Science
Related: About this forumThere is No Such Thing as Gravity.
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by eppur_se_muova (a host of the Science group).
What keeps us pinned to the surface of a massive object is the inertia of that object accelerating in all directions as per the Cosmological Constant.
It just makes more sense. Any of the primates here ahead of the curve?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
napoleon_in_rags
(3,992 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)If there's no such thing as gravity, tides need a new explanation.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Think about this:
Relativity demands that the cosmological constant (Which isn't entirely 'constant' even though time, space, and mass are all inextricably linked) keeps everything 'relative' spatially. That means the constant has an effect on mass and on space, obviously. Thing is, the effect on space acts as a linear, point-to-point, mechanism. The effect on mass is essentially the same, but many orders of magnitude stronger. The space between two massive objects grows at an accelerating rate as well. What happens when a subject 'falls' is that the acceleration of the massive object has superseded the accelerations of the space between the massive object and the falling subject. The more the acceleration of the massive object reduces the space between it and the subject, the less "anti-gravitational" force the dwindling space between can exert.
Now take two massive objects in equilibrium: The Earth and the Moon. It's a tenuous equilibrium. We know that we're going to lose the Moon. The fact that the Moon has a elliptical orbit creates greater and lesser spatial distances between them. What we have is not a 'mysterious pull' from the Moon when it is near, but rather an 'explicable reduction in push'.
'Gravity' has never been 'found'. There are no 'gravitrons' raining down from heaven to push us to the surface or some mysterious universal quasi-magnetic attraction to objects of mass. It just doesn't exist. Every single thing we attribute to 'gravity' can just as easily be explained by the notion that what is really going on is the inertial force created by the radiation of the 'Hubble' constant through mass and space in time.
And this perspective will help to explain many more things to come.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Do you want to try again?
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)The explanation is not absolutely perfect, but it is correct enough. It is a fact that there is no such thing as 'gravitational pull'. You are being forced to the surface by the acceleration of the planet below your feet in perfect accordance with the cosmological constant. All other things fall into place once that is understood. The problem is your inability to understand it, not my inability to explain it.
My theory is correct. The rest of the scientific community just hasn't caught up yet.
In the meanwhile, if you truly want to take a stab at understanding what I've said, then I'll walk you through an exercise I call 'The Gravity Model'. If your inability to understand continues to compel you to claim that I 'make no sense', then we're done here.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)You could also cite your peer-reviewed paper or arXiv preprint if you're so inclined.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)There are three stages. (And if you have suggestions to improve the model, I'd appreciate them. (that's if you 'get it', of course))
Let's start with the room.
You are standing in a room. The walls are white, there are no windows or doors or other features. In your outstretched hand you are holding a red ball (just cause it's a more psychologically outstanding color).
Now picture this: You, the Room, and the Ball are all growing at an identical and ever-accelerating rate. To head off the obvious, I'll point out that the growth originates at a sub-atomic level for all objects. Also, because I assume you're ahead of the curve, we needn't deal with 'mass' related to 'gravity' ... at the moment.
So picture the above and answer this:
"What, if any, effects do you observe?"
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)This uniformly accelerating "growth" is assumed, not demonstrated or given. Saying that it originates at a "sub-atomic" level doesn't mean much since there are about 25 orders of magnitude between the atomic scale and the Planck length. At what scale does this "growth" originate? What mechanism drives it?
Still, one effect I'd notice is an exponential decrease in the density of everything. If the volume increases without a corresponding increase in mass, the density decreases.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Don't overthink it. This is a mental exercise, not a study.
We'll call it 'magic' for the time being because we're just picturing the scenario as presented. You don't lose density and you do not appear to gain mass. The question of 'at what level does this occur' is a very important one, but not for this exercise.
Just humor me.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)I thought it was the FSM's noodley appendages holding us down, personally.
Marie Marie
(11,312 posts)Or so I've heard...
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)If Limbaugh dies, will I lose weight?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Hubby came up with that one more than forty years ago.
Gravity Probe B, which was a satellite that Stanford spent years researching, proved a few years ago that there is a magnetic component to gravity. They both obey the inverse square law.
But his faculty advisor wouldn't hear of it. Said faculty advisor also told him that black holes don't exist. This is because Oklahoma was a black hole at the time and no light got in.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)The acceleration theory would have all observable phenomenon we attribute to the mysterious force of gravity remain the same. I'd bet that the magnetic component is no different. I'd very much like to hear him describe his theory if he is available.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and/or curved space
the object's inertia can't possibly be effecting the space around it
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Would a mass traveling fast enough to gain substantial mass through relativity bend light in the same manner as the same equivalent mass at rest?
I don't know the answer but your reply made me think..
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)mass is mass
but it doesn't explain the inconsistency in the gravitational lensing effect in regards to the OP. If gravity does not exist then it wouldn't matter how you obtain that mass because there is no gravity to warp space around that mass.
edit to add: it also doesn't address the fact that denser objects have greater mass/gravity. The OP seems to think that only size matters (no comment on that one).
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Remember, the reason we experience what we call 'gravitational lensing' is through observation. If you are standing on an object of significant cosmic inertia (massive), you would perceive the same result as if there were some 'mysterious force'.
An object's relative velocity only really affects the time it spends in a given portion of space. Keep that in mind for a few moments while I explain what's really happening:
Let's say there is an object above the planet. The Earth is accelerating toward that object at a rate dictated by the effect of the cosmological constant compounded by the mass of the Earth. By this very same rule, the CC works on space as well. Therefore the space between the Earth and the object is also 'expanding' by the rules of the constant. Now, since all things are 'relative', and the space between the object and all points of the universe are expanding by the same constant, that object may remain 'stationary' until acted upon by a force. So, at a certain point, since the object is NEO, if the space between the Earth and the object is reduced to the point where the acceleration/inertia of the planet supersedes the expansion of that space, the object begins to "Fall". As the acceleration of the Earth reduced the space between it and the object, the space would have less and less of an 'anti-gravitational' force and the Earth would 'gain' on the object with ever greater velocity.
It is exactly this 'reduction in space' caused not by the mysterious 'force of gravity' but simply by the actual acceleration of the Earth which makes anything, including light, subject to being observed as 'falling'. What is actually happening is that when something passes through that envelope where the acceleration of the planet exceeds the separating potential of the space between, the Earth, by virtue of it's acceleration, 'sheds' the space between. Since light travels so fast, it is obviously less susceptible to be intersected by the accelerating mass simply because it's not at that point for quite as long, but we still see the reduction in space between the massive object and the beam of light.
IOW: Everything would appear exactly the same.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)You can't actually believe any of this.
It isn't even self consistent, for example:
"It is exactly this 'reduction in space" is not consistent with your idea that the entire universe is expanding at the same rate.
If we are talking about the expansion of the entire universe then the fact that there is something like a planet in there somewhere means nothing. The entire universe, and all points within it, are expanding at the same rate (according to your theory) so there can be no "reduction in space".
The better examples of gravitational lensing are galaxies which lay behind other galaxies. If there were no gravity and the illusion of gravity were simply the acceleration of the expansion of an object, then the expansion of empty space would be equal to the expansion of an object and offset it. This then would not be possible.
There shouldn't be any way for those arrows to converge on the Earth. The expansion you are advocating would exist in the space where they turn back toward us and it would push those arrows flat/straight. The light would miss the Earth and there would be no lensing effect.
You also don't seem to address how/why denser materials/objects have more weight/mass/gravity than less dense materials/objects.
If I hold up a balloon and a bowling ball (assuming they are exactly the same size) and gravity is simply the expansion of the objects then they should weigh the same. They don't. It can't be because they are expanding at different rates because they continue to be exactly the same size. It can't be because the planet is expanding at a different rate relative to each one. If so then the space below my hands would distort due to the different rates of expansion, it doesn't. It can't be because my hands are expanding at different rates because they continue to be the same size too.
I really do hope that this is just some silly mind game you are playing with. It makes no sense at all.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It's merely the action of light waves on the retina.
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)That's okay, the world will one day catch up.
eppur_se_muova
(41,944 posts)No links, no evidence. Feel free to repost in the Creative Speculation Group.