What Causes Gravity?

[cmartin]

What Causes Gravity

 

Science is an incomplete art. The more we learn about the universe, the more evidence we get that there is more unknown, than known. We obviously lack the ability to understand completely why, and how the universe works, or comprehend its origin. Nevertheless, we have collected an astonishing amount of information which we accept as fact. New ideas arrive frequently, and we work hard to prove or disprove them, and every now and then a few of them are accepted as facts, but even those which are eventually proven false are stepping stones and building blocks in developing the knowledge of science, so the ideas I am presenting may be useful even if they are eventually proven false.

In the late 1600’s, some scientists assumed that since light was a wave, it needed a medium to travel through, so they suggested the existence of a luminiforous ether which was different from other matter, in that it could not be seen, felt, or weighed. They believed that this ether was stationary, and that it filled all inner, and outer space, and that the earth, and other matter moved through it. All attempts to find evidence of ether failed, and new ways to explain how light could travel without a medium were discovered, so the ether theory was discarded. I think they were on to something.

The earth is about 93 million miles from the sun, yet is affected by it in so many ways. How could the earth be affected by the sun in any way if there was nothing at all between them? Is seems as if this question has not been asked, since no theories exist to explain it. We understand that the earth is stabilized to a large degree by the sun’s gravity, but if no medium exists to connect them, what difference could the strength of the sun’s gravity make to the earth? Although the sun could perhaps repel something by throwing particles at it, it could never attract anything toward it, just as there could be no suction, without air pressure. Yet we can see evidence of the sun’s gravity reaching its invisible tentacles far beyond the earth.

A much smaller example of this principle is the atom. If electrons are moving, they must at some point be moving away from the nucleus, or in a circle around it. In either case, if nothing was between them, inertia would drive them farther from the nucleus, and the atom would disintegrate. The fact that matter stays together proves the existence of ether, or some other kind of medium.

If ether exists, gravity may be caused by the ability of matter to alter the pressure of it, and atomic particles could receive their characteristic qualities by their ability to react with this cosmic force.

It will be extremely difficult to study the qualities of ether, since everything we observe would probably be affected equally, and we couldn’t create a place where it did not exist, but here are some questions to consider.

1. Is gravity infinite, or does it have an absolute like vacuum?

2. Can matter exist that contains no energy?

3. Does gravity affect the space around a body of matter, or only other matter?

4. Is there an absolute high temperature, as well as an absolute low?

5. Would a straight beam of light projected through space have any effect on the space next to it?

[Riogho]

1) Gravity is infinite, as it's strength is the inverse square. Which means it just gets smaller the farther you go, it never goes to '0', it just gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

 

2) E=mc^2 Energy is Matter, Matter is Energy, you can't have matter without energy.

 

3) Read up on the theory of Relativity

 

4) The absolute low would be the absense of all energy.

 

5) The be simple, Yes.

[Shadow]

The answer to your third question is in Riogho's avatar

 

By "Absolute low", do you mean "Absolute Zero" as in 0 K? if so, check here for what I guess would be the "Absolute High"

However, the generally accepted "Absolute Temperature" is called the Planck Temperature and has a value of

[math]T_P = \frac{m_P c^2}{k} = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c^5}{G k^2}} = 1.41679(11) * 10^{32} K[/math]

 

Where:

[math]mP[/math] is the Planck mass

[math]c[/math] is the speed of light in a vacuum

[math]\hbar[/math] is the reduced Planck constant (or Dirac's constant)

[math]k[/math] is the Boltzmann constant

[math]G[/math] is the gravitational constant

 

The two digits between the parentheses denote the uncertainty (standard deviation) in the last two digits of the value.

 

All this is quoted from Wikipedia.

[swansont]

The earth is about 93 million miles from the sun, yet is affected by it in so many ways. How could the earth be affected by the sun in any way if there was nothing at all between them? Is seems as if this question has not been asked, since no theories exist to explain it. We understand that the earth is stabilized to a large degree by the sun’s gravity, but if no medium exists to connect them, what difference could the strength of the sun’s gravity make to the earth? Although the sun could perhaps repel something by throwing particles at it, it could never attract anything toward it, just as there could be no suction, without air pressure. Yet we can see evidence of the sun’s gravity reaching its invisible tentacles far beyond the earth.

A much smaller example of this principle is the atom. If electrons are moving, they must at some point be moving away from the nucleus, or in a circle around it. In either case, if nothing was between them, inertia would drive them farther from the nucleus, and the atom would disintegrate. The fact that matter stays together proves the existence of ether, or some other kind of medium.

 

 

This is basically argument from incredulity. It does not demonstrate the existence of an ether. Difficult or not, you'd have to theoretically predict and experimentally confirm properties of the ether before you can conclude that it exists.

