Thoughts of my posts on gravity

How do you propose to test your idea and what predictions does it imply that we will be able to observe in the current structure of the universe?

Without predictions and testable theories any speculation is useless.

Gravity is not just a good idea, it's the law.

When the apple falls from the tree,we say that one is attracted to the other , we say"mutual attraction". Truth or speculation?

No we don't. Where did you hear that?

For the Average Clod (me), Wort, you might consider reducing your OP to everyday language

Why Wort do you say that, it seems to contradict intuition

Ros since it’s apparent that you understand him you might condense Wort’s prop for the benefit of the Typical Blockhead (me)

The former, Wort, why would you even have to ask

Or do I somehow miss the point

I don't actually understand it (possibly because it makes no sense). But I'm going to assume he already did the best he could to explain it, so rather than asking him to explain it again, I simply jumped ahead to the question which needs to be answered in order to determine if his ideas are mere wild speculation, or if there is more substance to them.

I'm not really interested in people's metaphysical ramblings unless they write them in such a way as to be entertaining (which this one wasn't). But I would be highly interested if someone actually produced an idea or theory which incorporated some actual knowledge or value. And because I don't like to be baited into providing foundational support *for* people, I asked him to offer something to indicate value in his speculation... namely, testability.

worbort wrote:

When the apple falls from the tree,we say that one is attracted to the other , we say"mutual attraction".
Ros, why not

I’m sure it does to those familiar with the jargon and that’s why I had hoped someone might paraphrase it in language that the Everyday Clown (me) can comprehend

I presume the q is, "How do you propose to test your idea... "

Or was explained in more nearly common language. However I myself am attacked mercilessly on the basis that it isn’t verifiable when I propose a new way of looking at time-at-a-distxance. But then I remind my fellow participants that at first Einstein wasn’t verifiable either

It’s not that I’m comparing myself to Einstein, only that I’m comparing myself to Einstein

A pleasure Ros chatting with you

Some time ago I, like millions of others, watched images of specialists on board the space station as they created beautiful spheres from small amounts of water released free within the confines of the station.

As I observed these perfect spheres I asked myself some very serious questions.

Firstly, are the atoms or molecules of water "sticking" to each other because they are "attracted" to one another, in other words "mutual gravitational attraction", as per Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation?

All astromomers, Physicists and Cosmologists still talk of gravity as "attractive" or the "pull" of two or more masses.

For example, Saul Perlmutter and his team of astronomers announced in 1998, that data collected over an extensive period gave the incredible result that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in that expansion.

Most interested parties were shocked by this, as it was thought that there would be enough gravitational "attraction" between all the matter in the universe to slow down the expansion, it was thought that some sort of "negative" or "funny" energy is counteracting gravity and causing the acceleration.

Whether you agree with this scenario is up to you and yes, all opinions are equally valid and carry as much weight as my own.

However, after much personal turmoil, soul searching and deep thought, I now firmly believe the law of Universal Gravitation in its written form is incorrect.

My reasoning is for this is as follows:
When I observe the sphere of water, I do so with my mind rather than my eyes. I visualise the protons, neutrons and electrons from which it is constructed. These particles are, to the best of my knowledge, infinitely dense objects, no matter their dimensions or masses.

My first conclusion is that the expanding vacuum energy cannot permeate to the very centre of these objects and so they are completely separate and excluded from that energy, or as I put it "external" to that energy.

You could say your immense volume is nothing but expanding vacuum energy, but your infinitesimally small amount of mass is completely external to that energy.

You see, when I observe the sphere of water, I percive the vacuum energy trying its best to crush the tiny mass of the sphere out of existence. It would easily succeed if it were not for one thing that tempers the vacuums ferocious crushing power, the wonderful electron, its frantic motion ensures that the vacuum cannot gain complete purchase of the mass of the sphere, therefore allows the sphere to exist.

I no longer believe that I and the earth are pulled together, but that we are both squeezed together with our electrons tempering just how much we are squeezed .

An accelerating universe is no longer a shock for me, but a natural consequence.

If my perception of the mechanism of gravity has validity then the vacuum is not as benign as it appears, it also presents me with another conundrum; gravity is not the weakest of the four fundamental forces of nature, but the strongest by far. It is the engine that drives the universe, the primary energy that constantly transforms from one to another.

Astounding Bort to contemplate

Seems so

That’s the current thinking

Understandable

Hope against Hope

Guess they haven’t found it yet huh

Why thank you Bort

I’m sure of it

Coincidentally so do I although the difference is slight and doesn’t impinge on cosmology as we know it


Interesting Bort you should assert. I had long wondered if it isn’t matter “pushing space out of the way” that accounts for grav

very consistent with my speculation above

as is the grav field

....the grav

Now Bort you’re guessing far beyond my comprehension

..However Bort if you’re trying to account for the Universe as a kind of continuing evolution—things being the way they are because that’s the only way they can be--I’d agree most wholeheartedly

I no longer believe that I and the earth are pulled together......
I wish I could understand that, it sounds profound

No really I’m not joshing

Oh but I am