This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Gravity is not a particle exchange

24 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Here is an explanation of my theory of gravity. I rarely talk about it, but felt like sharing with my friends here. I know there are some of you out there interested in these things. So here it goes. Gravity is not a particle exchange and here is why. Enjoy.

Gravity is a space/time dynamic that manifests between energy of mass (occupy a volume of space) and non-mass (either photons or even apparent empty space – the space between energy of mass and non-mass). There is an analogy that helps (and I must stress help, but not exact) explain how gravity works. Consider spherical whirlpools are energies of mass (volume of space) and water as energy of non-mass volume of space/time (like a photon). Every where a spherical whirlpool moves through the water it displaces the non-whirlpool like energy of the water. In other words, place a ball in water, every where the ball is, the water is not, and this dynamic of mass and non-mass (or space lacking any apparent energy – including the possibility of virtual particles) creates an ongoing (perpetual) motion between the different states of space/time.

There are really three states being described here with a possible fourth. The three possible states of space/time (could we say it ontology?) are mass volume energy, non-mass energy, and potential energy volume, and the possible fourth appears around black holes and individual mass particles them-selves. The possible fourth is something I will get to in a little while. With these three possible states of space/time gravity can be explained in an entirely different way than particle exchange.

Let’s return to the water and spherical whirlpools analogy, and I will use ball instead of ‘spherical whirlpool’, which represents mass, and the ball can expand and contract relative to the amount of ‘energy’ held within its energetic state. The ball holds this property of expanding and contracting as something inherent, it is an intimate quality of the interaction of mass and non-mass (this interaction is explained at the end). Next, imagine a ball moving through water, and as the ball moves through the water everywhere the ball is the water is not. However, in this analogy the ball is a spherical whirlpool, and thus, made of the water. Therefore, the spin dynamic of the whirlpool creates the ‘surface’ between mass and non-mass, although, there really is no separation in space/time itself. So, everywhere there is mass there is not any non-mass. As energies of mass move through space/time they displace the non-mass state of space/time. This is a Real space/time dynamic and the basis for the appearance of gravity. The following requires a bit more imagination. In space/time energy of mass creates a dynamic that I call ‘law of displacement replacement’. It says that as energy of mass moves through space/time it must displace non-mass space/time with itself, and as it moves along the previous place the energy of mass volume was located must be replaced with energy of non-mass. This creates a flow of mass and non-mass in space/time.

Now, let’s imagine that we pull a plug from a drain at the bottom of a pool and when we do all the water rushes down the hole, and anything floating in the pool will feel the tug of the water as it flows down the drain. Moving along here, now let’s think about the Earth; pretty much everything we see in space from stars, planets, humans, and so forth can be viewed in the same light of gravity. The Earth is made of an enormous amount of mass; however, if we zoom in on this mass we will notice vast space (energy of non-mass) or emptiness between the energies of mass. The Earth appears as a sphere (not perfect) or a coagulation (gathering of energies into a sphere) spinning and moving through space/time. Everywhere the Earth moves the state of non-mass space/time must be displaced, and the very dynamic of the rotation also generates another flow towards the center of the Earth, and this is gravity. [removed sentence - does not help]

Now, I can get to the fourth state of space/time I alluded to earlier. This fourth state comes from black holes and is around each and every appearance of mass volume, it is the manifestation of the ‘surface’ between mass and non-mass. The appearance of mass creates an energy of resistance around each volume of mass, and the more our ball of mass expands the greater the resistance around and at the ‘surface’ of the volume of mass. Add more energy to the mass and the sphere expands; take energy away and the sphere contracts. Now imagine a black hole and how it would interact in this scenario of gravity. There would be an enormously impressive field of the fourth state of space/time around and especially at the event horizon of the black hole. But, because the energy is of such subtlety it is hard to measure and notice, yet it has an incredible effect in nature. My guess is that this stuff is what science is terming dark matter and dark energy. It also explains why energy of mass is never still or not moving. The resistance of non-mass to mass creates the energy of perpetual motion on the quantum level, which ultimately has macroscopic effects.

This explanation of gravity works exactly the same on the macro as it does on the micro and quantum. It also explains why gravity is so weak on the quantum level verses electromagnetism. Gravity is not a particle exchange, and that is why as long as science views gravity in the same light as electromagnetism they will remain lost about how it actually works. I can say more, but it requires lots of explanation. I have been thinking about this since 1999. I have posted it at a few other forums, but no one knows what to do with it, including me. My math is horrible so don’t ask me about it. This is only the metaphysics.

Please share any thoughts.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you saying, in a nut shell, that gravity is the result of a resistance within an invisible field that is created by the result of friction between "mass" and "non-mass, and also as a result of energy created by moving mass displacing non-mass (as the mass moves, obviously), with that energy being sucked into the mass, which creates a sort of force similar to a vortex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How does this differ from the standard General Relativistic description -- that gravity is the movemnt of objects tracing geodesics in curved space? By "curved space," it is not meant that there is a literal space that is curved (unless one is a spatial substantivist) but rather that in the presence of massy objects, other objects follow curved paths; the massier the object the greater the curvature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

:glug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Relativity does not explain gravity on the quantum level, in other words, curved space is as far as Einstein got, and he had no vision of the actual physics. This theory easily bridges that gap. For my other friend, yes, gravity results form a space/time dynamic of mass and non-mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm not sure if it's because I'm not quite getting your theory, but there are some things that still puzzle me. For example, why is gravity stronger towards the centre of a mass? Gravity is stronger at the centre of the Earth than it is on the crust, for example. Can you explain this?

Also, how does, for example, the indiscernible movement of Sol against the vacuum of space create enough friction to create this invisible energy field? Is the energy field created by the heat of the friction? If so, why does the heat of Sol not create such a field, and how does the Earth create such energy without becoming (in the upper atmosphere, at least) at least as hot as Sol?

Also, how does this take into account the fact that the strength of one object's gravitational pull on another is dependent on their relevant mass, in that for an object to have a gravitational effect on another, it must be massive in comparison to the other object?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure if it's because I'm not quite getting your theory, but there are some things that still puzzle me. For example, why is gravity stronger towards the centre of a mass? Gravity is stronger at the centre of the Earth than it is on the crust, for example. Can you explain this?

Also, how does, for example, the indiscernible movement of Sol against the vacuum of space create enough friction to create this invisible energy field? Is the energy field created by the heat of the friction? If so, why does the heat of Sol not create such a field, and how does the Earth create such energy without becoming (in the upper atmosphere, at least) at least as hot as Sol?

Also, how does this take into account the fact that the strength of one object's gravitational pull on another is dependent on their relevant mass, in that for an object to have a gravitational effect on another, it must be massive in comparison to the other object?

First question: Gravity's strength is based on density/mass and rotation. The closer you get to the center of the Earth the more gravity you experience (relative to the surface) because there is greater density towards the center.

Second question: There is no creation of a field. It is already inherently present. Example: inside a vacuum we still measure virtual particles appearances and disappearances. We can't remove space/time from a vacuum. The volume of space/time that is absent of all energy (mass and non-mass) is still present, it exists in a state absent of all types of energy. So, space/time exists in three states of existence; mass, non-mass, and volume absent of all energy. The logic here says that empty space/time cannot exist in the same volume of of space/time as mass. This is the core of the dynamic.

Third question: my quote "is generated from the rotation of the planet, thus, the speed of rotation and density of the planet (or whatever) generates gravity towards the center." To a degree, get closer to the center of mass one will experience an increase in gravity.

More density and more spin, more gravity. Keep the same density and add more spin you get more gravity. Keep the same spin and add more mass, more gravity. The theory works for all ways gravity works.

Gravity is the flow of space/time itself.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I see what you're saying, but you're just telling me what all the other theories of gravity tell me, which is that increased mass equals increased gravity. As to the other part of your theory, that increased (faster?) rotation equals increased gravity, that is a new one, and I can't think of any established theory or equation that explains gravity by means of rotation of a large mass. Can a significant amount of mass compensate for the lack of rotation relative to the objects on which the gravitational pull is acted upon? What reason do you have for making your claim regarding rotation?

I am also confused for another reason: whence comes this energy field, and how is the friction between mass and non-mass strengthen or maintain it? Also, if these fields are essential for gravity, why is gravity stronger towards the centre of a mass, which is where there would surely be less room for this field, since there is a considerable lack of non-mass for the mass to act upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Gravity falls off in accord with the inverse square law under either Newton or Einstein, and the rotation of the earth has neglible effects in both theories. I don't understand what this "friction between mass and non-mass" is about. Everything except photons has mass, with photons having zero rest mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Gravity falls off in accord with the inverse square law under either Newton or Einstein, and the rotation of the earth has neglible effects in both theories. I don't understand what this "friction between mass and non-mass" is about. Everything except photons has mass, with photons having zero rest mass.

What he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What he said completely contradicts your theory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are a silly person. It does not. :whoo: Maybe.....

I don't know the math, and I don't see any reason why the math for gravity does not work in my theory. So, no new math is needed, and the current mathematics works fine. If you or someone else can word this in a way that allows me to see my mistake that would be great. :behindsofa:

If I am missing something some where please point this out. So far no one has done that, I think.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Dave T quote: "I am also confused for another reason: whence comes this energy field, and how is the friction between mass and non-mass strengthen or maintain it? "

The appearance of mass in a non-mass volume means that non-mass space/time has been displaced by mass, and there is a boundary/surface between or at the barrier of mass and non-mass (created by the spin), and this is where all the energy of the Law of displacement replacement works. It is also where the dark energy and dark matter come into play. I would suggest using the same mathematics to understand the distance and intensity of the dark energy and dark matter generated from the appearance of mass in space/time, in a vacuum as one uses to understand gravity. My math is not more advanced than being able to add how many hamburgers I can eat. The star movement in galaxies seems to follow the idea that around black holes there is the subtle presence of a warped space that goes out to extreme distances from the black hole, thus, stars are moving around the same speed throughout the galaxy and leading to the idea of there being more mass, when it really is the warped form of space/time from the black hole that creates the physics. Will be back later to look over my comments and think more about this whole thing. Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You are a silly person. It does not.

Yes, actually, it does. davidm is saying that the effect of rotation on an object's gravitational pull, if any, is negligible. Said poster is also saying that the mass-vs-non-mass theory makes no sense, because everything has mass. He makes a good point here; the only thing that has non-mass is nothing, as in absolutely nothing. It is not possible for energy of any kind to come from nothing, and what you describe as mass displacing non-mass is either going to be mass moving through nothing (and thereby displacing nothing), or mass displacing more mass, which is why your theory is, at best, tenuous, although I would go so far as to call it bogus.

.

I don't know the math, and I don't see any reason why the math for gravity does not work in my theory. So, no new math is needed, and the current mathematics works fine. If you or someone else can word this in a way that allows me to see my mistake that would be great.

If you don't know the math, you can't assume with any reason that it will work fine with your theory. :bonk:

If I am missing something some where please point this out. So far no one has done that, I think.

Well, an explanation of how gravity works that actually makes sense when used in conjunction with what is actually known about gravity would be a good start. :nod:

Perhaps some evidence or at least a credible argument for the existence of these energy fields you talk about would also be nice. :yup:

Oh, and if you could tell us how the rotation of an object creates this energy field, which you claimed earlier is not created, but is already inherently present, that would be lovely. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This is kind of an ontological v. epistemological discussion. Epistemically, we can observe how gravity behaves, and create predictive models of it. We have the Newtonian model, which was superseded by the Einsteinian model, and this model will also have to be superseded by something else if general relativity and QR are to be brought under the umbrella of an overarching model, since right now the two models are incompatible.

If we ask what gravity IS -- what its ontology is, what it is irrespective of our epistemic models -- nobody knows. It's not even clear that it's a meaningful question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

mass-vs-non-mass theory makes no sense, because everything has mass. He makes a good point here; the only thing that has non-mass is nothing, as in absolutely nothing. It is not possible for energy of any kind to come from nothing, and what you describe as mass displacing non-mass is either going to be mass moving through nothing (and thereby displacing nothing), or mass displacing more mass, which is why your theory is, at best, tenuous, although I would go so far as to call it bogus.

There Never is the existence of nothing. Virtual particles do not come from nothing. Virtual particles appear in vacuums. In other words, there is a metaphysical medium that is present (existence is never nothing or real emptiness) even in a vacuum, which I called 'potential energy volume' in the original post. As I said before you can't remove space/time from a vacuum.

Photons are non-mass energies and they interact with mass and gravity and move in curved paths because of it. Mass displaces non-mass space/time; this is the core of my idea. You can't remove existence from existence, and this is why vacuums are not really empty. Be back later.

Hawking radiation.

But, whatever, I have been thinking about this for many years and learned something from all this either way.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Apparently I don't need spin for gravity. And, my theory can work without the added idea that spin effects gravity. I will remove the spin idea and come back with another version. It really is that easy to remove spin from my idea and still get the desired outcome of gravity. This just means that another force in my theory is more important than I originally thought. I just needed someone to plainly say spin means nothing. Be back soon. :]]]]]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ah, so now you're saying that the strength of an objects gravitational pull is entirely dependent on its density, seeing as how rotation has been eliminated from the equation. The denser an object, the greater its gravitational pull, and gravitational pull is stronger towards the centre of an object, because that's necessarily where the object's density is at its peak.

Except objects don't necessarily become denser towards the centre, and Jupiter's gravitational pull is about 2.5 times that of Earth, yet the Earth is a little more than 4 times denser than Jupiter.

Would it be possible for you to explain your theory in a manner that accounts for such an anomaly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The strength of gravity is dependent on both mass and density. Saturn is far more massive than earth, yet also far less dense; in fact Saturn could float on water, if you could find an ocean big enough. As a result, if you could walk on the surface of Saturn (although you can't, since it does not have a surface) you would weigh about the same on Saturn, as on earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I will be addressing your questions soon. Still messing with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ok, here is a reposting of the whole idea, but edited to fit observations.

Gravity is not a particle exchange and here is why. I am going to use an analogy of water and spherical whirlpools to explore the concept of gravity through a new light. Enjoy.

There are really three states being described here with a possible fourth. The three possible states of space/time (could we say it ontology?) are mass volume energy, non-mass energy, and potential energy volume, and the possible fourth appears around black holes and individual mass particles them-selves. The possible fourth is something I will get to in a little while. With these three possible states of space/time gravity can be explained in an entirely different way than particle exchange.

Gravity is a space/time dynamic that manifests between energy of mass (occupy a volume of space) and non-mass (either photons or even apparent empty space – the space between energy of mass and non-mass). There is an analogy that helps (and I must stress help, but not exact) explain how gravity works. Consider spherical whirlpools are energies of mass (volume of space) and water as energy of non-mass volume of space/time (like a photon). Every where a spherical whirlpool moves through the water it displaces the non-whirlpool like energy of the water. In other words, place a ball in water, every where the ball is, the water is not, and this dynamic of mass and non-mass (or space lacking any apparent energy – including the possibility of virtual particles) creates an ongoing (perpetual) motion between the different states of space/time. The density and mass of the coagulated object is directly proportional to the gravity. This also leads me to contemplate the space/time volume of non-mass energy that is displaced by the spin of the mass volume. Similar to a sphere under water there seems to be an energy that presses inward at all points of the mass volume (sphere), and that is gravity. So, the inward pressure at all points on the mass volume by non-mass space/time is gravity, and the more energy/mass (more non-mass displaced) the more intense gravity feels, and the greater the density of mass (displacing non-mass) the greater the energy/gravity appears in that volume of space and/or within the context of the volume of space/time; for example, a planet.

Let’s return to the water and spherical whirlpools analogy, and I will use ball instead of ‘spherical whirlpool’, which represents mass, and the ball can expand and contract relative to the amount of ‘energy’ held within its energetic state. The ball holds this property of expanding and contracting as something inherent, it is an intimate quality of the interaction of mass and non-mass (this interaction is explained at the end). Next, imagine a ball moving through water, and as the ball moves through the water everywhere the ball is the water is not. However, in this analogy the ball is a spherical whirlpool, and thus, made of the water. Therefore, the spin dynamic of the whirlpool creates the ‘surface’ between mass and non-mass, although, there really is no separation in space/time itself. So, everywhere there is mass there is not any non-mass. As energies of mass move through space/time they displace the non-mass state of space/time. This is a Real space/time dynamic. The following requires a bit more imagination. In space/time energy of mass creates a dynamic that I call ‘law of displacement replacement’. It says that as energy of mass moves through space/time it must displace non-mass space/time with itself, and as it moves along the previous place the energy of mass volume was located must be replaced with energy of non-mass. This creates a flow of mass and non-mass in space/time. It also explains why energy of mass is never still or not moving. The resistance of non-mass to mass creates the energy of perpetual motion on the quantum level, which ultimately has macroscopic effects.

The fourth state is something that requires some copious imagination, maybe and hopefully better than mine. The field of displaced non-mass around a volume of mass may manifest something of a field around the mass volume (proportional to the volume displaced, maybe - somehow it seems it should) that expands outwardly from the surface. Back to the whirlpool sphere, it seems that the inward ‘urge’ of non-mass space/time to fill in the mass volume of space/time is also the source of an energy that surrounds every mass volume, and on the macro-scopic level, such as black-holes, this fourth state of space/time would become extreme, and so would the distance of that energies reach. Dark matter may not really exist, instead, this field surrounding black-holes may provide enough force to grab the stuff of the galaxy in the way it appears right now. That could be the extra stuff that explains why stars move the way they do in the spin of the galaxy. This play between mass and non-mass space/time is my suggestion for where to look for the explanations that have come via dark matter and dark energy.

This explanation of gravity works exactly the same on the macro as it does on the micro and quantum. It also explains why gravity is so weak on the quantum level verses electromagnetism. Gravity is not a particle exchange, and that is why as long as science views gravity in the same light as electromagnetism they will remain lost about how it actually works. My math is horrible so don’t ask me about it. This is only the metaphysics.

Edited by Da Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Could you put bold tags around the parts you edited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yea, later though. I basically removed spin, it was useless. I will highlight the 'new stuff' also. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0