Gravitational Push

[losfomot]

This may be a little long but it makes so much sense to me, I just want someone else's thoughts on the matter. Thanks.

 

So what do you think of the idea that Gravity is a form of energy, perhaps a high energy form of electromagnetic radiation (higher in frequency than the gamma rays we have been able to detect so far) This radiation (gravity) is felt as a PUSH, not a pull. We (and any other object near enough to a large mass) would feel it as a pull because mass absorbs some of this energy. so we are being pushed in all directions equally except FROM the direction of a nearby large mass. Therefore we would be pushed more toward the Earth (for example) than away.

 

This would explain inflation (wouldn't it?) because gravity would have been pushing everything apart immensely more energetically soon after the big bang. This gravity energy is still pushing everything apart today, but with much less force (probably corresponding to the 4 degree Kelvin background radiation), and we see that this is so (our accelerating expansion).

 

It would also explain the presence of so many heavier elements. A meager 15 billion years doesn't seem to be enough time for the production and distribution of these elements throughout the universe. But if Gravity were stronger in the early universe, then Stars would form more readily, with less mass needed to ignite them. Hotter burning stars that lived out there lives in much shorter time than they need today.

 

It would explain the spiral arms we see in galaxies that appear as though they could only have rotated a few times ( or they would look like a jumbled mess with no arms discernible) Its because they HAVE only rotated a few times. Only recently has gravity weakened to a point where stable orbits are possible.

 

It would explain why the galaxy ( and the universe ) is not teeming with intelligent lifesigns (like radio signals, and visiting species) Its because, although the universe is very old, the (gravitational) conditions that would support life have only recently been available in the universe.

 

Phew... sorry about all that

Just an idea that seems to make more sense the more I think about it.

 

Thoughts?

[blike]

We (and any other object near enough to a large mass) would feel it as a pull because mass absorbs some of this energy.

 

Photons do not have any mass and they feel the effect of gravity. Also, if gravitation is energy like you state, what is the source of this energy? If we absorb this gravitational energy as you state, then why do we even bother with power plants? We could just use gravity.

[LucidDreamer]

It would explain the spiral arms we see in galaxies that appear as though they could only have rotated a few times ( or they would look like a jumbled mess with no arms discernible) Its because they HAVE only rotated a few times. Only recently has gravity weakened to a point where stable orbits are possible.

 

It would explain why the galaxy ( and the universe ) is not teeming with intelligent lifesigns (like radio signals' date=' and visiting species) Its because, although the universe is very old, the (gravitational) conditions that would support life have only recently been available in the universe.

 

[/quote']

Here's where your theory really breaks down for me. Life on earth has been around for almost as long as the planet has been around. The earth is like 4.6 billion years old and life is only a few hundred million years younger. The conditions necessary to support life on earth are very specific. We need a temperature that will neither boil nor freeze water. If gravity had changed over the 15 or so billion years since the universe was created and is constantly decreasing then the earth would not have held its constant and regular orbit around the sun and would not have sustained life. If gravity had changed that much then during that time conditions would have been similar to Mercury or Pluto and our Paleontological and Geological evidence clearly disputes this.

[ydoaPs]

gravity could be another manefestation of the thing we call matter or energy (depending on its form), but that is just an idea.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

Read the Singularity Theory from this thread, post 47:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=999&page=3

 

Possible future experiment:

 

Several babies born in orbit in zero gravity. Live in space studying science until they are 25. Brought back to earth, will they feel gravity is pulling them down from below or will they feel gravity is crushing them from above?

[ydoaPs]

they wouldn't be able to tell the difference

[fuhrerkeebs]

So what do you think of the idea that Gravity is a form of energy, perhaps a high energy form of electromagnetic radiation (higher in frequency than the gamma rays we have been able to detect so far)

 

There are theories that try to use the fact that E=M (taking c=1), and describing everything as Information. And since QFT says that every field has an associated particle, Gravity would be a form of information.

[losfomot]

Photons do not have any mass and they feel the effect of gravity.

 

I never said anything contrary to this did I?

 

Also, if gravitation is energy like you state, what is the source of this energy?

 

I don't know, but in my original post I suggested that it could be electromagnetic radiation (of a very high frequency) left over from the big bang.

 

If we absorb this gravitational energy as you state, then why do we even bother with power plants? We could just use gravity.

 

We already do. Where do you think HydroElectric power comes from?

 

But as far as tapping into gravity as a DIRECT energy source... I think that may be a long way off... or maybe not ( gravity beam )

[fuhrerkeebs]

But as far as tapping into gravity as a DIRECT energy source... I think that may be a long way off... or maybe not ( gravity beam )

 

However, if you read the original article by Podkletnov and Modanese (the guys who created the gravity beam), it resembles a gravitational impulse, they don't know if it truly is or not, however.

[fuhrerkeebs]

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0108/0108005.pdf

[losfomot]

Here's where your theory really breaks down for me. Life on earth has been around for almost as long as the planet has been around. The earth is like 4.6 billion years old and life is only a few hundred million years younger. The conditions necessary to support life on earth are very specific. We need a temperature that will neither boil nor freeze water. If gravity had changed over the 15 or so billion years since the universe was created and is constantly decreasing then the earth would not have held its constant and regular orbit around the sun and would not have sustained life. If gravity had changed that much then during that time conditions would have been similar to Mercury or Pluto and our Paleontological and Geological evidence clearly disputes this.

 

That's where it breaks down for me as well. Of course I have heard of a lot of controversy about the accuracy of the dating methods used by historians (geologists and paleontologists). However, assuming them to be true, I have one last straw to grasp at... it lies in an error of my own in saying that my "theory" explains inflation. It seems the whole basis of 'inflationary theory' lies in the assumption that the 'inflation' happened in a very short time relative to the total age of the universe (while my little "theory" describes inflation as smoothly slowing down over the age of the universe). So if we let inflation be an entity seperate from the direct effects of gravity, then it could be proposed that 'inflation' fast forwarded us to a universe already very close to the one we see ourselves in. The change in the strength of gravity (and in the background radiation temp) could be proceeding so slowly now that stable orbits have been possible for the past 4 or 5 billion years.

 

But even I agree that I am grasping at straws. Your argument is quite sound. I probably should have started a thread about whether or not gravity is a push, rather than try to explain the mechanics of the entire universe.

 

I still think gravity is a push, and it is probably the source of our universe's 'accelerating expansion'.

[losfomot]

However, if you read the original article by Podkletnov and Modanese (the guys who created the gravity beam), it resembles a gravitational impulse, they don't know if it truly is or not, however.

 

Of course not, in fact I have my doubts about a lot of what Podkletnov claims simply because, if he had something like what he says it would be the greatest discovery since sliced bread and the whole scientific community would be on it like flys to sh... er... like bees to pollen. I've read what he has claimed in articles as far back as 1992. I believe that 12 years is plenty of time for the 'discovery' to have come to light and it still hasn't aside for some unsupported claims. If this was all true (whether or not it is an actual "gravity" beam) then they sould have an independant team of scientists come in... witness the whole process... repeat the experiment... and confirm to the world that the effect is real. Since this hasn't happened yet, I am left in doubt of it all. Which is why I said MAYBE.