A different take on gravity

PhilJ, have you any idea just how pedantic you sound? Remind me, what is the square root of one? Ignore me; please, please ignore me.

As for your comment about fraud, Fred Hoyle simply could not have accepted that the universe has a certain age. He invented the term Big Bang to ridicule the idea. But he doesn't question that that little bunch of pure numbers are not important, moreover, as far as I'm aware, no one has questioned whether or not they are pure numbers. If you can show this then publish a paper, though it would not be a good idea to accuse any one of fraud. Because there isn't any fraud involved.

Stoat,

Limit your comments to the message. If you comment on the messenger again you will be punished by the moderator gods. (Re-wording your first sentence can fix the problem.)

PhilJ,

You have a similar problem. I also believe Stoat is deliberately obfuscating, but I could be wrong. Either way, we have a rule that forces us to comment only on the message itself. Please follow it. (Rewording your next to last sentence can fix this.)

Thank you Phil

Larry, I see where we may be thinking very differently about Gravity.

You proposed that gravity has to be:

". . .caused by something, such as a particle, that moves from one mass to another . . ."

I don't believe that is the only way to approach how gravity may work. In fact, I am convinced that is not the way gravity works.

Gravity is more likely to be caused by the massive fields of momentum moving between galaxies, and it is "felt" by all the stars and planets and other lesser bodies as it collides with them in opposition to the closer proximity fine-particle-fields being reflected out from each local galaxy. It is only the balance of long distance particles colliding with relatively short distance particles forming force-balanced-planes and junctions that produces gravity "wells, sinks or barriers" in a somewhat complex matrix that is purely organic geometry.

What is so great about this idea is that <u>all</u> particles get to participate in the gravitating process. This is why you can't isolate any one unique size or type of particle acting mysteriously as the mythical "Graviton." Everybody from the lowliest photon is adding their little "push." It is just when enough of them come up against an equal opposition that they have to -- they have no other option -- than to <u>Gravitate</u> to a central point or location and bounce around for a period of time (maybe millions of years) in one location as a massive collection of very short collision vectors as Electrical Plasma, and Protons and Neutrons. Gravity (the coming together of very fine, very fast moving particles, otherwise known as Energy) is what <i>creates</i> mass--by compressing the energy of lots of tiny bits into inertial or relatively localized matter i.e. massively compressed-energy.

The results are indistinguishable whether you see gravitons as "coming into" matter from far away (by mere cosmic geometry) or if mass is somehow "attracting" gravitons just because it's there.

Galaxy centers are the primary and biggest gravity wells because they are in line with the most number of crossing paths going through them or ending up at their approximate location. Stars are just the secondary stage of crossings with not nearly as many paths crossing at their locations--somewhat distant from the galactic center, and planets are the tertiary reflections from stars caught in between the star's repulsive continuous fusion bomb solar winds and their own (the star's) incoming intergalactic particle fields that created them in the first place and continue to put pressure on them in the form of Gravitating cosmic particles.

But the sun does not move independently of the planets or vise versa. As the sun is pushed or rides the wave of whatever pushes it around the center of its galaxy -- in my model it is my idea of conglomerate gravitons that push everything around -- the planets are pushed by the same combined fields as the one/s that are pushing the sun or any other star's planets. We--the planets--are part of the same set of forces that define and contain each particular sun or star.

This shared cosmic "gravitational well" defines our common frame of reference, so there can be no "delay" in where the sun <i>was</i> having anything to do with its "gravitational" direction between a star and its planets. Otherwise like a fly that flies out the window of a moving car, the planets would be blown away by the winds of the cosmos. The cosmic fields that come together even at star crossings are vastly wide in their unilateral directional orientations, so the paltry distances of a solar system become insignificant compared to the cosmic/galactic particle output field underpinnings -- Geometrically speaking.


Do you see what I am getting at?

Best Wishes, Aaron

JAaronNicholson: 08 Jul 2009 : 05:31:59 <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Larry, You proposed that gravity has to be:
". . .caused by something, such as a particle, that moves from one mass to another..."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Aaron, this conviction stems from debates among the ancient philosophers of Greece. For a scientific model to satisfy many philosophers, even today, it must not violate the principle that action at a distance requires a mediating particle or a material medium. There must be no finite-sized empty gap between the actor and that which is acted upon.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The solution of the difficulty that is raised about the motion-whether it is in the movable-is plain. It is the fulfilment of this potentiality, and by the action of that which has the power of causing motion; and the actuality of that which has the power of causing motion is not other than the actuality of the movable, for it must be the fulfilment of both. A thing is capable of causing motion because it can do this, it is a mover because it actually does it. But it is on the movable that it is capable of acting. Hence there is a single actuality of both alike, just as one to two and two to one are the same interval, and the steep ascent and the steep descent are one-for these are one and the same, although they can be described in different ways. So it is with the mover and the moved.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">(Aristotles Physics, Book 3, Part 3; 350 BC)
classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.3.iii.html
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not matter, operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact. ... That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at-a-distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. So far I have explained the phenomena by the force of gravity, but I have not yet ascertained the cause of gravity itself. ... and I do not arbitrarily invent hypotheses.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">(Newton. Letter to Richard Bentley 25 Feb. 1693)
open-site.org/Science/Physics/Modern/Particle_Physics
plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">With a simple syllogistic argument it follows that matter and field are equivalent, or more specifically, that matter, space, and field are actually just different interpretations of the same expanse. This is really what Descartes' argument implied all along, and Einstein began to appreciate the beauty of it, though he didn't necessarily stress it's importance sufficiently to fully impress it into the minds of his listeners. This notion led him later to his epiphany that the geometry of space and time was sufficient to induce relative acceleration of objects wrt each other. The field was modified to the extent that it wasn't something in space changing over time, but rather was that very space and time. His only error in judgment here, is that he applied the idea to gravitational forces, but not to electromagnetic forces. He realized his mistake immediately, and worked to rectify it up until his death, without notable success. That job is still to do for whoever cares to apply themselves to it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">(Re: The theoretical problem of action at a distance)
sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.phy...2007-10/msg01651.pdf
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The assumption of reality refers to the idea that the physical world is objectively real. That means it exists independently of whether anyone is observing it. The moon is still there even if you arent looking at it. Locality refers to the idea that the only way that objects can be influenced is through direct contact. Unmediated action at a distance is prohibited, as this is uncomfortably close to the occult suggestion that invisible spirits can cause things to occur, and the occult concepts are anathema to science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">(Source: Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality, Page: 210)
www.gaia.com/quotes/topics/determinism
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Contested concept in the history of physics. Aristotelian physics holds that every motion requires a conjoined mover. Action can therefore never occur at a distance, but needs a medium enveloping the body, and which parts before its motion and pushes it from behind (antiperistasis). Although natural motions like free fall and magnetic attraction (quaintly called coition) were recognized in the post-Aristotelian period, the rise of the corpuscularian philosophy again banned attractions, or unmediated actions at a distance: the classic argument is that matter cannot act where it is not. Cartesian physical theory also postulated subtle matter to fill space and provide the medium for force and motion. Its successor, the aether, was postulated in order to provide a medium for transmitting forces and causal influences between objects that are not in direct contact. Even Newton, whose treatment of gravity might seem to leave it conceived of as action at a distance, supposed that an intermediary must be postulated, although he could make no hypothesis as to its nature. Locke, having originally said that bodies act on each other manifestly by impulse and nothing else (Essay, 1st edn., ii. viii. 11), changes his mind by the 4th edition, and strikes out the words and nothing else, although impulse remains the only way which we can conceive bodies operate in. In the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science Kant clearly sets out the view that the way in which bodies repulse each other is no more natural, or intelligible, than the way in which they act at a distance; in particular he repeats the point half-understood by Locke, that any conception of solid, massy atoms requires understanding the force that makes them cohere as a single unity, which cannot itself be understood in terms of elastic collisions. In many cases contemporary field theories admit of alternative equivalent formulations, one with action at a distance, one with local action only.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> ( www.answers.com/topic/action-at-a-distance )

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator