Gravity not science but a view point

[xelasnave]

I posted this some time ago elsewhere and add it here for your entertainment please rip into the idea try and destroy it, tell me why it can not work or tell me I am a fool to even try to figure something as complex out with really nothing to go on other than my thoughts on the matter .I wont link it so as to keep the customers in this shop but it has had over 8000 robots scan it so far but I feel only two people are really reading it
Well I think the only path to fame and fortune for an alternative idea is to risk carrying the title of “crack pot” I submit the following in good humour and presented from the approach of an ex lawyer in the realm usually reserved for mathematicians. However both lawyers and mathematicians enjoy logic and this is the logic of a lawyer presented with a proposition to assess the clues before him. I have been careful not to make any giant leaps to abandon a reasonable logic however have abandoned all preconceived notions and conventional thinking relating to the subject .
I would like to represent the proposition that Gravity occurs by virtue of the pressure exerted on matter by particles radiated from every object in the Universe. There is no point in space that is not visited by a particle from every place every millisecond. If one sees the visible star light as a fraction of the particles and consider what we do not see it helps to understand the proposal. It helps further to realise that what you see is of similar experience through out the Universe.
I suggest the proposition that all the particles from every place manifests their presence by interacting with other matter in “pushing” fashion creating a fabric of “universal pressure” through out everything. Where two objects are in close proximity they shield each other from part of the pressure and therefore create an imbalance in the pressure such that it appears that each object attracts the other. They are effectively, if this proposition be entertained, being “pushed” toward each other. We make the observation that each object “attracts” the other and call such gravity. Our conventional thought from our experience is that when standing on the planet we are attracted to it and it is attracted to us whereas I suggest that each shields the other from the universal pressure, the effect resulting that each object is pushed in the direction of the other to seek equilibrium. To jump one is returned to Earth because of the need to maintain such equilibrium.
At any “point” in the Universe a stream of particles pass that “point” emanating from every part of the Universe that has existed to that place in time. Time being subjective in this context. In the remotest part of space we find that in every direction we see an object.. some close by some billions of light years distant. Every object spends particles into space in every direction to finally create a mesh of paths between everything. There is no line in any direction that is not carrying a stream of particles. At any point billions of particles from every object in space cross and this continuum is endless all particles passing through every “point” in the Universe at the speed of light.
If we could place two objects in open space at rest they would encounter immediately particles from every object in the Universe interacting with their “matter”. Any “point” in the Universe therefore becomes the centre of everything else that exists. On the surface of our objects every “point” of the surface becomes the centre of the Universe in respect of the particles arriving from all places. If we were able to place one object at rest in absolute space, without inertia of any form, the object will not move for the pressure will be equal at all “points” on (and in) the object. However place another object in proximity and its presence shields the other object thereby creating an imbalance in the “Universal” pressure of space between them. The objects will move toward each other to equalise the imbalance of energy created by the shielding one causes upon the other. We interpret the imbalance of pressure as gravity and draw the conclusion that there be a mysterious attraction between the two , the perceived attraction being called gravity.
The further the distance between the objects the less shielding occurs and the less the imbalance in pressure. When two objects are of sufficient separation and the effect of the shielding of one upon the other becomes less than the overall pressure from all objects and they reach a point where they will be forced apart rather than forced together.
This can be supposed to explain why galaxies will cluster in groups however groups that be at great distance to each other are forced further apart.
If we parallel the form of the Universe to a balloon the continuum of particles is similar to adding more air to the balloon and in this approach one could use the premise to explain the observed expansion of the Universe. If we consider each object as contributing continually to the “air” in the balloon we can surmise that the Universal pressure created by all objects may reach a point where the very edges of the Universe are forced to expand. If there is no expansion or growing of the size of the Universe it may be assumed that the pressure created as referred to earlier must maintain equilibrium by dissipating part of the energy continually being created. This may be the function of the speculated black hole. If a black hole exists it would provide the opportunity to reduce the pressure and maintain the presumed equilibrium by a continual consumption of particles. However if it is indeed taken that the Universe is expanding it may be to maintain a presumed equilibrium of pressure constantly being renewed as each object contributes its unending stream of particles.
There is no issue to take as to whether this pressure occurs from the presence of a particle (discovered or not) or the presence of energy however the proposition can explain in simple fashion how matter is suspended or accelerated in space. Speculation would see a very small particle responsible that can past thru worlds but occasionally part of their number interacts with the matter making up that world.
If one were to accept that such a pressure is in operation there would seem to be no need to have dark matter to explain observed anomalies in the behavior of galaxies when considered singularly, observed in a local group or observed as independent groups at great distances apart.
The action of gravity in such a fashion would better explain the unexpected observed speeds of outlying matter held in spiral arms. Such matter being at sufficient distance from the core of the galaxy is becoming more exposed to the overall pressure and as such demonstrating a behavior that can not be reconciled if a conventional assumption that gravity attracts is employed.
Gravitational lensing when approached with the assumption that space exerts its own pressure can be shown that an object will shield the path of light as it passes the object allowing an imbalance of pressure to arise and cause the light path to be pushed toward the shielding object. .
There is no need to attack the proposition as being at odds with any current concept for as far as I can tell there is in fact no explanation as to how gravity does work set in cement as it were. The matter has never been explained to my satisfaction or contentment using any current theory.. Nor do I think that any theory stands up and claims to have a definitive answer. Of course there will be disagreement on this point but one gets the distinct impression theorists have not put the matter beyond further speculation .
There is no doubt that the complexities of all other approaches contain proposals more difficult to present and at least as difficult to observe as any observation or experiment required to test this approach.
Although these matters are without support and mere supposition from the author all must agree that on the basis of OC’s razor this approach is the winner on simplicity. Without labouring on all thought exercises on the working of things if this approach is entertained to be correct and grasp a proposition so apparently at odds with our experience, it is delightful in its varied application and predictability.

