A Conversation for Gravity

Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 41

andysfoam

If our universe is an expanding surface, does this imply in-falling point-particles from outside are expanding the Planck length? If point particles were to be converted into energy, would the surface shrink?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 42

andysfoam

If massive objects in our universe polarizes the virtual particle vacuum, would our universe be the equivalent of virtual particles to universes made from virtual particles? In which case massive objects in the virtual universe should polarize our real particles, moving them about apparently at random?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 43

andysfoam

If singularities in our real universe convert virtual particles into real particles, would virtual particle universes with their own virtual singularities do the same to our real particles? If our real universe is expanding, then it might be at the expense of some of the other virtual particle universes?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 44

andysfoam

Singularities might gradually reduce `G`, and since length and time are both related to `G`, length = (g.h-bar/N.c^3)^0.5, meters and time = (g.h-bar/N.c^5)^0.5, seconds. Hence the wavelength of light coming from distant objects only appears to red shift, due to our measuring units have diminished over the time taken to arrive here.


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 45

andysfoam

re, Meta research, particle velocities, is there an equation that sets each particles maximum velocity? Such as, Velocity = [G * particle rest mass/radius]^1/2 ? If this equation were correct, then it would suggest that particles may exist, with maximum velocities greater than " c "? Since there are no maximum or minimum line density values, why is " c " chosen as the maximum possible speed, in the relativity equation, surely any value of " c " would do ? Using the above equation C^1 gives a density~10^27,kg/m, while C^2 gives a density of ~ 10^44, kg/meter.


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 46

andysfoam

Re; in my previous message, the equation for velocity with in a universe, v^2 = G * Mass of universe / radius of universe, m/s. Gives c^2 = G * Ru * C^2/2G/Ru/2, it all cancels out except for c^2, the relativity gamma also cancels away if included. If you were to consider the possibility that an electron might have within it a universe of smaller particles, then its internal maximum velocity for its version of "c" works out using the above equation to be about ~10^-15 m/s (if I haven`t made any errors)?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 47

andysfoam

Approximate Mass of universe = Velocity of gravity cubed * time / G , kg. Hence as time ticks on, the number of particles that add to gravity will also accumulate randomly, causing G to decrease randomly to compensate?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 48

andysfoam

To check that the Velocity of the light media within our universe is equal to "c", just replace Mu & Ru with mp= [c*h/2pi/G]^0.5, & lp= [G*h/2pi/c^3]^0.5, in the velocity equation, Vu= [G*mp/lp]^0.5, m/s. One problem with this is that as the universe ages, more new matter comes into view. Since this new matter is interacting with the existing matter there should be an increase in Planck mass mp, while causing the shrinking of G, lp & tp, although probably by so tiny an amount as to be unmeasurable?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 49

andysfoam

The equation I have been exploring looks similar to Kepler`s third law, except that it deals with linear amounts (scalars) where as Kepler`s is about rotational amounts. Rotational spinning mass M+m = 4pi^2 * a^3 * T^-2 * G^-1,kg. Or using "w" (omega=2pi*f), M+m = w^2 * a^3 * G^-1, kg. Where is the missing 4pi^2 term? Spinning mass seems to be an extra 4pi^2 larger than an equivalent linear mass(4*3.142*3.142~39times the mass?)?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 50

andysfoam

rotational w = [G * M+m * a^-3]^0.5 radians per second looks similar to linear v = [G * M+m * r^-1]^0.5 meters per second. While linear force F = v^4 * G^-1, Newtons, & rotational tangential force F = m * v * w = torque * r^-1, Newtons, do not look at all similar? Assuming the speed of gravity is approximately 10^18,m/s, M = 10^82,kg, r = 10^35, meters, then space density = M * r^-3 = 10^-23,kg/m^3. Which is remarkable in that it is similar to the value obtained by assuming v to be equal to c(10^8)m/s, where M = 10^52, kg, and r = 10^25,m, thus space density = M * r^-3 = 10^-23, kg/m^3. A quick search in an online encyclopedia seems to confirm a space density of between 10^-22 & 10^-27 kg/m^3. The above calculations adds to the evidence, that Gravity`s speed maybe than Maximum Light Speed?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 51

andysfoam

rotational w = [G * M+m * a^-3]^0.5 radians per second looks similar to linear v = [G * M+m * r^-1]^0.5 meters per second. While linear force F = v^4 * G^-1, Newtons, & rotational tangential force F = m * v * w = torque * r^-1, Newtons, do not look at all similar? Assuming the speed of gravity is approximately 10^18,m/s, M = 10^82,kg, r = 10^35, meters, then space density = M * r^-3 = 10^-23,kg/m^3. Which is remarkable in that it is similar to the value obtained by assuming v to be equal to c(10^8)m/s, where M = 10^52, kg, and r = 10^25,m, thus space density = M * r^-3 = 10^-23, kg/m^3. A quick search in an online encyclopedia seems to confirm a space density of between 10^-22 & 10^-27 kg/m^3. The above calculations adds to the evidence, that Gravity`s speed maybe more than Maximum Light Speed?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 52

andysfoam

Since the Number of gravity carrying particles within their longer radius universe(media) should be higher than the number of light speed particles by about 10^20 times N (from ratio of line densities). By substituting for N, N * 10^20 in the equation R^2 = Ru^2 / 3N, to give a guess at the radius of a gravity media particle, r ~ 10^-18 meters?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 53

andysfoam

Tom Van Flandern`s book "Dark Matter Missing Planets & New Comets" proposes that in its "meta model" the force of gravity exceeds the speed of light traversing the vacuum of free space. The meta model`s gravity force, is carried by "cg" particles which should still obey relativity theory. The mass of each "CG" increases if a yet smaller particle were to try to accelerate them beyond beyond their maximum velocity V(u). Hence mass M = M(cg) * [1+V(u)^2 * V(X)^-2]^0.5, Kg, where V(u) ~ 10^18, m/s? & M(cg) = V(u)^2 * R(u) * G^-1 * N^-1, & also N = R(u)^2 * 3R(cg)^-2? What media(force) has velocity V(X)?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 54

andysfoam

Apologies for mistakes in the previous messages, M = M(cg)[1 - V(u)^2 * V(X)^-2]^-0.5, kg. The Meta model has Particles of the light carrying medium(LCM) impacting upon the "MI`s"(within atomic particles), suggesting a reason for their mass? Also the "LCM" is itself being impacted by the higher speed, smaller volume particles of the "CG" medium, causing the "LCM" speed to vary? Is it possible to work out knowing the above what the dimensions of the various media particles are?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 55

andysfoam

Thought I`d seen the equation that I have been playing around with before. It`s a rearranged version of the "Schwarzschild" radius equation r=[2GM*c^-2]^0.5, m. I know it supposedly predicts the conditions for singularity`s, but has anyone else tried to the use it to predict the gravitational media`s radius before?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 56

andysfoam

Assuming that time elapsed so far is about 10^17, seconds, then the gravitational radius, R(u) = T(u) * V(cg) = 10^35, meters, where V(cg) = 10^18, m/s, Number, of "cg particles", N = R(u)^2 / 3*R(cg)^2 , N ~ 10^140, particles, where R(cg) = the Planck length, ~ 1 * 10^-35, m, M(u) = V(u)^2 * R(u) / 2 * G, ~ 10^82, kg, M(cg) = M(u) / N, ~ 10^-58, kg, line density = M(cg) / R(cg), ~ 10^-23, kg/m. If my math`s is about right, then it may in theory, be possible for the hypothetical gravitational media particles to exceed light velocity(3 * 10^8, m/s)?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 57

andysfoam

Tried some other velocities, and it would appear that the "cg" particles within the gravitational force media, have a range of possible values. Towards the lower end of their range V=10^-2 m/s, M(cg)=10^-38,kg, R(cg)=10^-15,m, at "C" V=10^8,m/s, M(cg)=10^-48,kg, R(cg)=10^-25,m, then at "C^2" V=10^16,m/s, M(cg)=10^-56,kg, R(cg)=10^-33,m, At top speed V=10^18,m/s, M(cg)=10^-58,kg, R(cg)=10^-35,m. Any faster and the particle length would be shorter than the Planck length!


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 58

andysfoam

Please note the figures quoted in the previous message, are only a very rough guess, and assume that the radius of the "cg" particle is about 10^20 times smaller than the radius of an electron( well it might be?! )?


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 59

andysfoam

Here is an idea, combine Milo Wolff`s ideas about the electron being a spherical standing wave structure, with Tom Van Flandern`s idea that different particle sizes form different force carrying media. Giving you sub-atomic particles, such as electrons, made up of spherical standing wave vibrations, within the light carrying particle media, the "LCM" being made from yet smaller spherical standing wave particle resonances within the gravity carrying media, which in turn is made from yet smaller spherical standing wave particle resonances within yet another smaller particle media+... turtles all the way down!


Why is gravity a force rather than just a distortion?

Post 60

andysfoam

Another "Google search" turned up the escape velocity equation, discovered in 1783, by REV.John Michell, V(e)=[2GM/R]^0.5, m/s.


Key: Complain about this post