How can gravity be a primary force of anything?

So every action is a product of another opposite and equal reaction?Then there is no primary action without a reaction that caused it. The old"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" eventually they will find that the primary "thing" is really 2 opposite things that went in opposite directions, rather than 1 "thing", similar to 2 compression springs being held compressed against each other, then simultaneously released: one goes one way, the other goes the opposite direction.When the BIG BANG created our universe, an equal and opposite Bang created another universe of equal mass somewhere else.

"That's my story and I am sticking to it...."

That could be true only if the entire universe were involved in the big bang. what if the big bang was only within our galaxy? could that be how additional galaxy's are created within the universe to keep it ever expanding? Are we speeding towards andromeda or are andromeda and the milkyway both expanding and therefore "appear" to be racing towards each other?

If our gravity is pushed in from an electromagnetic atmospheric shell around earth, then it would have a force outward as well. This might just be how the earth rotates around the sun with the other celestial bodies, but they do not "crash" into each other. take this outward even further and find the same reason for the planets to stay in an orbit within our solar system, with the sun in the middle. keep going further and apply this to our galaxy. Why do we orbit in a co-planer orbit, (i think that is the correct term) within our solar system and again within our galaxy? If the shell of the solar system is an electromagnetic sphere with equal and opposite force inside and outside the shell, then everything within it would balance at the center. That is, our solar system would have a north pole and south pole perpendicular to the plane of rotation. so would our galaxy. that would certainly explain alot. Take a look at the sombrero galaxy. It is a great visible example.

Rubish..........

Do tell.

Rubish you say. I ask you then, how flat IS the earth. It seems funny to me that no one can tell me exactly what gravity is, but anyone can ascertain what it isn't? (yes, a question mark!)

That would be "Rubbish".......

No. They got the stitches because they went to the doctor and presented with a wound. They got the would because they have skin. Etc, etc.

I like to keep an open mind, usually due to the fact that when we are absolutely sure something is "true", we also sometimes find that our truth is false. Like the discovery of neutrons, protons, and electrons. It was belived that the atom itself was the smallest, but we were wrong then. Who's to say we're not wrong about other things.

One day I had come across a java applet depicting the magnetic fields of a simple bar magnet. You could click and drag to "show" the fields from a calculation. As it wrapped around from N to S it created the shape of a funnel, down to the center of the magnet. I only know so much about astronomy, but I remember that black holes are believed to have a funnel shape. Then there was a discovery channel show about supermassive black holes in which they believe they've found these black holes in each galaxy. I haven't given it much thought since then, but I had the idea that maybe the black holes create gravity in each of the galaxies.

At that time I did a little research on magnets and black holes only to learn about a movie called "The Philadelphia Experiment". From what I remember about the movie Einstein and several others created a huge magnetic field around a Navy ship. The ship was also supposedly sucked into a "hole" and disappeared for some time. Two men were supposedly sent to the future...etc. I figured maybe the magnetic field(s)? that create gravity may be from the black holes. Maybe Einstein created his own black hole.

These are just my thoughts...

Put in a call to the spiritual world and tell old Albert he's wrong! It never ceases to amaze at how diverse human thought is.

General Relativity

Main article: Introduction to general relativity

Newton's conception and quantification of gravitation held until the beginning of the 20th century, when the German-born physicist Albert Einstein proposed the general theory of relativity. In this theory Einstein proposed that inertial motion occurs when objects are in free-fall instead of when they are at rest with respect to a massive object such as the Earth (as is the case in classical mechanics). The problem is that in flat spacetimes such as those of classical mechanics and special relativity, there is no way that inertial observers can accelerate with respect to each other, as free-falling bodies can do as they are each accelerated towards the center of a massive object.

To deal with this difficulty, Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by the presence of matter, and that free-falling objects are following the geodesics of the spacetime. More specifically, Einstein discovered the field equations of general relativity, which relate the presence of matter and the curvature of spacetime. The Einstein field equations are a set of 10 simultaneous, non-linear, differential equations whose solutions give the components of the metric tensor of spacetime. This metric tensor allows calculation of not only angles and distances between space-time intervals (segments) measured with the coordinates against which the spacetime manifold is being mapped but also the affine-connection from which the curvature is obtained, thereby describing the spacetime's geometrical structure. Notable solutions of the Einstein field equations include:

• The Schwarzschild solution, which describes spacetime surrounding a spherically symmetric non-rotating uncharged massive object. For compact enough objects, this solution generated a black hole with a central singularity.
• The Reissner-Nordström solution, in which the central object has an electrical charge. For charges with a geometrized length which are less than the geometrized length of the mass of the object, this solution produces black holes with two event horizons.
• The Kerr solution solution for rotating massive objects. This solution also produces black holes with multiple event horizons.
• The cosmological Robertson-Walker solution, which predicts the expansion of the universe.

General relativity has enjoyed much success because of how its predictions have been regularly confirmed. For example:

• General relativity accounts for the anomalous precession of the planet Mercury.
• The prediction that time runs slower at lower potentials has been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment, the Hafele-Keating experiment, and the GPS.
• The prediction of the deflection of light was first confirmed by Arthur Eddington in 1919, and has more recently been strongly confirmed through the use of a quasar which passes behind the Sun as seen from the Earth. See also gravitational lensing.
• The time delay of light passing close to a massive object was first identified by Shapiro in 1964 in interplanetary spacecraft signals.
• Gravitational radiation has been indirectly confirmed through studies of binary pulsars.
• The expansion of the universe (predicted by the Robertson-Walker metric) was confirmed by Edwin Hubble in 1929.

DavidaRheault, your: "Consider this: The earth itself, "pulling", causing gravity does not make sense to me. The "atmospheric shell" of earth electromagnetically "pushing" everything downward makes far more sense." makes no sense whatsoever!

Go and read what Newton said and what Einstein said and about the myriad of tests that have confirmed their views. Then go and think!

Your "atmospheric/electromagnetic shell" postulate does not explain a single gravitational effect, I think. If you know a specific one, with proof, give it to me for consideration. Remember, it rests on the proposer to provide proof/experimental evidence and not on the readers!

Jorrie,

I agree with you on the proof and evidence part, however I am simply introducing parts or Ideas of a bigger explanation of many things. one step at a time. Yes I am short in explanations for now, intentionally so. It is done so to provoke serious thought and discussion on the questions science has failed to "prove". I do not, for a moment, know that i have THE answer, however I seek the understanding of many so I am fully aware of the mis-understandings I must overcome with the application of my understanding of these issues through the experiments I must, and will, provide. I do not yet have access to the high-tech scientific equipment necessary to complete the remainder of these experiments. however, I do have friends and family members who do, who are known physicists, and cal-tech students. as soon as I complete them, I will share them.

David, you wrote: "... through the experiments I must, and will, provide. I do not yet have access to the high-tech scientific equipment necessary to complete the remainder of these experiments. however, I do have friends and family members who do, who are known physicists, and cal-tech students."

An excellent starting point would be to learn all the physics you can from your learned friends first. If you (and them) then still think your theory has merit, good luck to you!

If not, there are always the possibility of a career in philosophy...

There are four known naturally occurring forces in the universe :

Gravitational Force

Electromagnetic Force

Strong Nucleic Force

Weak Nucleic Force

and everything is related to these forces. You spoke of the result of you pushing somebody, well the energy that you used to do this was generated chemically in your body and chemical reactions come under the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force was linked to the weak nucleic force by Glashow, Weinberg, and Salaam who received the 1979 Nobel prize for their work. Of the four the electromagnetic force is by far the most powerful just compare the size of a magnet that can overcome the force of gravity generated by the mass of earth.

Because the gravitational force is so elusive to figure it out what exactly it is, it doesnt mean that the most probable answer to this question will be logical one that 'makes sense'. By analogy, common sense dictates that nothing heavier than air can fly, but today we have 'titanics' flying over our heads regularly. Three thousand years ago (or more) if I tell somebody that we can move a huge boat without rowing (by sailing) , the local people would definetely consider me a wacko in their own language. I think the key to answer the question about gravity will be a combination of something we see in our daily lives (that we dont see today and for sometime) and bit of imagination just like Einstein said. In few words, it is a new perspective. It can be done only by being skeptical of everything, asking 'stupid questions'' (from ortodox science view), answer it mathematically and confirm it by experiment. I looked at Einstein set of equations that is supposed to explain gravity a bit. conceptually, the curved space time due to mass is neat. However, the math equations is diffucult for me to visualize and comprehend. There are some terms that I am not even familiar. Wiki doesnt show how he derived them. I could not find on internet his derivation work paper so I could understand it. Therefore I will not say that Eistein's answer is a valid one, even though experiments confirm it. What you tried is nothing wrong, it is good to ask questions no matter how trivial or silly it is. what I understood from your comment is that electromagnetism and gravity is basically one force. Am I correct? If you say yes, why strong magnets do not lavitate in air? Why I do not see the little atmospheric shell in electromagnets themselves?

No I am not saying electromagnetism and gravity are the same thing I am just comparing strength of the EM force to the strength of gravity. A magnet that weighs a couple of grams can pick up a piece of iron and overwhelm the gravity produced by the earth pulling it down. Look at the size of the magnet compared to the size of the earth. All that I was trying to convey is that most people would expect gravity to be the strongest of the four forces when in reality the EM force is many orders of magnitude greater than gravity.

I believe Einstein tried to tie all the forces together but never managed to do it before he died and to date the smartest physicists have only managed to tie the weak nucleic force and the EM force.

I believe that the electromagnetic field surrounding the earth is magneticall charged oppositely inside and outside, not both on each side. atoms have electrons, neutrons and protons, which are not fundamentally elemental themselves, therefore contain both negative and positive charges. The earth acts like a physical magnet and the atmospheric shell acts like the field, balancing between the earth and space. Why does gravity end when you get to space? Just outside the shell.

The "atmospheric shell" has no effective influence on gravity - the only relationship is the other way round: without gravity, there would be no atmosphere. Also, gravity does not end when you get to space. You can look at the "zero-gravity" conditions in an orbiting spacecraft as a balance between gravitational force and the 'centrifugal' force - the force you would have to apply to a string attached to a weight if you whirled it around, to stop it flying off into the distance.

Fire a bullet straight up into space. As long as it doesn't exceed the escape velocity (about 11.2 km per second), it will drop back to Earth "like a stone" no matter how high it goes. Maybe you could disprove this with your first experiment.

Or are you of the opinion that you can't disprove something by such an experiment, because keep firing the bullets, and one day, one may not come back?

Sorry for the tangent- hopefully this is a good place to ask.

Is centrifugal force truly a 'force' or just proof of inertia/conservation of momentum? In your example the force would not exist without the string attached to the weight. I guess gravity could be considered a 'string' to the space shuttle. If so I would ask why the astronauts are not 'pressed' to the outside of the shuttle. If I were to swing an empty glass ball on a string, the force transmitted through the string would be measurable, and even predictable. I could provide enough energy to keep the ball orbiting, and the weight lifted- I achieve equilibrium.

But if I put anything inside the glass ball ( say 1 marble) and monitor it, in order to achieve the same equilibrium the object(s) will be pressed to the outside edge of the ball during the experiment. Will they not?

I do not agree that the astronauts 'float' due to equilibrium achieved through centrifugal force. It must be some other principle- more like free falling in an elevator.

If you swing your glass ball (with marble inside) in a horizontal plane, the marble will 'stick to the outside'. Swing it in a vertical plane, and you will find a 'swing speed' at which the tension in the string (when the glass ball is at the top) is zero - it's in 'free fall' (tho' moving horizontally and about to be yanked downwards by the string).

At this moment, the marble inside is in 'zero-g' conditions.

[In fact, when the string tension gets to zero, the ball doesn't continue along a circular path; rather, it starts to follow a parabolic path - as it would if the string wasn't attached. This results in you feeling a jolt when the tension is taken up, i.e. when the parabolic path is constrained by the string back into a circular path. Note what happens with a child on a swing when the child manages to get higher than the swing pivots].

A similar effect is used for training astronauts in aircraft flown in a parabolic path (in a vertical plane). While the aircraft is 'going over the top', it is in free fall, and in the inertial frame inside, everything encounters 'zero-g'.

Re. centrifugal (away from the centre) force - this is a kind of made-up thing. The force required to keep whatever in orbit is actually centripetal (towards the centre).

Hope this makes sense.

"Hope this makes sense." At least there is still 'hope'

I appreciate your reply. I understand your distinction, and feel much more confortable with the concept of free falling. And I believe we agree that centrifugal force does not exist without the physical 'string'

Thanks

Mevel123, you wrote, in reply to JohnDG: "I understand your distinction, and feel much more comfortable with the concept of free falling. And I believe we agree that centrifugal force does not exist without the physical 'string'"

While John is right in a Newtonian sense, orbits in a relativistic sense don't, strictly speaking, work with a balance between centrifugal and centripetal ("the string") forces.

The only scientifically correct view is that an orbiting body follows a space-time geodesic, meaning it takes the path of least action through curved space-time. This is so because the simple Newtonian view breaks down if the gravitational field becomes very strong, or if the velocities are very high.

An example is given in this Blog entry.

Ok, Jorrie, you're right again - but don't you think it's more appropriate (in the context of marbles in glass balls on strings, and astronauts in Earth orbit) to keep things to the (much more easily grasped) Newtonian interpretation? After all, nothing in Mevel123s post #22 suggested that any relativistic approach was required.

You wrote of "the path of least action through curved space-time". Is it really necessary to go this deep in such a reply?

Give Jorrie a break, you may be right in stating that my view was limited, and Jorrie's reply was deep. But; one can't control the depth of the water, you can only warn others not to jump in. (I choose only to dip my foot in Jorrie's blog. At least that way it will be cleaner the next time it is inserted into my mouth)

To finalise; I believe (hopefully accurately) that centrifugal force is only existent when the objects are physically connected. It cannot interact through 'space time' or any other relativistic medium as the other forces do. It is a 'parlor trick' albeit a useful learning tool.

I do appreciate both of your efforts to educate me, because that is why I am here.

Sorry for the tangent-it was off topic.

I have not read all of the responses yet, so my comment may be a repetition of someone else, but for what it is worth....

I drop an object while exploring the moon, it falls to the "ground" or surface of the moon. But wait... there is no atmosphere (negligible).

Why does gravity end when I get into space you ask, who says it does?

Any object with mass (regardless of magnitude) has a gravitational force, if two objects are set free in the vacuum of deep dark space, they will attract each other, no other force is required (electromagnetic or otherwise).

The Earth's gravity and that of the moon have great impact on each other (tides etc.) and yet the moon is not within the "shell" of Earth's atmosphere.

One can not build theories on the bases of feedback from others or by putting an imagination without proper logic. Try to write down your model and put that into equantions, which you or others can verify else any one on the road side can talk fiction.

People now are thinking about gravitational force and perhaps want to know why it is so weak or is it really weak? Something that does not interacts normally can't be taken for granted as weak. Perhaps we have not much idea of how explode the gravitational force cell to make it strong. Unless we know exactly where and in which form gravitational force can be associated other than mass, we may find more in depth knowledge. So far it is an effect of the mass which itself is an effect of ......

Big bang, bangs, small and big bangs and bangs of bangs will keep coming as long as people can write equations which others can't solve or ever read understand its details or may be scared to go near it. Is there any theory which explains of why there was a bang at all. Only one thing that I read about cyclic nature of the universe in which there is natural cycle of creation and destruction. For many things we can not answer why? This perhaps is one such. However, scientists can come closer to know about the forces they experience as we can experiment with them. Think and experiment is something we need to do all the time. Even if you write an equation, you are only drawing a line that fits the data or extending the line to see if data fits in.

I personally met Prof Dr. Abdus Salaam. Even though he assumed a model, he believed in experimental data and was looking for funds all over the world. He was very much convinced of whatever he proposed and wanted to know if that is the reality. He never trusted equations alone and was willing to correct the theory if results were against or perhaps might have injected more parameters to his theories. In short span of life, only collective knowledge has scope for the growth of scientific ideas. It really needs a lots thinking and puttings lots of things together that can stand for longer if not forever.

I am looking with some hope to that string theory which may put more ideas on why gravitation force is weak. It gives us chance or hope to open that string somehow oneday and make the spring in action with lots of stored energy it (may not be too much) and that may also become a big bang, which may open a lots of springs and be more powerful than fusion. It is only that I can hope and not that I believe in it.

Shyam,

I have come to understand one thing to be true and absolute.

Science is the process of God.

Religion is the meaning of God.

Philosophy is the understanding of God.

"Until anyone looks at everything fully and equally from each of these three perspectives, they cannot fully or equally understand anything".

This concept is the very foundation of my understanding, knowledge and beliefs.

If you believe at the start point then you may never verify its true nature (true with respect to interactions of one thing with many other things following same rule or some rules). There may not be just one truth as simple as numbers like 1,2 and 3. Truth may be complex wavefunction with different definitions over time and space. Don't do remember that it is hard to generate fusion but it is rather easier to put atoms together to make a solid. Only after knowing that something else rules near deeper side of the atoms, scientists changed their undestanding of one truth to may truths. Why to limit to one truth when there are many.

I do not know what God means to others but for me the God is a very complaex wavefunction of all rules put together that makes all forces to work in a way they are experienced and make some good sense of the world of you and me. Interaction is knowledge and world is interacting only through forces of what you and me call God. There is no need to give any extra name to it.

Without forces, definition of mass and ebergy will disappear and time will go to sleep. It just not happening that way, as we all know. So we try to know more of why it is that way. It is gift to us for sure and we feel indebted for all gifts to us. We feel more as it is the kind of gift that sounds otherwise impossible nature. People thus create an idea of God from whom they feel this gift has come to them to experience. Science is very limited idea to understand what this great gift is. Feel it the way you can feel it. Every box you open will have another box in it. It is real Pandora's Box.

If you believe that the velocity of light is the maximum speed by which any one can get information then God becomes unmanageable idendity for the wast universe. Hence, for the time being I am keeping the theory of God away until we discover one way that is faster in information communication than that of light and goes much much faster than light can ever do. It is somewhat sad thing but that is the mistake of the God of not disclosing more details to us about God's ways of understanding and parting some more knowledge to us. Perhaps, in some other time some other people will have different story than what we have today to feel and experience. Remember that theory of God means that God not only can know but also control everything just like that. Do you think that is Ok with you? Yes, then you can go ahead. I am putting curtain on the my own God's theory for the time being. It is some kind of confusion that diverts from thinking properly, and I will like to avoid it now. I like all those trying to pull all their energy in understanding nature by their limited resources and by other feedback (including that of the ealier discoveries and hypothesises).

"God rules emperically.He does not care about our mathematical difficulties"

-- Albert Einstein

(forgive me Albert, if I paraphased that)

What about Tachyons and anti-particles? Don't they make for a perfect complement to 'normal' particles and energies? Wouldn't a Tachyon, moving asymptotically just above c, be able to transmit information faster than light?

Chris

Chris, you asked: "Wouldn't a Tachyon, moving asymptotically just above c, be able to transmit information faster than light?"

Acording to Wikipedia on Tachyons: "The counter intuitive conclusion is that tachyons (if they existed) could be used to transmit energy-momentum, but they can't be used for communication."

The reasoning behind it is quite technical, but it simply means that although energy can be transferred at above light speed (if tachyons exist), all information coded into that energy is lost (scrambled).

The general theory of relativity addresses the problem of gravity and that of nonuniform, or accelerated, motion. In one of his famous thought-experiments, Einstein showed that it is not possible to distinguish between an inertial frame of reference in a gravitational field and an accelerated frame of reference. That is, an observer in a closed space capsule who found himself pressing down on his seat could not tell whether he and the capsule were at rest in a gravitational field, or whether he and the capsule were undergoing acceleration. From this principle of equivalence, Einstein moved to a geometric interpretation of gravitation. The presence of mass or concentrated energy causes a local curvature in the space-time continuum. This curvature is such that the inertial paths of bodies are no longer straight lines but some form of curved (orbital) path, and this acceleration is what is called gravitation.

Well put (tho' a bit deeper than we need here), but I suspect we're all pi**ing in the wind!

That's a really excellent explanation. Thank you.

If there is no difference between gravity, and acceleration, then gravity IS acceleration. This means that Matter has an associated acceleration field surrounding it. In fact, I believe the nuclear forces are short range acceleration fields as well.

thinking about this, it might mean that Matter is undergoing acceleration. I think this is true. Most people would view matter as very fixed. If you look at the traditional 'orbit' model for atoms, you can understand 'motion'... but how often do you think of matter as 'undergoing acceration'. I think this fact is a key to understanding matter, and energy, and space-time, and of course, gravity.

Chris

Chris,

here is a little more understanding of what I propose.

2.4 million years ago (i am not exactly sure of the number but something like that) our earths gravitational field reversed, north to south and visa versa. I believe this was at a time when the energy taken in to the earth from constant bombardment from space, of energy (x-ray, gamma ray etc.) became less than the energy the earth was giving back, that it had already absorbed. This reversal of energy balance changed the poles. The other thing it does when so imbalanced is invert the atmospheric shell. This inversal slowed down the rate of bombardment from space and provided an environment that we humans could truly evolve in. As you pointed towards, this relates to universal structure, from sub-atomic to the entire universe. I have studied this and it makes absolute sense of sub-atomic structure and behavior to galactic structure and behavior. more later in another thread.

well David... you lost me.

and I can't say I subscribe to the notion of gravity having anything to do with the atmospheric shell. We recieve the light of the sun in 8 minutes. The particles from the sun, which are not moving at light speed take considerably longer to move the 93 million miles or 1 A.U. The Earth's magnetic field (Van Allen Belts) protect us from both, but they have always been there, and I can't conceive of how cosmic radiation could change the fact that the earth's magnetism is generated by the core of the planet moving in a sea of magma, ?? (theory of course)

The core of the planet is inherently magnetic. There is evidence of pole reversal, but the best guess is that it was caused by a very significant impact asteroid impact, or many. Our moon is probably the best evidence that we have for this scenario. It has been hit thousands of times.

The heat within our planet is primarily NOT heat from the sun. There are other processes at work. We simply do not recieve enough heat to keep our the mantle liquid, even given the insulating factor of the atmosphere.

Evolution of life on earth has taken billions of years, and was likely accelerated at several points by 'DNA bearing' meteoric impact. This type of 'punctuated evolution' scenario fits best with the evidence of the fossil record, and meteoric record. There is also the clay tablet explanation from Sumeria which state that we were "Made", and that Neanthal DNA was put together with 'god's image', and the result was "Adamas" or worker.... (Source:Zecharia Sitchin. He also offers a very complete description of solar system formation, from the clay tablet source... very ancient)

Furthermore, I don't think anybody knows any 'absolute sense of subatomic structure" or 'galactic structure and behaviour'. I'm not trying to be disrespectul, but those statements are a bit extreme, don't you think? All these ideas are just Theories, and science is Trying to figure it all out. No one really Knows. Evidence first, then theory.

So, if what you are say is a good fit for the evidence, please connect the dots for me a bit more. I think it is like a 1000 piece picture puzzle. If you put 750 pieces together, and they start to form a comprehensive picture, you can accelerate the assembly of the picture by knowing the basic picture or structure. The image is the thing. Then, you can haggle over the details. you know you may have a few pieces out of place, but you will know the basic picture. We must tie every bit of theory strongly to the evidence, otherwise, the picture is just in our minds, not in reality.

Chris

Ok Chris,

I will try to analagize this for a clearer picture.

Imagine our atmospheric shell as a ball with a zipper to open it up from the north pole to the south pole. on this line from the north pole to the south pole, the "ball" can invert. that is in effect, turn itself inside out. At the point of the poles where the zipper comes to an end, the ball would have very small holes or openings. In our shell, these are where the electromagnetic fields become smallest, forming a sort of circle. This is the weakest point and also the point where the northern and southern lights originate. This weak spot is where the "space dust" if you will, enters our atmosphere, becomes excited and gives us the northern lights.

Our shell now deflects the vast majority of radiation from space, yet holds in energy. Imagine if our shell were the reverse and "attracted" radiation (energy, which "excites" sub-atomic structure) from space for millions, even billions of years, yet still held it in. Also, a large astroid impact would "release" a great amount of energy into our atmosphere and could be the catalyst that caused the "imbalance" of energy.

I purposely did not include the physical earth in the initial proposal to try to get rebuttal about the shell itself. Yes, Earth is the magnet, the atmosphereic shell is the "field" or shell boundry of the magnet earth. My point is, "gravity" is the effect of "electromagnetism" that we feel, not a primary force!

Our moon has come to face the earth from the same "side" as it rotates around the earth. This line I refer to as the "line of invergence". I took a spherical magnet and attached it to a non-magnetic pole with one polarity at the pole and one to the outside. Then attached the pole to bearings so that the pole could spin freely. Then attached it all to a rope so it could swing freely and suspended it above a circular magnetic field with similar polarity on the outside of the field and opposite in the inside. The suspended magnet "always" faced the magnetic field from the same line on the magnet no matter where it was "orbiting" the circular field! just like the moon does to the earth.

I also suspect that this "invergence" is tied to our solar system and at the galactic level as well.

Yes, invergence is a word I hereby "coin".

Yes, I have applied this theory to everything else that I can think of and it seems to fit. It would take hours to explain it all, but it always "fits". Actually, I am trying to get some sort of solid evidence from someone to "burst my bubble". I have spoken to physicists at length, and many others, and can't get any solid reason to even begin to think my overriding theory is not correct.

David, with your "My point is, "gravity" is the effect of "electromagnetism" that we feel, not a primary force!" you have unified gravity and electromagnetism! Einstein struggled for the latter half of his life with this problem and could not solve it.

You said you applied your theory to every case you could think of. This means you must have the mathematics backing all sorted out. So, the only remaining task is for you to publish it in a peer reviewed physics publication...

Be careful though - if your theory implies that our moon shows the same face to Earth due to some electromagnetic effect, or even worse, "being held up there" by your "electromagnetic shell", your credibility will take one massive knock and the chances are that nobody will ever take you seriously.

But let's say your theory stands the scrutiny. Does it make any predictions that differ from the mainstream theories? Can you propose tests to sort out which one is right? If it makes no predictions that differ from the mainstream, then the theory has no justification for existence.

"but how often do you think of matter as 'undergoing acceration'. "

Maybe it is easier to picture masses "constant acceleration" as a result of a constant changing of 'direction' not constant changing of speed. Our entire reality follows a curved environment- 'space-time'. Acceleration equals change in velocity, not speed.

Why do we stick to the earth? I don't know.

There are a few statements coming out in this discussion that are based on flawed logic.

"Why does gravity end when you get to space? Just outside the shell."

Sorry DavidaRheault gravity doesn't stop just outside the atmosphere. If it did then an object in orbit would not be able to stay in orbit and would fly off into space. Every object in the Universe exerts a gravitational force on every other object in the universe according to the inverse square law;

F = K m₁ m₂ s^-2

where

K = universal gravitational constant

m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects

s = distance separating the two objects

"If our gravity is pushed in from an electromagnetic atmospheric shell around earth, then it would have a force outward as well. This might just be how the earth rotates around the sun with the other celestial bodies, but they do not "crash" into each other."

