Nature of Gravity

So are you saying that the attraction between the Earth and Moon is because they have stopped oscillating and are just rotating?

Precisely!! Their very state of spin stabilities cause them to be creators of vacant space in their immediate surroundings, permitting "collapse" of particles onto their surfaces which in turn cause waves of energy transfer outwards as "Gravity waves".This is akin to waves getting attennuated on the beach, permitting an unending sequence of waves.

Dear Mr. Redfred,

"Your proposal doesn't seem to agree with known atomic theory. It certainly does not agree with quantum mechanic theory or the present understanding of the standard model."

You are quite right; it is not meant to agree.In any case, Gravity (force?) does not fit into the Standard model. If the three other "Forces" have carrier particles, where do these originate and what is the source of their energy? This is not possible without causing disturbance to the other surrounding particles and their consequent "resistance" to the transmission of "Force" and consequent attenuation.

Any stable particle, spin stabilized or temporarily "quiescent" will cause "attraction" to comparatively "Unstable" close neighbors. A stable particle is "Cold" and an unstable one is "Hot". Heat will flow from the hot to the cold until they both attain similar states of stability/instability.

The universe consists of particles (not "strings " of Energy). All matter is visible or not visible (dark) depending upon the oscillatory state in which it exists-depending also on its neighborhood constituent particles.Extremely small particles in a very high state of agitation (Oscillations) will become "invisible". Absorb their energy and they will become visible.

Although this view of gravity may seem "strange" to those dependent on mathematical modelling, a point that is being missed is that it is equally applicable to the micro (nano or pico or femto) as well as the macro and gross bodies in the "self-contained", "self-existent" universe.

There have been miriad "Big bangs" and there will be "Big Gnabs" opposite of "Bang", unendingly, for infinity of "Time". The universe is a"Creature" of matter and its state of oscillations (Regular and / or Random) caused by mutual perturbations.

"There have been myriad "Big bangs" and there will be "Big Gnabs" opposite of "Bang", unendingly, for infinity of "Time"."

I must object. There is no evidence of this, and few Scientists today believe this. Not all believe the BB itself. Please explain "self-existent" universe.

"There have been myriad "Big bangs" and there will be "Big Gnabs" opposite of "Bang", unendingly, for infinity of "Time"."

"I must object. There is no evidence of this, and few Scientists today believe this. Not all believe the BB itself. Please explain "self-existent" universe."

start? Was there a start? Is this not a steady state universe with a long term cycle of repetition that we have not yet deduced?

Do super massive black holes have a maximum size, whereon they become the singularity that repeats after hundreds of billions of years when things coalesce again?

Mr. Naidu,

You're missing the point of my comment that your theory disagrees with known working models. Your theory implies things that are not readily observed to happen in our universe. As somebody else here pointed out your theory implies that a hot mass produces less gravity than the identical cold mass. If your proposal was true one would expect that a satellite in orbit around the moon would wobble back and forth as it travels around an equitorial orbit around the moon. On average the surface of the moon goes through a 260°C temperature swing as one goes from sunlit side to darkness. Now I do not have access to the orbital altitude information that NASA, the Indian Space Research Organization, the Russian Federal Space Agency or any other organization that has put probes in orbit around the moon. However, I am certain that if the orbital wobble that your theory predicts did happen then the entire Physics community would be trying to explain this phenomena.

Getting back to my point, for any theory to be a valid understanding of our universe it must reflect things that happen in our universe. Your theory does not reflect our universe.

You are making many assumptions and statements that may or may not be true.

Are you trying to redefine gravity?

Wouldn't that mean that a pot of boiling water would get increasingly lighter as it cooled to room temperature?

Using E=mc², it does, though almost imperceptibly.

Eeep. I'm a super genius and didnt know it!

Well, that's it. I'm marching up to my bosses office this instant to demand a huge pay raise. So long, suckers! It's Easy Street for me now!

Not so fast, Guest!

Your boss may dismiss you with: "unless your pot of boiling water is a pressure vessel, water will evaporate and so the lot will get lighter". No Einstein required.

Quite. This effect will swamp any Einstein stuff rendering the latter imperceptible.

It sounds to me more like Einstein-Bose condensation, and certainly doesn't have to do with gravity, but with killing the kinetics of particles, to the point of having two occupying the same space.

Yahlasit

Thank you Jorrie for your comprehension. We can agree that this micro (or pico) process generates a cascade effect with infinite range and will propagate to the extent of localised permittivity.

Hi D.RAMAKRISHNA, you wrote: "We can agree that this micro (or pico) process generates a cascade effect with infinite range and will propagate to the extent of localised permittivity."

No, I do not think anyone will agree with that statement, because your mechanism seems to be overly speculative.

The truth is that nobody knows for sure just what mechanism causes gravity to work the way it does, but there are a few well thought out and published theories. The problem is that none are completely self-consistent (meaning difficult to reconcile with all the other forces of nature) and hence they are all probably still incomplete. The most promising candidate quantum theory at present seems to be "M-theory", sometimes also called membrane theory. It naturally produces a graviton particle with the right properties, but the details are somewhat beyond me...

-J

Gee whiz, thanks for clearing up that universal mystery for us guy.

Do tell us why everything on a universal scale appears to be accelerating away from everything else, oh and without using the spooky language "dark matter".

I pick things up,

I let them go,

they fall to the ground.

That's Gravity Folks

equally the ground is falling up to you!

"I don't feel attracted to what you are suggesting but still congratulate you on your braveness and proclaiming or throwing such thoughts into the CR4 ring. "

Ditto. You are not the first with a 'strange' theory, nor will be the last.

Hi D, and all ye other CR4 brainiacs, greetings from Ireland

Hi D, and all ye other CR4 brainiacs. Paddy the Flywheel here.

Greetings from Ireland, long time no talk, I hope we're still talking !

The Nature of Gravity, what exactly is it? Is it energy? Is it a seperate force? Is it a mixture of both? Who cares! what is important is that it is a free abundant source of power/energy at our disposal.

A modern Hydroelectric Power Station ( a simple primitive waterwheel ) extracts energy / torque/ power from flowing water, the said FLOW being the direct result of Earth's Gravity, or in Phsysics terms- the ENERGY from the Volocity of the water's Mass. So the Power Statoin's prime mover is not water, it's Gravity. Any other materiel/mass falling on the waterwheel under Earth's Gravity would have the same result.

Energy=Mass and vice versa but only when there is Gravity. Outside of the Energy conservation laws, ENERGY can be extracted from MASS using Gravity and volocity without burning or converting the mass in any way , like the waterwheel.

How about expanding on E=Mc2. Something like: Energy=Gravity and Mass is the tool for controlling the amount of energy needed for the job at hand.

Birds instinctivly use Gravity and air as their lofty PLAYGROUND.

Someone has commented on this Forum that they discovered that Gravity is a force.

Snap! I also discovered this one night when I came home drunk and tripped over my Grandson's bicycle in the back yard. That was two years ago and my nose still hurts.

Cheers, Flywheel

WOW, thats deep. I'm glad you straightened me out on that point. Now I can inform all my engineer friends that they have been on the wrong track all this time.

Hi Tracker, + Whoever

Glad to be of help, anything else you want clarified about Gravity=Energy: don't hesitate. Gravity/Energy is not deep. It's simple. It's sub-atomic particle Nature does not concern me. It's function ,beheavour and potential is my area of interest.

Instead of studying Gravity/Energy in books, I engaged with it. Using a heavy rotating mass ( 3300lbs at 75m/s) I challenged it. You could say that I have experienced Gravity=Energy at it's simplest possible level.

In the grand magic scheme of the Universe, Gravity/Energy uses mass to show us how to achieve perpetual motion but we just do'nt get it. We were looking at birds for yonks before we learned to fly. Two simple Bicycle brothers were scorned and laughed at by Acidemia. They diden't understand the scientific Nature of Gravity, they just understood how to overcome it.

I have no Acidemic EGO or Masters Degree to to blind me to the Natural World, but I do have a simple Machine in my back yard that extracts the free energy that is available from Gravity and produces 35 free KWs. 24/7. I'm so uneducated that I can't explain to others why this machine works, but I can fully understand it myself.

I had to pay an engineering Graduate to write the Patent claim for it. Appearantly it's unque.

Tell your engineer friends that simplicity is good.

Cheers

Flywheel

chrisdevine

What you are trying to tell me is that you are spinning the weight of my car at 75m/sec and harnessing the stored kinetic energy to power a generator which in turn supplies you with power for your residence. Is that it in a nut shell?

The only way I can see this happen (experimental) is it to get in my car (use petrol), and get it up to speed on a large empty space and then spin it. Doughnut style. I could do this a few times and it would get boring and expensive. It will spin as long as the energy (the stuff that gets me up to speed) is wasted and my tires are a bit worn and I feel a bit dizzy and it stinks.

Not as dizzy as your contraption or your presentation make me feel. Why not show us the patented machine and let us have a look at the "real thing"? Bearings, housing, electrical and mechanical connections, just the hard ware would be nice to look at. Enthusiasm does not replace the laws of physics, ever, not for you and not for nobody.

Ah, how do you get this thing up to speed? Don't tell me you have an unlimited supply of unobtainium. No worries Mate, waking up is not as bad as you think, Ky.

chrisdevine wrote: "I have no Acidemic EGO or Masters Degree to to blind me to the Natural World, but I do have a simple Machine in my back yard that extracts the free energy that is available from Gravity and produces 35 free KWs. 24/7."

So, tell us more!

he doesn't need anything to blind him......he can do all by that by himself

The energy from gravity that you seem to enjoy free - Water fall spinning a turbine (or wheel as you like) - flows from a high point (potential energy) to a lower point due to gravity. That is half the story only!

The other half is how that water got to the high point in the first place? It needed some energy from another place, not gravity since that one makes it flow down towards the centre of gravity ( on earth = the centre of earth...)! That energy is due to the sun that evaporated the water --> Clouds --> precipitation on high grounds --> gravity flow back to the lower levels (Oceans? Seas...?).

Therefore, the energy from the gravity phenomena on earth (your water fall here) is from the sun. It is not a perpetual movement since it comes from a source, though limitless in our lifetime scales, it depends on the sun being available and that has been proven to have a limited lifespan (millions of years...).

You are free to simplify matters to suit your EGO and maybe your dislike of precision and details, but you cannot ignore LOGIC based on knowledge accumulated and proven to work in the field of scientific engineering as opposed to fantastic EGO engineering.

On the other hand, dreaming is very good and useful in the development of useful ideas most of the time. But to work, you must wake up and rethink on earth.

"I should a stayed on the farm"

Agreed

Hi D.Ramakrisna Naidu, Reading your post again reminds me of the theory of universal entropy, where the energy of the universe slowly decays into a singularity? Though I do like your concept that gravity is a resultant of slow decay rather than a force?

I have expressed in other posts speculation that the universe consists of an alternating force, between expansion and contraction, this occurring in a linear manner so that any given point in the universe is in synchronous with any other point?

Matter being a synodal wave that disrupts the synchronous force results in contraction being the dominant force at that point in space, gravity is then a resultant of that behaviour, but at the same time part of the larger picture? Just a few thoughts

Regards JD.

There seem to be two things happening at the same time. The forces of expansion(repulsion), causing the galaxies moving away from each other. The force of attraction (gravity) keeping the stars, planets and other objects within a galaxy to stay together.

I've always thought it was more simply God telling everything it can't leave until the bell rings.

But seriously, the attractoin of the 'gravity inigma' question has weighed heavily on my mind's instep for quite a long milenia and I have yet to unweight myself of it's attractiveness or it's resolution.

It would have to be something simple as it seems to be so consistantly and accrately perceived that we can calculate it for planets well out of the throw of a baseball and for all items large and small both staionary and in motion.

If it is an averaging phenomena, it must be based on the smallest possible denominator as it seems to be so precisely measurable that most variables are also easily caculatable (and I'm not even sure if that is a word...).

My experience in the real world is that spinning bodies seem to be more stable that one just sitting there vibrating.

Seems like a theory of harmonic attraction would hold just as much water.

I don't see how this theory makes any sense. It seems to require a "daisy-chain" of closely spaced particles in order to "cascade" the gravity from one object to another. Between planetary objects, what/where are the intermediate particles in sufficient quantity?

Further, at the neutral gravity point between two objects, which alleged particle is collapsing in which direction into which space?

I could be wrong, but the whole notion sounds DOA.

Dear Tornado,

you have unwittingly stated the situation as it exists. Yes, you're right, it requires the entire universe to be full of particles (of varying sizes) which act as the medium of transmission of "Forces", waves, radiations and whatever other phenomena- observable and not yet discovered!!

Nature abhors a vacuum. There is only continuum, except when a particle becomes stabilized due to spin and its neighbors "Fall" in to fill the space vacated by the erstwhile agitated particle. Multiply this occurrence over an infinite number of particles and you have the effect experienced as "Gravity".

Regarding a neutral zone between two spinning particles, the boundary will be dynamically shifting one way or the other, depending in momentary influence of "Gravity" of one or the other spinning particle.

I do welcome your perception based on present state of understanding of the universe, which is wanting in many respects. The principle I have put out is equally applicable in the micro and macro domains unlike Newtonian, Einsteinian or QED which are partially applicable and do not extend beyond arbitrarily predetermined domains for the covenience of mathematical modeling. The entry of maths into physics has killed science- a search for truth.

Modeling Randomness-have we succeeded? modeling Chaos, have we succeeded?

if you cease to be a Tornado, you'll see the truth.

Thanks and regards.

DRN

When you try to substitute metaphysics for physics, you get a sea of road apples. What a hoot!

Wow, I was just starting to miss the over-unity crowd but statements like "The entry of maths into physics has killed science- a search for truth." portend a new breed altogether.

If we exclude maths from physics , then physics will turn into history or moral science.

Science would be so much easier if it weren't for all those silly notions like the scientific method, empiricism, parsimony, so on and so on.

Have you succeeded in modeling Randomness and Chaos??

I have always been puzzled by the phrase 'random patterns'..

Also, I always heard there are 3 kinds of people in the world, those that are schizophrenic and those that are not.

Then you're in the middle?

With the people You mentioned Werner Heisenberg should be included with his work on uncertainty.....but on a thread like this...........it really doesn't matter..

You are right. Good answer.

I agree with that, but in this case you, Tornado, k. v. gopalakrishnan and others got Ramakrisnanaidu's concept wrong, what he surely meant is that you can't always predict a natural phenomena which is not fully understood, by calculations; on the contrary: once you have defined the principles of a phenomena, then you can start quantifying it.

Yahlasit

I disagree with you, Yahlasit. One most certainly can predict a natural phenomena without understanding it. We have done this for millennia. Certainly one must codify the principles of a natural phenomena before one can make a prediction, but one does not have to know all of the mechanism.

My favorite proof of this is the definition of the direction for electric current. It was long known that in electricity that something was flowing when a circuit was completed. Ben Franklin was the first to assign a + and - to electricity. This convention established a natural direction for electric current to flow from + to -. When Rutherford, then Bohr, then Schroedinger (with others along the way) identified that it was a net electron flow that was happening the conventions established for the current flow was opposite the actual direction of the electron drift.

Yes, both notions still prevail, we call that "electronic theory VS. electric theory", and there are more examples, like magnetism, no one knows for sure what it is, but for practical porpuses, we can accurately calculate and predict complex magnetic configurations. What I said on my post is that "not always..." can be that way.

I don't believe we have absolutely everything already figured out, and that all of our calculations are correct and definitive.

Who knows, some one might give us a surprise (maybe Naidu?).

It is a blasfemy to say that something can travel faster than light, but there are cosmic particles wich mean life is so short, that they shouldn't have make it to the earth before decaying (citation needed).

Regards

"Nature abhors a vacuum. There is only continuum, except when a particle becomes stabilized due to spin and its neighbors 'Fall' in to fill the space vacated by the erstwhile agitated particle. Multiply this occurrence over an infinite number of particles and you have the effect experienced as 'Gravity'."

The only problem with this is continuity. Like everything in nature, there is an inherent rhythm, oscillation, ebb & flow as you are saying about the particles going in and out of their 'spin' state.

Were that true there would be peaks and valleys in the intensity of gravity but that seems not to be the case.

You are closer to the truth in that there should be" peaks and valleys in the intensity of gravity".

Yes indeed, "Gravity" too is oscillatory (like all other known phenomena-Light,sound,EM,X-rays etc) as it is a perturbation of the medium of particles.We still have to establish the frequency or frequencies of gravity waves.

Thanks for your understanding. This corroborates my own notes.The whole universe is pervaded by oscillations of the particles and their interactions (Collisions, fusions (Coalescences),divisions, radiances, annihilations).There is constant exchange of energy and tendency to fall into quiescence by gaining mass.

In fact Magnetism too is oscillatory in nature. We can go a step further and see that all known phenomena are oscillatory and co-exist.

Yes, of course, the Hortonium Theorem.

Mr. Naidu,

You have a common misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge grows. Science no longer grows solely by people espousing a theory or perspective but for obvious reasons it must start with this step. A new theory on the nature of the universe must be supported by experimentation and analysis to show that the new idea reveals a new valid perspective on how the universe operates. Then the theory, data and the analysis enters the arena of scientific debate. In this arena scientists who have already added their own facet to the cumulative knowledge, mercilessly analyze and rip apart everything of the new view. CR4 does contain members of the scientific community but CR4 is not this arena. CR4 is not even the locker room of this arena. CR4 is more like a public commons where anyone can stand on a soap box to say anything, but this commons does gather some who judge in the arena of science.

As I understand your ideas, your ideas have no basis in the observed phenomena of our universe. I stated this earlier and you have yet to respond or refute my analysis of your ideas.

To give you a flavor of what the people who have succeeded in adding to scientific knowledge must go through, allow me to point out one of your misunderstandings of the universe that appears to be a pivotal part of your theory. "Nature abhors a vacuum." This is a false statement. Maintaining a vacuum in proximity of a large mass is a difficult process but most of the known universe resides in a vacuum. The quality of the vacuum outside the International Space Station is far better than any vacuum man can make on Earth. By immense orders of magnitude most of the universe is filled with a vacuum. So since a pivotal aspect of your theory hinges on something that is clearly false, your theory is false.

Hi redfred:

Would you say that inter-stellar vacuum is absolute?

GA

Also, if Nature abhores Vaccum like said, then mater in the universe should spread out and fill it....anti theses of what he claims about gravity since matter will scatter to fill it (??).

It is not anti-theses but it corroborates; as agitated particles will "Gravitate" towards the spin stabilized particles.

as agitated particles will "Gravitate" towards the spin stabilized particles

I understand Static electricity is what has the attraction, nothing to do with gravity

GA on #52. I am not condoning the OP's theory at all. However, the vacuum of space is not empty. It is full of virtual particles. It also contains the laws of the universe.

There would be no science without math. However, I think some scientists get bogged down with the math they think is the "cure". I welcome original thinking to a point.

As an after thought, "Black holes 'black solids'" illustrate the OP very well!!

If anything, "Black Holes" prove the contrary.

Black holes are there because of the conventional theory of gravity and physics+math got us there to explain them so far! How does the OP explain the Black Hole in his own 'NEW' approach / concept ... ?

Thank you yahlasit. It would be difficult for those conforming to convention to think outside of it. They rely on convention to the extent of preventing fresh insights.

Although I have replied to all worthwhile posts including redfred's, the points seem to have escaped his comprehension. Notice, he has an escape route in terms of the varying nature of vacuum. What is happening is a dynamic phenomenon, continuous and inexorably ongoing, and "Gravity" is a collective resultant of the interaction of all the particles involved in the process.

If vacuum means less than atmospheric pressure, then there is vacuum in outer domain. This vacuum should then be able to strip the earth of its atmosphere. This is not the case. The space filled with particles is preventing that.This is not vacuum but continuum.There will be co-existence of zones of varying pressure within the same atmosphere. That is why we have clear air turbulence, air pockets and such phenomena.

What I have proposed is a thought process evolved over a period of five and half decades. Lennet (Suskins?) has forced Stephen Hawking to admit that there is no "Singularity" or even an "Event Horizon" for that matter. So, all these modellers will go on holding on to something so long as the Maths is right. String theory and all those multi-dimensions (16? or more?) will keep on being added to until the equations are balanced. Somebody got away with E=MC² until a Planck's constant was added.

In this process, we are witnessing a great fraud on humanity, siphoning off humunguous sums of money in the name of research including CERN.People have lived their lifetimes laughing up their sleeves, enjoying far disproportionate incomes.

Uncertainty, is a branch of statistics based on a limited database. Magnetic poles have reversed several times. Can redfred with all his modelling friends predict the next eartquake or the ext solar flare??

I'm sorry, but that was total bullsh¡t.

And then came along Paul Dirac without whom your theory would not work. I am beginning to see your line of thought tho. What's missing is a reason why gold is heavier per cubic centimeter than lead and other elements with more 'particles'.

Black holes could be explained by the fact that all the matter being pulled in is forced into the 'spin' mode... (although I really think black holes are huge swirls of matter simply bending the measurable types of light and radiation making it invisible from certain perspectives but that's another thread.)

Dude, you need to take a chill pill or something. First I have issues with:

(If vacuum means less than atmospheric pressure, then there is vacuum in outer domain. This vacuum should then be able to strip the earth of its atmosphere.)

2nd I have issues with you bringing Stephen into this.

3rd You are really pushing it with Mr. Einstein.

I don't have the time to get into this at the moment, and it appears others either don't want to or they also don't want to get in a pissing match with you or we all have bigger issues to deal with. I just have to say you are so wrong on too many points and bringing in the others work and theories to substantiate "your" thoughts is just wrong.

If I get some time in the next few days I will try to list some questions for you. Right now I am balls to the wall in work.

The secret is not to be confined to "conventional thinking." But then "unconventional thinking" is commonplace in insane asylums. What's a poor guy to do?

A debate would be like trying to nail Jello to a wall; you probably wouldn't enjoy it, though a liberal dosage of "green slimeballs" might help. (Lime Jello with half the water replaced with vodka and Midori. Marshmallows optional.)

As I said, stop being a Tornado and remove "green slimeballs" from your mental make up, you'll see the truth better.

"Spacetime is the alternate name that physicists have given the gravitational field of the universe" The reason behind its long range and all pervasiveness is due to this nature. Please go through http://www.astronomycafe.net/vacuum/vac1.htm

This reviewer describes this book as 75% doom and gloom and 25% science. Sounds like another marginal player in the scientific community gone off the deep end. Amazon Review