Proof of cause of gravity

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of particle-wave duality and how it is caused by the motion of particles in the fabric of space. The pressure towards us from the fabric of space produces gravity, and this is the mechanism behind the acceleration due to gravity. This understanding also explains why apples fall. The conversation also mentions an article published in Electronics World, which reviews and extends the mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity and resolves problems with general relativity. It is proposed that this model can be used to rigorously test the consequences of this physical fluid model for the fabric of space. The conversation also mentions the fixed 377 ohms impedance of the vacuum to electromagnetic energy, which suggests that the fabric of space is a non-particulate
  • #71
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.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #72
Originally posted by Nigel
Thanks for the interesting replies everyone!

The paper on the internet is the mechanism for gravity, and some of the replies touch on the other two forces of nature, which have different mechanisms and force strengths to gravity. The article in Electronics World deals with 4 forces, although two of those (electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces) are already unified in so-called electro-weak theory.

Hence, there are 3 basic forces:
Strong nuclear force
Gravitational force - http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/
Electromagnetic force

I will briefly say something about the mechanisms and mathematical proofs I have published for the strong nuclear and the electromagnetic forces, since they relate to some of the replies above.

The mathematical proof I give (Electronics World, April 2003) demonstrates that the vacuum flux due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle causes the strong nuclear force (137 times the electromagnetic force), while the electromagnetic force is the energy delivery by a random walk of electromagnetic fields between similar charges in the universe. Because the stars are receding, the electromagnetic momentum received continuously from spinning charges is less than they emit in anyone place, so there is an asymmetry, causing a gravity shielding-attraction effect between dissimilar charges (hence electrostatic attraction) and an excessive exchange of momentum between similar charges (hence electrostatic repulsion).

The random walk occurs because a straight line summation would encounter equal numbers of positive and negative charges, thus cancelling out. When you work out the random walk, allowing for the expansion of the universe and the constant 377 ohm impedance of free space, you find that the electromagnetic forces are bigger than gravity by a multiplication factor equal to the square root of the number of charges in the universe; the proof is in the journal.

Therefore, there are three separate mechanisms accounting for 3 different basic forces. Sometimes in the past people have attributed the real mechanism of the strong nuclear force to electromagnetism, and had the paradox of a force calculation 137 times stronger than expected. This puzzled Feynman and many other maths wizards.

They should have studied Catt's research.

Thank you Nigel.

These explanations deserved a reprint in your thread here!
 
  • #73
So I wonder, if your explanation 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
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
 
  • #76
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So I wonder, if your explanation does it from the point of 'stucture' of physical reality, as it clearly has structure.

Does it?

I'm glad that you see that it has structure. Other people don't, e.g.:

Decision on manuscript 2003-04-03576
Sent: 24/04/2003 11:49
Importance: Normal
April 24, 2003


... Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Solution to a problem with general relativity"...

... I hope that you will rapidly receive a more favourable response elsewhere...

Yours sincerely

Karl Ziemelis
Physical Sciences Editor, Nature


The interesting thing is that they will not send for peer review a proof. They are ingenious enough to fear that a referee might not be able to find a flaw in a proof, leaving them forced to print it. Notice the kindly comment that Dr Ziemelis makes, hoping that someone else will have the guts to publish it. The curious thing is that science has reached the stage that Galileo was in when he wrote to Kepler: "The Professor here refuses to look through my glass." They can sense that the paper would upset an apple cart, just as the Catholic Philosophy Professor in Galileo's day, and they place their commitment to culture above that to scientific objectivity. They are afraid that publishing something is dangerous.


[?]
 
  • #77
Originally posted by Messiah
Is EMR particle phenomenon or propagation?
No, the cap didn't work, so I decided to stop thinking (can't read what is not there)

YES, I predicted your response. I answered it before your post.
#CFCFCF

WHERE?

What I am calling a 'phenomenon' is simply something that we can measure, a propagation if you wish, something that is going on, that we can percieve, measure, and, hopefully, explain to understand it's "Raison d'etre" and/or "Modus Operandi"

Nice hide, you almost caught me!

