New idea for gravity

[Firesong]

I saw the other gravity thread but I thought I'd make a new one for this.

 

I have a new idea for the explination of gravity.

 

Basically physical reality is a function of Space-Time. Time consists of Energy + Mass. When there's more mass in an area there's less energy availiable to function as time, or the energy we use to move forward through time. This creates a kind of "low pressure area" in space-time and draws objects towards it as low pressures do. This could also explain the effect of time dillutation around large bodies.

 

What do you think?

[swansont]

Low pressure doesn't exert a force, high pressure does.

 

Anyway, what does this explain that relativity doesn't?

[Firesong]

Actually I'm not saying gravity is a force so much as lack of avaliable energy or a pressure. But low pressures do draw things towards them, like in aerodynamics how the low pressure above the wing draws the wing upwards. The "Force" of gravity is simply a pressure imbalance. It's different from reletivity in that it doesn't "bend" space and time it's simply less "space-time-energy" avaliable.

[insane_alien]

no, the low pressure doesn't draw it up, the high pressure below pushes it up.

[CPL.Luke]

that doesn't matter you could easily say that the "space timeenergy" high pressure zones push things towards the low pressure zone.

 

the real problem is what is this "space-time energy"

[Firesong]

Very well then, in a planet say there is more energy availiable so it's a higher pressure realative to say, the sun so it's higher pressure is drawn to the suns lower pressure. When dealing with pressures it's more of a matter of semantics to say which is doing what, the end result is that the direction of travel goes from High -> Low. If I puncture my tire the air will escape into the atmosphere, you could say that it's the high pressure of the tire pushing out into the air but it would be just as accurate to say the lower pressure of the atmoshpere would be drawing the air from the tire equalizing it. Pressures equalize from high to low it's just semantics you're arguing over and you're missing the point.

 

As for space-time-energy THAT was my point. Every physical object is composed of energy and matter. What I'm saying is that TIME also qualifies as an energy. Energy is movement and that's what time alows us to do isn't it? Move? So as time moves along it sustains what we know of as physical reality. This forms into the traditional energies in physics and matter and what's left over is what we use to move forward in time, granted this is a large amount of energy compared to how much is devoted to matter and traditional energy. But there is a noticable difference and that difference creates the pressure imbalance.

[CPL.Luke]

your actually very close to what relativity says, I say this because kinetic energy is the time component of the four-momentum in relativity. However it is not true that all things are composed of matter and energy, really everything is composed of matter with something that we call energy mathematically attached to the matter.

 

energy doesn't really exist on its own, you can say that something has energy, however you'll never find something which you can say is "energy"

 

also how could you explain the equivalence between rest mass and energy through your idea?

[insane_alien]

but it would be just as accurate to say the lower pressure of the atmoshpere would be drawing the air from the tire equalizing it

 

no it would not be just as accurate. thats like saying a sand glass works on the principle that emptiness falls up. gas pressure works on things bashing into each other this means that only high pressure can exhert a force.

[CPL.Luke]

insane alien can you name an experiment where you could differentiate between low pressure drawing things in and high pressure pushing things out?

 

I can't really imagine any such experiment, however it makes a much more consistent explanation for the pressure to exert a force out, as it meshes with classical mechanics.

[ydoaPs]

insane alien can you name an experiment where you could differentiate between low pressure drawing things in and high pressure pushing things out?

 

I can't really imagine any such experiment, however it makes a much more consistent explanation for the pressure to exert a force out, as it meshes with classical mechanics.

 

I know WHY high pressure pushes. WHY would low pressure pull? It definitely is NOT semantics; it is a basic conceptual issue.

[CPL.Luke]

my point exactly you know why one is true over the other, it fits with everything else we know, however there is no experiment that can be done to guarantee that one way works over the other.

[gcol]

If it is a question of semantics, can I think just in terms of opposite forces attracting, and areas of unequal "potential" tending to move towards resolution (equilibrium). No pushing or pulling, no up or down?

[thedarkshade]

High pressure exerts forces, everyone knows that! I mean, look at the planes wings. On the top side, the air is moving very fast, so that responds to low pressure, so their is no force acting from up to down in the plane wing. But on the bottom side of the wing, the air is moving slower, and that responds to high pressure, and high pressure exerts force and that force acts from down to up, and makes possible the plane take-off!

 

edit: and gravity due to pressure imbalance? I find it difficult to cope! According to relativity gravity is due to disortions of space-time fabric!

[swansont]

insane alien can you name an experiment where you could differentiate between low pressure drawing things in and high pressure pushing things out?

 

I can't really imagine any such experiment, however it makes a much more consistent explanation for the pressure to exert a force out, as it meshes with classical mechanics.

 

It's by definition really. You can probably come up with some physics that has suckers, and you have darkons instead of photons, and cold is a substance, rather than the absence of thermal energy. But you run into problems with all that — you have to tapdance around why there's a limit to the sucker force (zero pressure), the limit to cold (absolute zero) and how many darkons constitutes absolute dark. Occam's razor points to standard physics being the better alternatives. Pumps don't suck.

[CPL.Luke]

that was my point that the only reason why we say that its one way over the other is because it relates back to what we know about classical mechanics, and again our concepts of energy make it so that a photon is much more logical than a darkon, but you could concievably do it the other way and get the same results from experiments (albeit much more complicated)

[Dr.Evil]

no it would not be just as accurate. thats like saying a sand glass works on the principle that emptiness falls up. gas pressure works on things bashing into each other this means that only high pressure can exhert a force.

 

I agree with firesong. You are both right. If you suck on a straw you are removing the downwards force of the air preasure inside the straw drawing the liquid up. creating low preasure is creating a force. I like firesongs theory, it works mathematicly but could have been worded beter.

[swansont]

I agree with firesong. You are both right. If you suck on a straw you are removing the downwards force of the air preasure inside the straw drawing the liquid up. creating low preasure is creating a force. I like firesongs theory, it works mathematicly but could have been worded beter.

 

The problem with that is you are terming the absence of pressure as an object or effect. It can be useful in some circumstances (a la electron holes), but it's only a model — we know that's not what is really going on.

[Daecon]

What about the abhorrent nature of the vacuum of space? Why doesn't it suck all the air off of Earth?

[insane_alien]

indeed, if vacuums sucked they should have no problem removing the atmosphere as the higher air went the easier it would be.

 

unless of course, the air is only up there because it is held there from below. say by collisions with particles a bit lower down.

 

okay, idea here.

 

a proposal for an experiment that says pressure is a pushing force and not a vacuum pulling.

 

we have a pipe connected to a pressure source(compressed air tank for instance) and the other end in a vaccum with a metal plate held on the end by a hydraulic ram and a force gauge. we set the ram up so that it will just hold the plate against the pipe with no air leakage(probably need a rubber seal for this to stand a chance). now, with zero pressure in the pipe we have no force. which agrees with both theories. we pump some air in (100kPa ?) and measure the force now required. AND its direction. now, the vacuum has not got any more vacuumy (probably less so because some air would likely have escaped). and there is still empty space in the pipe. in fact it is still about 99.999% empty. now, this alone probably isn't enough to sway you. BUT if we set up the gauge to record a value every millisecond and released the air suddenly, we would see something quite interesting. there would be a spike as the first air particles hit the plate. it would go far above 100kPa possibly as much as twice that. then dip below and oscilate somewhat.

 

what does this mean? ell, it means that the force was caused by the particles imparting momentum on the plate rather than the vacuum on the other side trying to suck it off.

[gcol]

1. Unless I have misunderstood the thrust of this thread, it is exploring the push/pull gravity hypothesis, which a quick google will show has been well chewed over and is not new.

 

2. See theories by Wright, among others.

 

3. If I am at all correct, should not this thread be in Speculations?

[swansont]

What about the abhorrent nature of the vacuum of space? Why doesn't it suck all the air off of Earth?

 

Gravity. The pressure gradient is from the change in potential energy and density with height.