Origin of Gravity

[jaycrooks]

Any Theory of Everything needs to first look for the Origin of Gravity
by Lawrence Stephenson
For more information visit

[livit.co.uk/theoryofeverything/]


Theoretical physicists are making strenuous efforts to achieve a “Theory of Everything”. This would link gravitational and quantum theories. The very different mathematics of each of these theories is well understood and enables accurate predictions to be made of both:

the universe at large, at one extreme; and atomic interactions at the other extreme.
But uniting the two theories into a single Theory of Everything has, so far, proved impossible. One reason may be that physicists have been unable to discover the origin of gravity.

Summary of new ideas on the Origin of Gravity
The origin of gravity is a mystery. Gravity is an unusual force that cannot be shielded or absorbed. There is also no explanation for the experimental observation that the gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass.

However, a new theory, based on including a stronger form of Mach’s Principle, predicts that these two types of mass should be identical, and indicates that gravity must have inertial origins.

When clarifying Mach’s Principle in 1916, Einstein stated that the distant masses in the universe and their motions relative to local masses must affect the local laws of motion and gravitation. But he was unable to fully embrace this concept within general relativity.

The new theory goes one stage further, by proposing that the local gravitational forces we observe are generated by the rotational inertial motion of matter in our galaxy relative to the distant matter in the universe. The theory predicts that the value of the gravitational constant G will vary within any galaxy, and predicts that G will be zero in any intergalactic region of space where no rotation of matter occurs.

Hypothetical dark matter and dark energy (which are claimed to form 96 percent of the universe - at least according to current gravitational theory!) are not then needed to explain galactic stability, galaxy cluster stability, and the accelerating expansion of the universe.

The new theory predicts gravitational stability for all atomic particles having spin - and points out a rather obvious shortcoming of classical theory that seems to have been neglected...


In the Website above there are references to experimental evidence that supports a closer look at G.

Jaycrooks

[dleviwing]

Jaycrooks;
Welcome to TOEquest.
I found your web site interesting. If you care to take a look at my TOEquest journal entries, you may see that we have much in common as to the cause gravity.

[baudrunner]

From: A Dynamical Origin for the Gravitational Constant that Explains Gravitational and Inertial Mass Equality and Rejects Dark Matter and Dark Energy

by Lawrence M. Stephenson

In essence, the observed velocity of a signal approaching a material detector is equal to c because the act of observation makes it so in the electromagnetic steady state.

(the result of experimentation to determine c in space)

If one accepts that the limit of the velocity of light propagation is the rate of atomic interaction regardless of the medium wherein the light is propagated and that the only variable is the actual distance encountered for a given time frame then this is not so hard to understand. One would detect the same frequency and wavelength, leading to the assumption that the value of c is constant.

One can't deny that the density of the medium affects the distance that the light is propagated, as was observed by Foucault in 1850, and it only follows that the sparser medium of space would allow a significantly greater distance to be covered for the same time frame.

The physics community should change its thinking about photons streaking across space and replace it with the concept of photonic emission and absorption produced by oscillating atoms. The tendency for gravity to influence the distribution of atoms in free association does not affect the rate at which they interact. This is the rate of c, which occurs over a distance of 3x10^10 cm/sec at 1G.

[Rufus]

We have been looking in the wrong place for the explanation of gravity. First of all we as humans are unable to directly experience gravity. We only feel it through the barrier of our senses. The human brain cannot directly access any part of reality. It (the brain) coordinates the manifestations of sight, sound and physical sense to get an impression of gravity.

see my site http://my.tbaytel.net/nsoar/ and go to "gravity"

Namron

[baudrunner]

I am inclined to think that it is but a simple matter to break the sense barrier. All you have to do is fall down and whack your head against the leg of the TV console.

Because we are not in motion around the earth we are constantly in a state of collision with it. I feel gravity now because I haven't shifted my butt in quite a while and it is telling me to do so through my senses.

[baudrunner]

Rufus,

You are a true artist. I think that everyone who accesses your web site lingers in awe at the image in your title page.

I once knew someone who thought that reality existed in the minds of mental patients cloistered in an asylum. That we were but figments of their imagination going about our lives not knowing that we aren't real. I told her that I thought that was lunacy.

I don't understand the concept of idealism. How is it that we can communicate these ideas on the internet as if we were all existing in our own time with the ability to access them at will?

How would you explain the residual imagery burned into your retina after you stare at a bright object for a long time? For that matter, how would you explain the retina in the first place?

[Rufus]

Baudrunner

As my site explains the light isn't burnt into the retina, it's the other way around. The brain needs a connection to the "real" world and uses the eyes to project what it apparently sees. The brain itself is just imaginary vapor as well.

Thankyou very much for you extravagant flattery, Art and philosophy are my passions

Rufe

[michellemfry]

The rufus website on Figmentalism is a must see. It is gorgeous and in a sense, complete.

[Rufus]

The rufus website on Figmentalism is a must see. It is gorgeous and in a sense, complete.

Thank you so much for this Michelle. The site cannot be found by search engine, no key words or meta tags on the index page. It is just available to the members here and I really appreciate you and others taking the time to look it over. I was planning on having it published but Scientific American Mind turned me down flat and I just can't think where else to send it.

Rufe