gravimotion

[lemur]

I hadn't heard of the idea of 'gravimotion' before the thread on E=MC^2's applicability at the quantum level. I don't know what gravimotion has to do with that, but I googled it and I find it an interesting idea worth discussing. It is also a question I've wrestled with myself: why can't gravity be explained as simply as lots of matter falling at the same rate? Spacetime curvature could then be held responsible for the fact that the matter tends to concentrate and build up a 'dam' (the ground) that blocks water and atmosphere from continuing to free-fall. I don't know what, then, would explain the curvature of spacetime that causes matter to 'jam up' into a 'dam' such as a planet or star, but I do think you could say that friction is sufficient cause for things to stop free-falling and pile up. Can anyone think of an issue that would falsify this idea that everything within a gravity well has an average ratio of momentum to inertia and that is all gravity is?

[Light Storm]

...I don't know what gravimotion has to do with that, but I googled it and I find it an interesting idea worth discussing...

 

From what I've read on the Gravimotion it doesn't just step outside the box, it ignores the box. In a nut shell, it looks at the universe from a very quantum physics level. Unfortunately quantum physics is a very specialized type of science that needs it's own realm of rules and understanding. Painting the bigger picture with those same rules doesn't make sense. Matter may not be understood on a quantum level, but it's what makes up our reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lemur]

From what I've read on the Gravimotion it doesn't just step outside the box, it ignores the box. In a nut shell, it looks at the universe from a very quantum physics level. Unfortunately quantum physics is a very specialized type of science that needs it's own realm of rules and understanding. Painting the bigger picture with those same rules doesn't make sense. Matter may not be understood on a quantum level, but it's what makes up our reality.

Can you cite what you read? because it sounds very different from what I read: http://gravimotion.info/what_is_gravimotion.htm

 

When you use the phrases "step outside the box" or "ignores the box," it sounds like you're evaluating a theory purely on the basis of how it fits with other theories, which doesn't seem very scientific to me.

 

What interests me about what I've read about the idea of "gravimotion" so far is that things can simply be in motion together and their inertia/momentum would be responsible for their gravitational behavior. So, for example, I could see how you could interpret gravity as everything moving (falling) together at the same speed in a recursive path and as matter starts to pile up due to friction, a solid core forms (ground) that everything else piles up against. Then, the fact that everything is accelerating is due to spacetime curvature, which prevents anything from moving in a totally straight line and therefore escaping the acceleration/force of angular momentum. Now I'm getting confused trying to remember why angular momentum is acceleration but I seem to recall that it is and I think this would apply to anything moving along a curved trajectory, no?

 

 

[ajb]

What is Gravimotion, as compared to physics?

 

Very few dare study physics.

 

..."coherent" interpretation of Nature that "simply" makes sense.

 

Just a few quotes from the website. All these suggest to me that everyone should leave gravimotion well alone.

Edited June 1, 2011 by ajb

[lemur]

Just a few quotes from the website. All these suggest to me that everyone should leave gravimotion well alone.

Why (pre)judge a book by its cover, or in this case rhetorical style? What is the harm in considering the content of the ideas? I'm not even sure I understand them exactly, because I'm too caught up in my interpretation of the idea of falling things building up in curved spacetime, but I think it's related. Obviously, I am capable of not abandoning existing theories of gravity to explore this gravimotion concept or any other for that matter. It disappoints me, though, that people are rejecting even considering and discussing the idea in a critical way.

[ajb]

The author states that this is not physics! So I won't read it like it is physics.

[lemur]

The author states that this is not physics! So I won't read it like it is physics.

I just read the website in more detail and you're right that much of it is tiresomely empty. The basic premise merits discussion imo, though:

Gravimotion's interpretation of the gravitation phenomenon implies that our human concept of space is physically made of motion.

As such we are living in motion rather than in time!

Just think about a cloud of particles in motion in a (curved) way that causes them to be constantly accelerating forward at the same rate. Next, imagine the particles in front of you start 'jamming up' like a muiticar pileup accident on a highway. If it was particulate matter piling up instead of cars, the traffic jam would cause all other particles to pile up on top of it to form "solid ground." Because the trajectory of the matter was curved, it would continue to accelerate into the "ground" in front of it even though that ground had built up potential energy by resisting its own inertial momentum.

Edited June 1, 2011 by lemur

[gravimotion]

The author states that this is not physics! So I won't read it like it is physics.

I ended up stating that gravimotion is not physics, because it has been systematically rejected by physicists!

The idea behind gravimotion doesn't contradict PHYSICS' MATHEMATICS though.

On the other hand it provides another interpretation of these mathematics.

Here is an example (among other):

http://does-time-exi...ravimotion.html

While the idea of gravimotion is systematically rejected by physicists, the converse is not true!

My respect for physicists is immense...

 

Just think about a cloud of particles in motion in a (curved) way that ....

The idea behind gravimotion is more appropriately " a cloud made of the motion of the particles but without the particles".

And I explain and illustrate that idea of mine succintly in:

http://gravimotion.i...r-en/space.html

 

gravimotion

 

[gravimotion]

Why (pre)judge a book by its cover, or in this case rhetorical style? What is the harm in considering the content of the ideas? I'm not even sure I understand them exactly, because I'm too caught up in my interpretation of the idea of falling things building up in curved spacetime, but I think it's related. Obviously, I am capable of not abandoning existing theories of gravity to explore this gravimotion concept or any other for that matter. It disappoints me, though, that people are rejecting even considering and discussing the idea in a critical way.

 

Overnight this writing of yours came back to my mind!

You are remarkably open minded...

 

Most of the reactions I get about gravimotion are of the type: "This guy is ignorant" or "This guy knows nothing about physics".

Some people just rely on their"belief", they claim "I do not believe that!" and that's the end of that!

Or they claim "That cannnot be" and they proved everything!

The reaction to gravimotion's idea, when expressed, is almost always of denial, without discussion, without compromise, and without further consideration and notice! So comments such as those of "ajb" do not bother me anymore.

 

On the other hand people like you are very rare and far in between...

That is why I decide to mention it!

I applaud your open mind and I intend to read more of your interventions on this forum...

If you have any question about gravimotion, it would be my pleasure to exchange ideas.

 

Henri Salles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lemur]

Thanks, H 'gravimotion' Salles, for complimenting my open (critical) mind. What you should realize is that most people feel the need to place their consciousness into a subordinate position relative to authority. I don't find this necessary and I can contemplate different ideas about gravity whether they are attributed to Newton, Einstein, or someone without a recognizable name posting on an internet discussion forum. My interest is in critically discussing the content of ideas, not worshipping or disdaining them based on (truth) status.

 

What I would like to discuss more about the idea of gravimotion is whether motion in and of itself is treated as sufficient to produce the effects commonly attributed to gravity as a force (field). In other words, are you proposing that simply by moving and interacting, matter emerges in the forms typically attributed to gravitational attraction?

[ajb]

So comments such as those of "ajb" do not bother me anymore.

 

My comments are just references to what you have said. You yourself state that this is not physics.

[gravimotion]

My comments are just references to what you have said. You yourself state that this is not physics.

 

 

Note that I was neutral rather than combative.

Most of my thinking I owe to physics!

 

Actually one of my favoriye motto is: "Neither physics nor fiction, there is nothing like gravimotion".

Which is a litlle bit different than your quote.

 

Just as the reality of a coin has 2 "opposite" sides, physics and gravitmotion are the opposite sides of reality!

 

Physics relativity relies on "positions", "relative speed" (relative to these positions), on "inertia" and "force."

Physics quantum mechanics relies on "entropy", the successive "states" that lead to thermodynamic equilibrium, "mass" and 4 "forces."

Physics is clearly based on the philsophy that inertia is inert and that forces move around inert matter within space and time!

 

Gravimotion is the antithesis of physics, gravimotion relies on motion ONLY.

There is no inertia in gravimotion, everything is dynamic, made of motion, including the core of matter.

And motion, has nothing to do with physics' relative speed; motion is incompatible with inertia (as interpreted in physics).

The best way to grab the "reality" of motion is through Einstein time dilation, which shows mathematically that time is a puppet of motion.

So in gravimotion motion is placed at the top of the hierarchy (should there be one), both space and time (should they exist) would be byproducts of motion.

Now motion does no longer occur in space as in physics, motion occurs in motion (that replaces space-time).

 

The only problem with gravimotion is that "motion" is a mystery.

Yet compared to both "inertia" and "entropy", which are respectively at the base of relativity and quantum theories , "motion" has the advantage to be a "physical mystery" and not a "fictitious that is mentally invented mystery" as both inertia and entropy are.

 

As such it makes more sense to describe Nature using a "single physical" mystery rather than "2 fictitious" mysteries.

 

What I would like to discuss more about the idea of gravimotion is whether motion in and of itself is treated as sufficient to produce the effects commonly attributed to gravity as a force (field).

Yes the idea behind gravimotion is to suggest that "motion" is "sufficient".

Claiming that gravitation is made of motion, and observing free fall (which is motion), amounts to claim that motion (in the form of what we call force of gravity) is the very motion that occurs in free fall.

