[Gravity - A different concept] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
Gravity - A different concept
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Ryan Flanders
What if the world had a big hole that went clear through the center all the way to the other side? Suppose you dropped a bowling ball into the hole. What would happen?
This is the idea that prompted me to ponder the mysterious wonder of GRAVITY. Actually that was the second question to come to my mind…spawned by the events following:
While at work one hazy day, I was looking out of my 5th floor window over the roof top of a level below me. The contractors that built the place had placed rocks, about half the size of golf balls, all over the top of the roof... I’ve seen this done before on roofs and to this day don’t understand what it is for…but none the less I was sort of in a “I’ve been thinking to much” daze staring out the window at the rocks. I noticed some of the rocks apart from the others, scattered about on sort of a ledge. Then I started thinking…Here, five stories above the earth, the rock and I were just sitting there…Stopped from falling to the earth by the solid building beneath. If the building were to suddenly vanish, our existence would turn into a chaos of whirling wind for a few split seconds and then sudden impact with the planet. Bad for me more so than the rock of course, but it is just that thought that got me going. What the heck is Gravity?
What is the force that attracts us to the earth? Is it indeed a pull? Or, is it a push? That is when the second thought came into my mind. What if there was a hole clear through the center of the earth...how would something react falling through the hole? Would it fall half way and stop in the middle? I don’t think it would go through and come out the other side. Or would the hole totally negate the earth’s gravitational force? Think about this a minute or two…it kind of twists your mind a bit.
What is going on for everything, including the earth, to be in such a race to go inward? Everything I know of, with the exception of helium (and other gases), is attracted to the center of our great and wonderful planet. And it seems the greater the density the stronger this force becomes. Why?
If I were to build a giant sphere in space, out of plastic, the size of our moon or earth…would it have its own gravitational force? Or does it have to be made out of rock and dirt? If it does have its own force, what caused it? I didn’t add anything special to the plastic to give it gravity.
That idea started me to thinking about just what gravity is. If I don’t have to add anything but mass and density to get gravity what is causing the attraction or inward push? Could it be that I’ve taken up space. Just as if you were to introduce a sphere into water, it would move the water out and away…but when you remove the sphere from the water, the water takes back the space that was occupied by the sphere. I think that is what is happening with space. Even if it is space it has its own place in space. It wants the space back. So it pushes inward on the mass and everything around it trying to re-occupy the space that was invaded by the mass.
There you have it…my basic concept on gravity. It’s the force of Space that has been occupied by mass trying to reclaim itself against the mass. This force is relatively weak on a small scale, but grows more and more powerful the bigger the mass gets.
Think of it as placing a large ball inside a smaller balloon that has not been blown up. You would have to stretch the balloon over the ball. The rubber would squeeze anything between it and the ball trying desperately to get back to its original shape. That is what is happening in space. The earth is taking up space and the space that has been squeezed out of shape is pushing in to reclaim its original shape and space.
Einstein himself theorized that time and space is warped by gravity. But I think time and space are warped by mass. If you look at a visual model of Einstein’s theory of this warping of space, it is always shown as if the world is like a heavy ball laying on a piece of fabric…bending the fabric down warping space and time. Think of this same visual…but this time there is another piece of fabric on top of the other and the ball is moving in between the fabrics. Space would cover the ball all around…not just under the ball…bending space and time around the ball.
It is mass that is distorting time and space caused by the force of space trying to re-occupy its rightful space against mass. Which is what is known as gravity.
Notes:
There is a reference above stating that Einstein himself theorized time and space is warped by gravity... I'm not exactly sure that is truly what he theorized. He may have said that Mass is what warps time and space. And with this I agree. It is the gravitational effect that I believe actually warps space/time.
I need to state, as you will probably surmise that I am not a scientist and have no degree in science other than computer science. So my statements are what I believe to be the possible cause of gravity based on my own reasonable and layman deductions. I welcome all comments.
And by the way…I think that if there were a hole, completely through the center of the earth, that gravity would then push in on the exposed earth throughout the center…meaning one would be able to then walk to china…in a spiral.
Posted by: Peter Forsberg
What you are proposing is that the vacuum of space is actually not a vacuum but a pressure. A pressure that increases with the amount of space that has been displaced.
I liked the image of a ball sandwiched between two pieces of strechable fabric. That image gets rid of a strange aspect of the traditional image, of a heavy ball resting on a single piece of strechable fabric. The strange aspect of the traditional image is that it requires gravity for the ball to stretch the fabric, which i find is quite inadequate. The image is trying to visually explain gravity. Gravity should obviously not be a key ingredient in the explanation.
From another non scientist.
Posted by: Maxime Chevalier
I've always thought of gravity as energy attracting energy. I find your view on it interesting nevertheless. Space compressing all mass onto itself is indeed a good image.
To answer some prior questions:
If I were to build a giant sphere in space, out of plastic, the size of our moon or earth…would it have its own gravitational force?
Yes it would, and the center of mass would be at the center of the sphere.
Everything I know of, with the exception of helium (and other gases), is attracted to the center of our great and wonderful planet.
Technically, helium is attracted by our planet as well, it's just that it "floats" on top of heavier gases like oxygen (like oil floats on water). It's also light enough to potentially escape the atmosphere. Heavier gases in the atmosphere simply push helium up because they have a stronger attraction towards the earth and naturally take their place closer to the earth.
Stars like the sun are made almost entirely of helium and hydrogen (and hydrogen is even lighter than helium).
What is the force that attracts us to the earth? Is it indeed a pull? Or, is it a push? That is when the second thought came into my mind. What if there was a hole clear through the center of the earth...how would something react falling through the hole? Would it fall half way and stop in the middle? I don’t think it would go through and come out the other side. Or would the hole totally negate the earth’s gravitational force? Think about this a minute or two…it kind of twists your mind a bit.
If you were to create a large tunnel that would traverse the earth from side to side and throw a rock in it, the rock would fall down and keep accumulating momentum until it reached the center. At this point, the rock would no longer accelerate, but its momentum would make it continue on towards the other side... So it would "come out" to the other side (but most likely not as "high" as you launched it on the former side). It would then slow down until it had an almost null velocity because the gravity is still pulling it towards the center of the earth. So it would begin to accelerate down again, and so on.
Essentially the object would act a bit like a pendulum, falling down, coming up, falling down in the opposite direction, coming up in the opposite direction, etc... Until the friction with the air or liquid inside the hole reduced the object's velocity completely... It would fall less and less high until it eventually settled at the center of the earth, at which point it would (theoretically) remain perfectly still in the center, at the exact center of mass of the earth, without touching the sides of the tunnel. Of course this wouldn't work in practice, because we wouldn't be able to target the exact center of mass of the earth, etc. And digging such a tunnel is currently unfeasible.
Posted by: AlirezaNejati
There is a problem with this theory: Gravity is caused by mass, not volume.
For example, in your theory, if we have two filled spheres of equal volume, but different density, they would have the same gravity. Of course, this is false, and as we know the denser sphere would have more gravity.
Another caveat to this theory is the idea of a black hole. Black holes take up no volume, but still have lots of gravity.
These facts seriously question your idea, in my opinion.
Posted by: Ryan Flanders
In Response to AlirezaNejati...I have been thinking about your proposal that this theory is flawed due to the change in gravity with increased density.
I do agree that with increased density the force of gravity becomes stronger...and the way it fits into my theory is explained in the same fashion as I stated above.
If you consider the Earth there are holes and space within the planet. In a sense it is porous. Therefore the force of space to reclaim itself is less. If you remove the spaces and crevices within the planet, or fill in all the holes, you are driving out even more space...making the planet denser. This would cause an even greater force of space to reclaim itself.
I would guess that a black hole is so purely dense, that there is no space what-so-ever with in it ... and that makes space really mad. It wants its rightful place in space back. - Ryan
Posted by: Iconasostacles
This thread exists because of the compelling nature of the idea of a spatial pressure attemping to reclaim mass-space, resulting in a force approximate to gravity.
A number of zero-point field theories deal with 'empty' space as a form of pressure. I would suggest Bernard Haisch's work. He has also colloborated in some fascinating math on why there is no mass. That is to say, mass is an apparent quality derived from the acceleration of massless forms against the resistance of energy at its (non-local) lowest state.
As one person noted in this thread, the usual example (heavy ball on fabric) of Einstein's gravity-as-slope theory suffers from using gravity in the example. A word cannot (or at least, should not) define itself.
Of course a similiar problem confronts the use of mass-possessing objects to demonstrate an effect in which mass is a participant.
Part of the beauty of Einstein's model is that gravitation doesn't need to be a force at all. In some ways it is simply the variable, fractalish shape of the 'surface' of the universe. The dropped ball needn't be pushed or pulled, per se, but simply an inherently mobile structure whose motion is polarized/aimed always in the 'easier' downhill direction.
Although... does any of this relate back to NKS? We should be trying to swing this discussion around to gravity as a form of computation at threshold levels of complexity.
Posted by: John Gonsowski
I think the closest thing in physics outside of NKS that involves gravity in an NKS-like way is the way one gets the Dirac equation from a random walk through a Feynman Checkerboard. I've seen NKS rules mapped to gravity degrees of freedom:
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsm...if256rules.html
but I don't think there's been any actual random walk NKS simulations for gravity.
From http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/USGRFckb.html
For sure, every Q that solves the system of coupled differential equations that describe the amplitude of the random walk on the hyper diamond lattice also solves the Dirac equation.
But what about the other way round?
Does every Q that solves the Dirac equation also describe such a random walk. ...".
My proposal to answer the question raised by Urs Schreiber
Does every solution of the Dirac equation also describe a HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard random walk?
uses symmetry.
The hyperdiamond random walk transformations include the transformations of the Conformal Group:
rotations and boosts (to the accuracy of lattice spacing);
translations (to the accuracy of lattice spacing);
scale dilatations (to the accuracy of lattice spacing): and
special conformal transformations (to the accuracy of lattice spacing).
Therefore, to the accuracy of lattice spacing, the hyperdiamond random walks give you all the conformal group Dirac solutions, and since the full symmetry group of the Dirac equation is the conformal group, the answer to the question is "Yes". Thanks to the work of Urs Schreiber:
The HyperDiamond Feynman Checkerboard in 1+3 dimensions does reproduce the correct Dirac equation.
Posted by: Iconasostacles
Now we have, perhaps, swung too far the other way. John's last post certainly brings the thread back to NKS-related models of gravitation (thank you) but it also loses the thread by (a) using a completely different tone and speed of discourse (b) not referring to a version of the originating ideas and feelings of the thread.
The means by which forum discussion can become profitable, collectively intelligent, etc. has been weighing on my mind lately. I participate in several different online forums and find the same general difficulties.
It strikes me that we all need to actually make an effort to orient our postings to
-The specific theme of the over-all forum (rather than any theory we might be interested in discussing).
-The specific query or idea of the individual thread (rather than the general topic suggested by the thread's title).
-Making an actual contribution of something that we do not see mentioned in the discussion
-Holding the tone and texture of the other contributors.
I have, myself, variously failed in all these areas. Yet it is increasingly apparent to me that the intellectual ability, rigor and education of individual participants must be met by an equal amount of collectively-oriented discourse which deliberately intends to feel out a particular mutual understanding. This is difficult but more so if we do not begin to try it.
This post is either way off topic or on all topics. Forgive me. Thanks for listening.
Posted by: John Gonsowski
The original post seemed oriented towards mass so perhaps discussing what mass is might help. There are actually two types of mass, inertial mass and gravitational mass. Inertial mass is probably more directly a torus-like battle between the fermions and spacetime using gravitational bosons as the weapons. Gravitational mass is perhaps the damage to the battlefield.
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsm...h.html#electron
Posted by: Reconnect
It is worth noting that the idea gravity pulls to the center of a mass is theory, not fact. The idea of pressure is interesting especially in relation to attraction and repulsion.
Gravity as we know it could in fact be a 'virtual' force.
I personally believe that the planet earth is radiating and creating an outward going force. I also believe that 'empty' space is absorbing this radiation limiting certain constructs for reaching further into space (or away from the planet).
When I say 'virtual' force I mean it is possible to create the 'effect' of a 'single' force using two opposing forces.
If you have two forces, one coming from the right say, and one from the left, and these two forces are about equivalent in strength (or weakness or whatever), you will bring about a point of equilibrium.
This point of equilibrium could be the surface of the planet for instance.
I think modern physics is a simulacrum based on this assumption, i.e. that gravity is in itself a force and 'not' the effect of two or more forces.
Posted by: tomjones
I take from this post you are not a physicist...
Gravity is not a force, its a space time distortion read on GR, be a good chap and inform yourself...
Thanks
Posted by: Reconnect
I take from this post you are not a physicist...
Gravity is not a force, its a space time distortion read on GR, be a good chap and inform yourself...
I take from your post you are not a philosopher...
Gravity is a word used to convey an abstract set of ideas and concepts that collectively describe the qualities of a particular effect we perceive in the experience of being.
My contribution to this post was the idea of 'virtual' constructs, i.e. models that describe virtual, rather than real, properties of a phenomena.
Message boards should be a place to explore and expand possibilities as opposed to preaching a particular practice (which ironically is exactly what I have just done...).
Posted by: tomjones
Well last time I checked this a forum for science not philosophy, or in this case vague swaths of verbose and vacuous language.
Thanks
Posted by: Reconnect
Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
Philosophy: the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge.
Gravity: The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Well last time I checked this a forum for science not philosophy, or in this case vague swaths of verbose and vacuous language.
Err, thanks?
Posted by: tomjones
You'll do better getting your definitions from the oxford dictionary, then trying to do it yourself. You're missing some key points there but whatever why waste the time correcting your sloppy definitions.
"Gravity: The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
Thanks you are now a follower of Newton, and are now ready to proceed to the rest of science... say the last 400 plus years.
hmm.. err was not what I was hoping for, you have no appreciation for the use of words in my last statement... I am supremely disappointed...
Here I'll give you a better definition of philosophy, and to wikipedia's credit amazingly enough:
"Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic)."
I guess you ain't no philosopher neither seeing how wikipedia defines your interest better then you.
Thanks
Posted by: Reconnect
My definitions where copied and pasted from www.dictionary.com.
I came here to talk about the nature of gravity you pretentious twat.
Posted by: tomjones
In other words you're dumb and uncultured...
Congrats you and Mike Helland should talk you're both amateur thinkers. Can wannabe philosophers... join the club of the many and the uninformed...
If the best insult you can level is name calling then there is no intellectual value to be had here. Not having time to deal with fools like yourself and foolish, false ideas, not being science and not being worthy of informed intellectual conversation.
You came here to talk about gravity, ha, not knowing the first thing about gravity how is that possible. Oh yes the pretense of knowing what you're talking about, or in other words as I said, an amateur thinker.
Thanks, your mightily easy to irritate, I would destroy you in formal debate.... you not having the stomach for such endeavors...
Posted by: Reconnect
I am clearly an ignoramus who has failed to realise the fullness of your sublime magnificence, you are incredibly sophisticated and clearly very professional.
This has been a greatly enriching experience, thank you, thank you very much.
Posted by: tomjones
Clearly you are, though you didn't mean it, though your sarcasm is delightful, you have only yourself to blame.
A fool to the last why do you bother responding, I clearly got under your skin, so what are you doing? A wise man would have walked away before your previous post. But as we discovered you are not wise, but a foolish amateur thinker.
I am glad you found this enriching I didn't but hey who knows what a fool will find enriching...
By your next post, we'll find the extent of your intellect, or lack of...
Enjoy, my little amateur thinker... don't worry this isn't personal you opened the door so I make fun of you. You're just bent out of shape, because I said your definitions are worthless and they still are but, hey think what you want, I don't care....
Bottoms up....
Posted by: tomjones
For anyone who is looking for cheap unscientific fun or conversation all you need to do is post replies to Mike Helland, or Reconnect, who seems to be Mike's partner in ignorance. They are amateur thinkers, meaning it was only in the last day or two that they started having thoughts, these thoughts have yet to show a spark of intellect. Its cheap and you'll get responses like this gem here:
"I came here to talk about the nature of gravity you pretentious twat."
-Reconnect
Precious ain't it...
Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research
© 2004-2008 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. |
Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings