The cause of gravity

[Stephen]

Fundamental to a TOE is an explanation of the cause of gravity.

For the Materialist Paradigm of physics gravity is caused by the absorption of emission via the emission fields of objects, and is proportional to the density of the emission fields of objects. This explains why gravity involves acceleration and not simply uniform motion, and why objects of different weight are attracted to the Earth and the same rate of acceleration. Only the Materialist Paradigm of physics can specify gravity from the macro-scale of galazxes all the way down to the quantum scale of the groundstate of the Universe.

Stephen

[humanbydefault]

You mentioned "fields" and "emissions"... however I didn't read the word eather among them.
Whoever or whatever theory destined to answer why objects feel the pull of gravity toward the surface of celestial objects will have to include the existence of the eather [that field you've just mentioned] one originating in the core and internal structure of stars and massive group of them [galaxies and clusters of them].
Haven't you asked yourself why we are not able to determine the final and exact constant of gravity?
The reason has nothing to do with our instrumentation but with our ignorance respect to this phenomenon. Gravity, or the structure of the eather in every solar system, is constantly changing because of events occuring inside the star involved in its very creation and changes occuring among the planets, moons and other objects forming the system.
The day we understand the lesson still hidden [for some] inside the "Two slit experiment" that will be the day we will undertand why gravity is not always the same in every region of the Earth.

Acceleration is justified by the principle that the same "force" acting upon the objects exposed to gravity will increase as in a proportional magnitude with the square of its distance to the center of the planet or attracting body.

That's my humble opinion.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Stephen]

Humanbydefault,

The emission fields of objects and the “eather” are one and the same thing.

The reason that we have not “determined the final and exact constant of gravity” is because gravity is not a constant.

Gravity “is not always the same in every region of the Earth” because of the variability of the emission field of the Earth.

That gravity falls-off by the square of the distance is merely an explanation of effect and not cause.

Only the materialist paradigm can specify the cause of gravity, and do so all the way down to the “quantum” scale of the groundstate of the Universe.

Stephen

[baudrunner]

Greetings!

I have posted elsewhere my explanation of gravity but I know that most visitors to this site are not so inclined to read every submission ever posted. I will re-iterate here, rather than link to my posts, if only because explanations become more concise and clear with every telling.

Here goes...

Space is as much a creation as the matter which we find among it. It makes much sense to perceive of creation as continuing at the periphery of the Universe for perpetuity. This means that there is no "out there", and that the Universe can only be observed from within. Therefore space must be comprised of fundamental force particles I call "space bosons", that are not in any way related to matter particles, and which approach the Planck size limit in dimension. They cannot be destroyed or consumed. They define the volumetrics of "the void". They are displaced by matter, even by discrete sub-atomic particles. They have an orientation with respect to the centers of the masses which displace them, creating space fields of mutable density. When two of these space fields interact they have a 180 degree relationship, effecting a cancellation of sorts which results in an effective reduction of the volume which they define. A reduction of the volume between two objects necessarily means that those objects come closer together. The physical laws of matter take over and effect momentum. Therefore gravity is momentum. That is all. We and all the objects around us are constantly in a state of collision with this world. There is no gravity particle and we will never be able to manipulate gravity unless we can control the orientation of those space bosons and that is highly unlikely. We cannot apply the laws of the physics of matter to the physics of space bosons.

I understand that this is pretty deep and even revolutionary, but nothing I have stated in any way contradicts any evidence we have acquired through investigation and experimentation.

regards,
baudrunner

[Stephen]

daudrunner,

You state that "space must be comprised of fundamental force particles I call "space bosons", that are not in any way related to matter particles..."

Why "must" it be composed of a particle which is not related to matter?
I'm a philosophical materialist, and for me everything is composed of matter. Your "non-matter" particle belongs in the realm of mataphysics and religion and not science.

Gravity is caused by the absorption of emission via the emission field of objects, and is proportional to the density of the emission field of objects. This is demonstrated with every gravity experiment that has ever been conducted.

Newton's law of gravity is merely an expression of effect, and not cause.

It's gravity which causes the Earth to retain its atmosphere, through the atmosphere interacting with the emission field (gravity field) of the Earth. As the density of the emission field increases more of the carbon emission from the surface of the Earth are retained within the atmosphere. This, in combination with the increase in the emission of the Sun, has resulted in global warming.

But, there is more. Our solar system is subject to emission from within the Milky Way galaxy and this adds to the emission of the Sun. As our solar system moves out of the influence of this source of additional emission, the rate of the increase in the temperture of Earth will begin to decline.

I say, "let your space boson go". Let it go an join all those other "metaphysical" ideas which have lead inquiring minds down dead-end paths of understanding.

The future of physics and science generally is in the detailed application of the materialist paradigm.

Stephen

[Coldcreation]

Gravity is a departure from the standard zero condition, flat spacetime, absolute zero gravity, or zero spacetime curvature, 0STC.

The standard zero condition is an ideal state where there is no gravity (say, in empty space far removed from everything, or at specific Lagrange points, e.g., L1).
0STC is similar to the absolute zero temperature, or zero Kelvin: there are no negative values.

The presence of matter, energy or pressure (or fluctuations thereof) will induce a departure from the zero value, 0STC.

Therefore the cause of gravity is simple to explain.

As simple as placing a bowling ball on a water bed.

More difficult is it to explain -- and this should have been the title of the thread -- what is the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction?

Coldcreation

[Stephen]

Coldcreation,

There is no such thing as “empty space”, nor any place that is not subject to attraction.

The fact that the light from distant stars bends around the Sun is explained by the light interacting with the emission field of the Sun, and not a “meta-physical curved space”.

The mechanism behind gravitational attraction is that of the absorption of emission via the emission field of objects. This mechanism is specified with the materialist paradigm of physics.

Stephen

[gautam]

Accordding to the Mest theory of everything ,there is nothing like gravity. The idea of gravity was born out of backward working of an undeniable reality . The reality that everything in the locality of planet earth , gravitates towards it. The proverbial apple one fine day hit the human head. The head that thinks faster than the speed of light, out of mixed feeling of pleasure(the taste of apple) and pain, concluded that every massbody in this universe attracts another , without any reason. A bizzare conclusion. The philosophical but most unscientific still most unquestionable theory in the history of science. The theories formulated on the basis of backward working may divinely mislead for centuries. We believe that we walk on the planet earth whose diameter we know for sure. We are breathing this fallacy through our nose. The reality is that we are merged or sunk deep into this planet. The space of our planet ,as in the mest theory ,is an integral part of it. We are not suspended in the air,nor allowed to fly without the use of external force by the laws of quantam physics. The law that doesnt allow a fish to fly in the air or a wall to sink in the earth or an elctron to collapse into the nucleus. We jump by use of our own life(kinetic) force and come down because of atomic mass pressure and not by any gravitational force. The earth above our feet is airy , if it was solid or liquid the story would have been different. If the bodies of mass were attracting each other, this universe would have never come into existence. The space we see is a dimension of mass/energy(matter). The spacetime of the universe is therefore curved over its mass like mass over itself causing universal spin, from quarks to the galaxies. The centrifugal force so caused balances with atomic mass pressures of the celestial objects giving them an orbital path to stay in the field of objects bigger than them. Preventing the fall or the collapse. Do we still need gravity?

[Stephen]

For me, your response is a mish mash of words that ends by asking “Do we still need gravity? Yes we do. And gravity is caused by the absorption of emission via the emission field of objects.

Stephen

[Coldcreation]

Below you will find the same text, albeit somewhat corrected, edited as little better, than the post ahead of this one. So disregard my previous post. I tried to edit it but to no avail.
Thanks, CC
PS. There still may be some spelling errors, I did not spell-check it.


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

For me, your response is a mish mash of words that ends by asking “Do we still need gravity? Yes we do. And gravity is caused by the absorption of emission via the emission field of objects.

Stephen

Yes, so I see, you have your own theory. That is good. However, as far as gravity, curved spacetime, is concerned, no other theory since the inception of general relativity has been able to concure with all ovservations regarding gravity. And so success it was. We know then that gravity is a curved spacetime phenomenon.

So far, so good. Einstein, though, had not revealed the mechanism behind the gravitational interaction, it's cause, as you may ask.

I made the distinction between the cause and the mechanism because the former seems easier to explain and the latter more difficult. To get down to the nuts and bolts, it is the mechanism that needs to be elucidated. Example, what causes a car to accelerate? by pressing the gas an engines thrusts a car forward. That is different from explaining how a motor is built, how it works, its functional mechanism.

No physicist (or artist, or anyone else) has ever been able to explain gravity and its ultimate means of action (to put it another way still).

This goal is important. Without the proper explanation an ultimate theory that unites the so-called forces of nature and that unite quantum mechanics and GR the final theory remains a futile effort.

Your idea is interesting. But I don't see how it solves the problem on the quantitative and empirical fronts. I will re-read you initial post and see if it comes to light

As far as empty space: True. There is no such thing.
The zero absolute of temperatures may be unattainable, but that does not mean zero K does not exist. It is the ultimate limit of coldness.

So too is empty-flat space, the ultimate limit of curvature, gravity.
Because gravity is infinite in range of action, one could say that there is a zero point gravity field, or ZPG. Just as the exist zero point energy and zero point fluctuation or field (ZPE and ZPF respectively.

I gave one example where the gravity field is reduced to zero. The Lagrange inner libration point called the Lagrangian point L1. That is a gravity-free point is real space. So even though empty space is an ideal state, it can be found between all massive gravitating ojects in the universe. There is such a thing as a space empty of field, however small.

The gravitational mechanism is in the line of sight.

Coldcreation