# The mechanism of gravity

1. Apr 22, 2004

### darkbob5150

If you read the editors notes about a book called Pushing Gravity (http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/PushingGravity.htm [Broken]) it tells you of a theory that describes the mechanism of gravity:

"The basic idea runs like this. Space is filled with minute particles or waves of some description which strike bodies from all sides. A tiny fraction of the incident waves or particles is absorbed in this process. A single body will not move under this influence, but where two bodies are present each will be progressively urged into the shadow of the other."

It's a nice idea at first glance - when the sun is nearby, the particles coming toward the earth through the sun are partially absorbed - so fewer of them are coming from the sun than from the other side. Therefore the earth feels a net impulse towards the sun which is inversley proportional to the square of the distance just as in Newtons law.

The problem, as Feynman points out in his lectures, is that the earth is moving around the sun. This would result in more particles being absorbed from the forward side than the rear side (like running into the rain) and would produce a resistance to motion that would slow down the orbital speed. If you calcultate it, it doesn't give enough time for the earth to still be in it's orbit.

I hope the writer of the book reads this forum...

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
2. Apr 22, 2004

### kurious

The problem, as Feynman points out in his lectures, is that the earth is moving around the sun. This would result in more particles being absorbed from the forward side than the rear side

Not if the particles move at the speed of light and are massless.Then the Earth going around the sun is irrelevant.

3. Apr 23, 2004

### darkbob5150

Massless particles still carry momentum though. Photons carry momentum hf/c which is transferred when absorbed by matter. When photons are involved in particle interactions their momentum has to be taken into account.

4. Apr 23, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

I think you miss the point - More rain hits your windshield when your car is moving than when it is not.

5. Apr 23, 2004

### kurious

gravity of Earth orbiting Sun

think you miss the point - More rain hits your windshield when your car is moving than when it is not.

What if the rain heats up the outside of your windscreen and then the heat passes to the inside of the windscreen and then leaves it as heat.The law of conservation of momentum says that the windscreen must be pushed forwards towards the rain - so net net force on the windscreen!

Last edited: Apr 24, 2004
6. Apr 24, 2004

### darkbob5150

Ok, that's quite a strange point to make but nevermind....

If the rain heats up the windshield(!), then heat will pass through the glass by conduction. The only way for the heat to leave the windshield (if we're in a vacuum) is by radiation which will push the windshield in the opposite direction to conserve momentum as you said. However the same can be said of the side that is being heated directly by the rain (This really is a bizzare point you've made!) - heat will also radiate from the front. In fact since glass is such a poor conductor of heat, if anything it will radiate more from the front face than the rear and slow it down further.

7. Apr 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Base on my continuing research, I have one unspeakable notion up until now, that motion is just an illusion. What's real is transformation. Such as transformation of matter to energy, matter to continuous space, matter to quantized space, energy to continuous space, energy to quantized space, and continuous space to quantized space. The reverse transformations are all possible. Associated with each transformation is a rate and a probability. The rate implies "how fast or how slow" the process takes. The probability implies the likelihood of the process becoming a reality.

Rate and probability are inversely proportional. The more real it is the slower it takes to complete the process. The limiting speed is still the speed of light.

8. Apr 24, 2004

### kurious

mechanism of gravity

In fact since glass is such a poor conductor of heat, if anything it will radiate more from the front face than the rear and slow it down further.

heat has a net flow in one direction. However, I've a better idea because even if I'm right about the heat effect it would mean that the earth can't stay a constant distance from the sun.How about this:

The Earth emits blueshifted gravitons which are absorbed by gravitons approaching it and redshifted gravitons which are absorbed by gravitons catching it up.So the two sets of momenta for approaching and catching up are equal.

Last edited: Apr 24, 2004
9. Apr 24, 2004

### kurious

There is a physicist called Julian Barbour who thinks that reality is just a set of moments he calls "nows". He also thinks that motion is an illusion.You can find his website at www.julianbarbour.com I think that considering we don't really understand what time is and that relativity says that time can be space, he could be right.

10. Apr 24, 2004

### darkbob5150

In the original post the theory does not involve the earth emitting anything. The particles are not gravitons as you are thinking of them, they are simply everywhere bombarding from all sides.

Why would the gravitons being emitted from the earth be absorbed by the incoming ones?

11. Apr 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Let's take the example of the equivalence of mass and energy, $E = mc^2$. This equation says that the rate of changing mass to energy is proportional to $c^2$ but the probability is proportional to $\frac{1}{c^2}$.

Likewise the rate of change of energy to mass is $\frac{1}{c^2}$ and the probability is $c^2$. Note the probabilities and rates are not normalized.

12. Apr 24, 2004

### kurious

Why would the gravitons being emitted from the earth be absorbed by the incoming ones?
Because the incoming gravitons have quantum energy levels which correspond to the emission energy levels of the Earth.Hence my other post in theory development about a quantum gravity equation!I'm saying gravity is quantised because the graviton is!

13. Apr 24, 2004

### kurious

Let's take the example of the equivalence of mass and energy, . This equation says that the rate of changing mass to energy is proportional to but the probability is proportional to .

So if there is another wave that moves faster than the speed of light the rate at which mass becomes energy is less? In other words an atomic bomb would be less powerful?

14. Apr 24, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Rates are powers of the speed of light c. For example, $c^2$ in $E = mc^2$. The fundamental postulate still is that no wave nor particle can go faster than c. The probability is always the inverse of the rate.

By deduction, I am also saying that continuous space, S is given by $S = cE$. And by substituting E from above, $S = mc^3$. This says that the rate of m to S is faster than E to S but the probability is very, very, very low. That's is why the photons can said to be "traveling" in interstellar space and the planets "traveling" around the sun.

15. Apr 24, 2004

### Nigel

Feynman's particle problem with gravity

Einstein's general relativity suggests that starlight passing near the sun is deflected clearly without being scattered by particle impacts. I published this and the continuum version of the mechanism of gravity by shadowing, which includes a mathematical proof of the gravity law including the constant from the Hubble expansion rate of the universe, in Electronics World, June 1999, January 2001, August 2002, and April 2003, many years after Philip Campbell wrote to me (25 November 1996) that he was "not able" to publish in Nature a review article on electro-gravity unification research. A second letter to me from the Physical Sciences Editor of Nature, Karl Ziemelis (physical sciences editor of Nature) dated 26 November 1996 further stated that: "... a review article... would be unsuitable for publication in Nature."

Electronics World, formerly Wireless World, had published Arthur C. Clark's idea of gravity for geostationary orbits in 1945 after similar suppression, so it is the best place to publish a proof on gravity. http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

People, like Dr Alun M. Anderson, former editor (now publisher) of New Scientist, tried to condemn me for not sending the article to a "peer reviewed" journal, which I did with Nature. At the end of the day, anyone working on the mechanism of gravity and questioning the concept of quantum gravitation in causing smooth deflection of photons of starlight as seen in eclipse photos, is going to be wrongly called a charlatan without people bothering to check it scientifically.

There is a major difference in approach between mathematical proofs and Popperian speculations in science. Popperian speculations are the opposite of Archimedes proofs: you speculate and then experiments are done to check it. This is political stuff, because nobody can speculate unless they have political backing from an editor: speculation is suppressed, dismissed and rejected unless it comes from the right quarters.

So science is dead in that case. The alternative is Archimedes approach: you use experimental facts plus mathematical logic to prove, step by step, your results. You allow anyone to point out an error or a misinterpretation in any step. This is what I have done, and it also predicts testable constants like the universal gravitational constant. So this is both an Archimedes style proof and offers Popperian predictions.

However, it is heavy going. See https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-846

16. Apr 24, 2004

### Nigel

By the way, you get drag because of particles hitting each other and dissipating energy to those particles. In this universe, particles travelling in the fabric of space create waves around them without a net loss of energy unless they are decelerated.

Because the stuff causing gravity is the continuum or fabric of space, it is not composed of particles. This is why light goes in specific directions, unlike sound which is goes in three dimensions for the mechanical reason that air is composed of molecules and hit each other on average equally in every direction.

You sometimes get people using the uncertainty principle to invent virtual particles in the fabric of space. The uncertainty principle states the product of the uncertainties in momentum and distance is at least h divided by twice pi. The product of momentum and distance is dimensionally equivalent to the product of energy and time, so energy can be being borrowed from the vacuum to form virtual particles for a time which is inversely proportional to the energy borrowed.

This works well for the nuclear forces, which are caused by relatively heavy particles which can therefore only exist for a tiny amount of time. The strong and weak nuclear forces are correct, with the strong nuclear force the quantum coupling constant is 1 (so it is 137 times stronger than the electromagnetic force, agreeing with experimental data that you can't get a nucleus with 137 protons to stay together), and the weak nuclear forces is very small because of the effect of phase space of a the beta particle emission from a neutron.

These nuclear quantum forces have a maximum range equal to the uncertainty in the time for the virtual particle multiplied by the velocity of light, d = tc. This does not happen with electromagnetic and gravitational forces, which are simply inverse square laws with no observed limiting range. So quantum gravity is incompatible with general relativity. The same happens with electromagnetism, because you cannot derive the Coulomb law from quantum electrodynamics without getting a force 137 times too high. This force is the strong nuclear force. Nobody has ever proved how an attractive force mechanically occurs from the momentum of exchanged particles, although it is obvious how repulsion could occur that way by recoil as particles exchange virtual photons. When I published the obvious mechanism in Electronics World, April 2003, along with a 16 step gravity proof, it was with electronics engineer Ivor Catt's help. All material particles spin and emit energy continuously, quite apart from photons which are emitted when particles accelerate. The continuous emission is detected as electromagnetic forces. The positive and negative particles block each other's energy exchange, giving rise to shielding and attraction for unlike particles, repulsion occurring when both particles have similar charge and thereby exchange energy, recoiling apart. I proved that the attraction force is equal in magnitude to the repulsion force, and that because opposite particles block each other, the addition in the universe is not a straight line but a random walk. The mechanism for the electromagnetic force is the gravity mehanism multiplied by by the random walk sum for all the particles of either charge in the universe, which is the square root of the number of charges, a far more accurate prediction than the 137 error in quantum electrodynamics. Nigel

17. Apr 25, 2004

### Antonio Lao

In order to show the existence of antigravity, first of all, we must establish the equivalence of a force and spacetime.

The tautology of general relativity that goes like the following:

"Matter curved spacetime and in turn curved spacetime dictates matter how to move"

does not necessarily need the concept of a force. But for a force to have the value of zero does not mean that forces do not exist. It can also mean that they are in equilibrium.

18. Apr 25, 2004

### Nigel

I agree with your equilibrium suggestion. When Prevost first, back in 1792, put forward the concept that all objects emit heat radiation even when at steady temperatures, it was ridiculed by bigots.

People claimed that at room temperature, nothing is cooling down, and if it were then different objects would change temperature at different rates, and so on. This sort of sticking-sticks-in-the-spokes of a new theory holds back science. Even when the earth's rotation was proposed to Copernicus, circa 1500, instead of trying to see the value of it, critics tried to discredit it by saying that people would be thrown off the equator at 1000 mph it it were true, so it must be false, blah, blah, blah. None of this arm-waving criticism contributed much to science, but it held back progress.

Similarly, where you say zero force may mean an equilibrium, you have to address the "normal reaction" force of the textbooks, which is the floor pushing up against you to cancel your weight.

According to Feynman, we attribute this to Pauli's exclusion principle in preventing the atoms of the floor being compressed, but there is more to it than that. When you step on the floor, you get electrons in the floor repelling those in your shoe. You also get a seismic ripple of information passing downwards, and a certain amount of compression occurring down i the material below. It is not instantaneous, but takes time for the floor to respond. All told, it is very complex, and it is convenient for textbook writers to ignore the whole thing and use the concept of "normal reaction force". In gravity we have every stationary object being pressed equally by the fabric of space from every direction. It is the disturbance of this equilibrium by the presence of a shielding mass which causes "gravity".

19. Apr 25, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Gravity, to me, I'm theorizing it as the difference of two fundamental forces. These are the forces similar to the electric force and magnetic force before the concepts of charge and mass are defined. The existence of charge and mass were predicted but what I am doing is the postdiction of the forces responsible for the existence of charge and mass. These are not 'opposites' of good and evil forces as what the movies portrait. But forces with its own independent existence.

Because there are two ways of taking the differences of these forces, both gravity and antigravity can be defined. If these two forces are symbolized by $F_E$ and $F_B$ and the force of gravity is $F^{-}_G$ and the force of antigravity is $F^{+}_G$ then

$$F^{+}_G = F_B - F_E$$

and

$$F^{-}_G = F_E - F_B$$

20. Apr 25, 2004

### Nigel

You can say that electromagnetism is anti-gravity (it stops gravity carrying you down through the floor!). But you can't easily get gravity from considering electricity and magnetism separately, since Maxwell's equations (which were controversial for postulating displacement current) unified electricity and magnetism in 1865 into "electromagnetism". The forces of electromagnetism are 10^40 times those of gravity. My view is expressed on http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook