My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby mistermack » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:39 pm

I was musing about six months ago, on how gravity might work. I wrote this down at the time. Then I found a flaw in it that I considered made it wrong. So I dumped it but didn't delete it.
I found it again, last week, and it's driving me nuts, because I can't remember what was wrong with it. I didn't write it down. I have a feeling it was to do with gravitational time dilation, but I'm not sure. That could be bollocks. I wish I'd written it down, it's doing my head in.
Anyway, here it is. I want it refuted, so if you're into physics, give it some stick :


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would happen if every particle of matter in the Universe is actually constantly sucking in and absorbing space from around it?

On objects that have a huge mass, like a planet, there would be a great inward flow of space, because there are so many particles concentrated in one place.

Here on the surface of the Earth, we would be living in a high-speed flow of space, as it was sucked past us into the Earth.

How could you tell that this was happening? If you move at a constant speed through space, there is no indication or sensation of speed.You can’t tell if you are moving, or staying still. So, if space was whizzing past us at high speed down into the Earth, we wouldn’t feel anything.

However, one thing about moving fast relative to space, is that time slows. The faster you move, the slower your clock will run. The effect is called time dilation.

So if space is being sucked into the Earth, whizzing past us on the surface at high speed, a clock that is positioned here on the surface of the Earth should have space whizzing past faster, and so run slower than one that is out in the depths of space, well away from the Earth.

Does this actually happen? Yes, it does. It’s called gravitational time dilation under General Relativity. It happens close to any substantial massive object. It’s been accurately measured many times over, so it’s not a controversial idea, it’s a known fact. The only difference in GR is that it’s attributed to gravity, rather than relative motion through space. But time dilation has the same effect, whether it’s gravitational, or through motion.

It should be possible, if we know the gravitational time-dilation figure for the surface of the Earth, compared to remote space, to work out the speed that space would need to be passing us by, to cause the same time-dilation. So if this is actually happening, it should be an easy calculation to give a figure for the speed at which space is being sucked past us on the surface of the Earth.

But, what if here on the surface of the Earth, space is not just being sucked into the planet at a constant speed, but at the surface, the space is actually accelerating at a rate of 9.81 metres per sec² ?
So, without the support of the Earth beneath you, you too would fall downwards with an acceleration of 9.81 mps². This is exactly what does happen, and we experience it as gravity.

You would expect this to be the case, if space from a practically infinite volume was being sucked into a smaller and smaller volume. Like water approaching a sink hole. It has to speed up as it gets concentrated into a smaller and smaller volume.

In other words, what we think of as gravity on Earth, could actually be space that is accelerating downwards.
The pull of gravity on Earth, and an acceleration in space of 9.81 mps² are indistinguishable. They feel exactly the same. It’s called artificial gravity. And it also works the other way. In planes that are used to train astronauts, they produce artificial gravity pointing away from the Earth of 9.81 mps², and for a short while, the trainees are weightless and floating. The gravity due to the Earth, and the opposite artificial gravity due to the plane’s acceleration, are an exact match and cancel each other out.

So gravity and acceleration feel exactly the same. Maybe, it’s because they ARE the same.

If this sucking in of space were actually happening, then two massive objects freely floating in space would accelerate towards each other because they are both trying to pull in the same bit of space.
Also, any light that was passing close by a very massive object, like a super-massive black hole, would be deflected, as the space that it was passing through would be in accelerating motion, towards the black hole. So you would be able to see multiple images of objects that were directly behind the black hole.
This happens too and is known as gravitational lensing.

The obvious question that arises, is what happens to the space that is being sucked into matter? If the Earth has been sucking in space for 4 billion years, where has it gone?
I don’t have an answer for that, except to point out that according to big bang theory, all of the universe was once smaller than a pin head, and space is basically nothing, so there is nothing that appears obviously impossible about the concept from that angle.

One interesting consequence of this notion, is that if it’s right, then space can and must ‘pull’ on its neighbouring space. If the Earth is sucking in space in its immediate vicinity, then that would be resulting in the adjoining space moving to replace it, and the space adjoining that space moving to replace that, and so on. As the process radiates outwards from the Earth, it’s happening over a bigger and bigger area, as the process radiates outwards, like an inflating bubble.

So, the strength of the effect in any one place diminishes in line with the growing surface area of a sphere, in relation to its distance from the centre.
Space will be moving slower and slower, the further you get from the Earth. This is why the space would be accelerating as it moves in, and the rate of acceleration rises, as you get nearer to the Earth.