So physics' cause that is the force of gravity, is merged (in gravimotion interpretation) with phycis' effect that is motion (acceleration).

If one notices in addition that that motion that makes gravitation (in gravimotion interpretation of Nature) comes right out of space, and as a consequence one claims that motion actually makes space, then the force of gravity (that exists in space), the free fall of an object and space-time are all unified in one elegant scoop under the form (occurrence would be a better word) of motion!

 

In other words, are you proposing that simply by moving and interacting, matter emerges in the forms typically attributed to gravitational attraction?

This aspect of your question, rather than triggering an answer, raises questions in my mind!

1. The 2 words "matter emerges" may mean that "matter is created" as happened after big bang in physics "inflation" period creation of matter.
2. Yet the 2 words "matter emerges" may mean that particles, in some specific conditions and at present, emerge out physics "quantum vacuum".

My answer will not satisfy you, because it actually requires much more explanation.

In gravimotion, there is no beginning, no big bang, no inflation period. Yet "emergence of particles" out of the "motion" that makes space-time has an explanation (actually a different interpretation).

[lemur]

Instead of expanding your theory immediately in the most general possible way to account for everything in a completely unfamiliar way, you should start with specific mechanisms that clearly support your more general ideas.

[gravimotion]

Instead of expanding your theory immediately in the most general possible way to account for everything in a completely unfamiliar way, you should start with specific mechanisms that clearly support your more general ideas.

 

 

Physics is based on inertia, forces, space and time.

 

Uniform motion in physics happens through inertia, is equivalent to rest and as such has no characteristics of its own.

Uniform motion in physics has no characteristics of its own because whether its speed is 10 miles an hour or 100 miles an hour inertia takes care of it. Relative speed doesn't contribute to uniform motion, only one word that is inertia (no explanation, no mathematics) takes care of all speeds and directions of uniform motion.

Obviously inertia is in charge of uniform motion whatever the velocity in physics.

Then force (not inertia) takes care of accelerated motion in physics.

 

Uniform motion in gravimotion, as in the inertia law, is self sufficient to occur on itself. But now uniform motion occurs on itself (period). Uniform motion is no longer due to the inertia of matter in motion, uniform motion occurs on itself, just as the motion of light (which has no mass) occurs on itself .

Inertia disappears. In gravimotion each uniform motion is characterized by a specific intensity and direction. In gravimotion uniform motion is represented independently of mass space and time.

Then acceleration is simply, uniform motion to which is combined other uniform motion.

 

Note that right there gravimotion unifies: uniform motion, force and acceleration. And indirectly inertia by dropping it!

 

The representation of motion in gravimotion is done through the motion-volume.

gravimotion-dictionary-motion-volume

If your browser doesn't directly lead to the motion-volume item use the menu/index and click on motion-vol.

 

Then everything in the universe is illustrated using the motion-volume.

I just created for you a special file out of which you can download my book for free. I will remove it in a few days.

Download: Harmony of Reality book

The following internet page, provides the precise pages numbers of the book for the various illustrations.

Book illustrations

 

For explanations that were thought of after I wrote the book:

Gravitation is pure motion:

gravimotion

 

Light is pure motion:

light

wave particle duality

 

Space is pure motion:

space

And to show how gravimotion differs from physics:

what is space?

 

Our concepts of space, time and mass prevent us from describing motion:

motion

what is motion?

 

Time interpreted as motion:

time Einstein gravimotion

 

Inertia interpreted as motion:

what is inertia?

 

Entropy interpreted as motion:

what is entropy?

 

The universe in expansion is motion:

gravity frequency interaction

uncertainty principle

 

And many more...

 

You must take in account that gravimotion is in its infancy, physics has been alive for several hundred years.

Then you must take in account that gravimotion has been carried out by a single individual, myself; whereas thousands of highly gifted individuals contributed and are still contributing to the science of physics.

Then you must take in account that I am a layperson, not a physicist. And that I am furthermore not a writer! And in addition if I were a writer I would write in my native tongue, which is french.

So when you read about gravimotion you have to be forgiving in many ways.

 

I am grateful to lemur and also to scienceforums.net to allow me to express myself freely.

Up until lemur and scienceforums.net I have been frankly, switftly and without any consideration kicked out of scientific forums!

I want to show my gratitude...

Thank you again,

 

Henri Salles

Edited June 7, 2011 by gravimotion

[michel123456]

Pas mal, pas mal.

 

As a form of support, something that always blowed my mind:

 

Take a simple diagram, multiplying something by something: say multiplying meters by meters, you get square meters.

Then you make your diagram. Put Meters on the X axis, Meters on the Y axis, you get a square surface made of square meters. You have taken Meters (that is the unit of distance), multiplied by Meters (Distance again), and got Surface, which is something totally different. You cannot make the sum of Distance + Surface, these are 2 different things.

IOW in physics you can multiply bananas & umbrellas and get grandfather clocks. (from my favorite late Professor E.R.Laithwaite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Laithwaite)

 

If you want to play with speed, what you can do is the following:

Put Time on the X axis, put Speed (Velocity) on the Y axis, and you get a surface made of...Distance.

Just like if Speed (Velocity, call it Motion) was the same fundamental as time, and as if Distance was the result of Speed combined with Time.

If that gibberish can help...

[swansont]

Here is an example (among other):

http://does-time-exi...ravimotion.html

 

 

From that page

 

At the limit, the display of a clock at absolute rest (if that had any physical meaning in our expanding universe) would be running infinitely fast.

 

Does this imply that as one approaches this frame of absolute rest, clocks go faster?

[gravimotion]

From that page

 

Does this imply that as one approaches this frame of absolute rest, clocks go faster?

 

 

That's precisely what happens.

Coincidentally the temperature of the clock would increase to the point that the clock would also melt down!

 

Pas mal, pas mal.

 

You have taken Meters (that is the unit of distance), multiplied by Meters (Distance again), and got Surface, which is something totally different. You cannot make the sum of Distance + Surface, these are 2 different things.

 

Pas mal pas mal , meaning not bad not bad

That is true of divisions too.

And that has another meaning. You cannot divide a bag of 60 oranges into 60 bags of one apple each.

Now getting back to speeds, how do you divide a stretch of highway 60 miles long into one hour?

Yet speed is an exquisite representation of motion; the concept of speed rings the bell, the higher the speed the more intense the motion.

In spite of its incomprehensible-ness, physics' mathematics has a point.

Edited June 8, 2011 by gravimotion

[swansont]

That's precisely what happens.

The earth moves at 30 km/sec in orbit around the sun. At six-month intervals, then, we are 60 km/sec closer or further from absolute rest. Why don't we see this effect with our clocks?

[gravimotion]

The earth moves at 30 km/sec in orbit around the sun. At six-month intervals, then, we are 60 km/sec closer or further from absolute rest. Why don't we see this effect with our clocks?

 

 

 

I do not understand your logic; the earth circles the sun at 30km/sec, but for a small variation due to the fact that earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, that motion of 30km/sec remains constant year round.

And our clocks do not vary for that specific matter that is because that motion remains the same no matter what.

It seems that you are not distinguishing time of " six-month intervals" from speed of "30km/sec."

The best way to look at it is that if we were 60km/sec further from rest (to consider one of your example), the earth would circle at 30 + 60 = 90 km/sec, and the earth never does that!

Time dilation is a fairly simple mechanism to understand, when gravimotion's point of view that is when the overall motion of the clock is compounded to Einstein's discovery and calculations.

Edited June 8, 2011 by gravimotion

[swansont]

I do not understand your logic; the earth circles the sun at 30km/sec, but for a small variation due to the fact that earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, that motion of 30km/sec remains constant year round.

And our clocks do not vary for that specific matter that is because that motion remains the same no matter what.

It seems that you are not distinguishing time of " six-month intervals" from speed of "30km/sec."

The best way to look at it is that if we were 60km/sec further from rest (to consider one of your example), the earth would circle at 30 + 60 = 90 km/sec, and the earth never does that!

Time dilation is a fairly simple mechanism, when gravimotion's point of view that is when the overall motion of the clock is compounded to Einstein's discovery and calculations.

The direction changes 180º in six months. At one point we are moving at +30 km/s with respect to some coordinate system, and six months later we move at -30 km/s. Now, our clocks are never infinitely fast, so we know that we must be moving faster than 30 km/s with respect to the absolute frame. But whatever speed we have has to change by 60 km/s. We should be able to measure that.

 

If you are right, that is.

[gravimotion]

The direction changes 180º in six months. At one point we are moving at +30 km/s with respect to some coordinate system, and six months later we move at -30 km/s. Now, our clocks are never infinitely fast, so we know that we must be moving faster than 30 km/s with respect to the absolute frame. But whatever speed we have has to change by 60 km/s. We should be able to measure that.

 

The motion of earth around the sun (not considering other motions such as its spinning) is as follows;

1. The earth physically travels at 30km/sec and that speed is independent of its direction. In other words that speed is constant day after day, year after year.
2. The earth is physically falling toward the sun, a motion due to the sun's gravitation acting on the earth. A motion that keeps the earth on its trajectory instead of escaping in space. And that motion is constant day after day year round.