Professor of Morosophy xelasnave

[Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)]

Here is my short answer ......
" Where two objects are in close proximity they shield each other from part of the pressure " and since to work on all normal physical levels this pressure must therefore be able to be blocked by both large objects and small. Consider 2 dust motes in space, at some distance from any other significant bodies, but close to each other. Gravity dictates that they will be attracted to each other and will eventually touch ... so for pressure to function in the same way even a dust mote is able to block this pressure to some degree so that they move towards each other by it's tiny blocking of the pressure.

Therefore if we build a solid box, such that it's interior cavity is enclosed in every direction by pressure blocking mass, and place a marble in it, as the pressure has been uniformly blocked in every direction there should be no pressure remaining at all inside, and the marble should be free to float around regardless of any other external pushing or attractive forces.



Here is my long answer ......

I applaud your hypothesising here Alex, very interesting. In terms of assuming that a convention, ie gravity, may in fact be truly caused by another force working in a different or even reverse direction has both merit and precedent.

Everyone knows that the "conventional" flow of electricity dictates that electricity flows from positive to negative, but anyone who has studied any electrical theory at all knows that the actual flow of electrons (negatively charged particles) actually flows from negative to positive.

(I would also love to launch into my own personal fave here - light bulbs do NOT emit light, they suck dark - but another time perhaps.)

Anyway keeping an open mind - remember, a truly open mind is one that is prepared to forgo ANY conclusion in support of new evidence - lets say that your hypothesis of Universal Pressure for want of a better name still appears to fit all known observations and results as the theory of Gravity, we need to then see if we can find a case in which your new theory either describes some factor of "gravity" better, or if both hypotheses seem to fulfill and explain all known and observed "symptoms" equally then we need to design an experiment of some sort that will allow us to differentiate whether gravitational attraction, or universal pressure, is the true cause.

Does your hypothesis then firstly explain all known attributes of "gravity"? Lets say for the moment that it does (I may come back to this later - it IS well after 3am and I may come up with other thoughts here yet when I'm not hallucinating, and when this green octopus stops bothering me ...... yes yes ok, I will tell him later, leave me alone!)

Anyway ..... so assuming that both hypotheses seem to fit the bill, we then need to devise a test to determine if the universe really DOES push, or whether gravity really does suck (as I've long suspected after falling from a very tall tree as a child). What we would need to do perhaps is to build some form of shielding device wich woudl either block the stream of universal particles, or to block the force of gravitational attraction. If we can devise a method of blocking either one, but not the other, we have proved that the blockable force must exist - you cannot block something that does not exist!

I think to give some of the rest of the class a fair go I'll leave this rather mentally stimulating conversation there for now, and I'll go read up on E.E. "Doc" Smiths Skylark series of books, etc - I seem to recall frequent use of Q beams and Z shields (or vice versa - the point is the Q or Z shield was inpenetrable to any "etheric" force, and his definition of the all pervading ether had some interestingly similar tones to your universe wide particle pressure.)

[Talon Karrde]

Intersting idea, but I'm not sure that explains anything gravity doesn't. Many things in physics can be expressed equally as either a positive force or a negative opposing force. I think I've actually heard this concept of gravity before. Mathematically, I think the two concepts are identical.

Originally Posted by Gargoyle_Steve

Therefore if we build a solid box, such that it's interior cavity is enclosed in every direction by pressure blocking mass, and place a marble in it, as the pressure has been uniformly blocked in every direction there should be no pressure remaining at all inside, and the marble should be free to float around regardless of any other external pushing or attractive forces.

That's pretty much exactly what the 'standard' theory of gravity says too. If you built a heat resistant hollow sphere and put it at the center of the earth, you could float around inside it and feel 'weightless'. Provided that you didn't get too far away from the center point, since then you wouldn't be in equilibrium. Under standard theory, you would hover there because you'd be pulled by the rest of the mass of the earth equally. Under xelasnave's theory, you would float there because the pressure pushing on you would be equally balanced as well. You can't block ALL the pressure pushing on you (black hole?) since then all the electrons and atoms in your body would fly apart.

One thing though that this brings up is something that scientists are still arguing about and is one of my favorite theoretical subjects.

Xelasnave's theory advocates that the 'speed' of gravity is infinite and felt everywhere at once. This is basically the Newtonian Physics view of things. Einstein physics says that gravity propogates at the speed of light. In the newtonian view, if the sun disappeared now, the earth would immediately go flying off into space, even though the sun would appear to stay in the sky. The Einstein view says that we'd happily move along for another 8 minutes or so until we SAW the sun disappear and THEN go flying.

Conceptually, accepting the Newtonian way makes more sense... but many tests and LOTS of math seem to indicate that Einstein's explaination is what actually happens. (IE: frame dragging, etc) People are still arguing about it, and basically there's a lot of math in general relativity that attempts to reconcile this effect... I think a lot of mathematicians don't like it because it seems too complex, but nobody has been able to disprove it yet. There IS an explaination that fits the 'gravity obeys the speed of light' thing... but I'm not smart enough to understand the equations.

-TK

[xelasnave]

I am overjoyed.
Waking up to find another two replies is better than christmas morning, what great gifts your inputs provide.
Yes little sleep can cause problems.
And it has been said before...
Many fears grow out of fatigue and lonliness.
Unfortunately I am up early to go out for breakfast (a sneaky business meeting) but must stop every one from using the word theory for my idea.
It is only at this stage an idea an theory needs more meat and contains various requirements and progression... We cant call it a theory ubless we have observation supported by experiments is the short answer but there is even more to it if we wish to enjoy that high title. The big bang theory has enough in support to be called more than an idea for example.
Let me get the business of the day ou of th eway and I will give some hard thought to your wonderful input. Thanks again you have made my day guys.
I hope you really have a light bulbs suchs theory Steve cause you have already got me trying to figure how.. if you are pulling my leg thats ok however.
best wishes alex

[xelasnave]

Here we go Gravity Rain ..the stage play
Here is my short answer ......
" Where two objects are in close proximity they shield each other from part of the pressure " and since to work on all normal physical levels this pressure must therefore be able to be blocked by both large objects and small. Consider 2 dust motes in space, at some distance from any other significant bodies, but close to each other. Gravity dictates that they will be attracted to each other and will eventually touch ... so for pressure to function in the same way even a dust mote is able to block this pressure to some degree so that they move towards each other by it's tiny blocking of the pressure.

Therefore if we build a solid box, such that it's interior cavity is enclosed in every direction by pressure blocking mass, and place a marble in it, as the pressure has been uniformly blocked in every direction there should be no pressure remaining at all inside, and the marble should be free to float around regardless of any other external pushing or attractive forces.

Alex……………….
Perhaps if you think of a shield as the same as a Roman foot soldier carried will make the concept easier to grasp.
His shield will deflect large particles traveling slow but such a shield only removes a small portion of energy from a very small particle traveling at a relatively high speed. A bullet for example will pass the soldiers shield and him probably and if a smooth jacketed bullet pass through the lot without much sign of it having been there at all. Of course gravity rain wont leave you dead on the ground…. Maybe from boredom but nothing else.


Here is my long answer ......

I applaud your hypothesising here Alex, very interesting. In terms of assuming that a convention, ie gravity, may in fact be truly caused by another force working in a different or even reverse direction has both merit and precedent.

Everyone knows that the "conventional" flow of electricity dictates that electricity flows from positive to negative, but anyone who has studied any electrical theory at all knows that the actual flow of electrons (negatively charged particles) actually flows from negative to positive.
Alex…….. Thanks for the compliment I will hold it close and treasure it with the others I keep in the same place and it is interesting about the electricity anolology but for human experience the positive to negative trip is happily accepted.

(I would also love to launch into my own personal fave here - light bulbs do NOT emit light, they suck dark - but another time perhaps.)
Alex… how can you be so cruel to hold up such a tantalizing morsel and keep it out of reach I am dying to hear more and will be always looking for a thread .. Light bulbs really suck.. what a book title particularly if “Gravity does not suck”. is already on the stands. I want a copy already.

Anyway keeping an open mind - remember, a truly open mind is one that is prepared to forgo ANY conclusion in support of new evidence - lets say that your hypothesis of Universal Pressure for want of a better name still appears to fit all known observations and results as the theory of Gravity, we need to then see if we can find a case in which your new theory either describes some factor of "gravity" better, or if both hypotheses seem to fulfill and explain all known and observed "symptoms" equally then we need to design an experiment of some sort that will allow us to differentiate whether gravitational attraction, or universal pressure, is the true cause.
alex… I agree I feel that dark matter is causing unessary worry and the expenditure of billions and the search for dark matter and dark energy will stop I feel if we simply approach the problem from a different direction that being that gravity acts in the manner I suggest. Dr Einstein gave up on his cosmological constant almost certainly because ewhat he was being faced with was the difficulties fitting the maths with the Universe he contemplated. He probably had to abandon his line of thinking when Mr Hubble announced the Universe was expanding as that would have seemed at odds with where he was heading. He perhaps lacked the confidence to push such a then crazy notion.
Strangely over the past 12 months or more the prospect that he was correct seems to be gathering favour loosely gravity rain may be the animal in real life the doctor found his math drawing were sketching before him.
Does your hypothesis then firstly explain all known attributes of "gravity"? Lets say for the moment that it does (I may come back to this later - it IS well after 3am and I may come up with other thoughts here yet when I'm not hallucinating, and when this green octopus stops bothering me ...... yes yes ok, I will tell him later, leave me alone!)
alex…. I have looked to see if I cn find such but there really is no disagreement between space time and my proposition .space time offers no explanation as to why space is bent toward a mass I simple suggest the machinery by which such takes place.
Anyway ..... so assuming that both hypotheses seem to fit the bill, we then need to devise a test to determine if the universe really DOES push, or whether gravity really does suck (as I've long suspected after falling from a very tall tree as a child). What we would need to do perhaps is to build some form of shielding device wich woudl either block the stream of universal particles, or to block the force of gravitational attraction. If we can devise a method of blocking either one, but not the other, we have proved that the blockable force must exist - you cannot block something that does not exist!
alex…..
You are indeed correct if I fell out of a tree I would say “that sucks” and to build an experiment is as difficult as the current attempt to detect a gravity wave ( a gravity wave being a higher than usual flow of gravity rain in a particular direction producing an imbalance in pressure. I would think that two very large balls spinning in close proxsimity may do this. If gravity rain works as I suggest the wera on the bearings could be inspected which will reveal certain things and without going to deep into that again the problem will be as with other experiments seeking gravity the effects will be miniscule and perhaps beyond our current abilities. I have given up on building such a contraption lets put it tthat way.
I think to give some of the rest of the class a fair go I'll leave this rather mentally stimulating conversation there for now, and I'll go read up on E.E. "Doc" Smiths Skylark series of books, etc - I seem to recall frequent use of Q beams and Z shields (or vice versa - the point is the Q or Z shield was inpenetrable to any "etheric" force, and his definition of the all pervading ether had some interestingly similar tones to your universe wide particle pressure.)
Alex… your reading material is different to mine but I can say that the concept of an ether is again gathering interest as if you think about the many particles flying through an apparently empty part of space there is something there alright in fact if you think about it deeply you will conclude that a “piece”of everything from every wehre passes through äll”given points. Tell me where there is a spot that you can not see the rest of the Universe as it were.

I hope you can grasp my concept and hold it closer and perhaps raise other areas for examination.

[xelasnave]

Dam it I have loss half of my reply later sorry
alex

[xelasnave]

Intersting idea, but I'm not sure that explains anything gravity doesn't. Many things in physics can be expressed equally as either a positive force or a negative opposing force. I think I've actually heard this concept of gravity before. Mathematically, I think the two concepts are identical.
Quote: Originally Posted by Gargoyle_Steve
Therefore if we build a solid box, such that it's interior cavity is enclosed in every direction by pressure blocking mass, and place a marble in it, as the pressure has been uniformly blocked in every direction there should be no pressure remaining at all inside, and the marble should be free to float around regardless of any other external pushing or attractive forces.
That's pretty much exactly what the 'standard' theory of gravity says too. If you built a heat resistant hollow sphere and put it at the center of the earth, you could float around inside it and feel 'weightless'. Provided that you didn't get too far away from the center point, since then you wouldn't be in equilibrium. Under standard theory, you would hover there because you'd be pulled by the rest of the mass of the earth equally. Under xelasnave's theory, you would float there because the pressure pushing on you would be equally balanced as well. You can't block ALL the pressure pushing on you (black hole?) since then all the electrons and atoms in your body would fly apart.
Alex….. well lets go the opposite way past the great walls of galaxies to where we find the voids. Consider all that meets you there I suggest that on this approach to say we are without gravity and weightless is not the way to look at it weight is irrelevant it is a Earthbound human concept. In space if we are floating I suggest it is the gravity rain from all directions that provives this phenomenon.

One thing though that this brings up is something that scientists are still arguing about and is one of my favorite theoretical subjects.

Xelasnave's theory advocates that the 'speed' of gravity is infinite and felt everywhere at once.
Alex…. no
I I think we are limited to the speed of light, as gravity rain must be part of the electromagnetic system and as such should travell at the speec of c. But it is felt everywhere but fluctuations in pressure are presumably bound to C.
This is basically the Newtonian Physics view of things. Einstein physics says that gravity propogates at the speed of light. In the newtonian view, if the sun disappeared now, the earth would immediately go flying off into space, even though the sun would appear to stay in the sky. The Einstein view says that we'd happily move along for another 8 minutes or so until we SAW the sun disappear and THEN go flying.
I agree with the great man and saty that the gravity message from the Sun is in effect 8 odd minutes "late"

Conceptually, accepting the Newtonian way makes more sense... but many tests and LOTS of math seem to indicate that Einstein's explaination is what actually happens. (IE: frame dragging, etc) People are still arguing about it, and basically there's a lot of math in general relativity that attempts to reconcile this effect... I think a lot of mathematicians don't like it because it seems too complex, but nobody has been able to disprove it yet. There IS an explaination that fits the 'gravity obeys the speed of light' thing... but I'm not smart enough to understand the equations
alex....I see it this way gravity travells at c gravity rain explains the force causing space time to bend and as such it does not seem to conflict with the math.
I am sorry this reply is a little out of order.. had to do it on the run so I was not able to put as much into it as I should please forgive my off the top of my head approach...but in the interest of moving on I have let it go this way...and now doubt being so hasty I will have made errors that you can get onto.
Thanks I have not had so much fun since I read the dictionary backwards.
alex
alex

[xelasnave]

and beofre someone points out the obvious....
Matter (that is if gravity rain is seen as a particle) can not reach C well the neutrino (a particle) seems to have the property that not withstanding it has mass it travells at c I submit therefore that we may have to reconsider the "fact"that a mass connot attain light speed..certainly this may be the case for very very small particles.
alex

[Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)]

Hi Alex, I'm glad that we've helped make your day by joining you in this cerebral workout. It's good to stretch the mind sometimes, and seeing as I'm stuck here inside and not outside enjoying the cloudless sky of a new moon I might as well get into this! I did let the word theory slip in once, I didn't think I had, but I did maintain the usage of the word hypothesis mostly.

TK when I talked about building a box to shiled the interior I meant just that - it would not have to be perfecly spherical, or located in the dead centre of a gravitation / pressure field, just a box will do in my "model" there so as to block the "pressure" effects. Gravity DOES allow for this kind of effect, as you say, in a centred, balanced force-neutral way. That was exactly the point I was making, in the context of the pressure model you would not need to balance the forces a all, rather block or negate them with a solid structure. The box should apparently block the pressure force regardless of the box's size, shape or location.

Alex has now qualified his concept of the pressure and it's "blockability" by using the metaphor of a Roman soldiers shield - which would negate my comments re a "zero pressure box". Bugger!

However does this not then lead to an unsettling (inelegant perhaps?) solution in that instead of one kind of pressure particle there must be different kinds, each having a different resistance to blocking? We are having trouble locating one kind of graviton, but now we may be searching for many different kinds of pressurons instead.

Are we talking perhaps not about particles then but something akin to electromagnetic radiation, ie a pressure radiation, with different frequencies having different penetrating abilities. A possibility.

I'll put up just one more thought before I drop off to think (and work ) for a bit longer then .... Alex you mentioned the great inter-galactic voids, and pressure causing something or someone to "float" immobile rather than a lack of gravity causing the same. To extend this a little further then current cosmology tells us that the universe is not, in fact, infinite but rather is expanding outwards. Assuming that is true, lets say we are positioned right out there at the "edge" of the expanding universe .. there is an entire universe of "stuff" behind us sending pressure particles, and stuff all in front of us if you follow me would not the enormous pressure differential then
surely push us outwards? Is this then perhaps what really does happen, is it maybe even part of the reason why the universe is expanding (having it's own extremities pushed outwards like the skin of a ballon that has more and more gas (pressure) being created inside it. Or would we still float motionless in that place even with a universe of pressure-sending stuff behind us.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!

[xelasnave]

Well Steve I drop the word theory as well but its one of those words that can mean more to some than it means to others and seeing you had raised the level of input I felt duty bound to mention that aspect.
It is indeed a wonderful night outside unfortunate that I can not mount the camera on the new mount (or the binos) still I managed a bit of a session (mmm musos term an event less than a gig but more than a jam).
I started to wonder about the inside of a completely shielded box and that would be indeed a very strange place as I am convinced the pressure I seek to identify is simply an intergral part of everything. In seeking to find a way that our particle (I will use the term to encompass the item which we seek be it particle or energy) could loss energy when encountering mass I came up with the strangest possibility but one the more I think about seems to be worth thinking more about. I will at the risk of ridicule share it with you. Perhaps the gravity rain particle is what powers an electron and causes it to
"orbit" the "centre" of the atom. It is a tantalizing thought because if indeed we could absolutly shield an atom in a box this would raise the prospect that the exclussion of the gr particle passing thru would leave the electron without power and it is difficult to figure what may come next. Anyway dont dwell upon that it is almost a worry that my idea could reach to the heart of "ëverything"
I am not trying to go the opposite to the rest of the world but frankely I find if I think deeply about the prospect of there being a big bang or not I find it impossible to accept the theory. The bank of evidence for it does not worry me as humans have been wrong before and content to be so. However I doubt if we are expanding into anything I believe the universe is infinite and any conditions we interprete as expanssion are either local on the grander scale of infinity or even the evidence we interprete misleads us, there being an underlying desire by all reviewing the data to support current popular theory. I agree it all makes sence in the context of supporting "the big"bang but I consider there may well be other interpretations for such things as red shift and background radiation for example. I can not imagine that our Universe sits like a galaxy in an infinite void, and I can not imagine that before the seed of the Universe "äppeared" this infinite void exsisted with nothing within..then with nothing in it a seed formed that in a split second grew by a factor of 10 followed by 43 zeros. I am only a little human and I can not accept that we see logic all around us and that things within our grasp we can understand and make sence of and yet we happily except such a propostion. I ask you to wonder about accepting such a thing. If I told you I would invesst your money to grow at a rate of doubling each day you would be wondering how and if indeed such was possible. I see many rich men and have not met one that can do this. But if we live in a sphere we call our Universe and we note that what we see ,our observable Universe is expanding I must ask into what is it we expand into? a void so vast that the day will come that even electrons will be separated by billions upon billions of light years.. that is the suggestion one must grasp if we accept expansion I feel. Or will we colapse back to a seed and that seed hang in this infinite void containing all the energy in a space the size of a pin head? what pressure exsists that this void of nothing can exsert upon this seed to hold it in place awaitng a rebirth. I feel it is impossible to accept the big bang thoery... a term that was coined by Fred Hoyle when the idea was first put forward as a dig at the concept. It suits man and man's religions but it does not suit my logic.
Nevertheless I could seize upon the big bang as gravity rain will be well suited to it...because it would harbour gravity rain maybe better than an infinite Universe..the fundamental problem being faced is why did the expansion move at various rates, why are we expanding, why do objects seem move together in such an environment well if you see the gravity rain pressure thing it answers those questions and removes the dark energy and dark matter problem. Dark energy will forever be required to explain expansion.. a pushing gravity as they even call it solves this.
Well it is late and I want to get another look at Orion before I go to bed thank you for thinking about this. I welcome the prospect of someone convincing me I am on the wrong track as the idea wont let me be ..each time I say no more, another thing comes along that makes me start into it again.. the revival of the popularity of the cosmological constant for example.. it was nonsence only such a short time ago and now it is gaining interest again.. there is a link I feel between it and what I see.
Back to Orion and bino backbreak.
alex

[xelasnave]

I know it is dangerous to get your science from magazines but
Astronomy magazine September 2006 has an article Tales from the Dark Side. Outlining three explanations for Dark Energy, firstly the Cosmological constant, secondly, "quintessence" ..an unidentified energy field of varying strength that fills space like a fog and thirdly that Dark Energy is an illusion and the effects we see as dark energy result from a break down in Einstein's theory of gravity over the largest distances...Well I sortta agree with all three The third explanation not entirely because it sort of indicates Einstein was wrong but really I think he was almost coming up with explanations one and two .. His constant was an attempt I believe to quantify mathematically the second explanation which to me is really a modern way to get back to the cosmological constant approach.
Saul Perlmutter was quoted in that article...it took us 10 years to realize the Universe is accelerating, and it will take as long to figure out what’s behind it"..I see it as my Universal pressure/gravity rain idea, which sounds like quintessence, which sounds like that was what Dr Einstein driving at with the need to include a "function" (I think the maths is new to me) in his sums which he called the cosmological constant.
That issue of the magazine had another article Ä Wrinkle in Space Time" which set out how Alan Guth (MIT) first proposed the concept of inflation. Guth argued that there was a remarkable moment when the Universe ""inflated". And quoting from the magazine..
In a moment, the cosmos ballooned in size by a factor of 10 to the power of 43."
Seems the theory inflated at a similar rate as it gained acceptance because of the problems it cured..which is their way of saying that without that magic moment the big bang theory was dead in the water... As far as I can tell acceptance of the inflation idea took hold because to quote Sean Carrol..
"Without inflation different parts of the Universe could not have points in common with the past"... my comment thats not the only way Mr Carrol do you have anything more tangible as evidence for a moment in time that the Universe grew from little to very very and add some big. The article covers LIGO and LISA experiment proposals... LIGO has not found gravity waves to the date of the article. They seek gravity waves to verify and quantify inflation.. however Physics Professor Rainer Weiss (MIT) was quoted ...
Unfortunately, LIGO will just not be sensitive enough to detect gravity waves from inflation"
...so I hope they plan to be able to do more with LIGO if that’s the case and I presume that they will still search for Space Time disruptions perhaps generated in a Super Nova...
AND The third article "The Universe is in the Details" an article on high energy particle physics which was very good as a quick overview of particles from space.
But with all that I am none the wiser.. as I cant get over for example how such a large galaxy as Abel 2029 can exist and how it could form in the time of 13 billion years even my gravity rain would have a big job keeping such a huge body in a manageable "blob" It is so difficult to see anything that could allow such a huge galaxy to be so big.. And no doubt it is getting bigger.. How big would it be today a lot of growing would have taken place since the light and x-rays left the galaxy all that time ago..
Hows your pet with the nine legs err how many do they have???
alex

[xelasnave]

Do you find my ideas repulsive
The wonderful thing about the condition I refer to as morosophy a term I have grown to love is everyone has it but few recognise that they have the condition whereas I see it and enjoy the cards it deals me.
The following is a lift from sciencedaily which I see as supporting my idea for those who can not accept my idea they will see it as supporting the opposite of my idea.
So robots its your job to read this and put it out there even if it is already out there. Do the robots have boxes where they put stuff like one box for those who believe this and another box for those to look who dont believe such... mmm see I think the robots have it worked out they are very touched with morosophy they think everything is exactly what they are looking for... anyways read this if you are still there ..anyone..hulo can you hear me?

Hubble Finds Evidence For Dark Energy In The Young Universe
Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that dark energy is not a new constituent of space, but rather has been present for most of the universe's history. Dark energy is a mysterious repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate.

Dark energy is a mysterious repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate. Investigators used Hubble to find that dark energy was already boosting the expansion rate of the universe as long as nine billion years ago. This picture of dark energy is consistent with Albert Einstein's prediction of nearly a century ago that a repulsive form of gravity emanates from empty space.

Investigators used Hubble to find that dark energy was already boosting the expansion rate of the universe as long as nine billion years ago. This picture of dark energy is consistent with Albert Einstein's prediction of nearly a century ago that a repulsive form of gravity emanates from empty space.
Data from Hubble provides supporting evidence that help astrophysicists to understand the nature of dark energy. This will allow scientists to begin ruling out some competing explanations that predict that the strength of dark energy changes over time.
Researchers also have found that the class of ancient exploding stars, or supernovae, used to measure the expansion of space today look remarkably similar to those that exploded nine billion years ago and are just now being seen by Hubble. This important finding gives additional credibility to the use of these supernovae for tracking the cosmic expansion over most of the universe's lifetime.
"Although dark energy accounts for more than 70 percent of the energy of the universe, we know very little about it, so each clue is precious," said Adam Riess, of the Space Telescope Science Institute and Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Riess led one of the first studies to reveal the presence of dark energy in 1998 and is the leader of the current Hubble study. "Our latest clue is that the stuff we call dark energy was relatively weak, but starting to make its presence felt nine billion years ago."
To study the behavior of dark energy of long ago, Hubble had to peer far across the universe and back into time to detect supernovae. Supernovae can be used to trace the universe's expansion. This is analogous to seeing fireflies on a summer night. Fireflies glow with about the same brightness, so you can judge how they are distributed in the backyard by their comparative faintness or brightness, depending on their distance from you. Only Hubble can measure these ancient supernovae because they are too distant, and therefore too faint, to be studied by the largest ground-based telescopes.
Einstein first conceived of the notion of a repulsive force in space in his attempt to balance the universe against the inward pull of its own gravity, which he thought would ultimately cause the universe to implode.
His "cosmological constant" remained a curious hypothesis until 1998, when Riess and the members of the High-z Supernova Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project used ground-based telescopes and Hubble to detect the acceleration of the expansion of space from observations of distant supernovae. Astrophysicists came to the realization that Einstein may have been right after all: there really was a repulsive form of gravity in space that was soon after dubbed "dark energy."
Over the past eight years astrophysicists have been trying to uncover two of dark energy's most fundamental properties: its strength and its permanence. These new observations reveal that dark energy was present and obstructing the gravitational pull of the matter in the universe even before it began to win this cosmic "tug of war."
Previous Hubble observations of the most distant supernovae known revealed that the early universe was dominated by matter whose gravity was slowing down the universe's expansion rate, like a ball rolling up a slight incline. The observations also confirmed that the expansion rate of the cosmos began speeding up about five to six billion years ago. That is when astronomers believe that dark energy's repulsive force overtook gravity's attractive grip.
The latest results are based on an analysis of the 24 most distant supernovae known, most found within the last two years.
By measuring the universe's relative size over time, astrophysicists have tracked the universe's growth spurts, much as a parent may witness the growth spurts of a child by tracking changes in height on a doorframe. Distant supernovae provide the doorframe markings read by Hubble. "After we subtract the gravity from the known matter in the universe, we can see the dark energy pushing to get out," said Lou Strolger, astronomer and Hubble science team member at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky. Further observations are presently underway with Hubble by Riess and his team which should continue to offer new clues to the nature of dark energy.

alex on behalf of Professor Morosopher

[xelasnave]

I said somewhere else that the gravity rain idea may be dead if something as big as Abel 2029 hold together and that gravity must travell faster than light possibly but I figure that the particles making the pressure dont have to travell faster than C the pressure wouls still hold abel 2029 in shape as the pressurte is infinite in relation to the size of Abel 2029. In the context of the shaking stick conclusion the stick would not wobble if one to try to wobble it in water say..the water providing the pressure and yet not definiting the speed the force travells within the stick.. they should be the same but outside it acts like a glue inside bodies can still shield each other.
Well it seems clear to me but I am so tired I doubt if I have got my maening across ..I will read it later
alex

[Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)]

Alex having followed your postings here I can't say you have swung me over to your gravity pressure hypothesis, however it is an interesting concept.

I see this duality between the 2 ideas of conventional garvity versus gravity pressure as being akin to the old "open the airlock onto empty space" thing, ie it is not considered scientifically correct to say that one has been sucked out into space (of course if one is not wearing some kind of space suit, or sealed in a protective box perhaps, one is not going to say much of anything except
oorrraaarrggghhhhhhhhhhh SPLAT ..... I'm digressing, however one would be expected to say that one was BLOWN out into space, not sucked out.

And yet there we have it - if it is incorect to say "sucked" then WHY do the words sucked, suction, etc, all appear as part of the English language, when at all times by definition they refer to exacly the same kind of pressure differential between 2 distinct "places" where some form of material is transiting from the higher pressure to the lower pressure area.

Perhaps in years ahead it will not be considered correct to say that one's crippled starship was dragged down into the gravity well of a star, but rather that the ship was pushed down into the star by the Evan's Pressure Wave.


Cheers!

[xelasnave]

Well at least you can guess that I think about it a bit and its an area that even if you are the world's leading expert in the area I doubt if one knows much of the reality but it can be worked out if you think about it .
What struck me really when trying to answer a very simple question on its face..that of how the message of gravity is communicated between bodies..there did not seem to be anything describing the nuts and bolts precess .A particle interaction setting out how messages are communicated .. or if they have cable whatever .. I want to know.
I recall my science teacher being dogmatic about the air in a barometer not sucking the mercury up the tube and that the air pushed it up the tube .
It was this recollection that prompted me to call any book, that, I could find myself deciding not to write, would have to be called "Gravity Does not Suck" a title that would account for 95% of sales particularly if we have a lady scientist on the front cover as well standing in front of a red sports car. They say one cant judge a book by its cover but many people buy without considering the saying can actually be applied to books .
The challenge of course is how to construct an experiment that shows gravity to push.. I have ideas that the examination and inspection of the bearing wear in two spheres spining in proximity to each other can establish a push or a pull .
BUT we dont want anyone hurt getting pushed around and certainly its not wise to tag your ideas with your name just in case it takes off .. ideas carring ones name dooms the idea to be called crackpot and never reaching the higher status of "Theory" ..which is ok if one did the book thing .. but I would not like people to hate my children because they hated me.
I am convinced of one thing ..be it gravity rain, dark matter , dark energy, ying and wang empty space whatever... it acts like a liquid or a gell seemingly across the entire Universe and filling it, revealing an expansion to us, it is like we are suspended in it like flyies in thick soup, we are fooled to think whatever it is can only by found in "pools" (not trying to relate it to rain puddles ) by it is everywhere, electromagnetic energy comes from everywhere I feel this infinite of supply of energy to every where from everywhere could do the job. Imagine a cube one centre meter sides... hold it anywhere in the Universe your mind can contemplate what electromagnetic energy reaches it?? is there a part untouched by any other part of the Universe... as you move the cube around to find a spot where it is untouched it darns that something more is going on than looking at a seemingly empty cube ..cube simple a way of focusing a humans attention on a same area so it can consider things or a cell is similar
It seems so clear to me why push will work whereas pull cant not work. Its not a cart before the horse thing either ... but some things work one way not another. I cant see that the idea sucks ... like so many I dont think I ever lose an argument I think I have failed to make my point very clear
Thanks Steve love your input and your wit .
alex

[Apocrisiary (Michael)]

However place another object in proximity and its presence shields the other object thereby creating an imbalance in the “Universal” pressure of space between them. The objects will move toward each other to equalise the imbalance of energy created by the shielding one causes upon the other.

This would mean the amount of shielding and therefore the "gravitational" effect would be proportional to the size of the shield. However Jupiter and Saturn both provide the same size shield but we know that Jupiter produces a much greater gravitational effect due to 3 times the mass. Let me think about this bit first then come back to some later points.

[xelasnave]

I think its the mass that should be considered as the "factor" in the shielding. I say this simply to identify that you do not think I mean in effect volume.
I suspect gravitation will be greater the faster a body spins so that a small mass may produce higher gravitational effect than if it were spinning vey slow.
I dont know you see and cant work a space time formulae even at this basic level.. still whilst I look at the problems iwht the idea I learn heaps because therre is always something that is sortta relevant.
alex

[xelasnave]

The size of galaxies such as Abel 2029 says to me that the only way they can hold any shape is if an external force acts upon it, like then trying to shake a stick in a glue vat ..i can not see any way to interpret Abel2029 the presumed force of attraction would see a jumbled mess of stars effectively not bound except by messages many light years old.. it simply says push not pull to me.
alex