How gravity works

Noted, James.

I don’t know.

Because the knot maintains itself, just as a knot in a rubber sheet stays tied up.

For the same reason that a wave in water remains a wave. It’s a travelling pressure pulse that appears as a hump, and the hump travels but the water does not. This hump does not collapse because of the nature of water. A wave in space does not collapse because of the nature of space.

Because space isn’t made of particles. Instead, particles are made of it.

More of the same. But it’s all one whole, it isn’t made of bits.

I think I confused you. I am not challenging the persistence of the knot. Note that the “rubber sheet” analogy requires that the edges of the sheet be fastened in place, else there would be no stretching even with a firm knot. The entire sheet would merely wrinkle. A gravity field persists through indefinite time. The “rubber sheet” stays stretched. For the jelly/rubber-space concept to hold true, there must be an reason as to why the “edges of the sheet” are held in place.

Or another way to ask is, “Vibrations in water and air reflect what happens within liquids. Why isn’t the jelly-space liquid rather than jelled?”

It is important to know because we are talking about a “knot” forming which directly implies that the jelly stuff not only moved, but actually got wrapped around itself where jelly point B got into the position of jelly point D while D is still attached to E and B is still attached to A. How could you conceivably tie jelly into a knot resulting in altered densities?

It seems that it would have to be the waves themselves that form the “knot”. But if that is the case (and I’m certain that it is) then why would the surrounding space be affected at all other than the vibrations of the waves within the knot? In effect, you are proposing a scenario of a compression wave of jelly being twisted in such a way that it not only persists in a consistent shape and location that compresses the jelly, but causes the surrounding jelly to be less dense (decompressed) throughout time.

But then why not a knot that decompresses rather than compresses? Wouldn’t such an occurrence cause anti-gravity; a compression of the surrounding jelly-space that pushes other such “objects” away? Wouldn’t the anti-gravity objects adhere and perhaps annihilate the gravity objects? Has there ever been any witness to any actual anti-gravity particle for even the shortest time?

Of course, the bigger question would very soon become, “How did this jelly-space ever come to be?”

The rubber-sheet analogy is back-to-front. Space has stress-energy, and stress and pressure are similar, both being measured in Pascals. It’s a pressure rather than tension, hence a better analogy is a block of pressurised jelly. The edges, if you can call them that, are moving outwards. Since gravity is an additional pressure gradient extending from the centre towards the edge, as the edges recede the slope of the gradient gets shallower, which suggests that the strength of gravity reduces over time as per the Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis.

Because light is a transverse wave, and waves travelling through the bulk of a liquid are longitudinal waves. See physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/u10l1c.cfm for something on this.

The jelly itself doesn’t get tied into a knot, instead a stress moving through it does. You tie a “ripple” in a knot, not the jelly.

The knots only keep the waves going round and round, and aren’t relevant to gravity. This is why I talked about the photon rather than the electron: energy causes gravity, not matter. And it’s the opposite of a compression wave, it pushes outwards rather than inwards. The surrounding space is affected by the “knot”, but that takes us into electromagnetism rather than gravity.

See above re waves and knots. You never see a wave on the sea that’s a just a trough, and we don’t see negative-energy waves propagating through space. There is nothing real that is negative energy. People talk about holes in this context, but that’s when there’s nothing there, rather than something there. You’d need a “hole in space” for this, and as far as I know, there aren’t any. Hence no anti-gravity. But artificial gravity is feasible. If you can create a strong artificial gravity field above your head, up you go. That’s effectively anti-gravity.

Sorry James, I just don’t know.

The sign of a good man.

You never see a mere positive wave of water either (one of those illusions). And that was my point. Sorry for getting the compression and decompression backwards. But anything that can be compressed, can be decompressed.

I also thought for a while in terms of Einstein’s rubber sheet, but found it to be a tempting but misleading notion. My theory was that it is electric charge that is the compression and decompression (negative = decompression), gravity is due to something entirely different, and the “jelly-stuff” is actually more of a truly homogeneous compressed gas (although no real particles within - I call it “affectance” for metaphysical reasons), thus no inexplicable semi-fixed strands getting stretched, no “rubber sheets”.

Gravity can never have a negative because a reversed 45 degree impedance spiral is still a 45 degree impedance spiral. There is no negative to the existence of a 45 degree impedance spiral. You either have one or you don’t. But that is within a different explanation.

True, there’s always a trough to go with the peak. But the wave conveys positive energy. I don’t know of any waves that convey negative energy.

It is rather unique “stuff”, and we can only clutch at analogies to try to describe it in an intuitively understandable way. I’m confident however that charge isn’t “compression” and “decompression”. Take a pair of charged particles, one positive, one negative, and they still cause gravity.

I agree with your sentiment, though perhaps for a different reason. What’s a 45 degree impedance spiral?

Particles always cause gravity and as you point out, it really is due to the energy spinning within. Inertia, gravity, and magnetism are all aberrant effects of that inner motion. But now how do you propose to support the notion that a static charge field (no particle participation) will cause a gravity field?

Well, this is where pictures would really help.

A photon, for example, has a spin in one plane only, thus allowing free flight along its axle (no forward inertia). But now imagine that you are standing as an extremely small being exactly beside that spinning beast. You would have to sense the effect of a positive wave or peak of EM passing near and then very quickly reversing as the spin led the negative wave near. If you had any charge to you at all, you would no doubt be shaken to bits at the speed of light vibrating and rattling your brains in a gamma frequency.

But now, if you step back just a bit, the sense of the effect lessens of course. Necessarily what you feel in your new position will be slightly delayed from the true position of the waves within the spinning photon. There will be a phase shift. The further out you go, the more shift there will be.

The prior traveling wave (and thus energy) concerns led to the belief that the effect of what you would feel from that spinning could not exist at all else energy would be leaving the photon. But that is where the error was. The wave you would feel does not represent an energy propagation (for more technical reasons). The vibrations that you would feel radiating from the photon (or any particle) will be reversing at the rate of the spin which is at the speed of light in a very tight loop causing a gamma range frequency (detected back in the 60’s). But also they are emerging from the particle at the same speed of light (necessarily exactly identical). What that means is the phase shifting that you sense will be exactly 45 degrees with respect to the distance away from the particle you move.

Visually, if you plot the wave fronts, what you would see is a 45 degree spiral wave pattern centered on the particle.

Now, forgiving the confusion that I haven’t explained yet concerning the energy question, think about the facts that every particle (and every formed mass) is made of that same spinning EMW and every particle is causing that same spiral wave front around it. What happens to the particles as they experience the wave fronts of each other?

Close examination will show that there is an impedance effect that slows the EMW peak within that is closer to the other particle. But there will be less effect on the opposite side (very much like your own explanation). That causes roll and positional shift much like a bicycle tire just beginning to touch the ground as it spins.

The interesting thing is that the wave fronts are at exactly 45 degrees because due to that, the roll and positional shift will be exactly straight toward the other particle - exactly.

It doesn’t matter in which direction the spin might be occurring at any one moment. The spins will shift and compensate due to impedances and always align themselves such as to cause the same positional influenced shift. It doesn’t matter how many different directions the waves are coming from, the particles spin immediately compensates (nothing to prevent it) such as to head the particle toward the averaged field direction, the “center of mass”.

This compensating spin must necessarily take place simply because there is nothing to prevent the EM spin from adjusting to the variance in impedance. Gravity MUST take place, because you cannot stop their spin nor control the direction of their spin while they are under the influence of each other. And trying to reverse the effect is logically impossible. The best you could accomplish would be to magically remove the effect, but there is no reversing of it.

As to the energy question. That is a longer and deeper story and is why metaphysics must be understood before physicists go off wild in their imaginings of “strangeness, bottemness, topness, charm, flavor, colour, strong, weak”, and whatever forces and properties.

Scouts honour James, energy causes gravity, not particles. As an illustration, in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity on page 185 of Doc 30, Einstein says “the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy”. You don’t need particles to cause gravity. There doesn’t even have to be any motion, all you need is a non-uniform energy distribution.

I don’t quite see the spin like this, but nevermind, I understand what you mean and concur with the sentiment.

Agreed.

Understood. I’ve described the photon as a distortion in a cubic lattice. When you step back the distortion reduces. Step back again, and the distortion reduces further. But distortion is what the photon is. Or if it’s passing you: vibration. Yes, I understand what you mean, and agree with the sense of it.

Their motion is altered.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with this James. I rather feel that this isn’t gravity you’re describing here, it’s electromagnetism.

Agreed. Though I’d say that standard model is relatively benign compared to some other imaginings. With an understanding of the underlying reality, such as “quarks are loops”, IMHO it can be improved and even completed. Whether this would mean it’s no longer the standard model, I can’t say.

I 100% agree that energy causes gravity, but I think you are thinking of energy as something different than what Einstein was talking about. Energy is an ability (“the ability to do work”), not exactly a “thing”. Einstein was referring to the ability to do work involving a gravity field is similar to the “ability to do work” involving any other fields. In other words, “energy is energy and the field involved isn’t terribly relevant”. Of course energy creates the gravity. Energy creates the mass too and all other effects. This is necessarily true because energy is what we call that stuff that causes things - any and all things.

My point is that even though the lattice concept can be used to explain the effects, it is a superstitious notion merely filling in a gap in more complete understanding. Of what would the lattice be made and from whence did it come? Those cannot be answered because the lattice (or “jelly-stuff”) exists only in the mind - a “superstition”.

The whole point is the EM is the force of the energy that is causing everything. There is no other force except as an aberrant effect of the motion of the EM. “Energy” is merely the EM in action. And the “M”, magnetism, isn’t exactly real (as I think you pointed out too). The only REAL force that creates the entire universe is what we measure as electric charge. But there is no semi-firm substance involved nor required. It is merely a first tempting thought.

Until you can explain of what the proposed lattice is made and from where it came, you cannot complete the theory except by proposition of a superstitious component necessary to make the rest make sense. Such is very common today in physics. Things like strong and weak forces are merely invented thoughts so as to get around not understanding why atoms behave as they do. Even the notion of a quark was merely invented to try to explain what was happening. No one has ever seen one. And the explanation never completed. It never will as long as people are inventing magical forces, unseen particles, strings, and “lattices” in the effort to pull the puzzle pieces together. Nothing needs to be invented that hasn’t been seen, merely understood.

I can explain from whence my “compressed gas - affectance” came and of exactly what it is made.

Rise above the clouds and confusion. Metaphysics (logical deduction from no-choice perspectives) must be used to put the puzzle together and see what has been missing in the understanding.

I don’t know whether I’m thinking of energy in different terms to Einstein. But I do think it’s a thing. I think it’s the only thing that there is.

The lattice is not there, it’s as real as a reference frame, an artefact of measurement to measure the ghostly intangible jelly-stuff called space that we cannot see, and to show the changes that we can only feel. But we use these changes to see, because the bulging lattice depicts a photon. We see with a photon, a pulse of space travelling through space. We cannot see the photon, and we cannot see the space. We cannot see the nothingness that space is. There’s nothing there, and nothing there to see. But when it changes, the change propagates at c, and light moves through it. So is it nothing? Or is something? Or is it something and nothing? I don’t know.

Charge isn’t fundamental James. You can create it and destroy it. You cannot do this with energy. The photon conveys electromagnetic energy, but the neutrino does not. We talk of electroweak interactions, but it isn’t true to say the action is always electromagnetic.

See above. There is no lattice. It’s just a depiction to show a wave that we cannot otherwise see.

Agreed. Too many people ascribe to much reality to abstractions.

The weak force is not really a force, it’s an interaction instead. The strong force is very real James. More real and more fundamental than you might think. If you could make a photon by stretching space as depicted in that lattice, what resists your efforts? Where does the strong force go after low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation? It’s in the space, it always is.

It will be. It’s just a loop.

There are no strings. There is no lattice. It’s just a depiction to show a wave that we cannot otherwise see. And from those waves, we make particles, as in pair production.

It isn’t easy.

A force is more fundamental than energy. Energy is merely a force in action. You can have a force without energy, but you cannot have energy without force. Charge is force. Energy is the consequence of the charge.

You keep repeating “It doesn’t exist. It is nothing. It is something. I don’t know.” How can you conclude to me what is or isn’t real or what actually exists when you say such things?

Define what “existing” means before you state what “really exists”. :shifty:

Yes, in a way charge is force, in that a charged particle results in electromagnetic force. But that particle can be created along with another via pair production from a charge-less photon, which exerts no force. So we’ll have to agree to differ as regards what’s fundamental I’m afraid James.

Something that exists, is. I can’t define it further. Gravity is real, as is pair production. Mass is real, the electron is real, as is its magnetic dipole moment. The evidence is there, and I can draw conclusions from this. But I can’t draw conclusions about the origin of the universe.

You are conflating charged particles with charge. before any particle exists, out in a space void of particles, there must already exist forces that cause motion. That motion and propagation is the energy being created by those forces in action. Those forces are electric, “EM”. Under the right circumstances, the propagating waves will envelope and become particles with particle inertia and mass. Some of them, depending which envelope they fell into, will express a bundle of positive or negative charge rather than having a bundle of equal amounts and thus being over all neutral. A neutral particle has equal amounts of positive wave and negative wave.

That will not do.

What is the difference in effect between that which exists and that which doesn’t?

No problem. This is why I say alternating current is more fundamental than direct current. The photon is alternating current, we can see it’s a form of current because of the field variation, and the sinusoidal waveform has a positive and a negative, so it’s alternating. But there’s no charged particle there. Employ pair production to create an electron and a positron, then we’ve got charged particles. Move the electron, and we call it direct current. Shuffle it back and forth and we call it alternating current. But it isn’t as fundamental as the alternating current that we call the photon.

I’m sorry, I can’t define it further. If something exists, it exists. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. I cannot assert that something does not exist because I cannot detect its effect.

Is it because Relativity is about average and not exact?
Maybe Relativity is statistical.

What you just described would be Quantum Physics. Relativity is merely a different ontology with a shortcut way of do the math. Relativity ontology only works in certain situations, so it is not “the real truth”. But then it doesn’t have to be merely to provide easier math.

Let’s just take a break and understand for a moment.

We are here.

We have a concept that we can live forever; everyone has this concept.

How can we even have this concept if it’s non-existant???

Obviously it exists.

Thus, we live forever.

Gravity??? Pfft!

Larger objects control smaller objects …

Just like the big dude can beat up the small dude…

What you guys haven’t realized; this entire world is evil, this universe …

Fortunately, existence let’s us move beyond it

Honestly, Gravity is easy to figure out. We have a dense core of solid material intermixed with hidden pools of molten lava, deep water wells of underground oceans, rivers, etc. Our gravity comes from the fact that we spin on our axis giving the illusion of the sun setting and the moon waxing and waning, creating centripetal forces spinning, And then we’re on a grander spin around the sun in it’s orbit at high velocities that we are born into in the safety womb of our gravity cum atmospheric barrier between the heavy oxygen air that we can breathe to the seeming vaccum filled with more ‘thin’ winds that theoretically rip us apart. That’s centrifugal force. Add to that the magnetic layers and barriers from the natural ores of our planet and the added blasts from the sun in terms of invisible energy since most flares don’t even get close to us. Our emotional energy creates another barrier. Several layers of atmospheric conditions overlaying each other like so many layers of rock in a quarry create our breathing air, our protection from the sun, our barrier to space, and our gravity as we are born into being held to earth in much the same way as the ride at the fair that spins around and pins you to the wall. Just the same, but parts of the atmosphere naturally shield us from a lot of chaos and insanity of the outer-universe. Being born in the presence of an ongoing factor gives us a certain immunity to a lot of things up to a certain point and part of even that adds to the overall force that keeps us feet to solid ground.

We are spinning so fast on our axis even though slow from a longer-lived perspective than our own and hurtling through space at speeds that definitely put our fastest vehicles to shame and yet we notice not one bit of this in the course of our lives until we notice it. Born with the natural immunity to it by our intricate series of natural shields and opposing forces which then gives us the idea for the technology to create space-travel vehicles that can be at a dead run and suddenly change direction by controlling their own gravitational center in inspiration given by what was already in nature.

Quite imaginative, but …
… nah.

I still don’t find it funny.

“Funny”? :-s