Gravity Defined!

[Auburn]

I want to share with you my own theory of gravity. I posted a sketchy version of this elsewhere months ago but this is a revised version. I've had this theory in my mind since I was eleven.

To help you visualize; imagine being underwater. You see little bubbles form and rise to the top, right? Do you know why bubbles are spherical? Of course, it's because of the water's pressure being exerted evenly on all sides right? It was from this illustration that I began to wonder if perhaps "gravity" works the same way on a universal scale. Let's compare the water to "empty space" and the oxygen as "matter". I imagined that "empty space" indeed pressurizes "matter" in the same way that water pressurizes oxygen and makes it into a sphere.

***
​

A better illustration:
Imagine a large, white, and empty room. The only thing in the room is a 3 dimensional grid of elastic ropes that connect to the walls. The ropes are a few inches apart from each other, and they cover the entire room. The grid is perfectly linear and undisturbed.The grid represents "undisturbed" empty space. Alright, now imagine that a bouncy ball suddenly appearing in the middle of the grid. What would happen to the lines? They would be disrupted right? The rope lines would be stretched to allow space for the bouncy ball to fit inside. At the same time, the ropes wound also be exerting a force onto the bouncy ball, pushing on all sides.

Imagine with me that this gridded room is actually in orbit around the earth - hence zero gravity (although technically not really but for sake of illustration). Also, imagine that the ropes are frictionless - very very slippery. The bouncy balls are also frictionless. All this is just to make the example more precise.

In this illustration below, the circle represents the bouncy ball, the white lines are the ropes, and the yellow arrows are the pressure exerted on the ball via the ropes.

​

If I placed another smaller bouncy ball on the grid only 1 feet from the larger one. It too would cause a disruption in the grid, however this new disruption would also be affected by the larger ball's disruption. The result would be a slight "tunnel" effect directly between the two balls - and the smaller ball would naturally slide down to the larger ball through the tunnel- in the same way that foreign objects are attracted to earth, and fall down into it.

​

The above picture is a vague illustration of what would happen. Only the horizontal lines are seen here - for sake of simplification. The arrows shown here represent the exerted pressure/force of the ropes on the small ball [longer arrows = greater force].As you would imagine, much of the exerted force on the right side of the smaller ball is alleviated by the larger ball [because it has expanded the ropes and slightly lifted them from the smaller ball]. This makes the exerted force on the left side of the ball greater than that on the right side. Force is not being applied evenly on all sides. Therefore, the net result is a force heading to the right ---->. It would slide down the frictionless ropes because there is more force being applied to it from the left side.

Another way to look at this is like pinching a marble between two fingers and then watching it project out. The ropes act as the fingers and pinch it from the left side towards the larger ball.

These illustrations explain the same way in which gravity works in space. Gravity is not attraction, it is compulsion. It is not a pull, but a push. I am not very learned in complex mathematics, so I can't work out the actual math to it just yet, but I believe these models would explain gravity perfectly and would be in accordance with all known laws of physics.

Why does it matter? How is this different from Einstein's model?

Even to this day, mathematicians are trying to understand what "gravity" is. They understand how it works, and everything, but have no idea what it actually "is". I've seen videos such as The Elegant Universe give very bizarre explanations to what gravity might be such claiming that it consists of particles which are able to travel through 16+ dimensions - when in fact, I think the answer is rather simple. This would define gravity once and for all and put and end to all these unrealistic explanations.

Additionally, perhaps this could be a step into understanding how to reconcile the universal forces aside from string theory? Your thoughts?

 

[Auburn]

Also, a hypothesis regarding density:

"Space cannot exist simultaneously where there is matter. Either there is Matter or there is Space, but never both in the exact same coordinates."

In other words, every subatomic particle in our universe creates a microscopic hollow inside space (an "absence" of space) and the rest of space attempts to collapse that "vacancy" by exerting pressure on it.

Then as atoms combine with each other, the concentration of "absence" of space becomes greater in that region, and thus the pressure exerted on it becomes greater. This explains why objects with higher density have more gravity. Objects that have lower density have less gravity because they are porous - having much "space" between atoms and subatomic particles, thus creating less disturbance in space.

 

[ashitaria]

Very interesting topic. But just a few flaws to point out.

The fact remains that space is not specifically water. In fact, space is actually the opposite of water, it does not apply any pressure at all, and that is the reason why humans, when exposed to space, "blow up". So we can't really say that space works the same way as water does. Neither can we say it is a grid of very powerful rubber bands, because if that was the case, the planets wouldn't exactly be able to revolve, no?

Another thing is that because space is the absence of matter which is why matter by itself space cannot be seen as a dimension that applies any force or pressure of any kind. It is basically seen as a "void", which is why space is seen as infinite. A "void" cannot apply any pressure, but it can "suck in pressure", because that's exactly what a void does. In fact, at the very beggining of time, space was already infinite. It is not exactly expanding now. Matter is expanding. Space is not.

In any case though, this is my thoughts. I'd like to remind everyone that I'm no professor, and that if my information is irrational or wrong, don't go out at me.

But theories are so fun. *licks lips*

 

[Auburn]

So we can't really say that space works the same way as water does. Neither can we say it is a grid of very powerful rubber bands, because if that was the case, the planets wouldn't exactly be able to revolve, no?

Those were only illustrations to display the concept of pressure itself. Neither water or rubber bands are completely capable of depicting how I picture space, but I do hope the concept itself is clear.

Another thing is that because space is the absence of matter which is why matter by itself space cannot be seen as a dimension that applies any force or pressure of any kind. It is basically seen as a "void", which is why space is seen as infinite. A "void" cannot apply any pressure, but it can "suck in pressure", because that's exactly what a void does.

Yes, good point. But see, I don't believe space is infinite. I do believe there is a limit to "space" and thus allowing pressure to exist within it.

Space is not "nothing". Space is an actual substance. Absolute nothingness is a completely unimaginable concept. It's not part of the realm of existence, for it is nonexistence.

The "void", as you called it, which we view as space has many properties to it - thus we know it is "something". For one, it allows for matter and waves to travel through it and exist within it. It possesses constants and is also prat of the realm of physics and subject to those rules.

We have yet to define what this "space" is, but we know it is some sort of medium, the essence which allows for travel in the three dimensions. Nothingness wouldn't even have one single dimension, and nothing could travel within nothingness, right?

 

[menaceh2k]

So what you are saying is that the phenomenon "gravity" is caused by deformations of "empty space" by matter . What appears to be attraction between matter with significant mass is just forces caused by structural gaps in "empty space."

That implies that space is not empty. you might be on to something, but you would have to also have to illustrate how the forces of gravity occurring on different levels. Subatomic, atomic, micro, macro and so on. Even though on some of those levels the effects of gravity is insignificant. Your theory makes some sense at face value, but it does not explain a lot. I do like how you are approaching this from a cosmic environment perspective, rather than from a matter perspective.




given this recently posted cool gadget that illustrates modern understanding of space and matter:

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347


how can this theory be further explained. lets try to pull our INTP powers together and redefine the modern understanding of gravity.

_____________________________________________________________

Yes, good point. But see, I don't believe space is infinite. I do believe there is a limit to "space" and thus allowing pressure to exist within it.

I would not call it pressure. lets just call it "pressure" or something else because it will be confusing (at least to me) cause that's not the text book definition of pressure.

It allows light to travel though it,

this "cosmic fabric" might explain why light has a speed limit.

 

[fullerene]

auburn! I didn't know you changed your name, and was wondering who that was.... but I recognize your idea from so long ago.

to clarify: would your idea be that space is also pushing "from the inside" of an object, too?


My main problem with this is: your drawing only works if the lines go in the same dimension as the two adjacent objects. Move the blue ball a single line above, for instance, and there's no attractive force from the "squeeze" at all. And what if there were another ball above the green one as well?"displacing" space means that the space has to go somewhere. From your illustration, it appears as if you were imagining those lines squeezing to get back into position, from the top/bottom. If those were like fabric, or strings, the planets would indeed be pushed together.

However, a ball above the green ball would not be attracted to the green ball unless there were space-lines in that direction too. But since the horizontal space-lines bunch up at the top of the planet, you would have an extra strong repulsive force in that vertical direction--at least when the objects were close to each other.

Do you have some theory on how your explanation extend into three-body systems as well?

 

[ashitaria]

Those were only illustrations to display the concept of pressure itself. Neither water or rubber bands are completely capable of depicting how I picture space, but I do hope the concept itself is clear.

Well, it was because they were used to display the concept which is why I used them to display my concept. And the thing is, I can't use them to completely explain my thoughts either...It's so hard to put it into words

Yes, good point. But see, I don't believe space is infinite. I do believe there is a limit to "space" and thus allowing pressure to exist within it.

Space is not "nothing". Space is an actual substance. Absolute nothingness is a completely unimaginable concept. It's not part of the realm of existence, for it is nonexistence.

The "void", as you called it, which we view as space has many properties to it - thus we know it is "something". For one, it allows for matter and waves to travel through it and exist within it. It possesses constants and is also prat of the realm of physics and subject to those rules.

We have yet to define what this "space" is, but we know it is some sort of medium, the essence which allows for travel in the three dimensions. Nothingness wouldn't even have one single dimension, and nothing could travel within nothingness, right?
I think that this is just going to boil down to a "yes it is;not it isn't" debate because this is based on beliefs, but I believe that space has the substance of nothingness, and that the reason why it allows things to exist in it is the same reason why things still exist when we put things into vacuums, which technically, is nothingness. It's the same thing as putting something into water. The water did not let the matter be there, it had no choice in the matter.

I think of space as a big black darkness, or a big black empty room, and the stars and planets as light bulbs and objects in that room, but the big black empty room is infinite and goes on for ever, and the objects continue to multiply and multiply and blah blah blah....

And also, space doesn't actually let heat or sound travel through it. It only lets radioactivity and light travel through it, and that's because light and radioactivity don't need any mediums to travel through, while heat and sound...

You get my gist.

And physics is just another realm of possibilities. The rules that we have aren't rules for sure, though at least we got some things right.

Ah, the joy of an intellectual discussion. The problem is, I'm not intellectual.

But you are really doing a great job defending your theory. I don't think I would have defended it as well as you did.

 

[ashitaria]

My main problem with this is: your drawing only works if the lines go in the same dimension as the two adjacent objects. Move the blue ball a single line above, for instance, and there's no attractive force from the "squeeze" at all. And what if there were another ball above the green one as well?"displacing" space means that the space has to go somewhere. From your illustration, it appears as if you were imagining those lines squeezing to get back into position, from the top/bottom. If those were like fabric, or strings, the planets would indeed be pushed together.

However, a ball above the green ball would not be attracted to the green ball unless there were space-lines in that direction too. But since the horizontal space-lines bunch up at the top of the planet, you would have an extra strong repulsive force in that vertical direction--at least when the objects were close to each other.

Oh my gosh! Fullerene, are you a magician with words? You just explained what I struggled to explain:

So we can't really say that space works the same way as water does. Neither can we say it is a grid of very powerful rubber bands, because if that was the case, the planets wouldn't exactly be able to revolve, no?

My thoughts exactly!

I really need some english help.

 

[Auburn]

Hi crypt! ^^ ((I'm still gonna call u that. No matter what ur name is. :P ))

Yes, my illustration is flawed. Believe me I've been trying to come up with better ones but it's such an intangible concept in my head that it's difficult.

But I'll try to explain it with words in the abstract sense. When this concept is transferred to actual space, and viewed practically, there really are no lines. In fact, the lines I drew there are only to illustrate the pattern of space's warp due to this. Sorta like this illustration of magnetic fields:

​

In magnetic fields, there are no lines, but drawing lines helps illustrate where the force lies. This is sorta what I was trying to do by using the rubber lines illustration.

This should be a better illustration for what I mean:

Here we see the blue and green balls again, except in this image I'm illustrated the "pressure" in surrounding rings according to their intensity and proximity to the objects. The units of measurement are just made up for simplicity's sake.

Now, notice that the rings of each ball overlap. In the overlapping fields, the "pressure" being exerted on that area is the added amount of pressure between the two ball's rings.

If you were to map this out, you would see the same thing as what I drew in the ropes picture - there would be a tunnel area connecting the two balls in which the pressure is strongest.

And in this type of illustration, it's also possible for us to see the three-body system you mentioned:

The rings represent the level of space disturbance each ball creates, and the areas of overlapping disturbace have been added together. As you can see, the center of these three balls has more gravitational disturbance than each one individually - causing them all to be pushed towards the center by the force/pressure of space.

Keep in mind this is merely an oversimplified example for demonstration's sake.
​

 

[Auburn]

I believe that space has the substance of nothingness, and that the reason why it allows things to exist in it is the same reason why things still exist when we put things into vacuums, which technically, is nothingness.

A vacuum is not really "nothingness". Yes, a vacuum is vacant in that there is no matter(<-- key word) within it. The definition of a vacuum is a space which has been liberated from all matter particles - however there remains "space" within that vacuum, which probably cannot be removed using "matter-based" devices.

 

[bananaphallus]

Thoughtless questions:

In the case of actual physical bodies/things of mass, planets for example, how were the physical constituents of these masses allowed to coalesce into things of disproportionate size, relative to one another? In other words, in the illustration w/ a green ball and slightly larger blue ball, how were the things which constitute these 'balls' allowed to be distributed unevenly? Are there relationships between things at any level of matter which take precedence over gravitational forces?

 

[Cogwulf]

I've always wondered if physicists have tried considering gravity as a repulsion of free space rather than an attraction of matter, this is similar to that in a way

 

[Moocow]

Those were only illustrations to display the concept of pressure itself. Neither water or rubber bands are completely capable of depicting how I picture space, but I do hope the concept itself is clear.

Yes, good point. But see, I don't believe space is infinite. I do believe there is a limit to "space" and thus allowing pressure to exist within it.

Space is not "nothing". Space is an actual substance. Absolute nothingness is a completely unimaginable concept. It's not part of the realm of existence, for it is nonexistence.

The "void", as you called it, which we view as space has many properties to it - thus we know it is "something". For one, it allows for matter and waves to travel through it and exist within it. It possesses constants and is also prat of the realm of physics and subject to those rules.

We have yet to define what this "space" is, but we know it is some sort of medium, the essence which allows for travel in the three dimensions. Nothingness wouldn't even have one single dimension, and nothing could travel within nothingness, right?

Here's a basic problem with your idea.
If space is entirely substance and limited, what is beyond the sphere of substantial universe? You have to have nothingness in which substance can exist. Removing nothingness from the picture doesn't really help explain much.
When you throw a ball, its ability to move isn't dependent on the air pressure around it. In fact, air inhibits its movement with friction.

Your explanation for why emptiness is "something" doesn't quite hold up for me because simply being part of physics and having constants doesn't mean it is substance. Empty space doesn't have properties, it is the absence of properties.

 

[Latro]

This seems to bear some similarity to general relativity's ideas about gravity, which are pretty much accepted scientifically until we get down to the quantum level, where your ideas are...not consistent with the empirical data (the idea that a particle creates a region where space is not present is not altogether consistent with the wave-particle duality in QM, I think).

 

[Auburn]

Here's a basic problem with your idea.
If space is entirely substance and limited, what is beyond the sphere of substantial universe? You have to have nothingness in which substance can exist. Removing nothingness from the picture doesn't really help explain much.

Yes...
The first question that comes to mind for most people when the idea of a limited universe is presented is naturally - so then what is beyond that limit? We live in a universe where all things are defined by existence, and thus it's difficult for our minds to accept or even fairly consider the concept of Absolute Nothingness. It is, essentially, the enigma of death.

I don't have an answer to your question, because we have no way of knowing whether or not the properties of existence are present outside of our universe. But we tend to think that there is, that there would be yet another layer coating our universe, and another coating that one, and another.

What a beautiful duality..
Infinity and Nonexistence. Two extremes both much too far away from us for us to comprehend.

Related thread: http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=5624

First of all, what is nothing? Remove all dimension, all substrate, all "ether" or "container" in which stuff can reside inside. This is less than infinitely small, it is nothing.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Does something require mass in order for this gravitation to influence it? I'm just wondering how it accounts for mass-less particles like photons. Also, energy effects the gravity of an object - a spring that has been compressed has slightly more gravity than a spring with no pressure, simply because the energy from E=mc^2 is equivalent to mass.

 

[fullerene]

does it really? The spring, I mean. That strikes me as weird, because that's a spring's potential energy. It seems similar to having a small object and a planet, and saying that the object has more mass the farther away from the planet it is. Does that happen too?

I've never understood why light is affected by gravity. Well, I've heard it's something to do with space bending, and light just travels straight--except since the space is curved, so is straightness. Or something like that. Maybe they're affected by gravity because of the energy-is-mass thing as well.... since photons have energy.

Sorry aubbie.... did read and was thinking about it, but don't have time to write a full post right now, and I'm still not sure what I'd write if I did.

 

[walfin]

Why is space nothingness?

Space is the absence of matter, but not everything is matter. EM waves, for instance. And gravitational waves.

So it's not really pressure per se, but I suppose there's some support for the "there is something pushing/pulling stuff" rubber-bands theory. It's just not matter - it's spacetime.

 

[Hawkeye]

Why is space nothingness?

Space is the absence of matter, but not everything is matter. EM waves, for instance. And gravitational waves.

So it's not really pressure per se, but I suppose there's some support for the "there is something pushing/pulling stuff" rubber-bands theory. It's just not matter - it's spacetime.

There is of course Dark Matter to consider and Dark Energy (not related)

 

[Agent Intellect]

does it really? The spring, I mean. That strikes me as weird, because that's a spring's potential energy. It seems similar to having a small object and a planet, and saying that the object has more mass the farther away from the planet it is. Does that happen too?

I believe I read about it in Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. But also, if we consider E = mc^2 as E/c^2 = m, if we were were to add 1000 joules of potential energy to a spring, its mass would increase by 1000/c^2 or 1.113*10^-14 grams. The same thing happens in atoms during fusion and bonding - ie, energy adds to mass which adds to gravity.

 

[fullerene]

Yeah... if it happens in bonding, I'd believe it happens in spring compression and gravity and things. It's just really weird, because usually energy is not discussed on an absolute scale. If the "drop" is small enough, say, in looking at a roller coaster or something, you just declare 0 energy to be the lowest point of interest in the ride. No one in their right mind would call it ground level. And if you were standing off overlooking a cliff, the ground wouldn't be called 0 energy at all, because it's more convenient to draw the 0 energy someplace lower.

I've never really thought of potential energy as a "thing". If it's always relative (which I think it always is), it makes me wonder why you can't add arbitrary amounts of it into a system (compress the spring just a tiny bit more), until it has 0, or even negative, mass. However, I'm not sure it's ever possible to pump arbitrary amounts of potential energy into something. Planets increase in potential energy as they get farther apart... but it's a converging sequence, so at infinite distance, you've still added a finite energy. With quark-antiquark pairs, you can pull them apart (increasing potential energy, again), but beyond a certain point, the pair just "pops" and new quark/antiquark pairs are formed. Springs, obviously, have mechanical limitations, which make them differ from an ideal spring under high compression. Gasses turn to liquids, which turn to solids, under high pressure... so the ideal gas thing wouldn't work.

I still feel like there must be something, which would make a genuine counter-example to that by causing negative mass... but maybe there just is none.

 

[Geminii]

How does the theory match up with this information?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

 

[Auburn]

I do apologize..

Modern physics is on my list of things to study, but I move at such a sluggish pace through it because I stop and digest every formula and second-guess every assumption instead of simply accepting it. The fact that such theories are most popularized and widely accepted is irrelevant to me.


I sense numerous misleading trends in modern physics such as the attributing of the name "particle" to any newly discovered essence which has yet to be fully defined.

“Scientists often invent words to fill the holes in their
understanding. These words are meant as conveniences until
real understanding can be found. Sometimes understanding
comes and the temporary words can be replaced with words
that have more meaning. More often, however, the patch
words will take on a life of their own and no one will remember
that they were only intended to be placeholders.
“For example, some physicists describe gravity in terms
of ten dimensions all curled up. But those aren’t real
words—just placeholders, used to refer to parts of abstract
equations. Even if the equations someday prove useful, it
would say nothing about the existence of other dimensions.
Words such as dimension and field and infinity are nothing
more than conveniences for mathematicians and scientists.
They are not descriptions of reality, yet we accept them as
such because everyone is sure someone else knows what the
words mean.”


- Scott Adams -
​

But yes, to be fair I should at least study them fully before asserting their falsehood. I'd have to start from the very beginning of these assumptions and essentially recreate understanding of physics. x__x

***
​

An Explanation of Force and AMU:

"Space exerts a force on matter equal to the matter's collective disturbance in space at a 1:1 atomic mass ratio."

It is known that the more neutrons & protons an atom contains at it's core, the higher it's atomic mass will be. Approaching this from my theory of gravity, it is consistent with the hypothesis of density which would attribute more "disturbance of space" to collective/clustered mass particles.

Let's say that each proton and neutron, due to it's mere existence within space, results in a disturbance in space - causing space to exert a force of "1" upon that proton/neutron. This translates to the equivalent of what we not understand as the Atomic Mass Units. Essentially, we have not ventured far from the modern understanding of atomic force, but have just approached it differently.

The amount of collective energy/force produces by the core, the insides, of a proton or neutron is in equilibrium with the amount of force space pushes back with. However, the inner workings of a proton/neutron are to a large degree determined by internal factors and not by pressure from space. This is where quarks (and all that other stuff that makes me dizzy) begin to manifest their own laws without much effect from gravity.

 

[Geminii]

The real test of a new approach or paradigm is whether it can be used either to simplify current equations and theories, or whether it can be used to generate a real-world test case which proves it is 'more correct' than current theories or scientific laws.

If it can't be used to do either - ie, it's not useful, it tends to become just one of millions of other similar theories which have fallen by the wayside.