what causes gravity?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by trevor borocz johnson, Aug 21, 2016.

  1. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Here is a one minute video of a hypothesis I wrote on how gravity works:

    Here’s the text of the video:
    • A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time
    • Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in
    • The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark
    • A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet
    • When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge
    • This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field
    • The quark is continuously pulled in as the lavers of space time are denser the closer to the planet
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    But you haven't actually explaned what cause gravity. All you've done is move the mystery to another place: "The [quark's] squeezing effect creates its gravity field"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    You seem to be saying [by some weird interpretation] that mass causes spacetime to warp/curve and we get gravity.
    But that still does not tell us why curved spacetime should exhibit the force we know as gravity.

    "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve"
    John Archibald Wheeler:
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Who is Archibald Wheeler dies he really know or is it and other hand waving ?
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
  9. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    He created his own religion about black holes and now he have his followers like you and thousand more
    So far the gravity issue have not been satisfactory explained .
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2016
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    No, that's called science, and its progress based on prevailing evidence and progression, has driven any need for a deity into oblivion, and that eats at the craw of religious fanatics.
    And yet we have explored every planet in the solar system at least from near orbits and pass byes, and have even managed to rendevouz with four outer planets in one effort, with no divine assistance.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    It is like matter frying from Chicago to Sydney
    Getting back to John Weller : Apparently he worked in gravity and could not find an answer so he embarked himself on in a Grand Unified Theory of physics, and became something of a pioneer in the field of quantum gravity. So what are the results ?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Keep researching, you'll find out.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Oh, and its Wheeler.
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If you look at the universe there is a net conversion of matter to energy, via the forces of nature. There is not a net conversion of energy to matter, where new matter is created faster than energy. What this means is there is net conversion of potential from the inertial references, toward the speed of light reference.

    Gravity follows this trend. This is reflected in space-time contracting via gravity, with the limit of space-time contraction; point-instant, the same reference seen by the speed of light. Gravity can approximate this with a black hole. Matter to energy, via force, shows that the speed of light is at lower potential. The universe is heading back to the speed of light reference, with gravity one of its many paths.

    The traditions define inertial reference as the ground state. However, net matter to energy shows the direction of universal potential does not go to that ground state. The traditions can still come up with good answers, while being conceptually flawed with respect to a universal energy balance. However, the simplest solution is usually better; Ockham's Razor. All roads are returning to the speed of light reference with many in competition.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    No. Black holes part of science, not religion. For example, they are well described by the theory of general relativity.

    Which issue in particular? Please explain.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    The last sentence here seems to be meaningless. What kind of "reference" are you talking about?

    This one doesn't even scan as a proper sentence.

    Mixing terms such as "speed" and "potential" is nonsensical. They are completely different things.

    How can anything head back to a reference? I don't think the word "reference" means what you think it means.

    Not any traditions I'm familiar with.

    Meh.
     
  16. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    I explain HOW gravity occurs between two objects. I also give a why in that the squeezing passes along through an area of space-time and that denser space-time puts a squeezing on the surrounding space-time that weakens the further away you get. My current belief is that space-time can be broken down into two dimensional forms of a super weak grid of energy, and blocks of void that are attached in the cubic honeycomb grid of energy. The blocks themselves are then made up of the next weaker dimension of energy and so on infinitely.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2016
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    No, you didn't.

    All you said was this "quark squeezing effect" "creates" gravity. That is no less magical than matter's mass "creates" gravity, you've just moved it to a new (and made-up) location.

    What is this "squeezing" thing that is mediating everything?
     
  18. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    If you'll notice in the drawing in the video, the space-time of the gravity field around the planet and the quark can be looked at as a 2 dimensional perspective drawing of the ball on a large sheet experiment that causes other objects placed on the sheet to slide towards the ball as well as a 3 dimensional representation of the idea of space-time becoming denser when acted on by the planet or the quark, both ideas look the same when you draw them on paper.
     
  19. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Theory, give me a year or two theory changes , and the die hard will keep hanging on. Many theory are like miniskirt for a woman they change as fashion change
     
  20. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Mobile phones, give me a year or two mobile phone changes , and the die hard will keep hanging on. Many mobile phones are like miniskirt for a woman they change as fashion change.

    So are you still using your 1980's style handheld brick, or have you replaced it with something that's better?
     
  21. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    That is what we call an analogy. Analogies helps us understand, but they don't explain. (The technical term is Lies to Children. It is not a derogatory term).


    And it's not a very good analogy (despite being at one time, a very popular one) because when one ask what causes the ball to roll to the centre, the answer is actually 'gravity'. It requires gravity in its explanation of gravity. Which means it's a not just an analogy, it's a circular analogy.
     
  22. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Here's a video of the experiment I was referring to:
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,219
    Yes. This is the common analogy. Unfortunately, it doesn't really explain gravity. The experiment uses gravity to create the effect.
     
    ajanta likes this.

Share This Page