If this is a repulsive force when you get above it what is holding us in orbit around the sun. Your hypothesis would result in there being two repulsive forces on anything in a orbit, the one you postulate and the centripetal acceleration of the orbit. What is opposing these to keep anything in orbit? It would also imply that since it is repulsive then nothing would ever hit the earth from outside which we know isn't the case. You also asked

"Why do we orbit in a co-planer orbit,"

Well Pluto doesn't its orbit is highly elliptical and inclined at 17.15º and for a large part of it Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune. All the planetary orbits are also inclined but to a lesser degree. You further stated

"no one can tell me exactly what gravity is"

Well we can and describe it mathematically as I have earlier we just cant understand what causes it. For that matter what causes and eclectic field around a charged particle and how dose it create a magnetic field? You also stated

"I believe this was at a time when the energy taken in to the earth from constant bombardment from space, of energy (x-ray, gamma ray etc.) became less than the energy the earth was giving back, that it had already absorbed. This reversal of energy balance changed the poles."

So what happens on the Sun when its poles reverse, something that it dose every 11 years? From what you stated then this would change the sun from a radiator to a black hole.

There was also the following statement by Mevel123

"Is centrifugal force truly a 'force' or just proof of inertia/conservation of momentum? In your example the force would not exist without the string attached to the weight. I guess gravity could be considered a 'string' to the space shuttle. If so I would ask why the astronauts are not 'pressed' to the outside of the shuttle."

That would be true if gravity was only acting on the shuttle but gravity is all pervasive and can't be blocked. It is equivalent to having everything including the astronauts and everything in the shuttle being connected via separate pieces of string to the earth. Actually if you analyze a circular orbit using the centripetal acceleration and the concept of a object free falling towards the center of the earth you get the same thing. Something that points towards the concept of gravity being correct since it holds up for both.

DavidaRheault I have no problem with you coming up with you coming up with a hypothesis that gravity is as you have stated but any theory need to be able to explain all the known events and unfortunately yours fall down on several points. But don't let that discourage you from postulating other theories, some day you may even be able to tie gravity and electromagnetic radiation together and finish what Einstein started.

I stated

"Actually if you analyze a circular orbit using the centripetal acceleration and the concept of a object free falling towards the center of the earth you get the same thing. Something that points towards the concept of gravity being correct since it holds up for both."

and Jorrie stated

"While John is right in a Newtonian sense, orbits in a relativistic sense don't, strictly speaking, work with a balance between centrifugal and centripetal ("the string") forces."

And Jorrie, as always, is correct. I should have qualified what I said that the centripetal and falling explanation worked for the most part and came up with the same results. They do however start to fall down at the extremes as mentioned above.

It is not good to believe and extend the knowledge we have on earth to the entire universe as we can not extend the knowledge to deeper in the atomic matter or pure energy. Our knowledge that is acquired on earth need to be verfied outside earth andin space and not to be trusted to be true. There may be zero graving fields in space and we need to hunt for these.

Gravity is known to be singular as well as a collective force from many bodies and always extends beyond the body limits. You can also say that body becomes bigger if any one can experience it. We know the size of anything by forces we experience and not by any rigid identity.

Interesting thing may be to know if gravity force is wasted in binding bodies by gravity. It is also interesting to know if gravity is quantized force within particle size and what makes gravity. Perhaps we need to convert gravity into other forces to know about it more, but it is not giving a way for it now. We can at best use mechanical energy due to gravity.

Good point! According to the thoughts of several cosmologists like "Jonathan Dursi" gravity inside galaxies may well be different then gravity between of galaxies. This could possibly solve the dark matter issue but they also realize that the Big Bang could have produced a Large Particle Non-Baryonic MACHO's that cannot exist inside galaxies amongst typical baryonic atoms. These MACHO's could be converted to some baryon that helps in the galactic evolution process at the edge of galaxies where bright new star formations regularly form. The mystery of the galactic halos. Is it molecular hydrogen gas clouds, star dust from supernovas or MACHO's we cannot see produced during the Big Bang and 24% of our present Universe?

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html

Mistake: The MACHO's word should be changed to WIMP's in all cases in this message.

Guest, you wrote: "This could possibly solve the dark matter issue but they also realize that the Big Bang could have produced a Large Particle Non-Baryonic MACHO's that cannot exist inside galaxies amongst typical baryonic atoms."

This may be slightly off-topic, but since you posted it here, I will respond here.

I think you are confusing MACHOs with exotic particles created just after the Big Bang. According to the MACHO web page MACHOs are "objects like brown dwarfs or planets: these objects have come to be known as MACHOs, for MAssive Compact Halo Objects."

Further, MACHOs have nothing to do with the 23% non-baryonic dark matter - they are part of the 4% ordinary matter, made up of 1% directly observable and 3% non-observed, yet ordinary matter like gas and dust.

So your closing statement: "Is it molecular hydrogen gas clouds, star dust from supernovas or MACHO's we cannot see produced during the Big Bang and 24% of our present Universe?" is a little muddled and needs some revision!

I corrected myself later! I meant WIMP's that are non-baryonic exotic particles. Sorry!

Guest wrote: "I corrected myself later! I meant WIMP's that are non-baryonic exotic particles. Sorry!"

Oops, I was typing my 'critical' reply when you posted your correction, so I did not see that! My apologies.

I guess the MACHO project is realy intended to find out what contributions MACHOs and WIMPs respectively make to the rotation curves of galaxies.

This is all very interesting to me and I have been following it for quite some time. I can see you know a lot about this subject and I'm glad someone was there to correct me. I caught it too late so I've got my MACHO's and WIMP's mixed up for everyone to see. Cosmology fascinates me! I am by day a 62 year old System Engineer with loads of experience. If I had it to do over I would have been a Cosmologist. I love to work with hair. HAHA

Guest, you wrote: "Cosmology fascinates me!"

I'm similar in age and share your fascination. You may want to take a look at my Blog on this Forum, where I post interesting stuff on both cosmology and relativity.

Gravity is simething that belongs to everything we know. There is really nothing that is zero gravity matter or even zero gravity energy. If gravity is also to photons then it gives us more clear picture than when we have a thought of gravity.

With respect to large Particles, much heavy and stable, we have not come across but may be they are near where explosion started rather than away where we are. Some of them might have disintegrated in time but some can survive forever even if they have decay rate. We really have no idea of what is not decaying. We see with respect to our time frame. In millions of years, everthing may be decaying. As for Hydrogen is concerned it should have moved away from everything but some how remained trapped in large amount even on earth. Perhaps it is shuched back from atomosphere and is ever on going process. There may be some equilibrium by now.

Something I just thought of is how dose your theory explain a Legrange point? If it can't then the SOHO satellite is pretty much the death knell.

Read this link to get your explanation, a good research project.

By the By it is LaGrange not Legrange.

Gravity creates geodesic lines that orbital masses follow or local curved space that orbital masses follow. Think of a motorcycle in a velodrome for a minds eye view.

If the Sun instantly disappeared 8.3 minutes later Earth would have no geodesic lines to follow and we would fly off on an unknown tangent inside our galaxy only to orbit something else or crash and burn.

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

All natural forces look to me like horse riders fighting other horse riders. They are army of the God always in action. If you kill it in one form then it gets reborn in other form/s. It is a game forever.

Some theorists believe that gravity is instantaneous, and under the circumstances you desribed, the earth would fly off instantly, however it would still require 8 +-miniutes for the light to stop shining.