Nigel I wonder if it's fear, the absence of the time to explain why they might not see the same result you do, the absence of re$ources to be able to have everything they get Peer reviewed, hence would want for you to have referees available, to them, beforehand, as into demonstrate that you have passed an 'informal' method of peer review. It show it to have some semblence of validity, inasmuch as you have already been able to convince others of it's worth.

But in the present political climate, well, saftey first!

Strike a match, that is a form of anti-gravity, same energy as gravity, just traveling in the opposite direction, using a different 'shape' as one travels away from a sphere, the other towards, layering like 'papier mache', over the surface of the sphere.

There may be another type of "Anti-gravity" that is actually the removal of the meduim of propagation, the EMR field that is spacial, as is 'sorta proven' out, presently, by a Black Hole's activity.

Glad you responded though, Thanks!
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Try this....HUH?

2003-04-26

There’s an equation from cosmology that is something like Gm/2r (or r2, something like that) that has an application in chemistry, or the understanding of the nature of chemistry, from a gravitational viewpoint.

Draw a circle, and fill it with a gas, a liquid, or a solid, and you will have The three states of matter, but notice the relative densities of the matter in the space, cause the problem is that, mathematically, you will ‘reletivise’ out the differentiations, that the three states present, by means of “gravitationally regulated specializations of matter”.

This is actually the reason for the error in the weighting of Venus, it’s gaseous atmosphere is differentiated, gravitationally, because it is a gas!

The key to ‘seeing it, in this light’ is found in the EMR, and understanding that it is EMR interaction that regulates atomic/molecular spacing, one of those regulating factors is the one we call heat, and all heat(ing) is a function of gravitationally induced friction(s).

Don’t be fooled, gases are known to rebound, Very Well hence very low friction interaction coefficients.

Liquids demonstrate similar energetic interactions, on scale, the absolute fluidity effects seen in the flow of water, Gazillions of little marbles rolling around, pressurizing themselves and NOT generating very much heat from that, never mind the obvious lack of an increase in friction coefficients, based upon the fact of pressurization, to great degrees in the depths of the Ocean, Marianas (SP?) trench deep

The friction environment of atoms is gravitationally regulated, the last being solids, where gravity takes over ‘Dominion’ completely, at this stage, coefficients of friction take on new roles, as more the capacitance/assembledgecapacitor of heat itself. It is at this stage that the Equation takes rule, and the third level of the “Gravitational Collusion” takes place.

If we had a car, on the earth, the coefficients of friction of the wheel’s bearings, are from the ‘weighed’ mass, here on Earth, go to the moon and the coefficients of friction drop, relative to the moons gravity.
(the torque induced friction remain relatively the same, but there would be less, as a compensation of the Less ‘Inertial’ mass environment, soooo……..:-{)

Mathematics is “cool” as it allows us to measure the minute differences.

In a gas the gravitational environment is behaving in a dualistic manner inasmuch as it is both trying to fly apart, by well ‘energetically balanced’ rebounds, and yet still ‘coheres’, as a gas, by ‘gravitational environmenting’ (Spell checker doesn’t like that word!)

Being as such, measuring the gravity of Venus, would need that the nature of the gases contribution to the Total(s) , as gravity Always SUMS, of the mass as ‘reality inclusive’, not solely on a “perceptual” (Visibly measurable) defined basis.

Gravities neat, complicated though, that why it’s taken so long to figure it out. Humanity needed to accumulate enough Known things, before, all the pieces could be fitted together.


C YA (Disliked that one too, but who am I to be prejudicial, soooo………..!)
 
  • #79
26/04/2003

It is self evident in the phase transition that steel undergoes, when presented with a driver for the AEP. (Ambient Energy Pressure)

A torch flame, really a source of EMR, as the com(bine){BOOM)bustables are simply in a process of emitting quantities of EMR, cause a rise in the AEP of the immediate placement of the radiator of EMR (Put the torch head here, to heat(ing)) such that the energetic cycling, that is the function of the component parts of atoms, gains enough EMR, to cycle fast enough, to become an emitter of enough strength, as to cause the Gravitational spatializing energy to subside, and it turns liquid.

This is as a result of the gravitational (Spherical) wave front’s predominance shifting from an external shell, surrounding the atom, to a facial shell in a liquid, to an internal shell in a gas.

It is of noteworthiness to see that gases are so spatially reactive to temperature, AEP, as that helps us to realize that it is the gravitational binding that is what is the precursor (aider and abettor) to the valence shell bonds, that will form, given the proper temperature, and pressure, conditions. (To liquefy, or solidify, must lose AEP)

And that the spatial nature is definitely temperature dependant, the literal spacing of atoms/molecules being well regulated by those two qualities.

Hence all phase transitions of matter are gravitationally regulated, as I had stated previously in PF 2.0, Gravity if a variable force.

Gravity moderates heat(ing), the Neutron is the ‘thermal’ particle, (Heat(ing) is interacting/cyclic EMR) and the other forces, positive, and negative, (Proton and Electron, respectively) spark at us. (With a quality of heating, as it is still EMR)

This is still a function of Structure, sooooooo……………-:{)

More?
 
  • #80
If you can grasp the above then you can realize that it is the very thin covering of water, its moderation of the AEP's G/TC (Gravity/Thermal Cycle)that is the 'responcible party' (Operand) of the cause of the eruption/exuding of the Magnetic field that the Earth has. (Van Allen Belts, for all you older people!)

It is also the reason why the Mag. field of Venus is so small, (Gaseous outer coverning, moderates the AEP G/TC differently) and why Mars, with very little atmosphere and no water, (Liquid form) it's AEP G/TC is at such as rate as to not cause eruption/exudance of a 'magnetosphere'. (Least not a strong one like Earth's)

Funny for me, when it goes quiet like this, is it a sign? (ooooooops that's a question for the "Ask a stuuuuupid Quetion thread")

EDITED FOR SCHPEILEINGS
 
Last edited:
  • #81
yo man!
i don't mean to be root but:

v=dx/dt works only for v=const
a=dv/dt works only for a=const

if it wasn't so then it would have been:
dx=vdt+tdv <=> x=vt
dv=adt+tda <=> v=at

and F=ma is not true either even if a=d(dx/dt)/dt
in the gravity or the coulomb's law if you put M,m=const or q,Q=const
you'll get Fxx=const.then put x=f1(t) and F=f2(t) and look for
d(dx/dt)/dt=ax and d(dF/dt)/dt=aF you'll get:

ax=-(1/2F)(xxaF+3VxVF)<>F/m

where Vx=dx/dt and VF=dF/dt.

G is not gravity constant but gravity proportionality cause you can put G=F(x/m)(x/M).you see G is function of variables.why would it be const?

see what they publish?

but what to do.IT'S HARD TO BE RIGHT WHEN THE GOVERMENT IS WRONG.
 
  • #82
dr-dock, I am not quite certain just why you have posted, what you have posted, there...care to 'extrapolate'...slightly?
 
  • #83
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
dr-dock, I am not quite certain just why you have posted, what you have posted, there...care to 'extrapolate'...slightly?
you have to be simple in English conversation with me cause it's not my native language.
i'll just assume that 'extrapolate' is something like explain.

i saw the web page with the published doc (the prove) and the equations used there.i don't agree with any equation there except the one for the gravity law.i just wanned to point out what i don't agree with and why.try to redo the calculus using x=vt and v=at and don't mention Hubble.
 
  • #84
OH!, So sorry.

In what I have attempted to put forward, there is a furthering of the established proof, in the evidence that I had presented in PF 2.0, when I had pointed out the re-testing of G, that had occurred back in the mid nineties.

One of the approaches, that was Novel, was the floating of the devise in a liquid medium, (Of which much is made of the temperatures) and it has registered a Consistent Variation, to the Known value of G, every time it has been tested. (Consistent, also, in the degree of variance.)

It is Because it is a liquid, that it alters the gravitational rate(s), such that, the object that floats in it, imparts some energy to the AEP, which is 'within cycled', as to tensor the edges better.

(How self centered of it...tee hee hee hee)

Gravities activities, at play!

They have had that Proof for about eight (8) years now, and they just didn't realize what it was telling them, evidence of the "proof" of it's actions, in matter(s) form(s). BTW does include the Plasma state.

Ps PF 2.0 Available from Greg, the Host, $20.00 (US)..."Cheep Cheeeeeap" say's the Rob/in (hood?)/(ed?)
 
  • #85
Hummmm, I suspect, but it is only a suspicion, that's why they call them "Previously Unrecognised" and "Self Evident Truth(s)"

Clearly no one is at any fault for not having recognized this understanding, not in the Scientific Community. (at least)
 
  • #86
There is a test that can be done that furthers this proving of the realities of the G/T C and AEP functioning, (heck the fact that you can see col ours is proof of it) but it requires some test equipment, has anyone seen my flashlight?
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Nigel
If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake.


Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by Royce
Originally posted by Nigel
If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake.

Originally posted by Royce

#1) Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
#2) I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.

Agree with #1), but it has already been brought out, in this thread, in a (slightly) more detailed fashion.

Agreed with #2)

Thanks, hey, have you seen my flashlight?
 
  • #89
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Agree with #1), but it has already been brought out, in this thread, in a (slightly) more detailed fashion.

Agreed with #2)

Thanks, hey, have you seen my flashlight?

There is no vacuum formed behind me when I walk along a corridor. Similarly, there is no snowploughing of air in front of me.

The air pressure would stop motion if air did not flow around moving objects.

Ignorance of basic physics, with people claiming that moving objects don't create waves in the surrounding medium, is manifest in physics because of the current emphasis on fiddling about with empirical equations, including general relativity and quantum mechanics such as Schrodinger's wave equation.

Take air pressure. I point out that the energy needed to create a vacuum equal to the volume you leave behind you (your cross-sectional area multiplied by the distance you travel) is more than your legs can deliver. You can only move, therefore, by virtue of the fact that the air moves out of your way, flowing around you from front to behind as you move. This is vital.

:smile:
 
  • #90
Originally posted by Royce
Originally posted by Nigel
If I walk down a corridor, air does not snowplough against me and I do not leave a vacuum in my wake.


Yes it does, at lease a change in pressure. Higher pressure in front, i.e. bow wave of any moving boat including submarines and lower pressure in back creating wakes. This is also what makes airplanes fly.
I also think that "Fabric of Space" is just another more modern way of saying "ether" just as Mr. Parsons.
Nothing personal just my thoughts of your thoughts.


The air in front of me will not know that I am coming until I push into it. It does not accumulate against me like the blade of a bulldozer pushing snow, it flows around me!

All I can suggest is that either your corridor is so small that you take up both the entire width and height, or else the corridor is normal and you are not!

Seriously, where you mention the submarine you should remember that water is virtually incompressible. It is possible to make a vacuum in air, and in water. It does not occur when you walk or swim. It does not occur when an aeroplane flies or when a submarine goes, despite the fact that it can happen in special cases. The aeroplane flies because it pushes down on the air. Aeroplanes can fly upside down. It has been shown that the old textbook stuff about a vacuum on upper wing surfaces is really just a mathematical con.

The best way to think about flight is when you fly a simple kite in a wind. The wind pressure upward on the lower surfaces exceeds those downwards on the upper surfaces, so the net force is up, counteracting gravity. The aeroplane works the same way. You make a wind by going forward into stationary air.

The formula for wind pressure is p = 0.5 x air density x speed squared. The speed is the net speed of the plane into the air. If there is a hurricane blowing towards the plane, it can remain static over one place like a helicopter. There is no worry about whether the speed is due to the aeroplace moving or the air moving. Therefore, static air is equivalent to moving air. All that matters is a net asymmetry in pressure. Air density does not vary to any significant extent: it is pushing into air, not causing a vacuum, which causes flight.

In any case, this foray into hydrodynamics strengthens my proof of the cause of gravity. People who think that they leave a vacuum in their wake cannot really be answered effectively.

[zz)]
 
Last edited:
  • #91
Originally posted by Nigel

The air pressure would stop motion if air did not flow around moving objects.

