1

# Gravity nuances

Tue 12 May, 2009 11:43 am
//DISCAIMER: all below are just my own thoughts and they may not be correct. It's just some ideas that may not be true. just speculation. The terminology/grammar sucks but please bare with me. Im no scientist so if it reads nonsense please correct. This was edited once to correct some typos//

Since magnetic fields are produced by moving electrons in a direction within a physical body that gave me an idea that gravity is also generated by moving matter though space. You may ask: but we arent moving that fast, planet around star, star around galaxy, etc... We don't have a "starting stationary point" to measure from. From this logic we may say that the visible universe around us (not the whole universe) is moving constantly "at the same speed" thus we feel the same gravity everywhere. Also the mass of an object matters: the more stuff is packed in a space the more "friction" is applied on the space thus creating gravity (like you move your finger on the water surface). But there is an interesting detail: a very massive object if completly stationary won't create gravity. I see gravity not as a force but simply as friction, the matrix of space is bent. Just like a surfer is surfing down a wave on a beach so do planets surf the bent space around a star.

So here are my thoughts on some details on that matter:

-Blackholes are created not because of gravity itself. It's the matter falling in moving at so high speeds crunching into a small space that creates it, coupled with a brief jump in mass that exceeds the tipping point of creating a black hole (i like to call it Cascade-Driven Space-Time Collapse). But what is a black hole? Its the same old space but because of the mass of the object (that is still moving in space) that is creating all that gravity.

-Im not sure about this one. Since we live in a 3D world and particles can be positive or negative this gave me some ideas regarding that. Particles without a charge are those that exist dead-center in our space. Positive are slightly "outside" of our universe so they have a charge, just like negatives. They are attracted to eachother because they more very fast so they bend the space around them slightly and if they meet another particle of same charge they move away but if it's positive they fall into eachother. This explains why superconductors dont have resistance because particles "surf in a balanced-state object" (ok that may not make much sense).

-So what is gravity and magnetism? Gravity is simply the bending of our space caused by friction of the matter moving though it. Magnetism is exactly the same thing, not our space but the adjacent space affecting charged particles. Thats why if a magnetic field is sufficiently strong it affects space (gravity).

-What is inertia? It's the wave of bent space following a moving object pushing it in the direction it was moving. Just move an object on the surface of water to see a similar effect.

-Why speed of light is limit? It is not. It just happens that photons are the particles less affected by bent space. You say: but no matter how fast i go light still ends up with the same speed! Thats because you operate in a flat space. The speed is limited because there is a lightly negative gravity just behind you when you move pulling you back, the faster the speed the steeper the angle. Since light is so unaffected by gravity it accelarates almost instantly untill it hits that speed and balances out. Try bending it and ull see a minor increase in speed.

-Magnetic levitation: a good example how gravitic levitation could work, now to find some spanets (like magnets, but for space).

-So how do we make antigravity? A way to lift a spacecraft from the Earth is by bending the space above it (above it's center of mass should work?) so it falls into that, bending the space enought to counter Earth's gravity. The only way to cancel gravity is by stopping an object in space, not relative to Earth because Earth is still moving along with the galaxies. We don't know how because we don't have "space speedometers". If we do stop an object here on Earth then that object would either smash into the ground or fly into space at fast speeds (relative to us, because it's the planet that is moving).
So i guess the only way is to get enought matter packed in a small place and then moved fast. Practicly this means getting the heaviest material and spinning it in a donut. One problem is inertia that tends to tear appart pretty much anything so either the material is strong enought to resist it or we need to help it with magnetic fields. Maybe have two heavy superconducting rings of oposite charge sping in the same/oposite direction near eachother to see how magnetic/gravity fields are generated.
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,041 • Replies: 3
No top replies

rosborne979

2
Tue 12 May, 2009 01:29 pm
@frag971,
There seems to be an inconsistency in your treatment of "movement through space". All constant velocity is measured relativistically (in relation to something else), there can be no movement without saying "movement in relation to what?".

Also, you are correct (in theory) that if we could bend space directly that we could counteract gravitational fields by "unbending" space around an object, but we have no mechanism in physics to directly affect the curvature of space.

Have you considered what affect it would have (in pure theory) if we unbent the space around an object? If an object did not bend space (of if the bend were removed), then the object would be massless (and inertia less). So if even the tiniest force were to touch that object it would immediately go speeding off at the speed of light (the speed at which all massless particles exist). In the equation F=ma if you make m equal zero, then acceleration becomes infinite, which is exactly why massless particles move at infinite speed.
frag971

1
Tue 12 May, 2009 03:24 pm
@rosborne979,
Moving though space relative to space itself (imagine space as a 3D grid in wich we are all moving). My point is that wel are all eventually moving though space at 0.01% speed of light (lets asume that number true for the sake of argument). If we would have a speed of 0% of speed of light (full stop) then all other objects would keep moving such as a satelite in orbit stopping in space would then move away from Earth (or crash into it) relative to us. I dont know if it was done but if we had a detector that fires 6 lasers from all 6 directions (up,down,front,back,left,right) and measure the difference we could know the speed wich Earth is traveling though the universe, relative to Earth we wouldnt move but we would still be moving around the sun around the galaxy moving away from other galaxies.

If we accelarate a spacecraft with such detector and try to make him move into such a speed/direction that all 6 lasers would collide at same time that craft should be considered stopped in space. I dont know if this makes much sense >< I dont know how could this be useful tho ;p

Now that you mention massless particles moving at infinite speeds it reminds of a game called Mass Effect. Good game but there is an idea in it that if we could remove the mass then an object would move at infinite speeds. Of course we could remove not the whole mass but, say, 99% so then we could propel an object 99% closer to infinite (lol). Problem is bending the space, not with some exotic matter or drawing pretty wormholes. Im trying to get a sollution by affecting the space around with mass/speed/magnetic fields. Would it be possible to have a spinning ring (affectable by magnetic fields) that is held together by a magnetic field focused on attracting it inwards to counter inertia so it could be spin more quicker without destroying it? The ring would hopefully be as heavy as possible.

rosborne979

1
Mon 18 May, 2009 05:23 pm
@frag971,
frag971 wrote:
I dont know if it was done but if we had a detector that fires 6 lasers from all 6 directions (up,down,front,back,left,right) and measure the difference we could know the speed wich Earth is traveling though the universe

No we wouldn't. Special Relativity shows us that no matter what you do at a constant velocity, the speed of light is the same. So no matter which direction you point your laser it will always appear that you are standing perfectly still. There is no linear movement through space itself without reference to another object.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek

1. Forums
2. » Gravity nuances