this is a highly interesting theory of gravity i ran into
while browsing online tonight, i found this, and was immediately struck that it seems to deviate from what ive learned about gravity in science classes and texts. im still paging through it, but it addresses one of the fundamental questions that first occured to me in high school physics:
if gravity and acceleration act THE SAME, as forces, then could gravity BE acceleration?
could accelecation be gravity? two words for the same force…?
but of course, it didnt seem to make sense that gravity was accelecation, because, well whats moving? two bodies, stationary to one another, still exert gravitational pull on one another, even when not moving.
so… ive always wondered this. well this theory seems to address this. i havent gotten all the way through yet, its a slow read to digest well. gotta think pretty abstractly to really grasp some of what hes saying, but its like an “ah ha!” moment at a couple places, a shift in perspective, so to speak.
anyways, some of you physics guys out there, take a wack at it if u find time, and let me know what you think
is it sound science, convincing theory, logic extrapolation of preexisting knowledge, or scientifically flawed?
the idea behind the theory is that gravity and acceleration (along with inertia and centripetal force) are all the same thing. the same physical force or manifestation.
so yes, “gravity” would entail if you accelerate while running, as this would produce an inertia-force or gravity-force along the opposite direction of movement. unless you can accelerate very fast, however, likely you wont feel the inertia at all, not like you would in a racecar or on a rollercoaster.
read the theory if u like, i havent finished it yet. so im not an expert.
So essentially I’d be pulling space with me. I’m not really moving… my initiation of my gravity system is distorting space with me to make it look like I’m actually moving through space. ?
not really, you are still moving, but its not the YOU doing the moving per se, its the matter that makes up you.
your “system” or relative area of influence/being is shifting as it accelerates. in reference to its previous state, it is shortening, getting smaller, as you are now covering more distance in the same unit of time (as you accelerate).
this progressive shortening of your relative ‘system’ or movement-state with regard to its relation to your previous states is what produces inertia (gravity); that, as we see with a car accelerating, the direction of acceleration (increasing shortening of your movement-state relative to the previous one) produces an opposing force along the opposite directionality, which travels always towards the largest movement-state, or away from the direction of motion.
like i said, im not an expert. just looking for people to read the theory in the OP and comment. my knowledge or interpretation is limited at best.
If there is an opposing force behind or opposite to anything accelerating what would that be exactly?
Yes, understood as far as knowledge/interpretation… still trying to figure out how you understand it as, regardless of both of our limitations on the matter
did you actually read the entire thing? its quite long.
if you disagree, cool. but give me some reasons. as it stands, i find his analysis of relative time spaces and acceleration highly persuasive, as well as his concept that matter MOVES space itself by occupying it (matter he calls the ‘negation’ of space, as in of distance), and that this “movement” is centripetal in nature, and thus creates forces of inertia radiating out of the center of gravity from the mass as a whole.
provide some reasons you dont agree. like i said, i havent read the whole thing yet, its pretty long and seems to require some deep thought and conceptualization, so (unless you are much smarter at physics than i am, which is certainly possible), it seems that maybe you did not fully understand what hes saying… if you did, where is he wrong?
Gravity and acceleration are interchangeable in a sense. Newtonian science will state that something is ‘accelerated due to gravity’. Gravity in Newtonian science is a force, like any other force, no more interchangeable with acceleration then the force that a book experiments when you push it across a table.
Einstein, however, said that gravity isn’t a force. As a consequence, it doesn’t accelerate anything. You can verify this by jumping on a trampoline: when in the air, you don’t feel a force, but rather feel like you’re floating in space. When you step on solid ground, however, you’re feeling an acceleration of 1G. Therefore, gravity does not accelerate anything. The only moment when you’re being accelerated ‘due to gravity’ is when you’re against the floor, or on the surface of the earth. While on a free trajectory, you are never accelerated: you’re in what’s called ‘free float’. The reason trajectories may be curved when travelling near centers of gravitation is because space and time are curved. The curvature of space (in a plane) must be visualized to get a full understanding of this.
For further reading, I strongly recommend Taylor and Wheeler’s Exploring Black Holes. Very basic math level, great at explaining the concepts, provides equations for all of the concepts it explains.
And I don’t really trust the theory in the link you provided, 3xG. First off, I didn’t really understand it . Second, it mentions money (says that he will pay anybody discovering a better theory $500), which is never a good sign in a scientific paper. Third, it seemed to confuse the concept of mass and volume, and somehow seemed to think that something more massive (with more volume, I believe he meant) would take less time travelling from one point to another. I think there are loose strings there, since he has to consider the motion of one point from one point to another, rather than the motion of a piece of mass from one point to another.
Can acceleration exist without gravity? If a rocket in space propels along in the vacuum of space, where does gravity fit into it? The kinetic energy provided by the fuel causes the acceleration of the rocket…how does gravity influence this?
i must admit, this theory seems to be above my head for the most part. its very intriguing, but unfortunately will take me a lot more work and time to actually understand enough.
if anyone is a scientist, PhD or just very knowledgeable about physics and general relativity, feel free to offer your comments on the theory, if you read it through and understand it. i would really like to know what its saying in a complete and coherent way, its just that my mind doesnt seem capable of grasping the concepts here very well, they just slip away, probably because im not very used to thinking about them.
either way, even on a superficial level, its interesting stuff to think about.
Yes, gravity and accelleration are actually catagorized under one number. On Earth gravity is termed g, which is (9.8 m/s)s.
But this guy doesnt have his theory straight. He treats, or so it seems, the gravitational pull of on an orbiting mass as it were attached to a string, thereby having the speed of an outer orbit be greater than that of an inner orbit. This is incorrect, the gravitational pull decreases when distance is greater, so objects in outer orbit move slower. Mercury not only orbits around the Sun quicker than Neptune because it is closer, but its velocity is also much greater. There is more energy involved per amount of space. So I´m afraid the guy whole theory is based on a misconception.
Also he is wrong on various accounts about Einstein, not in the least that he is considered untouchable. He was ridiculed and is ignored for his rejection of the uncertainty principle based models which are in use today. More substantially, the speed of light is the absolute maximum not because we cant come up with anything faster, but because gravity increases with speed, up until infinty with the speed of light. It is basically the physical boundary of the universe.
Light is physically proven to be absolute when measured from moving objects. When one moves towards light in a fast car or plane, the relative speed between the photon and the car is exactly the same as when you move away from it. Even two photons approaching each other head on share a speed relative to each other of 300.000 km per second, not 600.000.
. Second, it mentions money (says that he will pay anybody discovering a better theory $500), which is never a good sign in a scientific paper. Third, it seemed to confuse the concept of mass and volume, and somehow seemed to think that something more massive (with more volume, I believe he meant) would take less time travelling from one point to another. I think there are loose strings there, since he has to consider the motion of one point from one point to another, rather than the motion of a piece of mass from one point to another.