Why does gravity "attract"?

[RWS]

And quantum physics is now disproving all those human concepts of numbers and time. Because they are all human concepts that we are so latched onto.

A particle can be connected to any other particle in the universe, and affect that particle instantaneously, regardless of distance.

So time goes out the window, and distance means nothing. It's a human concept of measurement for day-to-day calculations. It does not exist in the universe. The universe is a perpetual "NOW".

Oh, and I'd love to describe why a wormhole theory is impossible to travel across time. And when I say it, you're gonna smack yourselves about how simple it was to prove it's impossible!


The point of this thread is to make you realize how little you actually all know. And the abundance of wonders that await us in the future. So please do not lock yourselves into a particular way of thought, but allow new thoughts and considerations, and determine how they could possibly work. And discuss things, rather than just outright dismissing and ridiculing them.

Because once in a while, you run into someone like me, that embarrasses the self-appointed "debunkers", that bring nothing to the table except ridicule, to try to make themselves look "smart" or "popular" or give themselves some sort of "Forum Viagra"...

 

[RWS]

Don't get me wrong, I love math and science, and how they allow us to calculate things. That's what I'm all about. But it's not the method the universe uses. It's the method we use to perceive the universe.

And we're learning new things every day. My theory is about how gravity is not actually a "force" or some unknown particle that causes the illusion of attraction. It's the combination of the warping of space caused by mass, along with its motion that make things "seem" to attract. But in reality, everything is going in a straight line from everything else, and just following the curvatures caused by mass. Now, why does mass create a warpiture/curvature? That's a different question and a good one! I'm only discussing the chase to find a "gravitron" or some other particle that causes the attraction. The attraction is caused by the warpature and motion. No particle necessary. Now why does mass stretch space around it? I've been thinking about that for a long time, and thinking of a way to state it in words. I can perceive an idea in my head, but don't know how to explain it well enough for a stranger to understand (i mean someone who hasn't been thinking the same thoughts).

 

[RWS]

And I know that the Higgs-Boson particle may be what gives matter its mass, and stretches space around it. That's a great discovery. But it still doesn't explain the illusion of attraction caused by its presence. That's what I was trying to get at... The Earth is not getting "pulled" in by the sun. The space around us is getting pulled in by the sun as it moves along. If the sun were to suddenly hit the brakes, the Earth would continue travelling away in a straight line.

 

[waltky]

I always had a problem with the concept..

... of a second squared in physics...

... how do ya square a second?

 

[RWS]

I think I know you

Just wanted to see.

Good to see you again!


Unless I'm wrong, and then you're still a very funny poster!

 

[RWS]

Because if you are who i think you are... HIGH FIVE!!!! I've missed your insights and wisdom and perfect one-liners!!!!

If not... Oops, it's the beer! Still like you anyway!

 

[RWS]

Now if you can imagine that in a 3d environment, it means that the space being sucked in as a mass moves along, has to be let out somewhere. Because space is being drawn into the center of the mass as it moves. As it continues to move, the space has to be let go somewhere. And this applies to all matter.

Somewhere, for every particle that has mass in the universe, there is a repulsive effect of that matter in terms of what we perceive as gravitational attraction.

 

[RWS]

Maybe that's "dark energy" and useless to us.

Or maybe it's a way to harness a power source that is within everything around us.

 

[RWS]

For everything that happens, including "attraction" caused by warped space, there's going to be an equal and opposite reaction.

When we can harness those reactions, we will create wondrous things.

 

[Boston1]

I played for a while in optical physics and we had our own little theory at the office about why its so hard to study gravity. Speaking of which there is no consensus about what gravity is. Oh we can calculate it, and we can use it in Newtonian physics and orbital mechanics very accurately. But what is it ?

Thus far 1/3 of scientists who dig into this one seem to think its an effect, others think its a force and the rest either won't forward a guess or just admit we don't really know, which is likely the most accurate answer.

If its a force its one that exists within a very very high frequency range such that its outside of our observational capabilities. If its an effect then we're screwed when it comes to playing with it much. What we do know is its mass dependent. And that mass can be manipulated.

My own pet theory is one that gets a few good reviews and a few bad. The metrics are difficult to compare but if they could be then the following would be a reasonable proof of why by cooling off a substance to near quantum zero we alter mass.

If E = MC^2 and E = HV then M = HV/C^2 In which case the only variable on the equation side is V which in this case constitutes a frequency or orbital period dependant on the existence of a energy in this case quanta of energy. Or quantum energy.

At which point I'd point out that while people speak of quantum physics all the time nearly none actually know what a quanta of energy really is.

Just for the record its the minimal amount of energy needed in order to maintain a electromagnetic field.

So my idea is to cool a material to near quantum zero where there might be enough energy left to prevent the material from degrading into its constituent components, at the same time as accelerating the material which as we all probably know has the effect of increasing mass.

IE we can manipulate mass using cryogenics while accelerating to relativistic speeds.

So how does this effect gravity

The effort to lower mass through manipulating the materials natural frequency is step A. By reducing that frequency it seems logical that we would reduce mass. We know that by increasing frequency we increase mass so the opposite is most likely also true.

But what if we didn't just reduce frequency. What if we went past the zero point and imparted an opposing field, frequency on the material. What would it do ?

Likely turn into mush but if a material could be made to tolerate quantum zero temperatures then we'd at least be able to experiment.

 

[RWS]

You're almost on it! There is no force. It's the effect of motion.

But you bring up some really good stuff!

Most materials flying through the universe are at near absolute-zero temperatures. But by reducing frequency, you do not reduce mass. You just reduce the rate of interactions between particles in that mass.

Now, when you go beyond the zero point, you're getting into something that I'm gonna get into with my gravity stuff, where it has to have an outlet, where stuff is the reverse of what we consider the norm.

High Five!

 

[Boston1]

I don't see gravity being an effect of motion, it seems to be an effect of mass. or a consequence of it but either way when we consider the gravitational fields of various orbital objects their orbital velocity as I recall isn't really considered. Its part to the number already. If you break down that number ( gravitational coefficient ) the number is a standard because unless one is talking about relativistic speeds ( which by definition comprise a time component ) then there is no consideration of rotational velocity.

Its been a long long time since I worked out any trajectories using orbital mechanics or Newtonian physics but I don't recall motion being a defining factor of gravity. We have a gravitational constant. Which is so for this and a few other reasons.

 

[RWS]

See my previous example of space, and how matter stretches that space, and how it does not attract further.

Regardless, gravity is not a force. And that's what people are stuck on based on the textbooks, and what I'm trying to point out. The first 3 fundamental forces can explain gravity, when you use motion.

 

[RWS]

The main reason we cannot unify the forces, is because we're stuck on an imaginary force.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When it comes to time and gravity, we're the Flatlanders and our limited 4 dimensional world view makes it almost impossible to grasp.

 

[RWS]

Absolutely!

 

[Boston1]

OK lets look at this from another perspective. You seem to be saying that if we stopped a planet or sun in its tracks and it wasn't moving, it wouldn't have the same gravity. I don't agree. Gravity seems to be a consequence of mass not motion.

Once you get up into relativistic speeds there's a change in energy and ergo a change in the "amount" of mass. But the gravitational constant remains the same and its the energy component that is increasing. Since E = MC^2 and C is a constant if we increase E we must increase M in order to balance the equation. Since we know we are not directly increasing mass of a moving object and we know we have to increase energy to increase speed then its verifiable through mathematical analysis that its the energy component that is responsible for the increase in mass and not the speed component.

Ergo the idea that speed is responsible for mass is flawed at the most basic level.

Sorry to shoot down your idea but I just don't think it works out.

 

[RWS]

The warpature of space is due to the mass. But that warpature does not pull anything further, unless it moves.

So if we stopped a sun in it's tracks (with respect to the source), it would have the same warpature, but everything around it would just go in their own almost-straight line. The sun itself is not attracting matter. Nothing is attracting matter. It's just a curvature of space along with motion, that causes that illusion.

All objects are moving in a straight line.

Your other part of the equation, is exactly what I'm trying to say is wrong. And in my examples, mass is moving at a constant pace, based on the initial blowout from the universe. Every single particle is moving in its own direction from the initial big bang. Every single particle moves in a straight line from there. Warpature of space along with the motion, makes things appear the way they do, and why we're here talking about this.

Stop that motion, and we disperse like our own "big bang".

 

[RWS]

And I don't mean to say that e=mc2 is wrong, because it isn't for our usefulness. It is correct for all means that it is needed for.

But there are greater things. And new equations will be necessary once we can detect the quantum effects in our reality.