[cmartin]

No one has been able to prove the existence of ether, and I certainly do not claim to be able to prove it. I guess to do experiments on it you would need to find a place where there wasn't any, if indeed there is some anywhere. This is an abstract idea intended only to get people to acknowledge that there is indeed evidence of the existence of things, and facts that no one understands. cmartin

[swansont]

No one has been able to prove the existence of ether, and I certainly do not claim to be able to prove it. I guess to do experiments on it you would need to find a place where there wasn't any, if indeed there is some anywhere. This is an abstract idea intended only to get people to acknowledge that there is indeed evidence of the existence of things, and facts that no one understands. cmartin

 

But you did ...

 

The fact that matter stays together proves the existence of ether, or some other kind of medium.

(emphasis added)

 

If an ether exists, it should have properties. Figure out what they are, and test. The ether of the 19th century was disproven.

 

The existence of atoms doesn't raise these questions, since atomic theory is well-founded and pretty well understood.

[thedarkshade]

Science is an incomplete art.

It is an "art" that progresses all the time!

The more we learn about the universe, the more evidence we get that there is more unknown, than known

Well, there just is too much to know everything.

In the late 1600’s' date=' some scientists assumed that since light was a wave, it needed a medium to travel through, so they suggested the existence of a luminiforous ether which was different from other matter, in that it could not be seen, felt, or weighed. [/quote']You mean aether!

The earth is about 93 million miles from the sun' date=' yet is affected by it in so many ways. How could the earth be affected by the sun in any way if there was nothing at all between them?[/quote']Well, the fact itself that there is nothing between them makes possible the earth to be affected by sun. I mean, if there was something between them, then the rays from the sun would gradually decrease due to resistance that they would find if there was something between. I think this is why earth is "so" affected as you say!

Yet we can see evidence of the sun’s gravity reaching its invisible tentacles far beyond the earth.

That's like a frictionless surface, there is just nothing that can make resistance!

A much smaller example of this principle is the atom. If electrons are moving, they must at some point be moving away from the nucleus, or in a circle around it. In either case, if nothing was between them, inertia would drive them farther from the nucleus, and the atom would disintegrate.

Why move further from the nucleus? Electrons are - and protons are +, they should be moving toward each other, not away from each other!

2. Can matter exist that contains no energy?

4. Is there an absolute high temperature, as well as an absolute low?

2.There cannot possibly be matter without energy. Energy is stored between the atoms, so saying matter without energy is same as saying matter without atoms.

4.Well, so far I haven't heard of one!

[Norman Albers]

Nowadays don't we call the "what-the-bleep" the virtual field? It is Lorentz-transformable and so "virtual mass" must be distinguished from "stable states".

 

We admit to being more than seventy percent clueless about why the large forms we observe are as they are, and why the state of evolution indicates expansion beyond the previously expected contraction. Do not expect a quick answer here!

[Obba]

Being a bit basic here guys. Doesn't all mass have 'attraction'?

 

Is attraction gravity?

 

Is not this where Mr Boson comes in?

 

The LHC $6B has been built to 'help' find the answer to this OP. NB: 'help'.

 

That's serious money! no matter who you are on this forum, to be spent on a (ONE), 'ultimate objective' science project..... There maybe more science 'revelations' from the LHC, but the Higgs, is what the $$$ is for.

[cmartin]

I believe you are correct in saying that matter cannot exist without energy. However, most science of today assumes that at the end of the chain, there is a very small bit of inert matter without energy. There are theories that this is not so, and I cannot offer any help on that subject. On the subject of energy, I think it has always been assumed that there are 2 forms; repulsion, and attraction, or as we said down on the farm, pushing and pulling. I am suggesting thinking about the possibility of only one kind of energy; pushing. Before the characteristics of air were discovered, it was assumed that suction was an attractive force, perhaps this principle applies to all matter. Perhaps electron are prevented from moving away from the nucleus by something, the characteristics of which we have no knowledge. Could it be that an outer force prevents the earth from moving too far, or too close to the sun. At any rate, does anyone have an explanation for attraction as an energy form? cmartin

[Norman Albers]

I analyze the vacuum as a polarizable medium. We have long spoken of electromagnetics in terms of electric permittivity, namely, we say there is a characteristic of space measured as [math]\epsilon_0[/math]. If you read the paper available at the URL cache below, you'll see that one can interpret gravitation as a dielectric thickening of one region with respect to another. Robert Dicke started working on this idea in the 1950's. I stumbled into it a year and a half ago. The Schwarzschild metric, which is anisotropic, is appealing to me because it yields distinct radial and transverse terms. This is what I see in the small, the essence of the electron as a disposition of the otherwise random vacuum fluctuations. On the other hand, H.Puthoff deals with the isotropic assumption. These are the two assumptions you can make as to the mathematical form of the metric. Google on 'gravitation vacuum polarizability' and you'll see Puthoff's "PV" listing.