Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 2 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Cause of Gravity

  1. #1 Cause of Gravity 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    2
    Cause of Gravity

    When a sphere is placed underwater , it displaces
    it's volume of water and a pressure is exerted over
    its surface area, equal to the mass and pressure
    depth of the water.
    Gravity is the very same cause and effect. The
    Earth displaces it's volume of surrounding space
    and a pressure is exerted over it's surface area
    equal to the mass and pressure density of the
    surrounding space.
    The Earth's spherical surface area is very great
    and the pressure exerted as gravity very small.
    The spherical surface area of the Earth is known.
    The pressure of gravity is known. The mass and
    density of space surrounding the Earth could be
    readily calculated by those with mathematical
    ability.
    To continue to believe that space is an empty
    vacuum is the light of these very real and
    measurable physical facts is the darkness of
    conditioned thinking.
    Long ago we knew the world was flat, just as
    now we know that hydrogen is the the most
    ratified and insubstantial structure of matter.
    We should not allow our present beliefs to
    blind us. We will one day be able to able to
    extend the periodic table downwards, far
    below hydrogen.

    roglev-


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Space is a vacuum, it doesn't have mass or pressure density. It has the complete opposite of that.

    You wouldn't be proposing... some kind of "aether", would you?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,034
    Quote Originally Posted by roglev View Post
    Gravity is the very same cause and effect.
    Evidence?

    The Earth displaces it's volume of surrounding space and a pressure is exerted over it's surface area equal to the mass and pressure density of the surrounding space.
    Mass doesn't displace space, it occupies it.

    The mass and density of space surrounding the Earth could be readily calculated by those with mathematical ability.
    Presumably this is an admission that you can't.

    To continue to believe that space is an empty vacuum is the light of these very real and measurable physical facts is the darkness of conditioned thinking.
    Except that, so far, you haven't given ANY facts, real, measurable or otherwise.

    Long ago we knew the world was flat
    When?

    We should not allow our present beliefs to blind us.
    The way you're doing now?

    We will one day be able to able to extend the periodic table downwards, far below hydrogen.
    This wouldn't be another wild unsupported guess would it?
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 27th, 2014 at 04:58 AM.
    DogLady likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    [1001.0785] On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton
    On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton

    Erik P. Verlinde
    (Submitted on 6 Jan 2010)
    Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.
    Comments: 29 pages, 6 figures
    Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    This nonsense has been spammed across several forums; I suspect just another anti-relativist with a personal theory. My inclination would have been to trash it, but since a few members have already responded I will leave it in Personal Theories, pending further developments. Let's see how this goes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,676
    Yeah, my own theory theorized on something like this. However because space is a vacuum, you would expect the opposite. Of you compare pressure with gravity you should know that while pressure may be everywhere in a fluid, and a gas (imagining a vat in space with no gravity), it kind of dissipates when it touches a solid. This solid sphere under water, has the highest pressure on the outside, and this is gradually decreasing when reaching the middle, depending on the material you are using. However, gravity has the highest effect in the middle of the sphere, and gradually declines when there is more distance between it.

    As i have come to understand gravity (still no idea how it exactly forms) slightly bends space-time, so it gradually pulls matter closer. View it as a bowl of marbles, gravity is the bowl, the marbles is the matter. So this is the model for this already, and it does it's job okay. If you could come up with the cause for this effect to happen, burn loose.. Because i have no idea how to explain this..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by roglev View Post
    When a sphere is placed underwater , it displaces
    it's volume of water and a pressure is exerted over
    its surface area, equal to the mass and pressure
    depth of the water.
    And where does that pressure come from? That's right, gravity. FAIL.
    Last edited by Strange; March 27th, 2014 at 04:45 AM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1
    What is described in the following articles as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself and as an 'ideal fluid' is the aether. Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

    The following article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself.

    [1208.3458] An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction
    arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

    "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."

    The 'back reaction' is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

    The following article describes an ideal fluid which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

    'On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
    arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

    "It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

    The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

    The relativistic mass of the Milky Way is the mass of the matter the Milky Way consists of and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the Milky Way which is displaced by the Milky Way. The displaced aether forms the Milky Way's halo. The relativistic mass of the Milky Way accounts for the speed at which the matter in the Milky Way moves.

    The following article describes the curvature of spacetime as the deformation of continuous media.

    '[1305.5759] Comment on higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
    arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

    "The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

    The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

    The Milky Way's halo is the curvature of spacetime.

    The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

    What is referred to as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

    The pseudo-force associated with curved spacetime is the force associated with the displaced aether.

    Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

    The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

    The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

    '[1212.4176] Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
    arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

    "But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]: where GN is Newton’s constant, is the matter energy momentum tensor and is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by universaljet View Post
    What is described in the following articles as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself and as an 'ideal fluid' is the aether. Aether has mass and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
    You have posted this multiple times before:
    View Profile: gravitational_aether - The Science Forum
    View Profile: mpc755 - The Science Forum
    View Profile: mpc321 - The Science Forum
    (and many other variations of the name)

    It has been thoroughly debunked every time.

    Next, you will repost exactly the same text, with added irrelevant links, and continue to do that in response to every question.
    KALSTER likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    MODERATOR ACTION : Pretty pathetic attempt at sock puppetry, universaljet. Banned.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by roglev View Post
    When a sphere is placed underwater , it displaces
    it's volume of water and a pressure is exerted over
    its surface area, equal to the mass and pressure
    depth of the water.
    And where does that pressure come from? That's right, gravity. FAIL.
    Roglev's reference to the sphere in water is only a parallel idea to gravity. If you consider space as a substance with elastic characteristics, then a sphere placed in it will cause a pressure from the surrounding space that was pushed out of the area it occupied before that placement of the sphere. The sphere would then carry along this space around it (It would have the geometry described by Einstein) Newton's formula could resemble that concept of pressure, if G contained a.o. 1/(space density x 4pi), resulting for his formula in a volume of space (mass/space density : where the mass of the objekt dispaces an equal amount of 'space') exerting pressure on the surface of the sphere (4pi x R²). That is unfinished as i present it, but in line with Roglev's idea, and it also bears resemblence to the holographic principle : 'information' placed on a surface area (Erik Verlinde,'t Hoofdt) and " The holographic principle is a property of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon." (Wikipedia). The difference in pressure at locations further and further away from a mass causes gravity, causes the body in this space to move towards the sphere. This is indeed entropic because along the way the space will regain as much as possible of its degrees of freedom. These degrees of freedom were reduced because of the placement of a body in the space that surrounds the sun, for instance. So when Roglev says that space is not an empty vacuum , and that this substance in coexistence with the body it surrounds causes gravity, i certainly agree. It is that same pressure (fundamental) that causes a fysical system to slow down, expressed by Einstein in his 'time slowing down' (unfundamental) concept. There is no need to call such ideas anti-relativist, they are merely a search for fundamental explanations of gravity. And once this more fundamental explanation has been found, it will still show the value of Einsteins work. And @ Dywydyrr : There are no facts on the continuous nature of spacetime, it is merely assumed to be continuous. Also no facts on time slowing down, that is an extrapolation from the obervation of clocks slowing down, not a fact. Generally speaking, and in support of Roglev : recommend reading pages 1-10, and further, of this man, finally i found someone with a really well functioning brain on the subjekt of gravity, who takes my concepts several steps further , onto the parallel to Einsteins work on tensors etc., as well as Newton's law. By far the most intelligent view on gravity i have ever come across : http://www.spacetime-model.com/files/neutrinos.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    By far the most intelligent view on gravity i have ever come across : http://www.spacetime-model.com/files/neutrinos.pdf
    I'm afraid to say that this link is full of misconceptions and errors; I am not surprised that you consider it "most intelligent", since it is in line with your personal beliefs. That's human nature I suppose, but so far as real physics is concerned, the article is of little value. My advice to you ( which I have given before ) would be to invest the time and resources to thoroughly study a proper textbook on the subject matter, such as Misner/Thorne/Wheeler. Once you have done so, and understand all the maths and physics, then you can argue your point from a position of knowledge. At the moment it seems to me that you are actively seeking out only those bits of information which are compatible with your beliefs, while ignoring everything else.

    I'll give you two examples of why the article is of little value :

    In order to get a relativistic tensor, Einstein included the 4D “four-vectors” of special relativity in fluid mechanics. Thus, the original 3D Cauchy–stress tensor became the 4D energy–momentum tensor (Fig. 1, next page).
    This is not correct. The energy-momentum tensor reduces to the Cauchy tensor in classical 3-dimensional mechanics ( and in this sense generalises it ), but this is not how it is defined. The real definition is that the energy-momentum tensor is the conserved Noether current of space-time translation invariance through Noether's theorem :

    http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kl...-7-conslaw.pdf

    It therefore arises from symmetries of the system, which is a lot more general than speeds, accelerations, forces, pressures etc - all of which are just particular applications of this tensor. Also, even though I am not much of a historian, I am pretty sure this tensor was known long before Einstein developed GR, and that Einstein wasn't the one who developed and defined it, especially not by "including 4-vectors in fluid mechanics".



    The first thing here is that is not actually a tensor, because it doesn't transform as one - which is already a fatal flaw, because it renders the above equation physically useless. The next problem is that, because this object isn't a tensor, you cannot consistently trace-reverse the above equation, so it isn't possible to retrieve the usual vacuum equations from it - this model is hence in direct contradiction to observation.

    These are just two obvious examples among a large number of errors and misconceptions. My advice to you - forget about this link and get yourself a proper textbook instead.
    RedPanda and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    @MarkusI am sure it is not all correct, but his approach is not to be underestimated as far as the search for fundamental dynamics of gravity is concerned. It is a path that deserves further investigation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    @MarkusI am sure it is not all correct, but his approach is not to be underestimated as far as the search for fundamental dynamics of gravity is concerned. It is a path that deserves further investigation.
    I don't think you have a strong enough background to make such a statement, Noa. You seem to be basing your hope entirely on your "gut feeling." That's not a reliable guide.

    Why not follow Markus' excellent suggestion of redirecting your energy to a deeper understanding of the mainstream? Really, you cannot expect to go beyond the mainstream if you don't know what the mainstream actually says. MTW is a very good text, and there is a fair amount of online support material.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    It is a path that deserves further investigation.
    A lot of things deserve further investigation, but a prerequisite is that they stand on a solid enough foundation. For the scenario at hand, I do not think that is the case, because the field equations given in that paper contradict empirical data in that they do not yield the correct vacuum solution.

    Have you heard of "Superfluid Vacuum Theory" ( SVT or BEC ) ? Perhaps it is something that might be of interest to you, given the nature of your own ideas :

    Superfluid vacuum theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I wouldn't consider myself a "fan" of this, but I certainly do acknowledge that it is an interesting idea; in particular, it does not contradict any available empirical data while providing an alternative and quite fascinating approach to the problem of quantising gravity. SVT is considered a viable candidate for a theory of gravity, and there is independent research into it going on at the moment. At the very least you should have a read through the link above.

    All we are trying to say to you ( some more harshly than others ) is that, if you wish to investigate alternatives to standard GR, make sure you pick approaches that are viable, have a solid theoretical foundation, and do not contradict empirical data. Then follow the scientific method - hypothesise, investigate, compare to empirical data, and reject/rework/expand the idea accordingly. It is hypotheses that conform to these basic requirements that indeed deserve further investigation.

    Btw, there are a number of other alternatives to GR - if you like I can provide a couple of links for you, just in case something in there is of interest. I would much rather help you out in finding viable alternatives than see you waste time with unworkable approaches, or worse still, go down the crank route.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Space is a vacuum, it doesn't have mass or pressure density. It has the complete opposite of that.

    You wouldn't be proposing... some kind of "aether", would you?


    No space is not a perfect vacuum. In fact, there is no true perfect vacuum. And of course space has a pressure, it has a stress energy tensor that will product a pressure in space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2013, 07:46 PM
  2. Gravity, anti gravity and the flow of time
    By drwelch in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 18th, 2013, 04:21 PM
  3. Pull gravity versus controversial Push gravity
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Physics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 12th, 2012, 11:06 PM
  4. Real Gravity vs. Pseudo-Gravity
    By kojax in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 18th, 2012, 12:20 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 29th, 2012, 01:06 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •