A different take on gravity

<b>[Aaron] "So, I postulate that light is ... most likely the majority of what constitutes the gravity effect."</b>

There is no question that EM radiation produces a force. And that means it is indeed possible (as in not impossible) that it can create an effect similar to the effect of gravitational attraction. Either all by itself, or in combination with other particle and wave fields.

But there are a number of problems here. Two of the more obvious are:
<ul><li>All know waves and particles travel very slowly, compared to the observed speed-of-action of the gravitational attraction effect. EM radiation is the fastest of these, traveling at light speed. All other particles and waves travel much slower. How then do you explain the ability of these extremely sluggish particles and waves to imitate the nearly instantaneous force propagation that we observe?
</li><li>Gravitational attraction shows no shadow or shield effect that is presently detectable. None of the known particles except neutrinos can penetrate matter to the extent needed to even begin to match this observed behavior. There are not nearly enough neutrinos to make gravitational force by themselves, but even if there were the previous problem would still exist. How does your model address this issue?</li></ul>
LB

Larry,

Thank you for your patience in trying to follow my thinking, here.

However, I am fairly confident that I have already answered the first Problem about the speed of gravity based on light speed or slower yet--solar winds "<i> . . . compared to the observed speed-of-action of the gravitational attraction effect.</i>" by pointing out that the Sun and its planets are all traveling along within a common spacial frame of reference through space, so the notion of the sun's position lagging behind or getting ahead of the <u><b>Gravity Effect</b></u> would simply not apply. I just re-read my argument, that I made in my previous posts to this thread, both on page 3:

29 Jun 2009: 03:07:06
and
08 Jul 2009: 05:31:59

These still seem clearly enough stated to me on a second reading, so maybe I need to expand my description of how this is possible. But, maybe you just missed them. Please read them again and let me know which it is.

**************
The <u>second problem</u> about . . .
"<i>Gravitational attraction shows no shadow or shield effect that is presently detectable.</i>
is, I am pretty sure, answered by the tidal effect of the oceans, but I don't quite understand why you say that this is not enough evidence of a shadowing or shielding effect. I suppose it would be simply enough to do an experiment with hanging different material on springs or spring scales and comparing their noon-day time at a new-moon displacement (weight) to their full moon at midnight displacement. Balance scales, of course would not work for this kind of experiment, because both sides of the balance scale would be equally effected and no true discrepancy would be detected with that kind of a set up. But I believe that this could prove just how much shadowing the moon actually does. But for me, just the relieving of enough Gravity in the moon's Cosmic Shadow (not its Solar Shadow) to "lift" the ocean's waters in the direction of the moon is ample enough evidence to convince me of its viable shielding.

I think that the <i>effect of gravity</i> could work its way all the way to the center of a planet or a star just by adding to the pressure on the surface of the planet, star, etc., just in exactly the same way that adding water to the top of a column of water in a pipe adds pressure to the entire continuum of water beneath it, all the way to the bottom of the pipe, but the water added on top doesn't have to physically travel all the way to the bottom of the pipe, itself, for the pressure to be effected at the bottom of the pipe. It can just sit on top of the column and add its weight to everything below it. The same principle would work for dirt or marbles or dust or even for very "Light" particles (i.e. photons).


The aspect of a faster gravity that makes little sense to me, if it is any kind of a <i>particle</i> that obviously, by any definition, has to interact with matter and hopefully not work too far outside the other laws of motion and mass and forces, especially with the speeds that are being bantered about, then, you are going to have some <b>nasty, NASTY, destructive forces</b> generated anytime that kind of gravity actually hits something, which it would have to in order to interact with it.

Just consider, how, if a single common cosmic gamma particle hits the Earth's atmosphere with the force of a fast hardball (which was recently calculated), what would something (even if it is much smaller) traveling at just thousands of times faster, let alone at the speeds Dr. VanFlandern was proposing, do? Our atmosphere would have to be turned into a fiery plasma.

And what could be the possible source of this kind of super fast gravity. Has anyone addressed that?

But I think that the entire hypothesis--Dr. Tom's--is attempting to explain a dynamic that is actually a misconception, if solar systems are traveling as a unite, with the whole thing being pushed through space as a whole, which if you think about it, really does seem kind of reasonable.

