Proof of cause of gravity

  • Thread starter Nigel
  • Start date
  • #51
499
1
Just to point out in the FAQ section, when you talk about energy. E = mc2 is the rest energy of any mass. E = 1/2 mv2 is the kinetic energy of a mass. The true Einstein equation is

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


Meanwhile a continued analysis of the physics that underly your idea do not seem to mesh. However your basic premise is correct, the simple Hubble constant of proportionality is NOT correct. This is because of dark energy driving an acceleration. However, it does not by any means Einstein was wrong. As I stated above, this would be the equivalent to saying Einstein was wrong with GR because it fails to predict the strenght two magnets attract each other (or they repell each other even!) Again too, your idea of a constant volume of spacetime does imply that there is no expansion to the universe, rather mass is moving apart ever faster. However, this implies either that the universe is infinitly large and infinite in time, or it is static. And black holes still cannot be explained by your method, nor is gravitational deflection of light. Mere pressure alone cannot effect photons which only deflect because the geometry of spacetime makes the shortest distance that deflected point. The 'relativistic' mass (momentum) of the photon does not alone make it succeptible to gravity. Also, how does it explain gravity's own gravity? Too many unanswered questions that GR does answer.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Messiah
Sounds reasonable - however, there may be factors in the Universe which have a direct bearing upon our measurements and those factors may NEVER be observable within the lifetime of our species.

If the Universe (some prefer omniverse, but I choose to define Universe as "all which exists") is infinite and our BB is a local phenomenon, there may be neighboring cosmic engines (BB's) beyond our detection producing systems which make neutron stars look like sponge.

Dark Matter??
Forgive me, it is an interesting thought, but it is not an original thought, but it sorta has been answered, by humans.

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

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

It is, (the infinite) provably Un-Imaginable, not even in the "Imaginary" Realm, as to believe so, is a practice of a Self Deception
 
  • #53
Alias
Forgive me for being out of my league, but my gut feeling has changed a bit in response to this thread. So here's my two cents, with the hope that it will further some of the theories in this discussion.

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

Mass consumes space.

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

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

If these statements were true, would it not be possible to compute the volume and rate of consumption of space by a known mass by using the Gravitational constant alone?
 
  • #54
155
1
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Forgive me, it is an interesting thought, but it is not an original thought, but it sorta has been answered, by humans.

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

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

It is, (the infinite) provably Un-Imaginable, not even in the "Imaginary" Realm, as to believe so, is a practice of a Self Deception
APPLAUSE :smile:
Logic is our interpretation of the laws of nature. By observing, defining and comparing the properties of that which we seek to understand, we derive conclusions which fit the parameters of our observations - equations simultaneously solved for all known variables.

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

Infinity is not contrary to logic, it is just 'beyond its grasp'.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Alias

(SNIP) Forgive me for being out of my league, (CHOP)
WHY??? that is exactly where you need to go to learn, just like all of the rest of us, forgive HA! NEVER!

(Congratulate you, NOW that I could do!)
 
  • #56
One last thougth?? (do you think I can do that?????)

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

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

EDIT: TY Poooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos
 
  • #57
Darn I forgot, it uses matter as the 'tinfoil' of the capacitor that is the retainer of heat, but along a time line, as to accomodate the energies not being "capturable" for anything other then a 'period of time'.

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


Have FUN!!
 
  • #58
155
1
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Darn I forgot, it uses matter as the 'tinfoil' of the capacitor that is the retainer of heat, but along a time line, as to accomodate the energies not being "capturable" for anything other then a 'period of time'.

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


Have FUN!!
FINALLY ! ! !

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

Wheeeeeeeeew ! ! !
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Messiah
FINALLY ! ! !

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

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

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





{Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, Hee, ad on, and on, etc, bye!}
 
  • #60
Lets see, there is a plethora of evidence that follows the logic of the reaoning for the Absorption of EMR by matter/mass. The Spectral absorption of EMR is well known in the evidence of the universe's light, an interaction of atoms, with the passing light.

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

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

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

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

Messiah, did your cap work?

Did you know I would write this?

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

DID you know?
 
  • #61
155
1
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??
 
  • #62
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?
 
  • #63
155
1
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.
 
  • #64
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?
 
  • #65
FZ+
1,561
3
If you want to carry out a private or personal conversation, use the pm system. That's what it is there for.
 
  • #66
155
1
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
 
  • #67
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.
 
  • #68
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!
 
  • #69
BTW this explaination 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.............
 
  • #70
170
0
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 = CeHt 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
499
1
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.
 
  • #72
755
0
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 any one 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 explainations deserved a reprint in your thread here!!!
 
  • #73
So I wonder, if your explaination does it from the point of 'stucture' of physical reality, as it clearly has structure.

Does it?
 
  • #74
Don't mean to be a nag, but, still waiting...........tick.........tick..........ok!
 
  • #75
155
1
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
 

Related Threads on Proof of cause of gravity

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
869
Top