The cause of gravity

[Bogie]

I decided to break this off from my Elementary Energy Wave/Particle thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=836551&postcount=133) because it addresses a topic that has a life of its own, gravity.

The cause of gravity:

Energy in space is repulsive.

Energy is attracted by mass.

Where ever energy goes it is repulsed except when it is going toward mass.

It enters mass readily.

The density of energy in space around mass is lower than the average energy density of space elsewhere because energy flows into mass and is repulsed in all other directions.

All mass is surrounded by low energy density space as energy flows freely into mass.

The energy density between objects in space is lower than the energy density of space in all other directions.

Gravity is displayed as moving objects in space take the lowest energy density path and move toward each other.

The energy inflowing into mass is processed by atoms that act like little nano photon machines. Energy is forced into the electron rings by the forces within the atom. The electrons reach full energy capacity and emit excess energy as photons.

Atoms produce photons from energy that flows into them from space.

Energy flows in, photons flow out.

Photons do not impact the density of energy in space.

Gravity is caused by the inflow of energy into the atoms in mass which produce photons that are emitted by mass but when emitted have no impact on the inflow of energy or on the energy density of space surrounding mass.

Energy flows into mass causing the mass to be surrounded by low energy density space which causes the path of objects in space to move toward each other as they follow the lowest energy density path through space.

That is what causes gravity.

[grav]

I guess I would be the best one to comment on this for the moment since this sounds very similar to the model I've been working on.


Energy in space is repulsive.
I guess that could be the case if you mean that they exert a force outward in all directions as pressure.

Energy is attracted by mass.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, though. Is this an actual attraction, such as electrical? It couldn't be gravitational if it is the cause, unless you're thinking about some "gravity creates gravity" scenario. But even then, gravity must already exist.

Where ever energy goes it is repulsed except when it is going toward mass.
Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by this, either. How else would it be repulsed except by mass?

It enters mass readily.
Okay. But does this mean that it is very penetrating or that it is readily absorbed by matter?

The density of energy in space around mass is lower than the average energy density of space elsewhere because energy flows into mass and is repulsed in all other directions.
Again, what does it repulse, if not mass?

All mass is surrounded by low energy density space as energy flows freely into mass.

The energy density between objects in space is lower than the energy density of space in all other directions.

Gravity is displayed as moving objects in space take the lowest energy density path and move toward each other.
That all sounds good to me.

The energy inflowing into mass is processed by atoms that act like little nano photon machines. Energy is forced into the electron rings by the forces within the atom. The electrons reach full energy capacity and emit excess energy as photons.

Atoms produce photons from energy that flows into them from space.

Energy flows in, photons flow out.

Photons do not impact the density of energy in space.

Gravity is caused by the inflow of energy into the atoms in mass which produce photons that are emitted by mass but when emitted have no impact on the inflow of energy or on the energy density of space surrounding mass.
Okay. You lost me a little there. But it does sound similar to something I've been thinking about the relationship between gravity and electric charge. All matter creates gravity and heat. Heat generates light. There may be a connection.

Energy flows into mass causing the mass to be surrounded by low energy density space which causes the path of objects in space to move toward each other as they follow the lowest energy density path through space.Works for me. But you do realize that this is push gravity, though, right? The only way I know to set yourself apart would be to produce the math and starting matching observations if you can. :)

[Bogie]

I guess that could be the case if you mean that they exert a force outward in all directions as pressure.
In my link in the OP I describe energy in space and energy in matter as type 1 energy and type 2 energy respectively. Type one energy is energy in space and space has energy density. The average energy density in space is D = 1. Energy in space will equalize its density over the contiguous space. It does so by spreading out evenly, you could say it equalizes its own energy density in whatever contiguous space is available. Being in near equalibruim at any point in time, energy density is in balance with the available space at all times. If you add space, the energy will rebalance by filling the space, but then, you really can't add space to contiguous space so lets just say energy is in balance and of equal density in contiguous space if no mass objects (T2) energy are present.

Using the term pressure is appropriate, but my post is from the perspective of an infinite universe with infinite energy. It is not the case in BBT, so we can get confused by just saying there is pressure without saying that the pressure is contained "where".


I'm not sure what you mean by this, though. Is this an actual attraction, such as electrical? It couldn't be gravitational if it is the cause, unless you're thinking about some "gravity creates gravity" scenario. But even then, gravity must already exist.No, the attraction is by default. Energy density is equalized in all other directions, so if it flows freely into mass, that is attraction by default.



Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by this, either. How else would it be repulsed except by mass? I'm envisioning an energy quanta the fills contiguous space and maintains a consistent density in space by jostling around to keep its own little required patch of space. Each quantum has the same energy as the others, requires the same amount of space and they repel other quanta to maintain there share, and are repelled by others in the same fashion; a continual equalization of energy quanta density in contiguous space. I call the quanta elementary energy wave/particles (EEPs).


Okay. But does this mean that it is very penetrating or that it is readily absorbed by matter?
Matter is extremely pourus compared to the infinitesimal EEP. EEPs being repulsed in every direction except toward mass, the enter the pourus mass readily. Once inside mass they are subject to the forces that control the structure of atoms and are forced into the electron rings as free EEPs. Free EEPs are absorbed by the electrons until the electrons reach energy capacity, and then the electrons emit photons to sluff off the excess energy from the inflow of EEPs.



Again, what does it repulse, if not mass?You don't see this point? Energy density in space is self balancing and once balanced, the balance is maintained until something upsets the balance, like the presence of mass.

Add mass to balanced energy density of contiguous space and now the energy density has a new place to go, and it keeps going into mass because the atoms in the mass sluff it off as photons allowing a continual inflow.

[grav]

Okay. So the repulsion is just the energy density, which is the same thing as pressure, but energy density does seem more visual in this case. In filling an empty space, do you see the EEPs themselves being repulsed by each other, or electrically neutral and just bouncing off of each other, or do they interact with each other at all? By flowing into a mass, do you mean that the mass is just absorbing it, which would reduce the pressure in that direction, storing it until the energy reaches a certain level, and then releasing it as photons? Or does mass reduce the repulsion some other way?

[BigDon]

Excuse me, but I thought gravity was just matter curving/bending/warping space? As such it doesn't exist as a "thing" but is a phenomenom of said curvature.

I hope the question isn't too ignorant to reply to.

[Bogie]

Okay. So the repulsion is just the energy density, which is the same thing as pressure, but energy density does seem more visual in this case. In filling an empty space, do you see the EEPs themselves being repulsed by each other, or electrically neutral and just bouncing off of each other, or do they interact with each other at all?

Grav, go to the link in the OP and read the post that tells about the ISU and the EEP. The EEP is a real work horse in that it enables the physics for crunches to form and burst (big bangs), it supplies the energy for the forces within the atom, and it regulates the density of contiguous space. The concept of the EEP is a work in progress and the nature of the EEP as been developed along the way in that EEP thread.

In its role in gravity, it supplies the energy that is forced into the electron rings and builds energy until the electons have enough to emit a photon. If an EEP has energy of E = 1, then an EEP can be shown as E1. Then a photon will have energy (E10^n). I have not estimated the value of “n” except to that it is a large number. I am thinking millions of EEPs in a photon but I don’t have a good estimate. It must be the smallest increment of energy that has any meaning or significance in the universe, nothing can be smaller. It is a concept born by building from the bottom up instead of by back engineering the world we can observse and test. In order for the ISU to work, it needs the EEP. Will we ever find the EEP by back engineering? Maybe. I have a lot of faith in science.



By flowing into a mass, do you mean that the mass is just absorbing it, which would reduce the pressure in that direction, storing it until the energy reaches a certain level, and then releasing it as photons? Or does mass reduce the repulsion some other way?

The porous nature of matter is a condition that exists at the moment of the formation of an atom, and the flow of EEPs through the atoms starts at the moment of formation and continues as long as the atom exists. Atoms are little nano machines that produce photons, as well as absorb photons that are emitted as electromagnetic radiation. The EEP to photon process is totally different from the photon absorption and emission.

[Bogie]

Excuse me, but I thought gravity was just matter curving/bending/warping space? As such it doesn't exist as a "thing" but is a phenomenom of said curvature.

I hope the question isn't too ignorant to reply to.No at all, there are no ignorant questions as far as I’m concerned.

You are thinking General Relativity and you are thinking we are in a Big Bang Theory universe. I am not. I am in the ISU. Read the post that I link you to in the OP. And don’t worry, I know how far out it seems (that's why I say there are no ignorant questions, lol). But I used that perspective to develop my idea of gravity, so obviously I like being in the ISU instead of in the BBT.

[czeslaw]

Excuse me, but I thought gravity was just matter curving/bending/warping space? As such it doesn't exist as a "thing" but is a phenomenom of said curvature.

I hope the question isn't too ignorant to reply to.
How is the matter warping the space ?
Some of the string theories propose graviton as an independent particle mediating a gravity. Nobody observe it.
We know that space is discrete and there is a minimum energy joint to this discrete space - Casimir experience - vacuum energy, virtual particles, Zero Point Energy, EEPs.
If the space is joint to an energy, we may say - space has an energy and energy is in a space. The energy is just an oscillation of the discrete space. If the space oscillate in one place it will oscillate all of it as well. Such a wave of the oscillation is propagating through the whole space.
That way the gravity is the space curvature caused by the joint energy and its oscillation.
http://www.calphysics.org/gravitation.html

[czeslaw]

My idea of the energy is that it has two properties at the same time:
1. Attractive - the energy joint to a discrete space oscillate inwards only (potential gravitational energy) . The space beween two masses has a lower density as Bogie wrote.
2. Repulsive - the energy absorbed by a rest mass particle causes the oscillation (kinetic energy) of the particle. Oscillation causes a pressure.

[Bogie]

My idea of the energy is that it has two properties at the same time:
1. Attractive - the energy joint to a discrete space oscillate inwards only (potential gravitational energy) . The space beween two masses has a lower density as Bogie wrote.
2. Repulsive - the energy absorbed by a rest mass particle causes the oscillation (kinetic energy) of the particle. Oscillation causes a pressure.
Atoms are tiny energy converters, converting energy from contiguous space into photons, thus creating a perpetual flow of energy through the atom and lowering the energy density surrounding the atom (mass).

Energy in space self-regulates its density, i.e. distributes itself consistently throughout contiguous space.

We know that gravity, thou diminished with distance, still has a potentially infinite reach. With energy re-equalizing itself across contiguous space, how come the lower density isn’t faded into the rest of the energy density during the equalizing process at some distance out from the mass which would then end the reach of gravity?

That is because the flow of energy into photons and out of the atom is more efficient than the rebalancing.

The flow is like energy entering a bottomless hole in space created by the atom. Photon production increases or decrease with the change in density of energy in the space flowing through. As the rebalancing effect is always engaged trying to increase the energy density in the low density area around mass, the increased energy density sparks an increase in the photon production of the atom maintaining and extending the low energy density out from the atom.

Since this flow began when the atom took shape (billions of years ago), the surrounding low density zone will always be expanding as long as the atom exists.

[czeslaw]

If I wrote that the energetic vacuum oscillate inwards it not necessarily means an flow of matter towards an atom.
If two energetic particles oscillate the space between them becomes relatively less dense (as you wrote earlier) and it creates an attractive force.
In string theory they try to create a graviton's flow and a gradient in gravitons density causes an attractive force.
This both theories will unify together in a future, I think and gravitons will be a part of the space-time.

[Bogie]

If I wrote that the energetic vacuum oscillate inwards it not necessarily means an flow of matter towards an atom.
If two energetic particles oscillate the space between them becomes relatively less dense (as you wrote earlier) and it creates an attractive force.
In string theory they try to create a graviton's flow and a gradient in gravitons density causes an attractive force.
This both theories will unify together in a future, I think and gravitons will be a part of the space-time.When you use the phrase, "energetic vacuum", are you referring to "energy in space"? I mean, could that sentence be written, "The energy in space oscillates inwards, not necessarily an inflow of energy towards matter, but an attraction of energy in space which lowers the density of space between the two energetic particles."

If so, I would take this to say that there are elementary energetic particles oscillating (is oscillating just a better way to say "pulsing"?) in space that make up the content of space, i.e. an energy background. And then are you saying that in addition to such an energy background, there are particles (gravitons) which are responsible for gravity by moving toward objects and increasing the density in space of gravitons around objects that makes those objects attract each other?

If I am close to your meaning I have two questions. What is the significance of the oscillating energy in space?

If the gravitons form a high density around objects, how do they work, i.e. do the pull each other, or pull the objects, or are we talking about them pushing on objects from all directions?

Ok, three questions; what makes the objects move toward each other?

[czeslaw]

I am sorry Bogie for a graviton. It is a particle of String Theory mediating the gravity. They do not know how and we do not observe any gravitons.

A better idea is for me a pulsing Background according to its energy.
The Background I mean a space together with its energy. If it pulses inwards - the energy causes the decrease of the volume, inward warping - a space between two energetic particles become less dense. It causes a tension between them. Double inward pulses causes stronger tension than a single pulses in other direction It is your idea.

A space wants to fill the emptiness of less density and the whole space with the energetic particle move towards the other. We can say gravity pushes the space. It depends of point of view as you wrote.

[Bogie]

Let’s take Big Bang Theory, even though it is only part of the story since it picks up after an implied Big Bang Event that is the beginning of the BBT scenario. Energy emerged. We can’t say for sure from what or how, but there is some consensus that initially all of the energy in the universe was at a point of beginning, concentrated, highly dense.

This beginning quickly lead to an inflationary epoch of a fraction of a second, spreading faster and faster exponentially until it was big enough to prove that the big bang was in fact the cause of the universe that we observe today. If there had been no exponential expansion in the first second after the implied Big Bang, then the background temperature that is consistent in all directions would not have had time to cool so consistently.

At the end of the inflationary expansion, and before the cooling was sufficient for matter to form from the energy in space, the energy density in space was the only form of energy.

Theories abound about how matter formed from the initial energy from the big bang, but it seems to be the consensus that matter formed from that energy density in space that originated with the big bang.

Once matter formed we also had gravity.

Objects are attracted to each other by it.

It is caused by the low energy density space that surrounds objects in space.

Energy density in space is a little hard to map because one often thinks of energy in space as photons, or X-rays or Gamma Rays or cosmic rays, etc, but these are examples of energy transmission, not energy itself. The transmission of energy via electromagnetic radiation or momentum of objects themselves in space does not count as energy density. They count as energy removed from the original BBT energy density of space that existed at the beginning of the BBT scenario.

