# Gravity is Energy moving towards lower Energy

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Pincho Paxton, Mar 6, 2012.

1. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
Energy always moves towards lower energy....

So, simply put, space has a higher energy than Earth, but that energy is stagnated because it has nowhere to go.

The whirlpool in the image shows water moving not towards mass..

F=G*m1m2/r^2

But towards negative mass...

F=G*-m1-m2/r^2

And a rock would negate that energy.

But forget mass for a moment, and think weight. Although the centre of the whirlpool has no mass compared to the water it still has the most weight around it. If you were trying to swim away from the hole you would feel the most force. If you swim far away from the hole you are in the higher mass, but less weight pushing on you. You can swim normally away from the whirlpool.

So what you have at the centre of the whirlpool is no energy. What you have around that hole is high energy, and what you have around that high energy is low energy.

So in cause and effect you have...

zero energy.... high energy.... low energy

So Earth is made from atoms, and mass is taken from atoms, and an asteroid around the Earth is made from atoms, and space is energy flow and direction.

To create the same picture as the whirlpool you need to copy the cause, and effect onto the Earth...

zero energy.... high energy .... low energy

You do this in the atoms. So the nucleus of the atom is zero energy folding down like the whirlpool. Around the nucleus you have the spin force like the whirlpool. The spin force is the high energy. The spin force is the mass. But gravity isn't interested in the mass, it is trying to get to the zero energy behind the mass, and mass is just a consequence, and a relationship to the zero energy state.

And around the mass you have the low energy that is queued up ready for high energy. The low energy of space that waits for holes to move into... black holes, and atoms.

So although space looks like it has the lesser mass of the Earth, it actually has the higher mass, but the lower force.

Last edited: Mar 6, 2012

3. ### originIt keeps getting funnier....Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,445
Good to have you back! I see you are in rare form as always - we can discard all physics even the basic foundations like Bernoulli's equations and replace it with negative mass as the driving force of fluid dynamics. You always good for a laugh. Keep up the good work!

5. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
Obviously water is a scaled up version, it becomes negative water. But the scaled down version for gravity is negative mass, or negative gravity which you call magnetism. All that you are doing is scaling water down until it becomes completely invisible to represent space. Space is close to negative already, so the Earth becomes a negative scale, and the change from positive to negative creates photons as a flash force because the particles are turning inside out. Where we live on the outside edge of the Earth is where the spin force is gathering energy together. As the flow of energy moves towards the centre of the Earth it is trying to reach the zero energy of the Earth, the core. It then needs to escape as negative particles like Neutrinos.

Last edited: Mar 6, 2012

7. ### originIt keeps getting funnier....Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,445
Duh, of course it becomes negative water. That is why rivers flow to the ocean because the ocean is negative water. I guess all salt water is negative water.

$Na^+ + Cl^- + H_2O = -H_2O$

Yup, this is all very intuitive. Not having any rules or logic makes explaining stuff pretty easy.:m:

8. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
Yeah but don't confuse things with the maths, because mass is wrong in maths. Electrons have negative mass, and are holes. To get an electron mass a particle is fired towards an electron, and the curve of the particle is the mass. Particles also curve around holes just like the water in my picture.

9. ### anonymous1Registered Member

Messages:
4
redefine gravity?

i believe you might be a genius, paxton. So what you are saying is that the cause of gravity would be like the cause of tornadoes where you have heat being forced up and cold air acting on it downward, heat being positive and cold being negative? in that way you have opposites working in an almost helix like fashion creating a vortex... so would gravity be like that? heat from the sun pushing out while cold space pushes back creating that whirlpool effect?

10. ### originIt keeps getting funnier....Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,445
Hey, it must be Pincho - How you doin'?

11. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,262
Pincho just got banned at the thescienceforum.com.

Same old same old.

12. ### originIt keeps getting funnier....Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,445
Imagine my surprise.

13. ### anonymous1Registered Member

Messages:
4
No, I'm not pincho. I don't think he articulated his ideas well, and he certainly has some bogus equations but the idea that there are possible similarities between the cause of whirlpools and hurricanes and what causes gravity has potential for an interesting discussion. With the mass energy equivalency you could postulate that gravity is caused by heat (vibration) could you not? I'm just asking, wondering what you think

14. ### originIt keeps getting funnier....Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,445
Hmmm, gravity is caused from heat, let me see what do I think. I would say that it is so far off the mark that it isn't even wrong (to borrow a quote).

15. ### anonymous1Registered Member

Messages:
4
ok so you dont want to have a conversation, that's fine. Einsteins defiinition of gravity is that mass creates a warping of space-time, causing objects to fall towards it. Im not saying heat itself, but mass (being energy, heat is a form of energy) could also perhaps have a more sink like effect in spacetime. Theres a problem with looking at spacetime as a smooth surface in quantum mechanics, perhaps a fluid view of it could solve that.

16. ### HectorDecimalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
438

Hi PP,

You aren't as absurd as some might think. In a vortex of a simple 2 plane form, M = the energy of the angular momentum, thus at a given radius of either plane of the vortex, the velocity = M/PIr^2. Your numerator is interchangable with M. M on the lower plane will be greater than M on the top plane because as the radius grows smaller so does the denominator. Energy increases as we approach the center. This is seen, as you have pointed out, not only in a fluid vortex, but also in the galactic example where the limbs are less energetic than the core.

17. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,120
It sounds random to me.

If you think of heat as motion (like Brownian motion) then it would almost seem that the reverse is true, that is, motion is one of the consequences of gravity. Also, since the heat of stellar fusion is attributed to gravitational forces, the reverse would be a better statement.

As far as searching for the cause of gravity, I'm not sure what it means to say gravity is "caused" at all. Since it arises from mass and space, not time, then it may be more accurate to say gravity has no cause.

18. ### HectorDecimalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
438
When one is contemplating the cause of gravity we can choose to limit our thinking to mass attraction or we can compare it, as did Einstein for many years, aginst repulsive forces. It doesn't even require a rocket scientist to realize that it is easier to push a cart downhill than to pull it.

19. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,120
As for this statement:

The best answer would seem to be: no, since there is no evidence that gravity varies over temperature or disappears at absolute zero.

20. ### HectorDecimalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
438
That's meaningless because we have no way to create an environment of absolute zero temperature and if we could do so where mass exists, we would still be unable to create an environment to measure absolute zero temps where mass did not exist. Mass energy equivalency does not preclude 0 on one side of the equation or the other, rather it demands that if 0 is on one side, 0 is also on the other.

21. ### petersRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
17
gravity

what about this? this universe is only space and energy. The forces are the space and energy trying to entropize back to when they were 1 thing before the universe. Straight strings have become circular thus particles but energy no less. Einstein said that the space/ energy relationship at the center of a black hole is infinity + infinity + infinity. Similarly, a Bohr Einstein condensate at absolute zero is infinite energy in the same space. Gravity is energy [matter] trying to revert to its original state or medium which was infinity + infinity+ infinity in the same space.

22. ### petersRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
17
While I'm on a roll. As this medium decays into this universe, forgetting the mechanism for now, each matter particle and antimatter particle emerging from the infinity + infinity + infinity has brought its own piece of space with it. After their annihilation, the main residue is 2 bits of new space. Multiply this by almost infinity and you have a universe. This area of new matter is probably thousands of light years thick and always receding. The matter of the universe is attracted to this ever receding wall of new matter and is called Dark Energy or gravity.

23. ### originIt keeps getting funnier....Valued Senior Member

Messages:
7,445
Welcome. Sorry, but this doesn't seem very good. You are misusing terms, misquoting scientist and making up things.