cyberphlak

Space is at least three dimensional. Flat is at best, two dimensional. Neither this post nor the previous are "knocking" or flaming. Just a nudge to consider ideas, like current gravity theory, from one's own point of view, not from the popular opinion.

Einstein - never a proven genius, mostly just followed up on other people's theories. We must remember that GR and SR are theories and not laws. To be a law, it must apply universally. Clearly, they do not apply everywhere. Whether to believe all Quantum theory or not is entirely subjective. To deny evidence of observed interactions that contradict Einstein's theories, that is another matter. Whether we call all the missing mass aether, ether, dust, dark matter or peanuts doesn't much matter. What seems to be clear is that there is unaccounted for mass in what was thought to be "empty space". There is also energy, from various sources and the presence of forces. Space seems to be anything but empty.

For this theoretical dip in space to occur, or for the bowling ball on a sheet example of gravity to be plausible, space would have to be flat. Surely, it is obvious, that space is not flat. In my opinion, before anyone should get too wrapped up in any idea involving time, they should consider that the universe is time independent, everything is, except mankind. We use it to categorize and explain in simple terms. In reality, it does not seem to exist at all.

For those who are interested, I have been working on the issue of gravity and force unification. Below is a shortened version of my work so far. I am not taking the time to polish this for this first post so bear with me. The big question in science today is why gravity has not been unified with the other forces of magnetism, electricity and atomic. Electricity and magnetism were united under electromagnetism. The nuclear forces are classified as strong and weak. In these cases, forces are tied directly to energy with the exception of gravity. These forces also fall along the electromagnetic or “light” spectrum – except gravity. I do not believe that gravity is so different than the other forces at all and may, possibly, be one in the same. The current way of explaining gravity is like a bowling ball on a bed sheet. The idea is that a body bends space creating a "dent". Objects within this dent are drawn to the object creating the dent while their motion keeps them from colliding. This is largely based on Einstein theory and observations of a light bending affect. While the observations match my hypothesis, the "why" is different. My theory involves a new way of looking at electromagnetism and inductance. I believe that this explains gravity, allows for unification and offers a first look into what dark matter may be. It will be assumed in this writing that the reader will understand that the terms used are for relating the idea only and that such terms as inductance and magnetism are used loosely for this purpose. Inductance and magnetism are a means by which to electrically interact with another object without a wire. In this submission, we will think of the planets and stars as large coils or magnets. These coils have different properties. The properties differentiate based on the make up of the individual coils. The size and material, as well as their location to one another, influence their behavior just as with "normal" coils and inductance. It stands to reason that since the most basic of particles interact based on charge, so does everything else. And, while we can observe the effects of many things, observing them themselves is often elusive. This is true of the interaction between two coils. They are connected by nothing more than the space around them and the magnetic field they induce. It seems obvious to me that the same is true of the rest of the universe. Einstein's theory and those that followed are based, partly, on the bending of light. Visible light, ultraviolet, radio and so on, all fall along different positions in the electromagnetic spectrum. I believe the "gravitational" forces do as well or at least the observable effect does. This can provide for an alternative explanation of these bending effects. Some simple findings that support such a theory can be found in literature and science both of current times and the past. Electron and x-ray bending in vacuum tubes is an example of older findings while all planets falling within the sun’s magnetic field are more recent. Furthermore, the realization that all the known planets, stars, dust, gas, etc, only account for roughly 30% of the galaxy’s mass, has lead to the theory of dark matter. In other words, 70% of the mass of the galaxy is invisible and unknown. As of this date, no extrasolar planets have been discovered. This fact may support this theory. Specific gravity has no fixed unit of measure. It is tied to the units of interest in the formula. Gravity is directly related to density. A higher density of electrons and protons will have a greater reaction with the magnetic field of a star. It is possible, although unlikely, that extra solar planets remain elusive not only due to darkness but the absence of a magnetic field and therefore gravity. A system’s entire gravitational force may be wholly dependent upon a star. Evidence for this may lie in routine pole reversal of planets. An electromagnetic source, oscillating a field will not only induce magnetic energy in a diamagnetic object but will also reverse the pole with each pulse. This is also demonstrable. If the body is located or shielded by another object or body, this effect can be reduced. This could explain varying historical strengths from geological samples. This pulsing is also evident in the “noise” of the universe. It is also interesting to note that by observing particles being attracted to a magnet, a sudden and rapid shrinkage of the magnet while not changing its field strength, ends with particles being ejected at great force. This is quite similar to the observed effects of a black hole ejecting gamma ray bursts. Imagine that you have a magnetic plate 12” wide and you are able to observe all the little particles that interact with it. As you increase or decrease the field strength, particles will be attracted faster or slower respectively. When you reduce that plate to ¼ its size, you notice greater particle density as there is les real estate to spread out over. If you then rapidly reduce the plate to a much smaller size, the particles will begin to collide with one another and fly off away from the plate. This same series of events applies to massive stars. They have a strong magnetic field. As the density of particles increases, the forces pull the particles more tightly together. This is likened to shrinking the plate. Simultaneously, the increased density draws more particles and this continues to increase the field density while packing the star into an ever tighter physical density. In the extreme cases, where sufficient particle fuel has existed, these stars reach the point of super density or black holes. The Mars problem was: Why is there gravity on Mars when there is no magnetism? The answer came in two parts. The first is that there is magnetism on Mars. The argument was that there was no magnetosphere – part 2. The magnetosphere is assumed not to exist because of distanced and non-detailed measurements. However, solar wind bending has been observed. Since Mars has no real atmosphere, the bending must be a result of a magnetosphere. The scale shows that it is inline with what would be expected. In short, there is no Mars problem, just bad science and assumptions. This argument has received enough attention to warrant further studies in upcoming Mars missions. There are various tools including applets that may be used to demonstrate the findings in this writing. If we apply Occam's Razor, we realize that our problem is not complex but rather simple. If all other known forces fall within the electromagnetic spectrum, except gravity and if all forces are relative in terms of strength, the logical conclusion is that gravity as a separate force can not exist. This is the short version. That said, here are some questions or observations made by others elsewhere and my replies: Q - If gravity were as strong as electromagnetism, solar systems and galaxies, i.e; could not logically exist. Yes, the principles of these forces are similar in nature, but if you break down the scale relative to mass you will be talking apples and oranges... A - if the accepted figures were used and if it were applied to the entire body rather than just those elements that exhibit the properties. Proof that it does not apply to the body as a whole but rather to parts is the gravity deviations found on earth. Even then, using magnetometers, it isn't possible to account for the sun's field. Additionally, mass is everywhere. Planets are merely a collection or dense population of mass. well let me put it in other terms.... gravity is only inferior to the other forces if the formula is correct. So, let's do this. First, for gravity, we are concerned with two basic things, 1. How much mass or "how big is the body" and 2, what is the distance to the core. If we eliminate the mass as a whole and focus on the core, the numbers make more sense in terms of magntude. In other words, our mass is only the mass of the core not the entire planet. Then, we have to consider the distance to the core OR how much insulation between "us" and the "magnet". This not only explains why my theory may be correct, it also explains why the force variation in gravity versus the other forces is so great. Finally, the convenient part - the gravity formula still works with this modification. Gravity formula, in the traditional sense, was only right by proxy. The force variation should have pointed out the mistake. It is no coincidence that the planet core's are molten iron and that gravity formula depends on it's size and how well it is insulated. In mathematical terms, if the force of gravity is, for instance, a thousand times less powerful than electromagnetism, for instance AND the core of a planet is a thousand times smaller than the total planet, the numbers equal out now and gravity, or the forces, are now balanced. That make sense? In the end, it is not quite as simple as all that but it is the basic idea. Q - Is the missing 70% explained by the theory of the black hole origin of galaxies - or- Hawking's Radiation? A - The 70% missing matter is another subject. Matter is everywhere whether we see it or not. The relevance it would have here, possibly, is the conduction of magnetism such as you would get by sticking a a long bolt on a magnet and using it to extend the field. In that case, the force of the magnetism could extend beyond the field of say - the sun. Core rotation will have an impact but only a minor one, in my opinion. That goes back to the observations of Mars and with no other solid data to compare earth's results to, I can;t be certain one way or the other. Q - Super novas, black holes, and the big bang theory, one in the same? Was the universe ever at absolute zero.? Do we know for certain that time is a constant? Or, is the internal clock of the universe forever reseting itself within these three circumstances? A - when quantum mechanics was first arriving as a science, Einstein thought it was hog wash. He refused to accept that to truly understand the very large, you must understand the very small. He worked to his last breath trying to unify gravity. He, like many quantum physicists realized that his theory didn't apply on smaller scales. For a law to be a true law, it has to apply everywhere. To relate that to your question, when you look at all these wonderful things in space, they all seem, to me, to just be ever larger versions of the same thing. Starting from the little pop of black powder to the big bang, it is all a matter of scale. "I'm so excited, I can hardly contain myself!"...the proper mix of atoms feel the exact same way. Q - so whats the new formula look like, as it is now? New (mine) F=m*r F = force, m = mass of body (such as you, me, whatever the force is acting on), r = radius(of planet, star, etc) Old (newton) f=mM/r2 M = mass of planet, star, etc r2 = radius of planet square In either case, a 200lb person on earth still weighs 200 pounds. What is different? The force of "gravity" is now 691562.7134 times stronger than it was. This put it in line with how strong it should be as one of the 4 known forces. *Edit - it should be noted that this force may be even greater still. I am unable to be certain as I do not know the details of the planetary core. If only a portion of it is involved in the interaction, then obviously the F is greater.