Ignorance of basic physics, with people claiming that moving objects don't create waves in the surrounding medium, is manifest in physics because of the current emphasis on fiddling about with empirical equations, including general relativity and quantum mechanics such as Schrodinger's wave equation.

Air pressure is resistance to motion, and it DOES create waves, pressure waves.

You do not truly create a Vacuum behind you, but you do create a "Pressure Differential", that is of a lower pressure, then the air in front of you, which you are 'driving' to a higher air pressure by your motion.

Air 'pressure' (density) isn't high enough to stop motion, you need the densities of solids to do that one.
 
  • #92
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Air pressure is resistance to motion, and it DOES create waves, pressure waves.

You do not truly create a Vacuum behind you, but you do create a "Pressure Differential", that is of a lower pressure, then the air in front of you, which you are 'driving' to a higher air pressure by your motion.

Air 'pressure' (density) isn't high enough to stop motion, you need the densities of solids to do that one.

It is air drag or dynamic pressure which resists motion. Air drag depends on your relative speed in the air.

It is properly called dynamic or drag pressure.

The reason for drag is the momentum change when an excess of air particles hit you on one side, not the normal air pressure.

Whenever you are walking at a speed which is small in comparison to the average speed of air molecules, there is no significant change in air density. The average speed of air molecules is 500 m/s at sea level.

Any air density change at walking speed is therefore going to be less than 1 %. You can accurately calculate the air resistance on the basis that the density and static pressure remain completely constant in this situation: the air drag is not due to the normal air pressure, but to the excess kinetic energy of air molecules hitting you in the direction of your motion relative to the air. Drag pressure, q = (Du^2)/2, where D is air density, and u is relative velocity.


What is important is that pressure considerations allow the calculation of the force of gravity as the effect of the Hubble expansion on the fabric of space.

Much the same thing can be seen in a sink of washing up liquid, when the bubbles that are formed nearby accelerate together; the same happens to bubbles floating on any liquid. In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Therefore, the lemonade bubbles are pushed against the sides of a rigid glass by analogy to the reason we are pushed down by gravity.

Nigel
 
  • #93
Originally posted by Nigel

In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Don't quite know where you get some of the information, but, the bubbles insides glasses of carbonated, or otherwise 'gaseous' beverages, form on the sides because of the dirt that is there!

Prove it to yourself, clean a glass thoroughly, and notice that it does NOT form those bubbles. (Have worked in both Bars and Restaurants, sooooo...it's 'old school' waitress's knowledge!)

They stick to the sides because that is where they form, as a result of a particle of dirt, and when conditions are correct, they dislodge, and float up, through the liquid.

Your original posting, about pressure in air, stated that there was "NO MOTION" in the air, due to motion of walking, and as you seem to now admit, that is wrong.

I would agree that at times, it is small, you walking down a corridor slooooowly, but to extrapolate it out to the Hubble expansion?, speeds at how high a rate? can it still be ignored at those levels?

I suspect not.

EDIT EVERYTHING BELOW THIS___________LINE

Originally posted by Nigel

Whenever you are walking at a speed which is small in comparison to the average speed of air molecules, there is no significant change in air density. The average speed of air molecules is 500 m/s at sea level.

Then the idea of holding a 'lit candle'*, as I had responded to you in the first place, wouldn't work, because, according to what you tell me, here, the 7 ft/sec that a human can walk is simply to slow, even though if you actually try it, forwards, and backwards, walking, IT works!

Hummmm, curious!


* Remember that doing this can pose a danger, protect yourself from the risks of setting yourself on fire, when trying something like this.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Don't quite know where you get some of the information, but, the bubbles insides glasses of carbonated, or otherwise 'gaseous' beverages, form on the sides because of the dirt that is there!

...Your original posting, about pressure in air, stated that there was "NO MOTION" in the air, due to motion of walking, and as you seem to now admit, that is wrong.



The bubbles form inside the bottle when you take the cap off, and continue to slowly come out of solution for several minutes. The cause is carbon dioxide dissolved and maintained under pressure, which cannot remain dissolved when the pressure is reduced.

Add some sugar to the your lemonade and you will prove this: the liquid becomes saturated in sugar, and releases all of the remaining CO2 very quickly.

Make some bubbles by stirring your coffee. The bubbles will attract to other nearby bubbles, accelerate together and join up. Each bubble indents the surface of the liquid on which it floats, like a floating football. They shield one another from the all round pressure of the fluid. I have video of soap bubbles attracting and joining up. I will add it to the internet page shortly. But anyone can see the same thing in a sink very easily.

This analogy was used in physics demonstrations of general relativity, where the surface of the water was replaced by a rubber sheet. Place two heavy objects nearby on the rubber sheet, and they indent it, attracting together by creating an indentation. This is equivalent to saying that in facing directions they shield one another from the push of the surrounding rubber sheet.

This is the cause of gravity when you consider the fabric of space.

With regard to the walking in the air, my posting said that motion in air is impossible without the flow of air around me as I walk. If the air did not flow around me, there would be a vacuum created behind me, and an accumulation of air in front. I stated that air must flow. You now say I said the opposite!

It would be more interesting to consider the possibility that the mechanism of gravity is correct. I am certainly not doing this for personal gain, but to hit back at people who think that physics is about stagnation and status quo. If you are happy with "law of nature" causes of gravity, good for you.
:smile:
 
  • #95
First off, congratualtions on getting published in Electronics World.

Your work is, unfortunately, not new. What you've found, based on your assummptions which are not incorrect, is first the Friedmann density, rho = (3/8)H2/G[pi]
well not exactly, because you solved only the Hubble part of the differential equation, (H = dr/rdt is part of a larger field equation) you get twice the Friedmann density in your answer (*3/4 instead of 3/8).
It's easily derivable from relativistic conservation laws (i.e. mc2=GMm/r)
and you just exchanged the rho with the G.

The conclusions you have, are possible - that the acceleration (or dynamic bahavior depending upon the class of solutions to the field equations you use) of space is caused by and is proportional to such dynamic behavior. If so, the force of gravity is caused by the acceleration of expanding space. But that does not mean that the gravitational constant is necessarily changing, because if the universe is manufacturing space, then by conservation, its size must increase.
 
  • #96
Originally posted by Nigel

In beer and lemonade glasses, the bubbles stick to the inside of the glass because there is an all-round fluid pressure pushing them on all sides except on that where the rigid glass is.

Hence my responce. See's you tends to want to sidetrack the 'perception' though.

Originally posted by Nigel
This analogy was used in physics demonstrations of general relativity, where the surface of the water was replaced by a rubber sheet. Place two heavy objects nearby on the rubber sheet, and they indent it, attracting together by creating an indentation.

Yes, an explanation that is clearly NOT new, tell me though, is it a "Push force" or a "Pull force"??

Originally posted by Nigel
This is the cause of gravity when you consider the fabric of space.

Now Nigel, to the best of my knowledge that is the analogy to gravities curvature of "Spacetime", not a proof of it's CAUSE!


You might have found some things Nigel, but I do NOT think you found the "Proof of Gravity", But that's not your fault, nor mine.

(perhaps you should read some of what I have written, here/in, this thread)
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons [/i

Yes, an explanation that is clearly NOT new, tell me though, is it a "Push force" or a "Pull force"??

Now Nigel, to the best of my knowledge that is the analogy to gravities curvature of "Spacetime", not a proof of it's CAUSE!


Hey, what I'm saying is that Einstein is right so far as he goes, but he can go further. He didn't because sadly Hubble only discovered the recession business after Einstein had made the mistaken prediction of a static universe, based on what was known in 1915.

Einstein's maths is on the right thread in general relativity, in introducing gravity to space-time by curvature of space.

My mathematical proof, on the webpage, does prove the cause of gravity in a series of steps. The cause for the curvature is the inward directed pressure of space in reaction to the big bang.

In the Electronics World proof, I show that you can specify either a mass or an energy equivalent of space for the continuity equation.

In other words, you can have either:

(Constant geometric volume) = (Volume of matter it contains) + (Volume of fabric of space it contains);

or you can (by E = mc^2) use the equivalent expression:

(Constant geometric volume) = (Energy content of matter) + (Energy content of the fabric of space).

Either way, you get inward pressure from the fabric of space due, equal and opposite to the matter that is going away from you in the big bang.

If you take some clothes out of a suitcase, an equal volume of air goes in the opposite direction (into the suitcase!), and volume is conserved. You might object that air density changes and a vacuum forms if you rip the clothes out very rapidly, but I think you understand where the analogy is going. You send all the stars off in all directions around us. They are vacating a volume in space time.

Continuity of the fabric of space and the matter in space requires that the reduction in matter content per unit volume due to Hubble expansion be compensated by an inward motion of the fabric of space.

Hence, an all round pressure due to the fabric of space itself, which when calculated turns out to be the force of gravity complete with inverse square law and correct constant.

Just to round off, here's a quotation from Edgar Allan Poe's poem Eureka, first published in June 1848:

"... of gravitation? Newton deduced it from the laws of Kepler. Kepler admitted that these laws he guessed - these laws whose investigation disclosed to the greatest of British astronomers that principle, the basis of all (existing) physical principle, in going behind which we enter at once the nebulous kingdom of Metaphysics. Yes! - these vital laws Kepler GUESSED - that is to say, he imagined them."

Right. Kepler guessed all sorts of shapes for the orbit of Mars until he found a fit with the ellipse. He never proved that the orbit is an ellipse. Newton just used Kepler's empirical guessed approximation. The need for a proof of the gravity law, plus constant, is not an alternative to an existing proof.
 
  • #98
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
First off, congratualtions on getting published in Electronics World.

Your work is, unfortunately, not new. What you've found, based on your assummptions which are not incorrect, is first the Friedmann density, rho = (3/8)H2/G[pi]
well not exactly, because you solved only the Hubble part of the differential equation, (H = dr/rdt is part of a larger field equation) you get twice the Friedmann density in your answer (*3/4 instead of 3/8).
It's easily derivable from relativistic conservation laws (i.e. mc2=GMm/r)
and you just exchanged the rho with the G.

The conclusions you have, are possible - that the acceleration (or dynamic bahavior depending upon the class of solutions to the field equations you use) of space is caused by and is proportional to such dynamic behavior. If so, the force of gravity is caused by the acceleration of expanding space. But that does not mean that the gravitational constant is necessarily changing, because if the universe is manufacturing space, then by conservation, its size must increase.

Thanks for congratulations. I do not base anything on Friedmann. I do not get density equals (3/8) of anything. You are right that I get a value twice the density that the Newtonian theory predicted (disproved by the experimental discovery of supernova recession speeds at great distances). 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).

When you say field equation you are confused. I derive the mechanism of gravity by fluid analogy as general relativity, not by using the field equation. See the notes at the end of the paper on the webpage in red. You substitute my formula for G into the field equation at the end. It is the source for the field equation's G and inverse square law, not a result of the field equation!

The important fact is the mechanism for gravity, which is proven uniquely.

Also, please note that general relativity made some mistakes in cosmology. It can be used for anything, from static to expanding universes, by the use of cosmological constants.

It is subjective. As a mathematical description it is better than Newton's, because it allows for the correct conservation of the gravitational field potential energy. However, it contains no proof of the cause of gravity.
:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #99
Nigel I agree that Gravity is a pressure inwards, it is the force of contraction actually, and is opposed by, as I have tried to evidence in my signature, the force of 'diffusion' and/or 'expansion', so I got's no problemo with that part, BUT...

If you go to your local gas station, (I suppose they have those where you are too) here in Canada, they will tell you that the "volume (pumped is) corrected to 15 degrees C" because the underground tanks, that they store the gasoline, in is in the ground, below eight feet, and 15 degrees C, is the CONSTANT temperature, down there, winter (In Canada) and summer.

If you check you will find the the Earth's temperature has a very consistant increase, measurable, to depth increase, Gravities activities all the way down to the "Center of Gravity" of the Planet.

In one of the mines, in SA, the temp has been recorded as 56 degrees C, at better then a mile down.

Those parts must be accounted for as well Nigel.

Someone wanted to tell me that "substance state" (as I have explained in this thread) was NOT a gravitational state, as it didn't change the "pathway of the Light", but the reality is that it does.

It passes throught several miles of Atmosphere, and still provides Lumens per sq. ft, yet in penetrating ~1500 ft of Water it is diffused to oblivion, the Lights Go OUT!, the energy diffused out of the pathways, that the light followed, differently from in the Atmosphere, and yess, volume makes a differance.

Notice, that at a depth of water, the coefficients of friction do not (largly) increase even thought the density of the water HAS.

Sooo...
 
  • #100
Friedmann must receive credit for (in 1922) finding the general solutions to the field equations written by Einstein. His solutions predicted exponentially expanding, static, and collapsing universes.

You have not discovered a necessarily changing gravitational constant, for your equation can be derived easily algebraically by assuming that the internal energy of the universe (mc2) is equal to the gravitational energy (GMm/r). The only difference between this and the Friedmann critical density is that in your version you use mc2 where Friedmann assumes that the energy of expanding space is the same as local kinetic energy, or KE=mv2/2 (where v=c). There are some cosmological theories with changing gravitational constants, but such a feature is not necessary to describe the dynamic behavior of the universe.
The most distant stars will not be pushed inward by the effect of surrounding stars, if there are no further surrounding stars.
That's only true relative to our position, but in an isotropic, homogeneous universe there are further surrounding stars.
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).
gravity is not a force at all, just the effect of the geometry of space on matter, and vice versa.
I derive the mechanism of gravity by fluid analogy as general relativity, not by using the field equation. See the notes at the end of the paper on the webpage in red.
you can do that but I don't see how you could come up with anything more than conservation laws that way.
Also, please note that general relativity made some mistakes in cosmology. It can be used for anything, from static to expanding universes, by the use of cosmological constants.
as shown by Friedmann
 
  • #101
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!
 
  • #102
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.:smile:
 
  • #103
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!
 
  • #104
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.
 
  • #105
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

:smile:
 
Last edited:
<h2>What is gravity?</h2><p>Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass are brought towards one another. It is a fundamental force of nature that is responsible for the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies.</p><h2>What causes gravity?</h2><p>The current accepted theory is that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. The presence of mass or energy warps the fabric of spacetime, creating a gravitational field that pulls objects towards each other.</p><h2>How was the cause of gravity discovered?</h2><p>The concept of gravity has been studied and theorized by scientists for centuries. The most famous theory is Newton's law of universal gravitation, which was proposed in the 17th century. However, the understanding of gravity has evolved with the development of Einstein's theory of general relativity in the early 20th century.</p><h2>Can the cause of gravity be proven?</h2><p>While the concept of gravity has been proven through various experiments and observations, the exact cause is still a topic of debate and ongoing research. Theories such as general relativity and quantum gravity attempt to explain the cause of gravity, but there is still much to be discovered and understood.</p><h2>How does the cause of gravity affect our daily lives?</h2><p>The cause of gravity is essential in understanding the motion of objects and the behavior of the universe. It allows us to predict and explain phenomena such as planetary orbits, tides, and the formation of galaxies. Without gravity, life as we know it would not exist.</p>

What is gravity?

Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass are brought towards one another. It is a fundamental force of nature that is responsible for the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies.

What causes gravity?

The current accepted theory is that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. The presence of mass or energy warps the fabric of spacetime, creating a gravitational field that pulls objects towards each other.

How was the cause of gravity discovered?

The concept of gravity has been studied and theorized by scientists for centuries. The most famous theory is Newton's law of universal gravitation, which was proposed in the 17th century. However, the understanding of gravity has evolved with the development of Einstein's theory of general relativity in the early 20th century.

Can the cause of gravity be proven?

While the concept of gravity has been proven through various experiments and observations, the exact cause is still a topic of debate and ongoing research. Theories such as general relativity and quantum gravity attempt to explain the cause of gravity, but there is still much to be discovered and understood.

How does the cause of gravity affect our daily lives?

The cause of gravity is essential in understanding the motion of objects and the behavior of the universe. It allows us to predict and explain phenomena such as planetary orbits, tides, and the formation of galaxies. Without gravity, life as we know it would not exist.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
373
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
193
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Back
Top