No what I am saying is if the SUN instantly disappeared totally not just stopped shining. This cannot happen, it's just a make believe "what if"! Gravity has been proven to travel the speed of light. So the Earth would feel the effects of no geodesics in 8.3 minutes and go off on an unknown tangent into our Milky Way Galaxy.

Sorry, I don't understand you mean by geodesics?

Gravity is NOT an electromagnetic force, it is an effect of matter on space time, and as such, is instantaneous.The orbit of the earth around the sun illustrates this very well, as the orbit of the earth follows the true position of the sun, not the position of the sun as it was 8.3 minutes ago.The lines of gravitation are not parallel with the light leaving the sun, but are displaced by approximately 20 arc-seconds.

The geodesics would disappear instantly, not 8.3 minutes later.

So you are saying that 'geodesics' are basically the gravity field of any given object. thank you. In post #51, you said that it would take 8.3 minutes. You said gravity does travel at light speed. Now you are saying it doesn't... I'm confused here.

but for 99.9 percent of the body of scientific research into cosmological constants, forces and energies, I think most say that gravity does not exceed light speed.

Chris

Hi Chris, if you and Guest will pardon my rude interruption of your discussion, some remarks:

It is change in the gravitational field that propagates at "c", not the field itself. The field appears to be moving with the source and as such appears 'static' relative to the source. I've written a short article on the speed of gravity on my website that explains it somewhat.

I am sorry I did not log in, I was at another computer, and didn't save my login info.

I posted as guest, #50 and #55.Without this explanation, it looks like the original guest is waffleing.

The original guest is the old guy Jorrie's age and I'm just watching the messages. But I will say Horray for Jorrie. He definite understands the GTR gravity model. So there pay attention to his Blog, I read it and it's a masterpiece for the laymen.

Guest wrote: "The geodesics would disappear instantly, not 8.3 minutes later."

You are right, except for perhaps terminology. It is the curvature of space-time (loosely, the gravitational field) that appears instantaneously, not the geodesics.

Geodesics are, as said before, paths of least actions through curved space-time. They are determined by the curved space-time and the dynamics of the moving body, so they are not a 'fixture' of space-time.

thank you Jorrie.

I can see this. I've been playing these things in my head.... If a ball on a string was being whirled, and then suddenly the string is cut... while the ball was under acceleration, there was tension on the string. After the string is cut, the accelerating influence is 'instantly' released, and the proof is the straight line tangential path of the ball. If it wasn't instantaneous, the path wouldn't be straight, but vary in it's curvature for a brief time while the ball experience the release from acceleration.

sound right?

chris.

Hi Chris,

Your "If it wasn't instantaneous, the path wouldn't be straight, but vary in it's curvature for a brief time while the ball experience the release from acceleration." depends on where you cut the string.

If you cut the string at the centre of the circle, the effect will propagate down the string at the speed of light and only when it reaches the ball, will it 'know' about the cut and change its course to tangential!

I know this sounds ridiculous and of no consequence whatsoever, but, it's true! No effect propagates faster then the speed of light.

It becomes 'important' in the case of gravity and large distances. If the Sun would somehow just disappear, lock, stock and barrel, Earth would continue on its proper orbit for some 500 seconds without 'knowing' it. Only when the effect reaches Earth will it wander off in a straight line.

Consider a binary black hole situation.If nothing can escape the black holes, how can the gravitation of one effect the other, yet they maintain a fairly stable orbit?How does one hole know where the other one is located, in"Real" (instantaneous) time.

If they were constantly orbiting where the other one "Was" the orbits would become unstable and drift further apart with time.

okay, so forces of this kind are "NOT" (edited) instantaneous... Are they exactly light speed? or slower do you think? I guess any force propagated through matter will be slower, and the forces propagated in space along the lines of least action (geodesics) are exactly c) ?

Another thought... If .99999~ = 1, then .99999~ % of light speed IS light speed?

Chris

PS. Great web sites you have built Jorrie!

Tx Chris. You also wrote: "I guess any force propagated through matter will be slower, . . ."

You're right - I was waiting for this, because "c" is just the limiting speed of any effect. I was hoping someone would tell us how fast a change of tension in a string would propagate!

". . . and the forces propagated in space along the lines of least action (geodesics) are exactly c? "

The changes in space-time curvature moves at exactly "c", but remember, they do not move along geodesics. Geodesics are the paths that matter and particles move along.

"Another thought... If .99999~ = 1, then .99999~ % of light speed IS light speed?"

I would think so yes - if it's 1 it's "c".

Keeping this very elementary, and I may be way off base, but I must ask-

In the example of the 'instantly disappearing sun' you state 500 seconds for the earth to 'know' that the sun is gone. I want to ask;

If the earth is experiencing 'normal' level of the sun's gravity immeadiately prior to the 500 second mark; and 0g (from sun) immeadiately after the 500 second mark; and gravity is a 'warping' of space-time, then can space-time itself travel faster than light to 'instantly' lose it's deformation once the information arrives that the sun is gone?

option 2 would be that space-time 'rebounds' at the speed of light, thus it would take 500 seconds for the earth to begin to notice the sun has left us.

Of course option 3: this may simply proove that the sun cannot 'instantly' dissapear.

I agree with the confusion of the terminology, but the result would be an instant action on the earth, not a delayed one.

I agree. that's what I was trying to say.

PS. If I'm on another computer, and not logged, I usually add my name to the bottom.

So I now understand that these effects can not be propagated faster than light.

As far as light yes as far as orbital path it would change in 500 seconds or 8.3 minutes like Jorrie's message stated.

No by golly the light would go out at the same instant the orbital path changed I made another blunder.

The disappearing Sun and membrane model of gravity raises two further question. Firstly if space time springs back like a membrane when the mass of the Sun is suddenly removed would it like a membrane overshoot and hence set up an oscillation? Secondly when it overshoots would the resultant gravity become repulsive during the part of the cycle that was the inverse of the deformation caused by mass?

Good question!!! The dynamics of Earth and the other gravitational geodesics effecting Earth's orbit ie. Jupiter or the MOON could cause some changes but I believe every planet in the solar system would be heading for the unknown. Remember this is hypothetical it cannot happen. Forty bazillion tons of Hydrogen and Helium don't just become nothingness in an instant. When something truly changes in a galaxy or in the universe there is a measureable ripple effect no matter how minute. All parts make up the whole. Like taking your foot from a bucket of water it just all fills in like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.

Masu, you wrote: "Firstly if space time springs back like a membrane when the mass of the Sun is suddenly removed would it like a membrane overshoot and hence set up an oscillation?"

One must be careful with the membrane analogy - it's not very representative of curved space-time! As has been said by others, the Sun cannot disappear, but one can model such a disappearing act.

The answer is simple - no oscillations, just an expanding sphere of zero gravitational field (if the planets and all else are ignored). The edge of this sphere moves out from the 'scene of the crime' at the speed of light.

Therefore, at the very time that we on Earth notice the Sun's disappearance, Earth loses its 'navigation beacon' as well and starts to head off out of the now defunct solar system.

Thank you Jorrie for your explanation. I was pretty sure that was the case but thought I would ask and make sure.

All bodies are coupled bodies and some are having clear signatures of the so called orbits. If you can think time also as negative parameter or phase change in time like sine wave then big band may end up in a dot or point and then again the way it is now. Losing sun will make us part of the rest of the universe and earth will find new place or may end up hitting some other body or may keep moving in ever expanding universe. It is matter of equilibrium that may take it in time. We can make sun to disappear by a rapidly moving black hole, eating it away and leaving the solar system without sun. It is something that is very much possible and rather more possible as sun is a clear good food for the black hole than the earth is. We will just get ejected out of earth due to event or may go in the earth like a nail. If earth is also on the path of the black hole then it is only by accident it will also become a small part of the food and will not satisfy the hunger of the black hole.

Please check the following link and give me your comments on this. Thanks HiTekRedNek http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

Hi HiTekRedNek. Good old Tom Van Flandern is always onto the back of the physics establishment with some or other minor (or major) modification to accepted theory - good thing sometimes, but generally just a nuisance!

His "speed of gravity" has been refuted many times on theoretical grounds, but the clincher was the binary pulsar that loses orbital energy due to gravitational waves precisely as Einstein predicted. Indirectly it proves that gravitational disturbances move within 1% of the speed of light (the 1% is the experimental error).

-Jorrie

A couple of thoughts here:

There are 3 remaining still distinctive forces, the electromagnetic and weak force have been unified into the electro-weak force. The idea here is that a grand unified theory will remove this distinction between the strong, electro-weak and gravitational forces.

Gravity doesn't end in space, there is a gravitational effect to our sun in the form of a wobble component as we orbit.

Don't think of gravity as pulling objects, as much as a curvature in space-time. Think of the feet of a water bug on top of water and the depression in the water surface its feet create. This is a simple 2 dim representation, but you can see how objects on the surface might fall along the surface and collect in this depression.

Newtons gravitational theory is a very linear interpretation of a very small observed range of gravitational effects. It is a reasonable interpolation over the range accuracy, and precision that Newton could obtain for the objects he could observe. If he could have observed quarks, gravitational lensing, and black holes, he may have a different interpretation.

Did you mean that we are sinking in the ocean of earth's gravity waves, while something can manage to float without sinking? Are you proposing some kind of gavity wave surface tension in the gravity wave ocean? Can you be more specific?

I thought that gravity extends to the entire space and it only becomes a very weak force. It become ineffective over longer distances and perhaps there are places of double pull balancing each other in multiple body space. Is core of the earth is near gravity pull balanced if not free?

It took me about 20 minutes to read all your replies and to get used to physics jargon. Finally I finished reading and now I am replying. There is one thing in common between science (cosmology) and God. Its a never ending story. There is no end to science which means there will be no such thing as a theory of everything because I do not believe anybody can measure God with a ruler. There always be another question after the solution.

I think there is a trick we can do to verify the connection between gravity and electromagnetism. I think its a fact that light can be bent (its path) by a strong gravity. If electromagnetism is part of gravity 'assembly' maybe a light passing through vacuum should be bent as well when subjected to a strong electromagnetic field. But the path must be through vacuum.

According to the Einsteins visualization of gravity as a dimple on the surface, I do not think that gravity has a wave properties because if it does then we should have variations and spots in gravity (like waves in water) when planets approach each other in their orbits. To me, gravity properties will be similar to some kind flexible membrane (elastic). If the sun vanish instanteneously, the gravitational surface (membrane) will bounce creating the very short range waves at some frequency that would describe the property of gravity. (including the speed of gravity). For experiment we can use some far away moon at the edge of our solar system and blow it up.

Waves come from propagation of energy and otherwise it is only the field that exists. Kinetic energy delivered to photons by gravitational pull sure will become greater frequency of the photon energy packet (particle or wave or whatever).

What you are telling is the field in the form of surfaces and not bulk field. This you may be assuming that the gravitational field is quantized. Then it will has definite number of homely surfaces for bodies to remain in discrete orbits like Bohr model. Is there any evidence of such thing in gravitational field and it does not matter how close packed the surfaces are? Looks to me that no one has ever measured these.

Can some one list the experiments performed to detect Gravitons or similar particles responsible for gravity and why they are unipolar or why gravity is unipolar and yet it is an attraction force? Or is that theory blown up now?

Even blowing up a small planet will not make it disappear... the dust cloud and fire ball will still have the same gravitational at it's centre. But it would be fun! (as long as it wasn't inhabited)

Something I read on the wall of a racquetball court while stationed at Fort Hood, TX in 1979, "Texas has no Gravity - it just sucks." At that time, during an energy crisis and being a Yankee visiting Texas, I truly believed this. This has had a profound influence on the way I perceived Texas. This whole thread is all about our perception of gravity. A single particle may be perceived as being pulled by something that sucks, yet a big group of particles see the little particle as being attracted to the group. From the sidelines the voids sees the masses as being biased and trying to "avoid" the open spaces. An individual conscience of integrated cells, which incorporate all four of the known forces, see all this as reality. At night the cells think it is a dream. This discussion all takes place within a perceived time, which brings me to the crux of the argument. We do not have all the facts. In superstring theory there are other dimensions. I know that it is just a theory but how can we be so presumptuous as to think there are no other forces that we don't perceive? I feel this argument has no gravity... But do I like to read the argument process. This mass of integrated cells doesn't really think the energy we put into this argument will prove that the chicken came before the egg or the clock maker has a maker. My head hurts and I wasn't pushed.

Okey, when a bowling ball is placed on the mattress (2 dimensions), the ball creates a dimple (distortion) in the mattress. A smaller ball rolling nearby enough will fall into that dimple and accelerate until it hits the bowling ball. A planet creates the same type of dimple (distortion) but in space (3 dimensions). I think this is a type of model that Einstein was trying show. But to me, there is an irony in there. All those dimples in 2 dimensional model (mattress) are due to GRAVITATIONAL FORCE pulling the bowling ball against the mattress. In that case, there must be some kind of FORCE X pulling the mass together in space that creates the gravitational force - dimple (distortion) in space in 3 dimensions. I think we need to have something which will give us a clue what gravity is made of in order to understand the nature of gravity. Just like atoms - in order to know why elements react in such ways we needed to understand what the elements are made of (electrons, protons etc)

As I mentioned before about blowing up a distant moon, the reason was not to see if its gravity vanish but to measure gravitational shock velocity, and whether it will have a gravitational pulse traveling at all. I believe in experiments, imagination is not enough to explain gravity. There must be some experiments that will give us some insight about gravity nature. And it doesnt have to be atom splitting or spitting whatever you calling. For example, we know its a fact that,

1) Gravity can bend light. (Light doesnt have a mass)

2) Gravity is an attractive force in nature. We have not found a repulsive force.

3) Gravity likes everything.

4) Hawking mentioned that black hole releases some form of radiation (specific frequency range) which gravity doesnt seems to have effect on it. I wonder what kind of radiation is that.

Any ideas?

I have this question.

If I say that only one atom created that your dimple and entire earth fallen into it. Can you oppose this? How do you propose just two atoms getting tother? Dimple of which one? Something else we all otherwise know looks simpler than dimple theory. When you say that something is falling into something else then you already assume the gravitational pull else why something will at all fall into something else. Is pull theory not so good one? Why do you want to reject it?

I will rather prefer an Octopuse Theory. Near the Oscopuse you are, greater pull you experience and perhaps this Octopuse is rather too big with invisible highly extended arms very similar to 3D viscus pool. Bigger Octopuse has bigger pull power. You can also think that matter at one place is also a matter everywhere else weakly spread over the entire space. The entire universe is filled and not empty. Matter also has attached invisible part of the matter bonded to it like a jelly. That is why most of the matter got into jelly net forming a very big structure with some kind of membrane to form its flexible limits. There may be then many other such membranes or parallel worlds like our living human body cells. Formation and destruction of shapes within jelly may be possible.

Rather than picturing a bowling ball on a mattress, picture it suspended (floating) in empty space. Now picture a 'fabric or membrane' sweeping across the empty space (held by 4 corners), once it reaches the ball; the ball (having inertia) will dimple the fabric, as it is swept along. Smaller objects, once caught in fabric, will make smaller dimples.

The fabric is 'space-time' It is moving at the speed of light, and all mass in the 3 dimensional universe distorts it.

I am not saying it is the right way to view the dimpling (warping), but it eliminates the X force (gravity) required to indent the mattress in your visualization.

This moving time and space is very confusing to me. How ever space can move? Perhaps only material of energy can move and creates space and time. These two are within material and not away from it. I can't figure out otherwise. Without material and energy time and space will collapse in a point.

Shyam, you wrote in response to Mevel23: "This moving time and space is very confusing to me. How ever space can move?"

I agree. The "moving membrane" is a poor analogy for space curvature. One can view curved space as a membrane "indented" into an extra fictitious dimension, where there is no gravity working normal to the membrane. All forms of energy make indentations into this membrane, but we cannot (yet) explain why!

General relativity tells us how much indentation and slope there will be in the presence of mass/energy and also how objects will behave on the slopes, but it says nothing about the why.

What I am saying is that if there is nothing to experience the force or field then what kind of meaning it has? I am not against believing in that way but has no real meaning and no way to know. Force fields are something to be experienced. Now we believe field is ever present and exists even at infinity. What if it is a bond between two bodies and and born at their birth time and not present otherwise.

We can also assume that if we have nothing to sense then there is no field at all.

What I am saying is that it could be an string attached to all that originated at one point and have effinity to know each other through some sticky bond that makes them to communicate. What else the forces are? This bond may not exist for us in parallel universe and even if we are near by and we may not be able to communicate as we are not one origin. If we acquire that sticky bond somehow then perhaps it may be possible to communicate. All fields thus can be sensed by objects of one Origin or one universe or limited universe under special natural ability, yet to be known. There may be some gate of entry point common to parallel universes such as matter and antimatter worlds and perhaps somewhat similar worlds (universes).

Space is something that is created by experience and time is part of it and relates to changes or information communication only. Both time and space are interlinked to multiple communication and multiple information. (Theory of God prohibits time and space for God as God is only one identity and time and space are within. This may also happen if all matter is at one point. Fragmentation of matter bring in space and time parameters and perhaps with forces of knowledge such that matter has a way to come back to its origin at some point of so called time to make time and space NULL and VOID). Time and space is thus within happenings under multiple bodies and to their limits and for them, and not to something that is not them.

Another funny question here - for an observer that is a photon, at what speed are we moving now?

Shyam wrote- "Another funny question here - for an observer that is a photon, at what speed are we moving now?"

You make very good points, and complete with a very good question. I need 1 more day to fabricate an answer.

My initial analogy was only to get 1 step further than the mattress, now it's destined to become a final theory?

Shyam, you wrote: "Another funny question here - for an observer that is a photon, at what speed are we moving now?"

Well, apart from the 'slight nuisance' that a photon cannot be an observer and an observer cannot travel with a photon, let's say a photon could observe.

In my view, a photon would view everything, including all other photons to be just 'frozen' in place. According to our best theories, time does not exist for photons, so how can they measure speed? But wait! A photon cannot know about distance either - so even if it could measure time, nothing, including itself, could move!

I guess the only nice thing about being a photon is that you do not have to ponder imponderables like this and then get an headache!

Dear Jorrie

I have seen photon getting happy, very sad and dull and reacting to each bumps. You can say that it becomes energetic and weak on interactions. But as you said time and space does not exists for photon so its all that experience is like some one being tortured in a cell under Marcel Law?

If a photon does not travel then it will never interact with another photon at all. You know they do interact or they don't? I am not talking about quantum dot type interaction, in which matter plays a role. Just pure photon-photon interaction. Or is that all our virtual perception?

How about anihilation of electron and positron? Are the two newly born photons remain at their point of origin or move away from each other? Do they know that they are twin brothers/sisters or whatever? So we know about them and they do not know about themselves and their alike? Poor fellows!

I was having a feeling that these photons are my messangers and they are like universal Postmans and deliver information like greeting cards all the time.

Do they move or do they not move? Why we feel that they move? I agree that they can not easily use clock of their own unless they know things like how many of them die or reborn or how may became coloured etc. But if photon has no way to know about other photons then it is an stupid photon we are talking about. Perhaps the material world is disintegrating too fast for a photon and may be a much better clock for it. But you said that Photon also does not know about us.

Hindu Goddess Shakti is pure energy. If we assume that such thing exists then what will be its knowledge about us?

Actually the fictitious dimension has a name:

realityme: noun; Pr. [ree-owl-IT-time] def. A physical-conceptual combination, containing all of reality, yet when stated in spoken voice sounds like time. The substance has the ability to affect, and effect reality, but cannot be detected from within.

Initial proof of it's non detectability can be found easily by searching "wikipedia."

if space time matrix get distorted becasue of mass inertia (motion) then that inertia should wear out over time? due friction?....Is that inertia due to motion (not in 3d space sense)?

RE: that inertia should wear out over time? due friction? No; inertia is a property of matter, it is there all the time regardless of motion. Thus, as long as the membrane keeps moving, the 'bowling ball' keeps moving. Also the dimple (warp) remains, even after the ball reaches membrane speed, it just will not get any deeper. The depth of warping is proportional to it's mass, because a larger inertia takes longer to accelerate to membrane speed.

I will expand this silly analogy later when I reply to Shyam- I still am trying to visualize his octopus

Looks to me that there is much greater exoansion rate than we know for the expanding universe. There is also a possibility of multiple universes.

Assume that we are part of one side of explosion and all objects near us are moving with velocity closure to ours. We may find some objects going both ways from us as some are slower and some are faster than us. We will find similar story for all 3D curvetures forming many universes that are rather closed packed. There may be another part of the bang that might have left moving the opposite side of our motion giving no way to get information now.

Does any one has any idea where the bang originated?