The energy density in space is reduced as energy is taken from the energy density and converted to photons, or X-rays or Gamma Rays or cosmic rays, or particle acceleration, or atomic particles and forces. When those things occur, the energy that they represent was at some prior point included in the energy density in the surrounding space that originally emerged from the Big Bang.

That is why matter is surrounded by low energy density space. At some point in the history of any particular matter, it existed as energy in space and was part of the energy density of space until it was removed from the energy density of space and converted to matter. That matter was immediately surrounded by low energy density space because the energy to form it came from the immediately surrounding energy density of space.

Once matter exists in space, it acts like a hole in the energy density of space, and energy flows into it from the energy in space. The flow is perpetuated through mass because mass and the forces that account for the stability of mass, process the energy from space into more mass as photons are created and emitted back into space.

One photon created in this manner would contain energy in proportion to E = mc^2, so a huge amount of energy flows into mass from the energy density of space for every single photon that is created by that mass.

If we conclude that protons and neutrons existed before electrons, then we could conclude that protons create electrons by processing energy in space through the proton, into a band around the proton where electrons form from the flow, and when the electron ratio to protons is reached (the protons can only support one electron), photons are emitted by the electrons.

In this scenario, neutrons do not process energy from the energy density in space; they are inert. That is why an atom generally has one electron per proton, regardless of the atomic weight which includes both protons and neutrons.

The energy density in space is quantum. A tiny amount of energy can be extracted from the energy density of space in discrete amounts. The discrete amount of energy is called an elementary energy particle (EEP).

Any thoughts?

[Bogie]

I am sorry Bogie for a graviton. It is a particle of String Theory mediating the gravity. They do not know how and we do not observe any gravitons.

A better idea is for me a pulsing Background according to its energy.
The Background I mean a space together with its energy. If it pulses inwards - the energy causes the decrease of the volume, inward warping - a space between two energetic particles become less dense. It causes a tension between them. Double inward pulses causes stronger tension than a single pulses in other direction It is your idea.

A space wants to fill the emptiness of less density and the whole space with the energetic particle move towards the other. We can say gravity pushes the space. It depends of point of view as you wrote.
The flow of energy from space, through the atom, and out of the atom into space as photons is what causes the low energy density surrounding matter in my scenario.

As mass accumulates, the low energy density space around that mass accumulates also.

This low energy density space is very much like the curved space in General Relativity as far as how it affects objects moving through space. So wouldn’t the math of my gravity idea be the same as the math supporting gravity in GR?

The curvature of space caused by the mass of an object is identical to the low energy density of space surrounding an object.

The low energy density of space surrounding an object travels with that object. Objects do not move through it, it moves with them because it formed with them and is part of the space that they occupy. It works like a sponge to continually draw energy in toward the mass, which then flows through atoms to the electrons, and then out of the mass as photons.

Two objects moving through space, both surrounded by their respective and proportional low energy density space, tend to move in the path of lowest energy density between then, curving their paths toward each other as they move.

It seems like a good idea, and all it requires is that energy from the energy density of space flows into atoms, is forced into the electrons, and the electrons slough of the extra energy as a photon when it accumulates a quantum.

[Nereid]

I decided to break this off from my Elementary Energy Wave/Particle thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=836551&postcount=133) because it addresses a topic that has a life of its own, gravity.

The cause of gravity:

Energy in space is repulsive.

Energy is attracted by mass.

Where ever energy goes it is repulsed except when it is going toward mass.

It enters mass readily.

The density of energy in space around mass is lower than the average energy density of space elsewhere because energy flows into mass and is repulsed in all other directions.

All mass is surrounded by low energy density space as energy flows freely into mass.

The energy density between objects in space is lower than the energy density of space in all other directions.

Gravity is displayed as moving objects in space take the lowest energy density path and move toward each other.

The energy inflowing into mass is processed by atoms that act like little nano photon machines. Energy is forced into the electron rings by the forces within the atom. The electrons reach full energy capacity and emit excess energy as photons.

Atoms produce photons from energy that flows into them from space.

Energy flows in, photons flow out.

Photons do not impact the density of energy in space.

Gravity is caused by the inflow of energy into the atoms in mass which produce photons that are emitted by mass but when emitted have no impact on the inflow of energy or on the energy density of space surrounding mass.

Energy flows into mass causing the mass to be surrounded by low energy density space which causes the path of objects in space to move toward each other as they follow the lowest energy density path through space.

That is what causes gravity.To what extent do the terms which I have bolded in your post have definitions that are consistent with the definitions of terms with the same name in mainstream physics?

[Bogie]

To what extent do the terms which I have bolded in your post have definitions that are consistent with the definitions of terms with the same name in mainstream physics?

Originally Posted by Bogie http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=837108#post837108)
I decided to break this off from my Elementary Energy Wave/Particle thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=836551&postcount=133) because it addresses a topic that has a life of its own, gravity.

The cause of gravity:

Energy in space is repulsive.
Energy is used in a specific why in this sentence. It refers to energy that is released by a big crunch when that crunch becomes a big bang. This energy exists as energy in space (the energy density of space) in the form of EEPs before EEPs are forced out of the high energy density space to become particles of matter.

Space is used in the sense that it is a place that contains energy density other than space that contains matter. It is all space that does not contain matter. It is referred to as contiguous space.

“Repulsive” is used in the sense that energy in contiguous space is made up of EEPs. EEPs are pulsing and as they pulse they jostle each other around, claiming their own space in which to expand, and thereby causing the energy density of space to equalize itself across contiguous space.




Energy is attracted by mass.

Mass is the term used to describe matter that has formed from the EEPs that have been forced out of high energy density space. EEPs combine and interact to eventually become particles that form atoms.



Where ever energy goes it is repulsed except when it is going toward mass.
It enters mass readily.

The density of energy in space around mass is lower than the average energy density of space elsewhere because energy flows into mass and is repulsed in all other directions.

Density of energy refers to EEPs in space and is used in the same sense as we can say a forest is dense with trees.



All mass is surrounded by low energy density space as energy flows freely into mass.

The energy density between objects in space is lower than the energy density of space in all other directions.

Gravity is displayed as moving objects in space take the lowest energy density path and move toward each other.
“Moving” is used in the sense that as objects (made of matter) travel through space they have momentum.



The energy inflowing into mass is processed by atoms that act like little nano photon machines. Energy is forced into the electron rings by the forces within the atom. The electrons reach full energy capacity and emit excess energy as photons.

Atoms are atoms. Photons are photons. Electrons are electrons. “Forces” in this case is the force that keeps electrons from falling into the nucleus of the atom.



Atoms produce photons from energy that flows into them from space.

Energy flows in, photons flow out.

Photons do not impact the density of energy in space.

Gravity is caused by the inflow of energy into the atoms in mass which produce photons that are emitted by mass but when emitted have no impact on the inflow of energy or on the energy density of space surrounding mass.

Energy flows into mass causing the mass to be surrounded by low energy density space which causes the path of objects in space to move toward each other as they follow the lowest energy density path through space.

That is what causes gravity.

[Nereid]

Energy is used in a specific why in this sentence. It refers to energy that is released by a big crunch when that crunch becomes a big bang. This energy exists as energy in space (the energy density of space) in the form of EEPs before EEPs are forced out of the high energy density space to become particles of matter.

Space is used in the sense that it is a place that contains energy density other than space that contains matter. It is all space that does not contain matter. It is referred to as contiguous space.

“Repulsive” is used in the sense that energy in contiguous space is made up of EEPs. EEPs are pulsing and as they pulse they jostle each other around, claiming their own space in which to expand, and thereby causing the energy density of space to equalize itself across contiguous space.



Mass is the term used to describe matter that has formed from the EEPs that have been forced out of high energy density space. EEPs combine and interact to eventually become particles that form atoms.


Density of energy refers to EEPs in space and is used in the same sense as we can say a forest is dense with trees.



“Moving” is used in the sense that as objects (made of matter) travel through space the have momentum.



Atoms are atoms. Photons are photons. Electrons are electrons. “Forces” in this case is the force that keeps electrons from falling into the nucleus of the atom.



Thanks Bogie.

As (all?) the key terms are defined solely wrt your own ATM idea, how could your idea, as presented here, be tested ... scientifically?

[Bogie]

Thanks Bogie.

As (all?) the key terms are defined solely wrt your own ATM idea, how could your idea, as presented here, be tested ... scientifically?Good question. I'm thinking that there is a measurable here somewhere.

The idea would predict photon generation from atoms, independent of photon absorption.

I could use some help with that because I don't even have a basement, let alone and atom isolator and emission tester.

I wonder if we could work on this in very low temperature environment, as near zero Kelvin as we can get. Keep all forms of extraneous radiation to a minimum, and measure photon out put over a period of time. Compare that output with some careful calculations of the expected output from normal photon absorption and emission.

[Nereid]

Well, you do have a disconnect between at least two properties of 'atoms' - they, and electrons, and photons are just as they are in the real world (of physics); but their 'mass' is different, in the Bogie world ... yet there are standard 'laboratory' methods for determining mass (in the real world) and they give consistent answers.

So maybe you could 'connect' the Bogie world of the 'mass' of an atom with that of the real world?

[Bogie]

Well, you do have a disconnect between at least two properties of 'atoms' - they, and electrons, and photons are just as they are in the real world (of physics); but their 'mass' is different, in the Bogie world ... yet there are standard 'laboratory' methods for determining mass (in the real world) and they give consistent answers.

So maybe you could 'connect' the Bogie world of the 'mass' of an atom with that of the real world?Not likely. I don't why they are different. I've never determined the mass of any part of an atom. I leave that up to people with a basement.

[Nereid]

Well, you do have a disconnect between at least two properties of 'atoms' - they, and electrons, and photons are just as they are in the real world (of physics); but their 'mass' is different, in the Bogie world ... yet there are standard 'laboratory' methods for determining mass (in the real world) and they give consistent answers.

So maybe you could 'connect' the Bogie world of the 'mass' of an atom with that of the real world?Not likely. I don't why they are different. I've never determined the mass of any part of an atom. I leave that up to people with a basement.Mass is the term used to describe matter that has formed from the EEPs that have been forced out of high energy density space. EEPs combine and interact to eventually become particles that form atoms.Are you saying that you think it will all work out 'the same' (no matter what "the EEPs" do, in "high energy density space" or anywhere else)?

If you can't derive (or determine) 'mass' from these EEPs and spaces, then the Bogie idea has no predictive (or even explanatory) power, at least wrt 'mass', right?

[Bogie]

Are you saying that you think it will all work out 'the same' (no matter what "the EEPs" do, in "high energy density space" or anywhere else)?

If you can't derive (or determine) 'mass' from these EEPs and spaces, then the Bogie idea has no predictive (or even explanatory) power, at least wrt 'mass', right?If you say so Nereid.

[Nereid]

If you say so Nereid.It's your ATM idea ... I am just asking you to clarify it ...

But perhaps the question was insufficiently clear; let me try again ...

To what extent do you think you could sketch, at a high level, the steps that one would need to take, to develop a quantitative explanation of mass, using the Bogie idea?

With regard to 'mass', what specifically can you say about why you feel this approach would 'get the numbers right'?

[Bogie]

It's your ATM idea ... I am just asking you to clarify it ...

But perhaps the question was insufficiently clear; let me try again ...

To what extent do you think you could sketch, at a high level, the steps that one would need to take, to develop a quantitative explanation of mass, using the Bogie idea?

With regard to 'mass', what specifically can you say about why you feel this approach would 'get the numbers right'?I don't know if EEPs exist, and if they exist I don't know their mass. I don't know how many it would take to make a photon. How am I supposed to know when no one has ever even acknowledged that energy can reside in space other than space containing matter. How can I tell the mass of an EEP if no one has even ever acknowledged that it is possible for space to have a characteristic called the energy density of space. How can I tell the mass of an EEP which is supposed to be the quantum of energy density in space when no one has acknowledged mass can be forced out of the energy density of space when that density is high enough.

Having an ATM idea is not the same as having proof, math, and a basement.

It is just an idea. No one took much interest in it. I can't prove it on my own. If it doesn't resonate with any one on BAUT, it is not going to resonate anywhere.

I'm the only one who imagines it, and since I don't hear any other simple explanations for how gravity works I'll imagine my idea could be it. It seems to me that the low energy density of space around matter would be the same as curved/warped space of GR. If so, then it could explain how space could be warped. If not, either space is not warped or there is some other way for it to warp. Does anyone know how space gets warped by mass? Give me a break.

[Bogie]

It's your ATM idea ... I am just asking you to clarify it ... OK, but before I do, let's go over the questions.

But perhaps the question was insufficiently clear; let me try again ...

To what extent do you think you could sketch, at a high level, the steps that one would need to take, to develop a quantitative explanation of mass, using the Bogie idea?I could do that to the extent that there would be wild guesses as to the size of the quantum EEP, the number of EEPs it takes to form photons, and unsubstantiated ideas about how protons form from EEPs, how protons accumulate their electrons, and how EEPs, attracted by protons, get forced to the electron rings where they accumulate to the photon quantum of energy and are emitted by the atom.

With regard to 'mass', what specifically can you say about why you feel this approach would 'get the numbers right'?This is why chatting with you is unproductive. Since I don't think "the numbers" that you would probably be referring to are "fact" as opposed to theory, I can't say even generally that they will agree with "your" numbers.

I'm guessing that you come from the school that says photons have zero mass. If the photon is found to have a mass of 10^-51 g or less, or the equivalent in eV, the entire body of theory surrounding quantum physics and special relativity would crumble. You are basically asking me to prove all of the theory wrong if I want to continue to propose that EEPs have mass, and photons that are made of EEPs would then have mass also.

I don't even have a basement let along the where-with-all to prove all of elemental particle theory is wrong and why.

[gzhpcu]

Excuse me, but I thought gravity was just matter curving/bending/warping space? As such it doesn't exist as a "thing" but is a phenomenom of said curvature.

I hope the question isn't too ignorant to reply to.

You are in good company thinking this. That is what Einstein thought as well, and nobody has proven him wrong yet. No graviton detected. No proof that gravity is anything more than a geometrical distortion of space.

[Bogie]

You are in good company thinking this. That is what Einstein thought as well, and nobody has proven him wrong yet. No graviton detected. No proof that gravity is anything more than a geometrical distortion of space.My idea of low energy density space instead of curved or warped space would not have any observable gravitons or waves or anything else, just low energy density space surrounding mass. Two objects take the path of lowest energy density space which is the space between the two objects, and the objects move toward that space.

I hope you don't get the impression that I am saying that there is any proof of my idea. I have proposed it as an explanation of how gravity could work.

If you agree that matter is somehow composed of energy, and that in the early phase of our visible, known, expanding universe there was a period of matter formation, then you have a sense of the concept of energy density of space being able to form matter, i.e. all of the matter that we observe in the visible universe formed from the tiny hot energy ball that started the expansion.

Can I get one person to acknowledge this possibility? No.

Can I get one person to tell me that energy just can't reside in space independant of matter? No.

Can I get one person who will even lower themselves to chat about the possibility that there is a possibility that space can have a characteristic called energy density from which matter could form? No.

Is this a discussion board or am I violating the rules and should be closed down, locked and banned for my ignorance? I love to rant sometimes, lol.

Someone on another forum said:
"The universe is very small and though it resides in infinity, the universe has a definite finite size. A finite object within “infinity” is infinitesimal. The universe started as energy only; a minute amount of energy, a finite amount of energy in infinity. The amount of energy which formed the universe was infinitesimal."

If you agree with it, so do I. Then I answered with:

"This finite amount of energy could have come from a big crunch that processed all of the matter that accumulated in it into an infinitesimal amount of energy which banged into our known, visible, expanding universe. This represents the conclusion that matter is made of energy and is converted back to energy in a big crunch."

At some point in both scenarios, energy and space is all there is.

My proposal in the second statement is that the energy came form a place that can be imagined. Being a BBT advocate, do you mean that the singularity comes from a place that can't be imagined or are you saying that we cannot know for sure? I agree with "we cannot know for sure".

The problem with "we cannot know for sure" is that if we stop there, we are imagining a singularity that has no imagined physics to support it. In my statement, we cannot know, but we can imagine a scenario that could make it so.

Why not a scenario of matter from the energy density of space after the big bang, matter being surrounded by low enegry density space when it forms, and gravity being the movement of bodies in space toward the lowest energy density path?

[BigDon]

What Bogie, don't get all defensive yet. Let me read and re-read your stuff until I feel I understand your points. Heck, I had to read Einstien's stuff seven or eight times before I felt I knew what he was talking about. And don't get started on Hawkins...

[Bogie]

What Bogie, don't get all defensive yet. Let me read and re-read your stuff until I feel I understand your points. Heck, I had to read Einstein's stuff seven or eight times before I felt I knew what he was talking about. And don't get started on Hawkins...OK, I'll hold off on the defensiveness until you get back with me :clap:.

This thread was a spin off from another and here is the post on the other thread the helps explain my :eh: idea (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=836551&postcount=133).

[Bogie]

OK, I'll hold off on the defensiveness until you get back with me :clap:.

This thread was a spin off from another and here is the post on the other thread the helps explain my :eh: idea (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=836551&postcount=133).I guess BigDon is too polite to respond after looking into my idea. This may be a good thing :shhh: .

So let’s say for the sake of getting the scientists into the discussion, that the expanding universe that we are in started expanding 13.7 billion years ago. Maybe we don’t know how it started or where it came from; maybe we will never know. But that is OK. We can still look at what we’ve got here, an expanding visible universe, and figure some things out.

Like we can figure that this expanding universe was a lot smaller 13.7 billion years ago.

Like we can figure that it takes a lot of energy to bang or burst forcefully enough to cause what we see from that tinier beginning.

Like we can figure that all this matter, mass and gravity we observe now were not in the form they are now. Can’t we figure that back then the matter was ready to form but hadn’t yet?

Can we figure it formed from the energy, the same energy that forced the expansion, i.e. matter formed from energy?

If you are at least considering this possibility then I ask you this. If no matter existed at the point of the bang at the very beginning of the expansion, could there be radiation? Doesn’t radiation require matter?

Isn’t it possible that the Big Bang was a quiet radiation free event, and that matter formed from energy after the expansion began?

No, I don’t consider it possible that there are planets made of soccer balls that are inhabited by velvet bunnies.

[Bogie]

Let’s look at a possible view of the environment before the event of the first matter forming from the energy of a big burst (big bang if you like).

Up to this point there is only energy expanding in space. The energy density of the expanding energy burst is thinning as the low energy density of the surrounding arena pulls it in. At the same time, the other side of the equation is that the energy density of the expanding energy burst is thinning as it pushes into the low energy density of the surrounding arena.

These two actions, the push and the pull typify the tendency of energy in space to equalize its density across contiguous space.

Isn’t it possible that the expansion we observe is the energy density from the big burst equalizing with the energy density of the arena that it is expanding into?

[Bogie]

1) Like we can figure that this expanding universe was a lot smaller 13.7 billion years ago.

2) Like we can figure that it takes a lot of energy to bang or burst forcefully enough to cause what we see from that tinier beginning.

3) Like we can figure that all this matter, mass and gravity we observe now were not in the form they are now. Can’t we figure that back then the matter was ready to form but hadn’t yet?

4) Can we figure it formed from the energy, the same energy that forced the expansion, i.e. matter formed from energy?

5) If you are at least considering this possibility then I ask you this. If no matter existed at the point of the bang at the very beginning of the expansion, could there be radiation? Doesn’t radiation require matter?

6) Isn’t it possible that the Big Bang was a quiet radiation free event, and that matter formed from energy after the expansion began?

Let’s look at a possible view of the environment before the event of the first matter forming from the energy of a big burst (big bang if you like).

Up to this point there is only energy expanding in space. The energy density of the expanding energy burst is thinning as the low energy density of the surrounding arena pulls it in. At the same time, the other side of the equation is that the energy density of the expanding energy burst is thinning as it pushes into the low energy density of the surrounding arena.

7) These two actions, the push and the pull typify the tendency of energy in space to equalize its density across contiguous space.

8) Isn’t it possible that the expansion we observe is the energy density from the big burst equalizing with the energy density of the arena that it is expanding into?1) I would say yes.
2) Yes
3) I would say so.
4) It would look like this is the case.
5) I think radiation does require matter.
6) Quiet is a good way to put it, not a bang but a burst maybe.
7) This seems to make sense.
8) Why not?

[Bogie]

first, how does matter "warp space" for that would imply that "space" has a fabric or substance to it. what evidence is there that space has indeed a fabric or substance associated with it?Hello again North. We exchanged a few posts on my EEP thread about warped space and gravity. I must admit that since then I have modified my ideas about the EEP and when it first can be said to have mass.

Back then I described the EEP as having infinitesimal mass. Since then I have clarified that to say the when energy from the burst (bang) started expanding 13.7 billion years past, it existed as extremely high energy density. As it expands the energy density is declining.

My idea is that the burst (bang) came from a big crunch which negates the incoming matter into the energy of which that matter was composed. I mean that the tens of billions of degrees temperature and pressure from immense gravity actual transform matter back into its energy component inside a big crunch. This energy eventually negates the entire crunch and bursts out. By then, surrounding the crunch is a huge arena of low energy density space.

The force of the burst and the pull from the negative pressure of the extremely low energy density surrounding the burst cause the rapid expansion of the emerging energy.

I'm concluding that no matter, i.e. no mass exists in the expanding energy from the burst at the beginning of the expansion, i.e. matter formed after the beginning of the expansion. Then I am concluding that matter and therefore mass is composed of the energy from the expanding burst.

When matter forms, gravity is caused by the formation of matter from the energy density of contiguous space, i.e. the energy density surrounding the mass that forms is lower than the energy density of the space further away.

I'm going to try not to hijack Sirius0's thread by linking this post to my thread on "The Cause of Gravity" if that is OK. Please respond over there if your response relates to my references to warped space and the cause of gravity so that the discussion on Sirius0's thread pertains to his ideas, not mine. Thanks.

[Bogie]

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR99/CENT99/abs/S5987154.html

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-2&page=articlese1.html

These links are some of the best thinking about the earliest time in BBT. The second link above contains the background leading to this update. The update proposes that the EEP which is central to my cosmology and gravity idea, and the quantum particles of quantum physics are not mutually exclusive, but are all part of the plasma "broth" that marks the earliest moments of the beginning of the expansion.

I like them and have no problem with the several possibilities that they considers practical. But what they say is not the entire basis of my ideas about cosmology and the cause of gravity.

My ideas about cosmology and gravity are right at the edge of what they don’t say. They say our universe was scalar, i.e. every point in the universe was present at ~10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. They say the universe was very likely in the form of plasma of relativistic particles at the earliest times consisting of quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and Higgs bosons represented by scalar fields with interaction and symmetry that decoupled and scattered into the first atoms of hydrogen and we know how things probably progressed from there.

What science doesn’t say is what occurred before t=~10^-43, and how the scalar plasma emerged. That is the instant that the universe was converted from energy into the scalar plasma. The scalar plasma had all the constituents of the universe that we observe, only in the most compressed state possible, i.e. at the beginning of the expansion

My idea addresses that period leading to the beginning of the expansion at t=~10^-43 and says that the plasma came from an energy that started the expansion. My idea picks up on the scalar nature of the plasma, i.e. it contains a tiny version of every single particle that now exists in our expanding visible universe.

The scalar universe contained in the plasma consisted of a finite number of particles that now exist in expanded scalar form and that make up the constituents of all matter in our observable universe.

I have simply called these tiny scalar particles the elementary energy particles (EEPs) that became the broth of particles that they describe as the plasma. I have described characteristics that they would need in order of escape the plasma, form matter, cause gravity, cause stars and galaxies and black holes, and eventually play a role in the formation of other “expansion events”, i.e. possible big crunches and big bangs elsewhere across the greater universe.

EEPs are at the heart of the formation of the early protons that reach the point of extreme stabiltiy and which attract electrons, then form hydrogen, then stars and heavier nuclei.

EEPs are also at the heart of the cause of gravity.

As protons form out of this plasma they consist of stable unions of these smaller particles from the scalar plasma. As protons form they attract more of these smaller particles in a circling ring of energy that becomes an electron. As energy from the plasma is attracted to the protons it accumulates into the electron ring around the proton, the electron forms and continues to accumulate energy flowing from the plasma. When it reaches the limit of the amount of energy that can be supported by the proton, the electron sloughs off a discrete packet of energy in the form of a photon.

Photons are continually sloughed as the energy continues to flow through the proton/electron machine.

This continual flow of energy from the plasma which is sloughed off as photons causes a low energy density area around the proton/electron. Each proton/electron, i.e. hydrogen atom has this low energy density “warp” surrounding it.

Gravity is caused by this low energy density “warp” and so the hydrogen atoms are attracted to each other, eventually compressing into hydrogen stars that form everywhere across the hugely expanded plasma that continues to exist and is causally connected to the initial beginning of the expansion.

This “initial beginning of the expansion” might be the Big Bang or it might be the big burst from a big crunch.

One thing we can predict is that gravity will weaken as the energy density of the plasma declines, i.e. as contiguous space expands. A reduction of in the strength of gravity will allow the expansion to accelerate. And yet a pound will still be a pound because weight is the effect of mass in a gravitational field, and the gravitational field of all objects will weaken at the same pace as the energy density of the plasma declines.

[sirius0]

What is your opinion of the Higgs Field? (I don't have an opinion yet but it sounds a little similiar to some of your theory)

[Bogie]

What is your opinion of the Higgs Field? (I don't have an opinion yet but it sounds a little similiar to some of your theory)The Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson are all about how particles get their mass. My gravity idea is part and parcel of both how mass forms and how gravity starts.

I haven't given too much effort to deciphering quantum physics. Maybe it would be helpful but they haven't come to a consensus on how mass forms, and I am impatient.

My idea is that there is a massless energy quanta that exists as the energy density of space. It either comes from the energy burst of the big bang, or it emerges from the core of a big crunch. Either way, I call it energy density of space. I believe matter forms from the energy density of space. Matter is mass, so when matter forms gravity must start. Why wouldn't the cause of gravity be related to the cause of matter?

Since matter density contains a relatively huge amount of energy, and if energy comes from the energy density of space, I suggest that the space immediately surrounding matter that forms from it will be of lower energy density than the contiguous space.

The path directly between two nearby particles will have lower energy density than any other path and so if particles tend to move toward the lowest energy density they will move toward each other, i.e. gravity.

I cover my whole idea here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=869104#post869104)

[zeus]

The cause of both gravity and inertia is quark to quark binding.

I cover this in my latest book:

http://www.lulu.com/quantumleap

See Web Site at http://www.amperefitz.com

"Universities Asleep at the Switch" - - - - Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's NEW book

Here are the first 30 pages of this BRAND NEW BOOK - - "Universities Asleep at the Switch" or "A Fresh Look at Quantum Physics". . This is an entirely new BREAKTHROUGH that replaces the problematic Faraday field concept with Mach's principle and Ampere's Relative Motion Laws. We finally see why we have all these things spinning in our universe.

http://www.amperefitz.com/us_20061020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf

And you can get it all FREE here:

http://www.rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm

Magnetism and sigma and pi chemical binding is done when electrons are lined up properly.

The weakest (equatorial) position of attraction in magnetism will be between a spin up and a spin down electron where their spins are in the same equatorial plane and their spin axes are parallel. Their closest sides will be moving in the same direction and acting like gears meshing and not clashing. You get this type of magnetic attraction when you put two pole-reversed magnets side by side and you also get this type attraction in sigma bonding. Light is derived via a sigma type, side to side, binding that I'll give you all the details about in Chapter #18.

The strongest (axial) attraction in magnetism will be between two electrons, spinning the same way, on the same spin axis because then not only the closest sides but also both entire electrons are spinning on parallel paths in the same direction. You get this type attraction with magnets that are not reversed, but have same poles pointing in the same direction and placed pole to pole. This is the way it works in pi bonding. But pi bonding is the weaker of the two chemical bonds because it is only a short duration, repetitive binding and not a steady bond such as in a sigma type bond where the orbitals of both electrons remain in the same plane.

So in truth we have magnetic attraction when geodesic paths are similar.

So opposites don't really attract do they?

However, this is what is presently being taught in the universities today and it is absolutely wrong.

And not only is it wrong, but it is the exact opposite of what is right.

Quarks bind the same way to cause gravity and inertia.

zeus

[Bogie]

The cause of both gravity and inertia is quark to quark binding.

I cover this in my latest book:

http://www.lulu.com/quantumleap

See Web Site at http://www.amperefitz.com

"Universities Asleep at the Switch" - - - - Daniel P. Fitzpatrick's NEW book

Here are the first 30 pages of this BRAND NEW BOOK - - "Universities Asleep at the Switch" or "A Fresh Look at Quantum Physics". . This is an entirely new BREAKTHROUGH that replaces the problematic Faraday field concept with Mach's principle and Ampere's Relative Motion Laws. We finally see why we have all these things spinning in our universe.

http://www.amperefitz.com/us_20061020_ck_ds_jm_ds.pdf

And you can get it all FREE here:

http://www.rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm

Magnetism and sigma and pi chemical binding is done when electrons are lined up properly.

The weakest (equatorial) position of attraction in magnetism will be between a spin up and a spin down electron where their spins are in the same equatorial plane and their spin axes are parallel. Their closest sides will be moving in the same direction and acting like gears meshing and not clashing. You get this type of magnetic attraction when you put two pole-reversed magnets side by side and you also get this type attraction in sigma bonding. Light is derived via a sigma type, side to side, binding that I'll give you all the details about in Chapter #18.

The strongest (axial) attraction in magnetism will be between two electrons, spinning the same way, on the same spin axis because then not only the closest sides but also both entire electrons are spinning on parallel paths in the same direction. You get this type attraction with magnets that are not reversed, but have same poles pointing in the same direction and placed pole to pole. This is the way it works in pi bonding. But pi bonding is the weaker of the two chemical bonds because it is only a short duration, repetitive binding and not a steady bond such as in a sigma type bond where the orbitals of both electrons remain in the same plane.

So in truth we have magnetic attraction when geodesic paths are similar.

So opposites don't really attract do they?

However, this is what is presently being taught in the universities today and it is absolutely wrong.

And not only is it wrong, but it is the exact opposite of what is right.

Quarks bind the same way to cause gravity and inertia.

zeusWow Zeus, that is a lot of material to cover. I am building from the bottom up and I consider quantum physics back engineering. The difference is similar to figuring out how to build a Coke bottle by figuring out how matter forms vs. smashing the Coke bottle and seeing what happens. Both methods have their place.

My method will not change the world of physics because it only explores ideas that science can't work with because there are no testable theories yet.

The mehtod of back engineering builds science, and quantum physics is a good example. But still we don't know how matter forms to start with.

My question to you is does this breakthrough tell us where Quarks come from?

And even if it doesn't, does you book explain that electricity and magnatism are dependent on the existence of matter just as gravity is; and unless matter has always existed, spin is a product and not a cause of the process that caused matter to form? Any clarification would be helpful.

[sirius0]

I have been reading your posts with great interest. i noticed you because you responded to my Why the Universe Must Expand ATM post about gravity possibly being an entaglement or memory of the super dense state. i have had further thoughts on this but have started to notice some embryonic resemblances to some of your thoughts. So I can't be sure that my thoughts are entirely seperate. What if gravity is a special kind of field that always selects a wavelength to suit the distance between any two bodies. I.e. one wavelength with the dip (in space time ) at the centre of gravity between the two bodies. Surely this idea would be an inverse of the energy densities you suggest? ( I mean here that they may compliment not contradict)

Some other thoughts i have had is that all waves and fields when redshifted to oblivion become gravity. That gravity IS the unified field which is why it has been elusive.

[Bogie]

I have been reading your posts with great interest. i noticed you because you responded to my Why the Universe Must Expand ATM post about gravity possibly being an entaglement or memory of the super dense state. i have had further thoughts on this but have started to notice some embryonic resemblances to some of your thoughts. So I can't be sure that my thoughts are entirely seperate.
People can come to the same conclusions from different paths. That is why I occasionally post on other threads. If I think you are wondering about the same things I am, and if there is a thread of commonality, then maybe progress can be made.

What if gravity is a special kind of field that always selects a wavelength to suit the distance between any two bodies. I.e. one wavelength with the dip (in space time ) at the centre of gravity between the two bodies. Surely this idea would be an inverse of the energy densities you suggest? ( I mean here that they may compliment not contradict).

Let me address your idea a fully as I can in light of my reasoning and gravity idea.

If as you suggest, gravity was caused by a variable wave in the perfect background that takes the shape of the energy density between objects, it would indeed make gravity an inverse of the energy density, i.e. low energy density between objects would mean a greater gravitational field. But then how does the low energy density surrounding mass sustain itself?

T1 space, the Perfect Background, must be contiguous and must be always attempting to self equalize its own pressure across contiguous space, i.e. it can’t have enough memory to keep track of mass, it can only swarm the low energy density (low pressure) that surrounds the mass. Its primary characteristic is P (pressure) that fluctuates with the energy density of T1 space. In an expanding space, P is declining. P = E / V, energy density of space divided by volume of that space equals the pressure of that space.

This simple relationship is what makes the Perfect Background so perfect. All that it does is equalize its own pressure. My idea won’t work with GR or BBT if space is created as the big bang expands. There has to be low energy density (low pressure) surrounding the energy from the bang, or burst as I prefer to call it.

It does stand to reason that if a huge amount of mass is accumulated in a crunch, and if mass has this low energy density surrounding, then the crunch will have the ultimate low energy density surrounding it, i.e. low pressure surroundings.

Gravity is the effect of the “warp” of low energy density and the tendency for moving mass to take the path of least resistance, i.e. the path between masses (as opposed to any other path that would by necessity be the higher energy density path).

The low energy density (LED) is perpetuated by the production of photons when the electrons reach capacity and slough off the discrete packet of E in the form of a photon. Photons are more than one EEP and so are made of merged EEPs and exist in T2 space as opposed to free EEPs that only exist in T1 space. That makes photons matter as opposed to part of the PB which contains no matter. Photons don’t have mass because they don’t slough off energy and therefore are not surrounded by low pressure. T1 and T2 space cohabitate but are different in that the merged EEPs of T2 space do not self-regulate their own density like individual EEPs do in T1 space.

T1 space equalizes by “jostling” and T2 space collapses due to gravity.

Some other thoughts i have had is that all waves and fields when redshifted to oblivion become gravity. That gravity IS the unified field which is why it has been elusive.

Let me ask you a question to test my understanding of this idea. Are these waves and fields composed of photons?

If so, then I see them as the product of atoms, i.e. of mass, and not the cause of gravity.

Now also, I can see what is encouraging your thinking about gravity being caused by the expansion. You may envision these receding waves as having a “push” characteristic? Though worthy of thought I concluded that my idea appealed to me more than the push of expanding photons in expanding space, if I understand.

As for “fields when red shifted to oblivion”, I consider this to be the cause of the apparent lack of a center or edge of the expansion. No matter where you are, all that you can observe is everything receding, i.e. a perfect expansion equalized across a huge and expanding contiguous space.

[gravitino]

..."Energy is attracted by mass. "

I'm not sure what you mean by this, though. Is this an actual attraction, such as electrical? It couldn't be gravitational if it is the cause, unless you're thinking about some "gravity creates gravity" scenario. But even then, gravity must already exist.




Consider the energy of vacuum ( Casimir ). A mass attracks that energy. This results in a change in energy distribution around the mass. That may explain the "curvature of space" as a consequence not as a change in space geometry as in mainstream.

[Dave Zelenka]

To understand how gravity works in simple terms, consider a thunderstorm and compare its functions to a planet.

http://www.interactive-earth.com/visualizations/animations/gravity.jpg

I expect that gravity is akin to the winds that draw moisture into a thunderstorm. The force of gravity is related to the relationship between space and mass.

I'm not sure how this compares with the method outlined on this thread, but if you'd like to discuss...

[Bogie]

To understand how gravity works in simple terms, consider a thunderstorm and compare its functions to a planet.

http://www.interactive-earth.com/visualizations/animations/gravity.jpg

I expect that gravity is akin to the winds that draw moisture into a thunderstorm. The force of gravity is related to the relationship between space and mass.

I'm not sure how this compares with the method outlined on this thread, but if you'd like to discuss...I like the comparison. Taking the analogy one step farther, the moisture exits the thunder heads as rain drops.

The idea on this thread is that atoms draw energy from the energy density of space and slough off the energy as photons. This sets up a perpetual flow of energy proportional to the mass, and causes a perpetual low energy density surrounding the mass.

The idea includes the proposition that two objects moving in space tend to follow the path of lowest energy density. They are attracted to each other because, since both are surrounded by low energy density, and the path between them is the lowest energy density path.

The low energy density surrounding mass can be thought of as "warped" or "curved" space, and the flow of energy through mass would be the "cause" of the curved space and therefore the cause of gravity.

More than one critic has said that they are not aware of photon emission form atoms without them having first absorbed a photon.

I haven't come up with a way to test the idea.

[Dave Zelenka]

Bogie,

So bring the rain drops in. How do they fit into your idea?

Or take the moon and tidal systems. How does the moon create the tides using your model?

In the thunderstorm analogy model above, tides are created because the moon creates a ever-so-slight shadow between space and the mass of earth. This lowers the gravity slightly which causes large bodies of water to expand and create tides. Of course, in traditional thought, the moon pulls the water toward its mass. In the thunderstorm analogy, the moon blocks the gravitational winds that are produced by the relationship between outer space (this might be your "energy density" concept) and the mass of the earth.

My fundamental way of thinking is to fully understand one idea (in this case thunderstorms and basic meteorological concepts) that can be directly seen and take that idea and apply it to another system. This method has its failures, but it also has its advantages for understanding complex related ideas and especially ideas that cannot be measured with our tools. I use thunderstorms and other cloud systems, because they are very much like the 'heavens' above them.

[Bogie]

Bogie,

So bring the rain drops in. How do they fit into your idea?They are the photons I talk of being sloughed off by electrons during the "flow" of energy through matter.

Or take the moon and tidal systems. How does the moon create the tides using your model?My idea doesn't change the "warped" space of General Relativity and how gravity displays itself in creating tides, or orbits, or the acceleration of objects. I am just adding a proposed "cause" of the "warped" space, i.e. the low energy density surrounding matter as energy is converted to photons. Energy would be extracted from a large space to produce the energy displayed by a photon. The vacated space surrounds the mass and is perpetuated by the follow of energy from space, through atoms, and out as photons.

In the thunderstorm analogy model above, tides are created because the moon creates a ever-so-slight shadow between space and the mass of earth. This lowers the gravity slightly which causes large bodies of water to expand and create tides. Of course, in traditional thought, the moon pulls the water toward its mass. In the thunderstorm analogy, the moon blocks the gravitational winds that are produced by the relationship between outer space (this might be your "energy density" concept) and the mass of the earth.

My fundamental way of thinking is to fully understand one idea (in this case thunderstorms and basic meteorological concepts) that can be directly seen and take that idea and apply it to another system. This method has its failures, but it also has its advantages for understanding complex related ideas and especially ideas that cannot be measured with our tools. I use thunderstorms and other cloud systems, because they are very much like the 'heavens' above them.I bet you find many useful relationships by having a good understanding of nature and applying that understanding to answer questions about other aspects of nature.

[Dave Zelenka]

Bogie,

I'm not exactly sure if I understand your model fully. But I will say that under the thunderstorm analogy, in which I always fall back on when I visualize gravity, gravity is analogous to winds. So as you say, there is an "extraction" of energy from space to produce the gravity. In this analogy, the cause of gravity is simply the difference between mass and the surrounding space. The higher the density of the mass in comparison to the 'emptiness' of adjacent space, the greater the gravity is. Winds are produced in thunderstorms by the gradient of high pressure to low pressure. Gravity is the same. Gravity is produced by the 'gradient' between space (high energy) and mass. This might be the 'warped' space that you are speaking of. But I see it less as warped space, and rather that space actually contains an energy potential that is analogous to the energy potential of a high pressure system in meteorology.

In regards to galaxies, stars and larger stellar material, the thunderstorm analogy predicts that mass is actually created within large bodies by gravity that draws energy and possibly even the tiniest of particles to it. This gives a means by which stars, galaxies and even large interstellar bodies to grow.

For instance if you take the earth. Gravity is drawing energy in from all sides. That gravitational energy must be doing something to the planet. It could be just holding the planet together (so it doesn't fall apart due to the earth's spin) but it may have another function. I expect this is how stars evolve. That stars actually grow and have a function that creates mass because of the gravitational 'winds'.

With your model, what would you predict the life span of our sun to be? How did it develop? What will happen to it? How do stars evolve?

[czeslaw]

Hi Dave.
In this model space has its minimum energy. I suggest it is just an energy of the gravitational field. The energy oscillate according to E=hn and warps the space because the oscillations are shrinking the size of the discrete space inwards only for a positive energy. There are more dense oscillations between masses because square inverse distance distribution. This denser inwards oscillations make tension.

It is like a low pressure in an atmosphere.
This tension is GRAVITY.

There is a tension between Moon and Earth. The space between Moon and Earth is denser because of the inwards oscillation and there is a low pressure by analogy to atmosphere. The Earth is rotating and the gravitational field rotates also with its energy. This rotating energy drives Moon's revolutions.
That way Moon gains an additional kinetic energy and moves faster every year.
Earth's rotations are faster than the Moon and the Earth's surface become locally lifted. The Earth's surface is not a perfect fluid and the frictions absorb an energy. That way Earth's rotations are slower each year. The process will continue till the Earth spin reaches Moon's revolutions.
It is the same with a Dark Energy.

According to my idea is our Observable Universe a Black Hole Like Object with a flat geometry driven by an energy supplied from outside. This energy drives the mass rotations around Cosmic Voids and it expand.

[gravitino]

If so, I would take this to say that there are elementary energetic particles oscillating (is oscillating just a better way to say "pulsing"?) in space that make up the content of space, i.e. an energy background. And then are you saying that in addition to such an energy background, there are particles (gravitons) which are responsible for gravity by moving toward objects and increasing the density in space of gravitons around objects that makes those objects attract each other?


Fine. That may explain moon attracted by earth.
But, if I put a gravity-meter deep inside the earth, this will detect gravity.
Are these "oscillating particle" penetrating deeply inside the earth to cause this gravity ?? I doubt.

[Bogie]

Fine. That may explain moon attracted by earth.
But, if I put a gravity-meter deep inside the earth, this will detect gravity.
Are these "oscillating particle" penetrating deeply inside the earth to cause this gravity ?? I doubt.You shouldn't doubt that.

Matter, atoms of matter, are very porous and the energy in space is able to fill all space, even inside atoms. One of the theories of the nature of electrons even uses this energy to create virtual matter/antimatter pairs in that space. These pairs can annihilate each other, or the positron can annihilate a "real" electron" leaving the virtual electron in its place :dance: .

[gravitino]

You are in good company thinking this. That is what Einstein thought as well, and nobody has proven him wrong yet. No graviton detected. No proof that gravity is anything more than a geometrical distortion of space.

I thought graviton/gravitatinal waves were predected by GR.
Suppose we have an accuarate detector pointed to binary rotating stars, and we detect no such waves or graviton.
Is this a major setback to Einstein ?
Does this meam that GR is wrong or at least incomplete ??