What do you think?

Best Thoughts, ---Aaron

<b>[Aaron] " ... I am fairly confident that I have already answered the first Problem ... "</b>

We know that it takes 500 seconds for a light wave to travel from Sol to Earth. When we look at Sol we are not seeing it where it actually is, we are seeing it where it was 500 seconds ago. (This has nothing to do with Earth's rotation.)

Knowing this, we can calculate where Sol actually is in the sky. This real position is 20 arc-seconds different from the (light speed retarded) visual position. Astronomers can also measure the direction of Sol's pull on Earth, and the measured and calculated directions are the same.

So light waves from Sol appear to come from a point 20 arc-seconds behind the instantaneous position of Sol. Astronomers call this the aberration angle for light. It is caused by Earth's orbital speed relative to the speed of propagation of light waves.

In general an aberration angle is expressed as
Hunters call this a "lead" angle. If you have ever shot at a moving target, you will have run into this problem. In order for your arrow or your bullit to hit the target, you must aim in front of it. The faster the target moves, or the slower your arrow is, the larger this lead angel (aberration angle) needs to be.

Alternately, the faster your arrow travels, for any given speed of target, the smaller the aberration angle needs to be. If your arrow travels fast enough, the aberration angle becomes so close to zero that the difference cannot be measured. But nothing physical, such as an arrow, can travel infinitely fast so the angle cannot actually be zero. It just gets too small for us to measure with our present technology.

The fact that both you and your moving target are being carried through space by Earth in a complicated corkscrew path is irrelevant to all of this.

===

For the specific case of light waves traveling from Sol to Earth this becomes Since we are dealing with a very small angle in this case, we can use the small angle approximation If we did not already know what the speed of a light wave was, we could find it by measuring the aberration angle of light and the orbital speed of Earth And in general the propagation speed of any particle or wave or <u>any other physical influence</u> can be determined in this fashion Some examples:
In that last example the aberration angle might be large enough that the small angle approximation is no longer valid (puppies are fast, compared to most water streams). If so we would need to go back to the exact formula.

Note that when aberration is measured to be zero we can no longer say that we have actually measured the speed of propagation of the radial influence we are investigating. Instead we are setting a lower bound on its speed of propagation. As our technology improves and we can measure smaller angles, we will some day be able to detect the difference between the measured angle and zero. At that time we can stop calling it a lower bound and start calling it an actual speed.

<hr noshade size="1">
According to your model, light waves from elsewhere in the universe that pass by Earth on their way to Sol and that pass by Sol on their way to Earth, interacting with Sol and Earth, are the primary cause of the gravity effect. This is the basic idea behind all pushing gravity models, such as Le Sage.

These "background" light waves will also take 500 seconds to travel the distance between Sol and Earth. And the gaps, or shadows, in these light waves (the shadows are what make a push <u>behave like</u> a pull in all pushing models of gravity) will also take 500 seconds to propagate between Sol and Earth. So there are three general possibilities:
<ul><li>If you are right and these light waves (or anything else traveling exactly at light speed) are causing the gravity effect, then we expect that the measured "pull" of Sol on Earth will come from exactly the same direction as the light we see from Sol.
</li><li>If not, and the gravity effect is caused by something slower than light, we expect the measured direction of Sol's pull on Earth to come from a position behind the visual postion of Sol.
</li><li>Or if not, and the gravity effect is caused by something faster than light, we expect the measured direction of Sol's pull on Earth to come from a position in front of the visual postion of Sol. </li></ul>
Care to guess which is actually observed?

LB

Larry,

I really appreciate the opportunity to present my gravity model as part of a "Theory of Everything" to a forum of people who are well versed in both classical and cutting edge theories. I only hope that my clumsy efforts at expressing myself don't cause the value of my original insights to be obscured or misinterpreted or, God forbid, lost.

So, let me try to clarify a few important points that I must not have made clear in any of my previous posts.

First of all.

My model has little or nothing in common with Le Sage nor the group that came before or after him, whose model was based on the <u>Random</u> chaotic movement of particles or "corpuscles" producing shadowing or shielding between <u>already existing</u> massive bodies in space. The only similarity with my model is the same as that of The Meta model, that the force of gravity must be a real force not some "action at a distance" leading to the more likely conclusion that a pushing particle model makes more sense than a mysterious "attraction" model. My model is grounded in the recognition that there exists an undeniable geometric positioning in the relation of each and every energy producing entity (the stars) to every other energy producing entity in not only our local Milky Way galaxy but every other existing and, no doubt, a lot of already expired galaxies whose light and energy is still just making its way to us. It further acknowledges that the energy from each and every one of these stars is projected from its source in a very specific--you might even say precise--geometrical expansion in concentric spherical or elliptical volleys of quantum waves, and that these volleys of quantum waves or particles will continue unabated until they inevitably reach a place where they will inescapably come to meet the full force of opposing volleys of energy from other stars in their near proximity and/or from the most distant galaxies, as well.

There is nothing random about this model in its source to target projection of these solar/stellar/galactic "Forces" which these energies carry to all these "meeting places."

Here, then, is where gravity is manifested by the mere fact that opposing forces (in the form of quantum particles) are coming together in such an unavoidable balanced opposition to each other that over time they have no other option than to compress against each other into ever denser and denser collisions until these common-particle-based "Gravitational forces" begin to overlap and overlap in smaller and smaller radii until they actually start to nucleate and begin to literally revert back into massive concentrations as "new" mass, first as electrons then protons, and finally as neutrons. Given enough time at a prominent enough gravity "well" and, eventually a new <i>star</i> will be grown up composed of very dense Hydrogen atoms. As the overall gravitational pressure builds to a critical Level enough to force two Hydrogen nuclei together it sets off a chain reaction while going to a more stable atomic configuration and in the process releasing a lot of compressed potential energy as kinetic energy, enough to equal all the incoming gravitational energy. This in turn creates a whole set of "near" rings or spheres of opposing Energies between the new star and the continuing cosmic Gravitational forces that are still focused at the star's center. These rings or spheres, become the orbital paths where the star's planets will begin to grow in a similar fashion to how the star was formed, only with some minor but significant differences. These planetary orbits will form where there are geometrically balanced, numerically balanced particle opposition, so some of the particles that used to go all the way to the star's surface will now be intercepted various "shells" where they meet the strong solar/stellar winds being cast off from the nuclear fusion process taking place, now on the surface of the Star. There will be just as many number of particles coming into the star's "System" as before, but now a portion of them will be met and interact gravitationally, coming together in equal opposition all along the Planetary orbits where planets will eventually form over time. The overall amount of Gravity-producing-particles coming into the system will remain the same as before the star's ignition and will continue to remain the same approximately throughout the entire process of planetary formation and similarly as the planets reflect energy to create their rings and moons all from the same amount of constant particles entering the star "system." I won't go into it here, but there is a logically, geometrical reason that I have worked out why the planets are formed with heavy elements incorporated into their composition even while the central star may not have <u>any</u> heavy elements in its composition. Le Sage et al were nowhere near envisioning any of these logical processes, which to me seems a priori. But this entire model can all take place using just the experimentally known quantum particles that travel as photons, or alpha, beta, gamma particles, even neutrinos at or under the speed of light.

Le Sage never identifies a possible source for his "random particles." Whereas I recognized finally after years of looking right past it, that the obvious source of any and all energy, and therefore, forces in our universe, was right in front of us all along, and they were/are virtually being all but ignored--the stars. How could we all have been missing or not including the <b>force</b> of the stars into our physics? The "Stellar Force" really should be a fifth category of forces along with Gravity, Magnetism, the Weak and the Strong nuclear forces. My model of gravity can tie all these forces together as being just different concentrations and orientations of the same basic complete mixture of the various fine quantum particles pushing against each other in accordance with geometric probabilities and patterns.



Quoting Larry: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
According to your model, light waves from elsewhere in the universe that pass by Earth on their way to Sol and that pass by Sol on their way to Earth, interacting with Sol and Earth, are the primary cause of the gravity effect. This is the basic idea behind all pushing gravity models, such as Le Sage. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is not my proposed model <u>at all</u>, and I am not even sure that it was Le Sage's, either.

No. In my proposed model, any and all quantum particles traveling at or up to the speed of light coming from all the distant galaxies pass by the "Sol System" and every other stellar system in every other galaxy on their way to the center of each galaxy. And the planets are caught between this same net galactic "gravitational flow" and the opposing solar force within its particular star's system.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
These "background" light waves will also take 500 seconds to travel the distance between Sol and Earth. And the gaps, or shadows, in these light waves (the shadows are what make a push behave like a pull in all pushing models of gravity) will also take 500 seconds to propagate between Sol and Earth. So there are three general possibilities:
If you are right and these light waves (or anything else traveling exactly at light speed) are causing the gravity effect, then we expect that the measured "pull" of Sol on Earth will come from exactly the same direction as the light we see from Sol.
If not, and the gravity effect is caused by something slower than light, we expect the measured direction of Sol's pull on Earth to come from a position behind the visual postion of Sol.
Or if not, and the gravity effect is caused by something faster than light, we expect the measured direction of Sol's pull on Earth to come from a position in front of the visual postion of Sol.

Care to guess which is actually observed?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, Larry, I would have to say Number 3. But not because of the foregone conclusion that gravity is traveling billions of times faster than light. My proposed model, once you can picture it, would require this, also, but I will do you one better. The push of gravity is going to be slightly leading the center of mass of the entire solar system, <i>because</i> this is, in fact, "the <u>cause</u>" for the forward movement of the Entire solar system's progression around the Milky Way. If something were not so pushing the stars to circle the galactic center then they would not be "moving" around the galactic center. But this galactic "gravitational" mixed bag of quantum particles, that my model acknowledges, only have to be moving fast enough to be faster than the relative movement of the solar system's movement around its galactic center in order to catch up to it and give it a push by the overall net pressure of all the galactic winds being slightly favoring in that direction--after having neatly compressing the stars into nice round balls by the many opposing factors coming at the Galactic center from every which direction wherever the light and other particles from the distant galaxies were when they were emitted. I realize that some of those most distant Galaxies may have already passed out of existence in absolute time, even while their expelled energies are continuing outward, helping to form and reform new galaxies with all their attendant stars and planets, moons, and inhabitants.


There is lots more detailing, but I hope this helps separate my proposed model from that Le Sage group, at least.


Warmly, Aaron

Aaron: 23 Jul 2009 : 07:28:41<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How could we all have been missing or not including the force of the stars into our physics?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The pushing force of the stars is minuscule compared to gravity, as evidenced by the fact that planets orbit stars. If you divide the total power of sunlight Earth absorbs by the speed of light, you get the force exerted by sunlight on Earth. According to my calculations, the suns gravity pulls Earth about 14 billion times harder than sunlight pushes Earth. (I may have missed something because I think the ratio might be much greater than that. I also calculate that the tangential component of that force should be sufficient to make us fall into the sun in less than a year; that is obviously wrong.) At our place in the solar system, the suns magnitude is -26.74; thats 13 billion times brighter than Sirius (magnitude -1.46). Even if all the stars, other than the sun, were pushing us from one direction, their combined push would be less than the push of our own suns light. For the push of stars to be significant, they would have to have unseen and undetected energy output billions of times greater than the output that we can detect.

As for the solar wind, it is estimated to eject about 6.7 billion tonne per hour with terminal velocities up to 400 km/s. If not for our magnetic field, we would intercept about one 25 billionth of that with a force less than 20 tonne. Earths magnetic field makes it a bigger target, but most of the particles are only slightly deflected. The few particles that are stopped by Earth account for the auroras. Do you think the auroras exert a significant push?

Were not missing the force of the stars; it doesnt exist. Im afraid your model is a McGuyverism. (McGuyverism: An ingenious solution to an impossible problem which suffers from a fatal numerical flaw. The odds of the solution working are between infinitesimal and zero. Named after TV action hero played by Richard Dean Anderson from 1985-1992.)

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Phil,
Just for the fun of comparison, can you put similar number treatment to your bursting cosmic foam bubble wave gravity model for us? Just for comparison?