Also, any sudden change in the position of large amounts of mass will result in a ripple in the normally constant and even pulling of space on its neighbouring space. This ripple should travel at the speed of light, in line with other massless disturbances in space.
This would be an equivalent of gravitational waves, which were predicted by Einstein, and are just recently being confirmed.

It seem pretty obvious too that this scenario would predict the existence of black holes, if they hadn't already been predicted and detected. The more massive a body, the greater would the final velocity of space being pulled into it, and there would surely be an instance where a body was big enough to cause a final velocity approaching the speed of light.
A photon emitted at that stage would still travel at c, but wouldn't make any headway away from the massive body, so no light could escape.
In bodies more massive still, there would be a point in the gravitational well, at which c was reached, and that would be the event horizon, below which no light could escape the massive body.

I thought of a problem with this idea, but I can’t remember it at the moment. But it did knock it on the head, as far as I was concerned.
I’ll try to recall what it was. Should have written it down. I think it’s to do with gravitational time dilation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Forty Two » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:46 pm

mistermack wrote:I was musing about six months ago, on how gravity might work. I wrote this down at the time. Then I found a flaw in it that I considered made it wrong. So I dumped it but didn't delete it.
I found it again, last week, and it's driving me nuts, because I can't remember what was wrong with it. I didn't write it down. I have a feeling it was to do with gravitational time dilation, but I'm not sure. That could be bollocks. I wish I'd written it down, it's doing my head in.
Anyway, here it is. I want it refuted, so if you're into physics, give it some stick :


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would happen if every particle of matter in the Universe is actually constantly sucking in and absorbing space from around it?

On objects that have a huge mass, like a planet, there would be a great inward flow of space, because there are so many particles concentrated in one place.

Here on the surface of the Earth, we would be living in a high-speed flow of space, as it was sucked past us into the Earth.

How could you tell that this was happening? If you move at a constant speed through space, there is no indication or sensation of speed.You can’t tell if you are moving, or staying still. So, if space was whizzing past us at high speed down into the Earth, we wouldn’t feel anything.

However, one thing about moving fast relative to space, is that time slows. The faster you move, the slower your clock will run. The effect is called time dilation.

So if space is being sucked into the Earth, whizzing past us on the surface at high speed, a clock that is positioned here on the surface of the Earth should have space whizzing past faster, and so run slower than one that is out in the depths of space, well away from the Earth.

Does this actually happen? Yes, it does. It’s called gravitational time dilation under General Relativity. It happens close to any substantial massive object. It’s been accurately measured many times over, so it’s not a controversial idea, it’s a known fact. The only difference in GR is that it’s attributed to gravity, rather than relative motion through space. But time dilation has the same effect, whether it’s gravitational, or through motion.

It should be possible, if we know the gravitational time-dilation figure for the surface of the Earth, compared to remote space, to work out the speed that space would need to be passing us by, to cause the same time-dilation. So if this is actually happening, it should be an easy calculation to give a figure for the speed at which space is being sucked past us on the surface of the Earth.

But, what if here on the surface of the Earth, space is not just being sucked into the planet at a constant speed, but at the surface, the space is actually accelerating at a rate of 9.81 metres per sec² ?
So, without the support of the Earth beneath you, you too would fall downwards with an acceleration of 9.81 mps². This is exactly what does happen, and we experience it as gravity.

You would expect this to be the case, if space from a practically infinite volume was being sucked into a smaller and smaller volume. Like water approaching a sink hole. It has to speed up as it gets concentrated into a smaller and smaller volume.

In other words, what we think of as gravity on Earth, could actually be space that is accelerating downwards.
The pull of gravity on Earth, and an acceleration in space of 9.81 mps² are indistinguishable. They feel exactly the same. It’s called artificial gravity. And it also works the other way. In planes that are used to train astronauts, they produce artificial gravity pointing away from the Earth of 9.81 mps², and for a short while, the trainees are weightless and floating. The gravity due to the Earth, and the opposite artificial gravity due to the plane’s acceleration, are an exact match and cancel each other out.

So gravity and acceleration feel exactly the same. Maybe, it’s because they ARE the same.

If this sucking in of space were actually happening, then two massive objects freely floating in space would accelerate towards each other because they are both trying to pull in the same bit of space.
Also, any light that was passing close by a very massive object, like a super-massive black hole, would be deflected, as the space that it was passing through would be in accelerating motion, towards the black hole. So you would be able to see multiple images of objects that were directly behind the black hole.
This happens too and is known as gravitational lensing.

The obvious question that arises, is what happens to the space that is being sucked into matter? If the Earth has been sucking in space for 4 billion years, where has it gone?
I don’t have an answer for that, except to point out that according to big bang theory, all of the universe was once smaller than a pin head, and space is basically nothing, so there is nothing that appears obviously impossible about the concept from that angle.

One interesting consequence of this notion, is that if it’s right, then space can and must ‘pull’ on its neighbouring space. If the Earth is sucking in space in its immediate vicinity, then that would be resulting in the adjoining space moving to replace it, and the space adjoining that space moving to replace that, and so on. As the process radiates outwards from the Earth, it’s happening over a bigger and bigger area, as the process radiates outwards, like an inflating bubble.

So, the strength of the effect in any one place diminishes in line with the growing surface area of a sphere, in relation to its distance from the centre.
Space will be moving slower and slower, the further you get from the Earth. This is why the space would be accelerating as it moves in, and the rate of acceleration rises, as you get nearer to the Earth.

Also, any sudden change in the position of large amounts of mass will result in a ripple in the normally constant and even pulling of space on its neighbouring space. This ripple should travel at the speed of light, in line with other massless disturbances in space.
This would be an equivalent of gravitational waves, which were predicted by Einstein, and are just recently being confirmed.

It seem pretty obvious too that this scenario would predict the existence of black holes, if they hadn't already been predicted and detected. The more massive a body, the greater would the final velocity of space being pulled into it, and there would surely be an instance where a body was big enough to cause a final velocity approaching the speed of light.
A photon emitted at that stage would still travel at c, but wouldn't make any headway away from the massive body, so no light could escape.
In bodies more massive still, there would be a point in the gravitational well, at which c was reached, and that would be the event horizon, below which no light could escape the massive body.

I thought of a problem with this idea, but I can’t remember it at the moment. But it did knock it on the head, as far as I was concerned.
I’ll try to recall what it was. Should have written it down. I think it’s to do with gravitational time dilation.

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




What's the rate at which space is being sucked into a particle?

If space is being sucked into particles, then over time, space would become smaller and smaller, until there is no more space that can be sucked into a particle. That seems to be an inherent flaw from the get-go. Eventually, there would be no more space to suck, and it'd just be a clump of particles, and in the meantime, the universe would be shrinking. :prof:
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby mistermack » Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:56 pm

Forty Two wrote:What's the rate at which space is being sucked into a particle?

If space is being sucked into particles, then over time, space would become smaller and smaller, until there is no more space that can be sucked into a particle. That seems to be an inherent flaw from the get-go. Eventually, there would be no more space to suck, and it'd just be a clump of particles, and in the meantime, the universe would be shrinking. :prof:

Not if the Universe was infinite. Which nobody knows yet.
In any case, it appears that the Universe is expanding, so there doesn't appear to be a problem with the notion of space actually being created.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Forty Two » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:12 pm

Well, if matter sucks in space, then there would be a tendency for matter to come together. Also, you need to account for where the space goes.

And, the expanding space is part of the problem with your theory. How can you explain an expanding space, when matter sucks in space? We should at least be in a universe where the rate of expansion is slowing, if not contracting.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Brian Peacock » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:42 pm

This is exactly how Deepak Chopra got started.
.


"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT


.
User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
 
Posts: 16104
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
Location: Location: Location:
About me: Ablate me:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Hermit » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:50 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:This is exactly how Deepak Chopra got started.

:coffeespray:
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 16894
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby pErvinalia » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:04 pm

That's a lot of text on my phone screen. I haven't got all the way through yet, but why would you expect us to get sucked along with the flow of space, but the planet wouldn't?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"You know you blokes didn't criticize Obama. You're lying. - Forty Two. Umm - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=42144
User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
 
Posts: 39477
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: dystopia
About me: Now with 50% less ranting!

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby mistermack » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:10 pm

Forty Two wrote:Well, if matter sucks in space, then there would be a tendency for matter to come together.

There is. It's called gravity. However, gravity is incredibly weak at particle level, so it wouldn't cause matter to collapse except under extreme gravity.

Forty Two wrote:Also, you need to account for where the space goes.

I mentioned that in the OP.

Forty Two wrote:And, the expanding space is part of the problem with your theory. How can you explain an expanding space, when matter sucks in space? We should at least be in a universe where the rate of expansion is slowing, if not contracting.

Why? If the process has been happening since the Universe started, then you would just need more space being made, than being absorbed.
Maybe antimatter emits it? :biggrin:
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Rum » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:13 pm

Rum's Second Law of thermodynamics: Everything eventually turns to shit.
User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
 
Posts: 31973
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Forty Two » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:14 pm

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, if matter sucks in space, then there would be a tendency for matter to come together.

There is. It's called gravity. However, gravity is incredibly weak at particle level, so it wouldn't cause matter to collapse except under extreme gravity.


I wasn't referring to it collapsing. I was referring to matter coming together because the matter was eating up all the space. If space is expanding between matter which is sucking in space, then new space must be getting created at a faster rate. How? From where?

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Also, you need to account for where the space goes.

I mentioned that in the OP.


I don't understand what you wrote. Where does the space go? Clarify it for me.
mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote:And, the expanding space is part of the problem with your theory. How can you explain an expanding space, when matter sucks in space? We should at least be in a universe where the rate of expansion is slowing, if not contracting.

Why? If the process has been happening since the Universe started, then you would just need more space being made, than being absorbed.
Maybe antimatter emits it? :biggrin:


Well, that's one area where your theory fails. You have no source for new space. How does antimatter emit space into our universe? It's your theory....
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby mistermack » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:15 pm

pErvin wrote:That's a lot of text on my phone screen. I haven't got all the way through yet, but why would you expect us to get sucked along with the flow of space, but the planet wouldn't?

The planet is held together by gravity. This is meant to explain gravity, not suggest something different.
Gravity is the weakest force, so it's not going to overcome the other forces and cause matter to collapse.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Forty Two » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:17 pm

You have a lot of maths to do.

But, it is similar to my alternative theory that there is no such thing as gravity. The Earth sucks.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby mistermack » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:27 pm

Forty Two wrote:I wasn't referring to it collapsing. I was referring to matter coming together because the matter was eating up all the space. If space is expanding between matter which is sucking in space, then new space must be getting created at a faster rate. How? From where?

If I knew that, I'd probably be in line for a Nobel Prize.
I don't think you have much idea how big space is, compared to the matter in it. I can assure you that even if no new space was being created, this scenario would not make a perceptible or measurable dent in the amount of space.

Forty Two wrote:I don't understand what you wrote. Where does the space go? Clarify it for me.

I can't make it any clearer than "I don't know" which is there in the OP.

Forty Two wrote:Well, that's one area where your theory fails. You have no source for new space. How does antimatter emit space into our universe? It's your theory....

No, that's my little joke. Like I said, nobody knows where the new space is coming from, but it's accepted that space is expanding.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.
User avatar
mistermack
 
Posts: 14372
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Rum » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:46 pm

I looked for this having stumbled on it a few days ago. You might be on to something oddly enough.

Rum's Second Law of thermodynamics: Everything eventually turns to shit.
User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
 
Posts: 31973
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Postby Forty Two » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:46 pm

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote:I wasn't referring to it collapsing. I was referring to matter coming together because the matter was eating up all the space. If space is expanding between matter which is sucking in space, then new space must be getting created at a faster rate. How? From where?

If I knew that, I'd probably be in line for a Nobel Prize.
I don't think you have much idea how big space is, compared to the matter in it. I can assure you that even if no new space was being created, this scenario would not make a perceptible or measurable dent in the amount of space.


You've provided no persuasive assurance of that. Even a small rate of reduction in space, over 13.5 billion years, amounts to a lot of sucked up space.

As far as "if you knew that..." -- you don't know any of this -- you're speculating. You don't know that space is even sucked into matter, you've surmised it or guessed it or speculated. I'm not sure why the limit of your speculation is drawn at where does the new space from?" Saying "if I knew that I'd get a nobel prize..." is like suggesting that you've established the rest of your theory, but you've reached this point that you can't figure out, and if you could, you'd be there with Albert Einstein and Richard Feynmann.


mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote:I don't understand what you wrote. Where does the space go? Clarify it for me.

I can't make it any clearer than "I don't know" which is there in the OP.


Oh, got it. Well, that's an important part of your theory. Seems like a gaping hole, and since you were asking what the problems with your theory might be, it seems that's a good place to start. Any theory such as yours must account for the whereabouts of all the space that gets sucked. I.e., what happens to what's been sucked, once Mother Nature is done sucking? Does she spit, or does she swallow?

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote:Well, that's one area where your theory fails. You have no source for new space. How does antimatter emit space into our universe? It's your theory....

No, that's my little joke. Like I said, nobody knows where the new space is coming from, but it's accepted that space is expanding.


While we're at it, nobody knows, and nobody in the field of physics thinks, that matter sucks space to begin with.

Yes, it's accepted that space is expanding, which is a point against your theory, which suggests that despite an expanding "space-time" the "space" in the universe is getting sucked out.
If you ever feel sad, remember that somewhere in the world there is a fat kid dropping his favorite ice cream cone.

I'm not Steve Bannon. I'm not trying to suck my own c**k. - Anthony Scaramucci.
User avatar
Forty Two
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I identify as sexually arousing to women.

Next

Return to Science, Technology & Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest