2005-07-09: What Causes Gravity?

[Robert]

I've been working on a new chat room to try out, but it is net yet integrated with the website. If you want to try a non-integrated version of the new chat room you can get to it here. I'll try to get this integrated better with the ToeQuest website for our next chat session. Let me know what you think and if you prefer this one over what we already have.

Regards,
--Robert

[Coldcreation]

This is my first post. Hello everyone,

Perceptibly gravitation continues to bewilder our senses. Something seems to be amiss.

Richard P. Feynman, certainly one of the most prominent characters in the history of 20th century science, tells us with due reason that “All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this: he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.” We use mathematics to describe nature without knowing what mechanism is operating, though many have been suggested. Feynman continues, “No machinery has ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist.”(1994 pp. 107-109)

The cosmological constant (lambda) too seems to bewilder the senses.

I believe that the solution to the problem of gravity has to do precisely with lambda.

Traditionally, the cosmological constant has almost exclusively been regarded and treated as a repulsive force (or pressure) that counteracts the attractive force of Newtonian gravitation, where lambda is in a sense the opposite of gravity. However, closer examination of the problem reveals that this concept cannot be accepted.

Coldcreation

[dleviwing]

Coldcreation;
Welcome to TOEquest.
Feynman was also one of my favorite authors of science. He also made an interesting observation of the term mass:
"Throughout this entire story there remains one especially unsatisfactory feature - the observed masses of the particles, "m". There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we don’t understand them – what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem."
Solve the mechanisms of gravity and you will also solve the mystery of mass.
Dose your theory solve this dilemma? Can you reduce gravity to a fundamental concept?
As you probably know, Feynman was an artist also. Would you care to share your thoughts?

[Coldcreation]

Coldcreation;
Welcome to TOEquest.
Feynman was also one of my favorite authors of science. He also made an interesting observation of the term mass:
"Throughout this entire story there remains one especially unsatisfactory feature - the observed masses of the particles, "m". There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we don’t understand them – what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem."
Solve the mechanisms of gravity and you will also solve the mystery of mass.
Dose your theory solve this dilemma? Can you reduce gravity to a fundamental concept?
As you probably know, Feynman was an artist also. Would you care to share your thoughts?

Hello dleviwing,

I did not know that Feynman was an artist. Did you that Einstein was an artist? I am sure you do.

Question: The mechanism for gravity solves the mass problem? Can you eleborate on how?

The reduction of gravity to a fundamental concept is most likely not as difficult as it would appear. But to do so a clear and precise understanding of the cosmological constant is required. I will open a thread soon (once I aquire a black belt).

More soon,

Coldcreation

[dipayankar]

I agree with you Coldcreation. But Dleviwing told me that quarks could also be the cause of gravity, which would mean that gravity is primarily an electrostatic force. I somehow dont feel it to be true. What would you say??

This is my first post. Hello everyone,

Perceptibly gravitation continues to bewilder our senses. Something seems to be amiss.

Richard P. Feynman, certainly one of the most prominent characters in the history of 20th century science, tells us with due reason that “All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this: he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.” We use mathematics to describe nature without knowing what mechanism is operating, though many have been suggested. Feynman continues, “No machinery has ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist.”(1994 pp. 107-109)

The cosmological constant (lambda) too seems to bewilder the senses.

I believe that the solution to the problem of gravity has to do precisely with lambda.

Traditionally, the cosmological constant has almost exclusively been regarded and treated as a repulsive force (or pressure) that counteracts the attractive force of Newtonian gravitation, where lambda is in a sense the opposite of gravity. However, closer examination of the problem reveals that this concept cannot be accepted.

Coldcreation

[dleviwing]

I agree with you Coldcreation. But Dleviwing told me that quarks could also be the cause of gravity, which would mean that gravity is primarily an electrostatic force. I somehow dont feel it to be true. What would you say??

The part about electrostatic force is your own idea dipayanker. I have never implied that electrostatic or any electrical property is involved to cause gravity. My main premise is that uniform motion (spin) of subatomic particles interact with unstructured matter (space) to create a process of condensing and absorption of this spatial matter (ether, aether, spacetime, etc). The spin of the quarks seem to be the greatest and thus contribute more to the process than dose an electron.

My actual comment at the chat was that Rybo had realized this in his concepts also. I believe he is a fan of the "Wolff Papers" website.

Hope this helps to clarify things, I know the chat sessions are hard to follow at times.

[Coldcreation]

I agree with you Coldcreation. But Dleviwing told me that quarks could also be the cause of gravity, which would mean that gravity is primarily an electrostatic force. I somehow dont feel it to be true. What would you say??

As far as I know the only things gravity (spacetime curvature) and electrostatic force have in common is that the lines of force, when plotted as arrows, point inwards towards an electron or a negative charge, and inwards towards a massive gravitating body. Also, the force intensities decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

In another way, a negative electrostatic charge carries a field analogous to that of a gravitating body; it attracts (its lines of force point inward analogous to that of a gravitational field).

Also note that a positive electrostatic charge has a repulsive field (its lines of force point in an outward direction). When both positive and negative charges are brought together they bind.

With the same logic that you describe, dipayankar, a positive electrostatic charge with a repulsive field is the same as a cosmological constant.

This is quite remarkable. But that does not mean they are one and the same thing. It could mean, e.g., that both phenomena are mediated by the same mechanism. There is certainly a connection.

CC

[Robert]

I just attached the chat transcript to the first post of this thread. I've cleaned it up a bit and added some comments.

[hdeasy]

Coldcreation;
Welcome to TOEquest.
Feynman was also one of my favorite authors of science. He also made an interesting observation of the term mass:
"Throughout this entire story there remains one especially unsatisfactory feature - the observed masses of the particles, "m". There is no theory that adequately explains these numbers. We use the numbers in all our theories, but we don’t understand them – what they are, or where they come from. I believe that from a fundamental point of view, this is a very interesting and serious problem."
Solve the mechanisms of gravity and you will also solve the mystery of mass.

Now Heim was not an artist, as far as I know (but I am). However, his theory tied up a theory of gravity and the other forces with an explanation of mass. The fact that his mass formula gives values of the particle masses to a relative accuracy of 1 /10,000 is confirmation that his theory, like no other, goes to to the heart of mass and gravity. It all boils down to 6-d interactions of the metronic lattice that forms the fabric of space or the aether or whatever. And tomorrow, July 13th, the AIAA will award two scientists who wrote on space propulsion applications of Heim's theory with a best paper award of 2005. I believe Burt Rutan will present the award. http://www.aiaa.com/agenda.cfm?lumee...5&formatview=1 (see 'awards luncheon' ) and http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim...raumfahrt.html for letter announcing award. SO: this isn't just another crackpot theory then, but achieves some recognition.

[dipayankar]

I understood and appreciated your point, but then how do you explain gravitrons? Are they also charged particles?

As far as I know the only things gravity (spacetime curvature) and electrostatic force have in common is that the lines of force, when plotted as arrows, point inwards towards an electron or a negative charge, and inwards towards a massive gravitating body. Also, the force intensities decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

In another way, a negative electrostatic charge carries a field analogous to that of a gravitating body; it attracts (its lines of force point inward analogous to that of a gravitational field).

Also note that a positive electrostatic charge has a repulsive field (its lines of force point in an outward direction). When both positive and negative charges are brought together they bind.

With the same logic that you describe, dipayankar, a positive electrostatic charge with a repulsive field is the same as a cosmological constant.

This is quite remarkable. But that does not mean they are one and the same thing. It could mean, e.g., that both phenomena are mediated by the same mechanism. There is certainly a connection.

CC