As such there is no variation of the over all motion of earth, when you consider its revolution only around the sun.

 

In gravimotion you are not allowed to choose a reference system in such a way that the motion considered is changed.

In relativity on the other hand you are allowed to choose whether motion exist or not. You are allowed as you do to change its direction etc...

Einstein favorite example is the train. He says that a traveler sees the landscape moving, as such and choosing the train for reference, the train is not moving!

On the other hand for a bystander on the embankment, it is the train that is moving not the landscape!

Take your pick!

[swansont]

The motion of earth around the sun (not considering other motions such as its spinning) is as follows;

1. The earth physically travels at 30km/sec and that speed is independent of its direction. In other words that speed is constant day after day, year after year.
2. The earth is physically falling toward the sun, a motion due to the sun's gravitation acting on the earth. A motion that keeps the earth on its trajectory instead of escaping in space. And that motion is constant day after day year round.

As such there is no variation of the over all motion of earth, when you consider its revolution only around the sun.

 

Its speed is the same (to first order) but its velocity is not. Reference frames deal with velocities.

 

 

In gravimotion you are not allowed to choose a reference system in such a way that the motion considered is changed.

 

Then what is this mythical absolute reference frame? I choose to measure the motion of the earth with respect to it. Since the earth is moving in a circle WRT the sun and its velocity is constantly changing, how do I compare that to a reference frame where the velocity is constant?

[gravimotion]

We’re getting nowhere!

Your argument rest on the reference system.

 

Einstein stated that if you drop a stone from the window of a train, you see the stone falling in a straight line.

Yet for someone on the embankment the stone trajectory is parabolic.

Einstein states: there is not one absolute trajectory.

 

I say that Einstein is right but in a slight different way. There is no absolute observable trajectory. Actually we can choose the trajectory that we call a trajectory according to our point of observation, that is depending on which reference system we choose.

 

On the other hand if one considers that there is only one single (physical) stone falling, it is then obvious that there is only one single (physical) trajectory. When the stone is dropped it certainly doesn't duplicate itself to satisfy all various trajectories observed through various observations made from various reference systems.

This is why reference systems are of no use in trying to understand what is going on.

 

Because there is only one (physical) earth, my contention is that there is only one motion for earth around the sun, a compounded motion as described in 1 and 2 in my previous post.

Edited June 9, 2011 by gravimotion

[michel123456]

Dear Henri

 

IMHO, you could present your ideas under the prism of a new interpretation of mainstream physics, instead of presenting it in full opposition.

 

There is no doubt a serious physicist going to your site will not read anything further the second sentence. Although IMHO you have ideas that are in 90% accordance with existing theories.

You should insist upon the 90% first* instead of insisting upon your 10%. Take into mind that a mainstream scientist would be very proud of improving 0,00001% of existing knowledge.

Just my opinion.

 

*for example, making a list of theories and equations to which your ideas agree. Then making a list of theories and equations that you put under question.

 

-------------------------

Note: i admire your enthusisam & the time you spent in your presentation. I agree & disagree simultaneously on the principle of your ideas. I agree on the idea that everything (all interactions) can be explained through the concept of motion, and not only gravity. I disagree on the direction.

Edited June 10, 2011 by michel123456

[swansont]

We’re getting nowhere!

Your argument rest on the reference system.

 

Einstein stated that if you drop a stone from the window of a train, you see the stone falling in a straight line.

Yet for someone on the embankment the stone trajectory is parabolic.

Einstein states: there is not one absolute trajectory.

 

I say that Einstein is right but in a slight different way. There is no absolute observable trajectory. Actually we can choose the trajectory that we call a trajectory according to our point of observation, that is depending on which reference system we choose.

 

On the other hand if one considers that there is only one single (physical) stone falling, it is then obvious that there is only one single (physical) trajectory. When the stone is dropped it certainly doesn't duplicate itself to satisfy all various trajectories observed through various observations made from various reference systems.

This is why reference systems are of no use in trying to understand what is going on.

 

Because there is only one (physical) earth, my contention is that there is only one motion for earth around the sun, a compounded motion as described in 1 and 2 in my previous post.

 

If there are two observers, they measure one trajectory, but according to relativity they get different answers, i.e. length and time, depending on their reference frame. If you have a system where you get the same answer, regardless of your frame, please present it.

 

Now, can we get back to my question about how we can tell what our motion is relative to this absolute reference frame of yours?