A different take on gravity

Edited - May 27, 2009

I am a newbie to post here, but I have followed Dr. Van Flandern's work ever since I met him at a conference in Seattle back in the 90's.

I don't know if this is the best place for me to jump into the forum, but it looks like, panteltje, here, and, perhaps, Le Sage before him, were/are approaching similar thoughts on the possible workings of Gravity, so this is probably as good a place as any. So, here goes.

I want to try out an idea on you all, that I have been working on for the last 40 years, a unifying principle, starting with a different take on Gravity as a simple accounting for observable actions in the existing geometry of space, that could tie the various forces of nature into a coherent underlying principle for a model that makes sense intuitively, even having reasonable causal causes with logical resulting outcomes.

I have posted a preliminary paper on how Gravity might work--really what could account for the observable seeming effect of "attractiveness" of "massive" bodies on another site on the internet. Please, feel free to E-mail me for the link, if you are interested.

I think that Larry Burford, of this site, comes close to the principle, also, with his envisionment (sic) of the process of Nebulae Star Formations when he considers the mass of exploded stars as making up the raw material for new stars, and that this material will come together at mutually central "nebulous" locations between numerous such-exploded stars.

Larry Burford: Posted-18 Dec 2008: 12:35:14
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
IMO nebulae large enough to form a new solar system are unlikely to be the result of a single stellar explosion. This is how I envision the process happening:

A star goes nova, and scatters some atoms and dust

Another star goes nova, portions of the clouds from each collide, some of those collisions result in a larger, somewhat flattened cloud.

Another star explodes, more cloud collisions occur, more flattening and growth occur.

After this happens enough times, a cloud that has grown large enough and flat enough reaches a tipping point and begins to collapse and rotate, eventually forming a star and some planets.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Here is how my model differs just a little bit from the others; I believe that we need to consider all of the energy and/or particles given off from all stars, even before they explode, in addition to the particles and energies of the occasional exploding stars.

The principle is geometrically similar or even congruent, but where all detectable energies and normal "known" particles are the ultimate participants. In other words, it seems inevitable that particles and even energies from distant star sources will eventually meet and begin to interact throughout the universe wherever they come into contact with other particles and energies, and that each will influence or have an affect according to their "particular" vector momentum--force (size) and direction.


I believe that this is all the particulate matter necessary to account for the effect of gravity without the need for finding some new or exotic particle or corpuscles to be responsible for Gravity--as is sub-light to light speed velocities sufficient without the need for super light speed gravity, although at any speed, the geometry of my model would still be applicable to being the main cause of the gravitic like effect of forces as particles coming together at gravity points, wells, fields, or whatever you want to call them. These are the natural crossing points where the most dense concentrations of balanced conglomerates of particles and energies of all variety would find their natural statistical equilibrium.

After considering this logical geometric dynamic, it is just a matter of tallying up or accounting for the total effects of all the various Tiny Bits of momentum from either particles or energies, e.g. photons of all variety, and following their combined total vector influences, with both components of momentum, force and direction, being taken into account, to see that there must be vastly numerous central locations where all the Tiny Bits that were going out from stars and/or exploded stars, becoming less dense as they were expanding, will eventually run into similarly expanding Tiny Bits that are coming at them from many other similarly shining or exploding stars and that their total additive spacial concentrations will once again begin to become denser, as a generalized local set of interactions or merely as overlapping sets of anti-directional particles and crossings, in various nebulous Fields, but especially at statistically balanced central locations and at every such place where this process would geometrically have to occur just by following straight "lines of sight" paths or spherical expansions from stars.

In this way, any place where there comes to be an "incoming" balance of cosmic Tiny Bits, there will be an inward pressure that is exactly the way Gravity seems to work. Gravity (a meek inward force concentration or inward pressure) might simply occur wherever an equal balance of an incoming distribution of Tiny bits of particles and energies naturally comes together by geometry, statistically, in other words, by real individual collisions of various momenta, each being taken into account cumulatively and then averaged by their own inevitable magnitudes and directions.

You would predict that this natural phenomenon will occur statistically to a greater or lesser degree at every single point throughout the universe on a typical bell curve. But there will no doubt be some places that are much more central to many more original sources, and these locations will experience a greater accumulated inward pressure or Gravity than other locations.

Being geometrically and statistically central is the essential denominator. That is where stars would ultimately end up forming starting off as compressing nubulous clouds, and even where galaxies would form, and on the finest level, at the other end of the scale, where atoms might form or reform constantly, under literally "massive" gravitic pressures.

What this implies is that primal geometry exist first, prior to gravity. When there is movement, then, within such geometry, the moving things will collide at statistically predictable locations, whether there are just a few or nearly an infinite number of particles. The angles and, therefore, locations for collisions should follow the same basic geometric laws and be predetermined by the geometry of the acting sources. So, the original geometric positions of stars would determine the next set of positions for new star formations, and new galactic formations, as well, for that matter.

Of, course, we are modeling a reciprocal state universe with this model, but I think this is a defendable model, even so, offering alternative explanations for the interpretation of data now used to support the Big Bang, which I have always had a problem excepting as reasonable.

Geometry alone, then, could be responsible for predetermining where things will come together into Gravity "wells" that form into Galaxies, Stars, Planets, Moons, Astroids, Planetary Rings, as balanced energies meet and compress into the dense concentrations of energy known to us as the various elemental particles of the "standard model."

The Gravity phenomenon resulting at statistically central locations must precede the accumulation of stuff as matter. In this way, matter can only form or reform from the Tiny Bits of energy and other stuff that will ultimately compress at gravity wells or fields, if you like. The mathematical relations are still the exact same as with Newton and even Einstein, but the understanding of what is causing the Gravity-to-Mass relation is much easier to get your head around if gravity is the "pushing together" of lots of Tiny Bits coming at each other in equally opposing amounts of conglomerate momenta.

To us this would still feel like the Gravity we know and love, a constant inward (to our orientation--downward--to the Earth's surface) bombardment of particles so fine that we cannot feel the individual particles, only their combined directional orientation, though each Tiny Bit, whatever its size, donates its contribution to the whole overall effect. An effect that is as constant as the light coming from the Sun on one side, and opposed by all the light coming on all frequencies from all the stars and galaxies against the Sun's "light" in the other direction.

This model can be used to explain the stability of planetary orbits, the different chemical make-up of the various planets, the seeming bending of space around massive gravitational-thus-material bodies like Einstein predicted but didn't postulate as to what was responsible for the apparent warping. The math may have worked for his theory, but the understanding of the process was surely sorely missing as it was for Newton. This model fills in the understanding and presents a simple, Newtonian causal and therefore logical reasoning to the Gravitational effect.

This same geometric model can then be carried all the way down to account for the strong and weak atomic forces and the electron/protron/neutron structure of the atom (I can supply illustrations) as well as the structuring of the integer progression of the chemical elements from the periodic table of the elements.

Then, finally, the model can be continued on the photonic level to show how light will always behave as both a particle and a wave simultaneously with no contradiction of Newtonian understanding of basic physical principles.

I can already see where there are many similarities in my model and some of the basic tenants of The Meta Model.

Mainly that Gravity only makes sense as a Push of real forces from reasonable and causable sources.

I think that stars could be shown to provide the reasonable causable sources for the energy and material in the complex make-up of their solar winds sufficient enough to account for the entire amount of momentum needed to supply the "Pushes" that eventually come together as Gravity.

With the addition that it is the simplicity of geometry that determines where balances of opposing solar winds will meet and condense into the matter that makes new condensed particles that form new stars, planets, etc.

Please give me an opportunity to answer any questions or try to clarify any weak points.

Warm regards to all, James "Aaron" Nicholson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...To see this, suppose what would happen if those Le Sage particle originated in black holes....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If a black hole is an intense source of LeSage particles, wouldn't it be surrounded by an antigravity field? Why would anything orbit a source of LeSage particles, let alone be sucked into it?

Good point, Phil. Thank you.

The real world counterpart of the hypothetical black hole is called a dark star. John Mithchell was the first to propose that if enough matter accumulated in one place its surface gravity would be so great that the escape velocity for that object would be greater than the speed of light. He called them dark stars; others sometimes call them Mitchell stars.

The Deep Reality Physics perspective on this is:

There are more similarities than differences between a black hole and a dark star. The primary difference is that dark stars do not collapse into a mathematical point so there is no singularity problem. As the mass of a dark star increases a larger and larger fraction of the gravitons passing through it are absorbed. At some point this fraction approaches 100%. Further increases in the star's mass therefore do not result in any increase in the star's gravitational force field. The surface gravity asymptotically approaches a limiting value as the mass increases and gravitational force can not become so large as to "crush the mass out of existence".

Thus a "black hole" is the exact opposite of a source of gravitons. It is (nearly) what it always has been - a massive gravity well.

===

One point to ponder here. The speed of light is observed to slow down near large masses like ordinary stars, and we expect it will do the same near larger masses like dark stars. Physically what happens is that the elysium near the star is compressed by the net inward flow of gravitons, causing its density to increase. When a wave travels through a medium of increasing density, its speed decreases.

So the speed of light near a very massive object is going to be much lower than the speed of light in open space. When trying to figure out how much mass it takes to get an object's escape velocity up to the speed of light, you need to adjust for this effect.

To be fair, panteltje did mention a repulsive effect if stars are a source of gravitons in his opening post. But he seems to have misplaced that understanding by the time he gets to "black holes". Curious.

James,

A few points about posting on this message board.

Lots of CAPS or using very large type is the written equivalent of shouting. Please avoid it in the future. And if you don't mind it would be nice for you to edit your post to tone it down just a bit.

Also we don't like for users to post links back to their websites. We are not an advertising agency for other peoples' theories. In the grand scheme of things it is not a really big deal. But when we spot one we eventually get around to removing it.

You will find that it doesn't generate much traffic, anyway. A more productive (from your perspective) way to handle this is to post an explanation of your ideas here and mention where an interested reader can go for more information, without posting an actual link.

If you do a good job of explaining yourself here, people will be more likely to go look for more. If you don't, or if you only post a link, experience show that few will bother. Caution. There are some users here that will follow just about every link, but when they get there their main goal is to promote their ideas instead of learning yours.

===

One really good way to get our attention is to study our stuff to the point where you can make an informed comparison between your stuff and ours. In that comparison point out how your ideas either support our ideas or refute them. Either way we will be intrigued.

Good Luck,
LB