wave duality is caused by the motion of particles in the fabric of space. The outward motion of matter in the big bang is therefore balanced by inward directed fabric of space, maintaining a full continuity of volume, just as air moves into a suitcase when you take clothes out of it. The pressure towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions equally, except where reduced by the shielding of the planet earth below us.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    ‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180.:smile:
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 6, 2003 #2
    Re Gravity

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

    BTW nice use of the 'etherial' medium, without mention of it.
  4. Apr 6, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well written, very interesting. Congratulations on getting it published.
  5. Apr 6, 2003 #4
    The pressure produced in the earth is massive. If you go 10 metres under water, the water pressure is 1 atmosphere so you have a total pressure of 2 atmospheres. Since earth is denser than water, the pressure with depth is greater.

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

    As for the chemical ether, that does not seem relevant to me!
  6. Apr 6, 2003 #5
    Ether is a chemical, it is also the 'old school' name for what had been surmized as being the medium of propagation of light.

    If the pressure is externally generated, then the matter would not have weight itself, it would be generating the pressure, and would that not want for it to expand?
  7. Apr 6, 2003 #6
    A further Question

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

    Shouldn't they both be experiancing the same/identical pressurizational effect?
  8. Apr 6, 2003 #7
    The paper derives the gravity formula and the constant in 16 numbered steps, but you do not refer to them.

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

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

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

    These two factors are completely separate! Many thanks.
  9. Apr 6, 2003 #8
  10. Apr 7, 2003 #9
    Re: Re: Proof of cause of gravity

    Many thanks for that. It took years to get it into print!
  11. Apr 7, 2003 #10
    I would still like to know why there is a difference in the gravitational strengths on the moon, relative to the earth, as according to your assertions, they would both be in the same external gravitational environments, and should therefore have the same level of gravity acting upon them.

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

    (P.S. My time on the computer was only just extended by 15 minutes, so I've not alot of time to do this, bear with me please.)
  12. Apr 7, 2003 #11

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

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

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

    But, as I have said, I could be wrong, so, please show me!
  13. Apr 7, 2003 #12

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

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

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

    good job though!
  14. Apr 8, 2003 #13
    So why was this not published in a Physics or Astronomy journal? Phys. Rev. or Ap. J. would be more suitable. Publishing 'ground breaking' work in journals that have no relevance to the subject matter is dubious, to say the least.

    Now to the meat, as such. How does this theory explain observations adequately described, even predicted in advance, by GR. That is, precession of perihelion of Mercury, gravitational time dilation, black holes, dragging on binary neutron stars, the hubble constant itself (remember that this is derived from conventional GR) and all the normal stuff.
  15. Apr 8, 2003 #14
    The more mass, the more shielding, and the more of a net push towards the shield. The moon has a smaller mass than the earth so smaller surface gravity.

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

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

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

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

    Last edited: Apr 8, 2003
  16. Apr 8, 2003 #15
    1 & 2- The fabric of space, said Einstein in his Leyden university lecture, has "physical qualities" according to general relativity. So this cause of gravity is consistent with that. 3-Same again, we have derived the equation so we calculate with it. Black holes occur where the escape velocity = speed of light. 4-The force is not exerted in specific directions: because the Hubble recession of galaxies away from us is very uniform at large distances where the speeds and masses are greatest, the inward space pressure is isotropic. It is the shielding of this pressure by mass which accelerates you towards the mass.

    You can say that the motion of the fabric of space around moving particles is a wave in space, like the wave of air flowing around a moving car or person. The de Broglie equation shows that wavelength varies with speed. However this is quantum mechanics, and the paper is about gravity and cosmology!
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2003
  17. Apr 8, 2003 #16
    Re: Re: Proof of cause of gravity

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

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

    As for general relativity: the comments by Einstein and Catt on the physical properties of space in general relativity (GR) motivated this. The result is an equation for the universal gravitational constant which is then substituted into the field equation of GR. Then GR does all the normal things which you refer to. The only difference occurs at very great distances, when old GR fails but GR with the equation derived in the paper correctly predicts the lack of gravitational retardation of the furthest galaxies and supernovas. This was done in 1997 and promoted in a letter to Electronics World, and then Saul Perlmutter made the experimental discovery of distant supernova red shifts a year or more later. This proved the theory. I wrote again to Nature, however, as the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink!
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2003
  18. Apr 8, 2003 #17
    Thanks for your response, however you still did not address questions

    1, 2, 3, and 4.

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

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

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

    And 4 was not even addressed in its proper physics.

    I must second thed's question.
  19. Apr 8, 2003 #18
    Yes, space is continuous, as stated in the paper. I do not know what you are referring to by "at all levels" but if you mean "at all scales of distance" then the answer is yes again.

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

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

    Question 4 - this spinning earth issue applies to existing physics and the existing admission of a fabric of space. You have to tilt a telescope according to the earth's motion to "catch" the light from a star. Gravity is weaker at the earth's equator because of the spin acceleration = speed squared divided by earth's radius, which slightly offsets gravity. I've already answered Thed's question (see above, it probably crossed with your last submission so you didn't see it appear before your latest).
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2003
  20. Apr 8, 2003 #19
    True, our replies crossed.

    However, the thing is, the mechanism that causes light to be bent by gravity in general relativity is the curvature of spacetime :) Your mechanism does not allow for that. Without spacetime curvature there is no reason for massless objects to be impacted by gravity.
  21. Apr 9, 2003 #20
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook