Earlier i posted, regarding Gravity, the relevance of the works of Padmanabhan and others like Verlinde,

as they talk in similar ways about gravity as an emergent phenomenon of underlying functionalities, mainly focussed on entropy. I believe Padmanabhan was the first one to make such implications, 1 year before Verlinde.

An overview with very usefull sources at the end is posted on Wikipedia, as i noticed the other day :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

Quoting Markus Hanke on this new information :

"Let us start with a simple fact which, in my mind anyway, has tremendous implications - that one can associate entropy with the event horizon of a black hole, as described by Hawking and Bekenstein in some length and detail. All an event horizon is, is in effect the boundary of a region of space-time; entropy on the other hand is a measure of how many different ways one can arrange a thermodynamic system without affecting the overall dynamics, in other words, a measure of the number of microstates a system has. The surprising fact here is that the entropy of a black hole horizon is afinite, well defined number;this tells us that the region of space-time enclosed by the horizon has a finite, well defined number of degrees of freedom, i.e. amicrostructure. If space-time were smooth and continuous ( or if it contained a physical singularity ), the entropy would be infinite - but it isn't."

>> I've been urged by many on this forum to study physics more detailed before making statements of any kind.

I've wisely taken this advise (after a while ,)), and i've been very very busyupgrading my knowledge on physics in a rather obsessive way, yet still a long way to go. The internet is of course a wonderful instrument for this, if you stick to 'trustworthy sources'. Thus combining it with my abilities of creativity and professional background as a product designer.

Because once we enter the field of a ' mechanical micro-structure ', things get more material, and my background becomes more relevant in a 'discovery process' as a parallel to a design process.

Consequently i've been constructing an 'Aether-model' of gravity that i would like to see consistent with the quantum level.

I studied the problems and inconsistency of previous eather models and have tried to avoid them in my developing hypothesis.

What you argue in your post (quoted above), is perfectly consistent with my proposed model, which is a representation of the microstructure you speak of, and it's dynamics.

The model also brings 'gravity' on a macro- and microstucture together harmoniously.

It also shows consistancy with Newton's laws and Einsteins curvage of space time.That is my micro-structure model shows exactly in a conceptual drawing how classic gravity exists in curved space-time.

It also shows on a micro level how exactly 2 objects of different mass can 'fall' and 'hit' the earth surface at the same time.(image and calculation). It also suggests a parallel (to be further developed) on subatomic level where this attractive motion ought to behave in quantum steps. In other words the harmony of quantum level wave/particle motion with the 'smooth' motion above atomic level.

The model also shows very clearly how the tides work, especially the tidal effect at the moon side of the earth being stronger than at the backside of the earth.

I won't keep it at just words, i will post my model and it's details and arguments (the current state of my hypothesis) when i've made it more visually representational, no later than 3-4 weeks from now.

Mean while i've taken it to 'peer' review with a very intelligent friend scientist who was very surprised by the hypothesis and the consistency of it's implications.

Just observing that a knowledgable man like Markus is taking a course as he describes, is very supporting to my findings.

I would very much after posting it, receive comments and ideas, as well as serious critique that points out mistakes of any kind. The goal is to improve the model, because it is always incomplete.

So i don't aim to be 'the smartest', i'm not, but as i stated earlier, i fermly believe in synergy :

complementary knowledge of different people working on the same problem will give much better results than individuals working in confinement.

Healthy debate is what is needed.

>>Here's the Introduction i wrote as a preface to my work on a new hypothesis :

G-... : ...

1.Preface

To observe and understand reality, be it far away or close by, be it at subatomic level of scale or at galactic level of scale, we have developed a series of therms to describe and understand this reality.

Examples are temperature, entropy,energy, gravity,quantum, attraction, time, space-time, curvage of space-time, elasticity, pulling , pushing, mathematical derivations, symbols in mathematical equasions.

We use these therms to better understand reality and better structure it, but in doing so , we don’t really describe reality itself.

Our observations and calculations only provide us with a derivation on a certain level of scale, of what reality really encompasses .

The real question is : " What is it that which it IS. " (As the French say literally “ Qu-‘est-ce que c’est ? ”)

So when trying to describe the underlying functionality, the basal mechanisms of how reality is constructed at it’s core, the above therminology only consist of emerging phenomenons.

So when intending to clarify theunderlying micro-reality, one needs to apply another therminology that is free of phenomenon vocabulary, in other words a basal kind of essential language is needed to discover the unifying underlying principles of how reality is constructed deep down.

In other words : one cannot use the descriptional therms mentioned above to explain the underlying principles and structural dynamics.

I am aiming here to provide insights in the unifying principles that clarify the above mentioned phenomenons that describe reality. In other wordsdeconstructing the apparent synergyinto it’s basic components to arrive at the essential working principles of things.

2.Goal of this paper

This paper focusses on unravelling the functional principle of one of the 4 forces of nature,

Gravity, in order to better understand the unifying principles that rule all 4 forces.

A hypothetical model of gravity-mechanics will be developed, which also must lead to consistency with the other 3 forces

3.Operational framework

The following ‘a priori modus operandi’ is applied to reach this aim :

*There is a unifiying functional system at work that explains the 4 forces of nature

(Electro-magnetical, weak binding, strong binding and gravitational force.)

*Phenomenon-vocabulary (see start of preface) must be avoided in clarifications of any kind, but must be used for assessments of their credibility.

*To zoom in on reality itself at it’s deepest level, one must leave the relativistic point of observation and clarify on a micro-level the inert situation of reality.

*There is no such thing as the smallest particle.

*Continuously deconstruct the apparent synergy (phenomenons) into it’s basic components.

*Continuous alternate between helicopter vision and micro-vision.

*Continuous alternatation between creative and logic idea-formation and assessment based on observations.

4.Build-up towards the hypothesis

The approach of Newton and Einstein to explain gravity has lead us to a certain ‘status quo’ of understanding.

Newton explains gravity as a phenomenon in which masses attract each other proportional to their masses product and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. And here gravity exists instantly.

Einstein explains gravity as a phenomenon where space-time is curved. And here gravity exists at the speed of light.

It is however unclear how this ‘gravity’ does it’s work between for instance 2 masses.

-Is there a magician at work in the earth with supernatural hand-technique to pull the moon towards earth ?

>No, one should rather interprete gravitational pull as a metaphore, an apparent phenomenon, that veils the underlying system of movement of the particles as being propagated in a medium, in this case apparently being pulled towards each other.

-Is space-time really being curved ?

>No, one should rather interprete the space-time curvage as a metaphore, an apparent phenomenon,

that veils the system of movement as the possible paths to be taken by the attracted particles, in this case apparently following the curvage in space-time.

We establish here the assumption that particles in a gravitational condition are propagated in a certain medium.

This is also what Einstein and Newton believed, besides the developement of their laws and theories, yet without further specifying what the medium was or the mechanisms encompassed.

Quantum physics is moving into these explanatory directions, attempting to refine the work of Newton and Einstein on a micro-level.

Of course this 'new model of movement', this system of behavior of particles of any size,

must comply to the established laws and theories of Newton and Einstein,

as well as to the observations made in this area of science.

This is the frame of reference in which one should asses the credibility of any new gravitational model.

5.Hypothesis

...