Ideas that are compelling, yet unhealthy.Gravity Does Not Exist
Space is Repulsive.
The theory of gravity is that everything that has mass attracts everything else, probably because of the curvature of spacetime.
The truth is that matter partly shields the repulsive force that space exterts. We are pushed towards objects because we are unshielded on the opposite side. The unshielded repulsive force is extremely great, but since it comes from all directions, it only has influence where it is partly shielded. Larger objects provide better shields, Both because they have more mass to stop the force, and take up a wider area of our exposure to the repulsive force. (the force of 'gravity' dissipates with distance according to the inverse of the square of the distance, just like apparent area does.)
On the surface of a planet, We have 'below' us a shield thousands of miles thick, taking up nearly half our field of view, above us, the sky, pressing down on us.
The theory of gravity is that everything that has mass attracts everything else, probably because of the curvature of spacetime.
The truth is that matter partly shields the repulsive force that space exterts. We are pushed towards objects because we are unshielded on the opposite side. The unshielded repulsive force is extremely great, but since it comes from all directions, it only has influence where it is partly shielded. Larger objects provide better shields, Both because they have more mass to stop the force, and take up a wider area of our exposure to the repulsive force. (the force of 'gravity' dissipates with distance according to the inverse of the square of the distance, just like apparent area does.)
On the surface of a planet, We have 'below' us a shield thousands of miles thick, taking up nearly half our field of view, above us, the sky, pressing down on us.
posted by indrax at 2:13 AM
10 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I believe that the above idea that space is repulsive is somewhat right. There is a repulsive force that exists instead of the common preconcieved notions of gravity. The repulsion however is not emanated from space but from other objects. All objects exude a repulsive force on all other objects. The force is equal on all sides of any object no matter where it is located in the universe because the amount of matter is equal on all sides of any object unless that force is blocked by another nearby object.
This idea was posed to me 20 years ago by a friend who challenged me to prove it wrong logically. I could not do so, but wondered what difference does it make. If gravity is a repulsive force it doesn't make any difference to local space equations. However, because science has determined that the the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, they have tried to explain this by introducing dark matter and dark energy to explain the repulsion. If the expansion rate is just another manifestation of repulsive gravity, we've just eliminated the need for "dark energy". Hmm. As the universe expands, it becomes less dense, with less matter/volume to shield the repulsive forces, it seems intuive that the universe should end up flying apart at near the speed of light. It may be that repulsive gravity is the simpler and more elegant solution.
I have been searching the internet for "Repulsive Gravity" to see if anyone else has come up with the same idea as I did. This is the nearest site to what I was thinking of as repulsive gravity. I don't think there is a need for shielding by matter - just that all points in space (space quanta) are sources of repulsive gravity EXCEPT those in which there is a particle of matter. Larger, more massive particles like nucleons cancel out the effect of more space quanta than smaller ones such as electrons . The effect on small scales in a vast universe is exactly the same as attractive gravity.
What are the implications of Repulsive Gravity? (RG)Perhaps there are some differences from normal gravity that could be tested.
For Example. Assuming that the repulsive force is a constant and the same everwhere implies that there is a theoretical limit to the force that can be generated on a mass by RG. Is this true of Gravity? If a particle is near the event horizon of a black hole does the size of the hole determine the gravitational force or is it a constant at any event horizon? Because one characteristic of the horizon is that the force at that point is such that light can not escape the field, the implication is that all event horizons exhibit the same force-the theoretical limit of gravity (in normal space).
Under the RG theory, we are constantly subjected to repulsive forces equal to gravity near a black hole, but from all directions so that they cancel each other out. Talk about pressure.
In response to emack, the Repulsive Gravity could not emanate from other mass objects because then its strength would vary widely throughout space. In order for us to be "confused" into believing gravity was an attractive force, RG would have to be constant force that is either displaced or shield by mass.
if u wanna know how gravity works, u should start thinking radiation in combination with earth's magnetic field :)
copyright frank berntsen
Think about it as 'gravity by shielding from radiation pressure', there you have your force. In nature, there are four forces presumed: electromagnetism, the storng and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. It has been shown that the strong and weak force are actually electomagnetism at a higher energy level, so that gives us only 2 forces: electromagnetism and gravity.
We notice there's a lot of high-energy em-radiation in space, from all directions. We also know that radiation gives 'radiation pressure', a measurable (though small) force on any object. Coming from all sides, it cancels out. The fatter the planet you're on, the better the shielding, though... so that's why you seem to get 'pulled' towards it... you're actually pushed from the opposite side. No mysterious 'work at a distance' that classic 'pull' gravity framework provides (to which Newton and Einstein themselves already strongly objected, by the way!).
Now here's a point of difference though: if you take several 'pull' fat gravity planets, and stack them all next to eachother, their total gravity force wil grow and grow...without any limit. If you would do the same with 'push' gravity planets, the extra shielded force will be less and less per planet you add: there's only so much you can shield.
After stacking up some 20 planets, another 21th shielding planet is not making much difference anymore.
In this experiment, there should be a significant difference measurable, deciding which of the two theories - pull versus push - is in line with measurements. With some chance and precise measurement, we might see which theory is right, next time a few planets line up in our solar system.
This theory has already been 'disapproved' by one of the great: Richard Feynman. He says: this theory cannot be true, because if it would, planets would simply stop moving, because they get more pressure at their front (of movement) than at their tail... which would eventually stop all movement. As if the 'soup of photons' a planet is flying in, is like water or gas, applying friction when you move, more at the front than at the back.
This, however, might turn out to be a very naive view which doesn't hold, even if it's dr. Feynman who said so. Argument: a photon always moves at the speed of light (in the medium it's in.. let's consider normal inter-space near-vacuum). Now if a photon would simply be another particle, then yes, Feynman would be right: the relative speed of a planet flying forward, and a photon bouncing off the front, would be higher than a photon bumping off the back of the planet, moving away form it. This ould be true at normal speeds.
However: we should not forget that the photon is moving at the speed of light. For all observers (be it in motion or not) the speed of light is always the same. The speed of the photon, impacting at the front of the moving planet, comes in at the speed of light, just like the photon that impacts the back of the planet... there is no speed difference, because the photon always delivers its momentum at the highest possible speed = the speed of light. So the relative movement of the planet does not matter when it concerns radiation pressure: no matter how fast or in what direction you move, the unshielded radiation pressure from all sides will always be evenly distributed spherically, no matter in what direction and how fast you're moving.
(continued in next post, because posts are limited to 4096 characters, sigh ;-)
(continued from previous post)
Another problem of classic gravity is this: the more planets you stack up, the bigger the force... so where does it end? Theoretically, for classic gravity, there is no mathematical limit. You can always get a bit more force by adding extra matter... hmm. let's keep that in mind.
With the 'push' (radiation pressure) theory of gravity, the 'shielding gravity force' has a natural limit with photons at the speed of light, delivering their push on impact. With the traditional 'pull' theory (of gravitons?) there is no limit to the force, because stacking up matter just adds more force...
so could a particle get accelerated so that it goes faster than light? With classic gravity, I guess so: if the force is large enough, and the particle is not too heavy, it might actually be accelerated beyond light speed... hmmm... now there's a problem, if you want to stick to the speed of light being the fastest speed you can attain.
With the 'push' shielding theory, you don't have that kind of trouble: it naturally flattens out when there's nothing more to shield... with particles at the speed of light.
And also, this 'strange working at a distance'-thing in classic gravity is very fishy. If there is no Ether or any other means of communication of a particle-soup- in-between, how is it explainable that gravity 'feels the pull' of things lightyears away, in total vacuum, and.... once it starts pulling, it faithfully does that at the speed of light (gravitons are supposed to have this speed limit too, according to graviton theory)... but if these gravitons cannot 'see' faster than light, how can they know where to pull, etc.? Last time I checked, there were no little elves helping the gravitons do their strange working at a distance, lightyears away.
'Push' gravity has no such 'strange workings at a distance', is much more straightforward and following naturally from electromagnetism, and leaves no holes, where 'pull' gravity is as leaky as a bucket!
All in all, we might sooner or later discover that this 'fourth' force, called gravity, was mistaken for an actual force, but is just a resultant force, just like the strong and the weak force were just emanations for electromagnetism, and all in all, there is only once force in the universe: electromagnetism in all its flavours and energy levels, accelerating particles up to light speed, and letting them bounce off eachother in local space.
It is an intuitive mistake to make, for us humans: just like people think their vacuum-cleaner 'sucks' air in, nothing is further from the actual physical truth. It gets pushed in by the surroundings.
cheers!
next time you feel heavy, blame the sky up above, not the planet below ;-)
Intererest points all, Frank. However I'm not sure you've disproved Feynman's point. The photons hitting the front of the planet do impact at the the same speed as the one's hitting the back of the planet. However, the back photons have red-shifted. Doesn't this imply that they are striking with less energy?
The second problem I see is that em radiation in most frequencies can be recreated in the lab and its repulsive effect measured. The background radiation in the Universe is very faint. We should be able to output radiation many times stronger and create a gravitation repulsor gun, but such a thing has not been invented. I don't think that gravitational waves are part of the em background radiation, but something separate. I do like your illustration of why adding planets causes a natural limit to how fast objects can travel-ie, they approach the speed of light as an asymptote. However this would only apply to objects that are accelerated by the force of gravity or other C-constant wave forces. It implies that if I accelerated my spaceship to 99.9% of C using wave forces, and then turned on my rocket, I should be able to accelerate my rocket faster than the speed of light. We could do this test in a particle accelerator by arranging collisions of particles at right angles. Maybe interesting things will come out of the new accerator!
Post a Comment
<< Home