# Shadows and gravity and distance->inverse squared relationsh

Hello, I have posted here over 2800 times so maybe I am credible, also crazy,

So maybe gravity is caused by some force outside of our solar system, and separately caused by some force outside our galaxy, and separately caused by some force outside our galaxy cluster

BY A FORCE PUSHING INWARD FROM OUTSIDE

Why do i think this? 10th grade geometry.

Yes that is exactly what I wrote and it is what you will find fascinating very soon.

So as we all should know, the force of gravity operates by the following equation (if we ignore Einstein’s Special R, which I think we can, in this case):

Force =

mass of object one TIMES mass of object two

DIVIDED BY

DISTANCE SQUARED

(after you get that number) TIMES

arbitrary constant from nowhere that i don’t know why = 6.67384

Calculate that, it is really simple. You can find the attraction between two objects.

If you decrease the distance between two objects by a factor of two, then you will increase this magical force by a factor of (two squared=four). If you have two objects separated by 100 light years, and you measure their gravitational attraction at that time, and then you decrease their distance down to 25 light years, the force will increase to be sixteen times more powerful. [(100/25 = 4; 4^2=16)…twenty five is in the denominator and it is the one that gets squared… so it is “inverse squared” because it’s in the denominator]

I have found it fascinating, in a heartwarmingly amateurish way, that putting the “radius squared” in the denominator of your equation, causes this gravity equation to be shockingly similar to a seemingly useless equation that calculates the area of a shadow cast on a distant object.

Yes that is what it sounds like.

When a sphere goes near another sphere, and we assume that some light source is casting on these two objects from the outside of both of them:

The shadow cast on one object from another increases at the exact same rate as the force of gravity. I mean the area of the base of a CONE increases with an inverse squared relationship to the HEIGHT OF THE CONE. TENTH GRADE GEOMETRY. (edit- I am taking for granted, at this point, that it is clear that the tenth geometry of calculating the base area of a cone corresponds to a really new science of shadow gravity. I am taking for granted, at this point, the idea that everyone will accept the possibility that it really is so easy to overthrow newton and tell newton to his face “dude it is the base area of cones with an arbitrary constant, where did you get that constant??” that is what i am taking for granted. I dont want to be proven correct here. That would be nice, but I am asking questions more than I am demanding Nobels)

(then multiply it by the newtonianly assumed gravitational constant and newton could have easily shown that shadows cause gravity, easily. right?)

So then einstein said some stuff apparently and now all interpretations of gravity are much more complicated. Good fine. Except special relativity as it applies to the orbit of mercury only applies in unusual circumstances and, I believe, can be ignored on large projects, such as Newton’s project, to calculate the behavior of all planets besides Mercury. I mean Einstein solved an unrelated problem with special relativity and Mercury. He went on to solve a very unrelated problem when he made General Relativity. I welcome all criticisms of my extremely intellectual and well informed craziness as it pertains to my narrow selection of data. I do not believe that Einstein’s theories apply to my theory here at all.

I have a thread dedicated to this idea on this very forum, from many thousands of years ago, and i was not satisfied with the response. The response did not prove to me that the idea of shadow gravity is wrong. You can search for that thread, the title contains “Shadow Gravity” and I admit it was created at a time long before the internet existed, like 2002 or something I don’t know.

The response most certainly did perform the typical task of an internet intellectual forum, where people provide hyperlinks to other works that disagree. I don’t know, I wasn’t satisfied. This happened at least five years ago. Let’s start fresh. Why not shadow gravity? Let’s flex our brain muscles and explain to me why not?

Conflicting evidence? The properties of photons? Existence of “dark matter” and therefore “dark humans”?

What about the sudden decrease in velocity of our first space probe? I think it was Voyager One. It reached past the Pluto orbit (obviously NOT a planet) and into the Kuiper Belt and it SUDDENLY DECREASED IN VELOCITY!!?!>!>!

I know how to explain that decrease in velocity based on my simple and earth shattering theory described here.

Can anyone else?

Can anyone please explain to me where to find such an explanation? Why decrease velocity, Voyager one? Anyone know?!?!?!?!

Because this was like fing four years ago that some force (and nobody suggested friction with the Kuiper Belt, nobody had a damn clue), FOUR YEARS AGO>!!>? WHY SLOW DOWN VOYAGER?!?!!?

Fail to understand extra-solar gravity?

“The Forces of gravity everywhere in the universe are exactly always equal to the forces of gravity that we observe on Earth?”

=

“The Earth is the center”

=

“ADurp derp lets just ask the Pope of science derp and not think for ourselves.”

I admit that I am just guessing, but I suspect that Newton was standing in the shadow of the tree when the apple hit him on his head.

But just to verify your hypothesis, you could go into your basement and take a leak. Then ask yourself a question, “why is there piss on my basement floor?” Surely the mass of the house above is greater by far than the piss below.

You may be onto something with shadow gravity, maybe not exactly the way you put it but maybe light and gravity are linked, maybe. There is also a big similarity between the equation for electrical force and gravitational force showing a possible link between electromagnetic (like light) and gravity.

However I completely disagree with the though of gravity being a force that pushes inward from outside.
If it was an outside force, like for instance a light source of some kind, It would have to apply force with something similar to radiation (light) since gravity works without physical contact.
It would stand to reason that the closer you got to the source of the quasi-light-graviton rays, the more would hit you and the more affect gravity would have on you so as you got farther from earth for example gravity would exert more force an you would get heavier as you left the atmosphere (which we know does not happen).
But I may also be reading your idea completely wrong so who knows.

As far as the slow down of Voyager 1 it must have hit something. Newtons 1st law, it would keep moving unless acted on by a force. Maybe our solar system is in a big plexi-glass bubble and voyager found the edge of it.
I can’t say for certain, I wasn’t there.

“The Forces of gravity everywhere in the universe are exactly always equal to the forces of gravity that we observe on Earth?”
This doesn’t necessarily mean the Earth is the center, just that what we witness on our little planet holds constant outside of it.

Well, the moon is 240,000 miles from Earth, pretty far. Pluto, the median distance for Pluto (it orbits in a skinny elliptical exactly like a comet) is 3,700,000,000 miles. And some point after Pluto is where Voyager 1 suddenly and inexplicably slowed down.

It was flying through the vacuum of nothing past Jupiter Saturn whatever at a constant speed. They calculated this speed. It is the speed of an object with surface area X through vacuum with material density Y.

This object, through this vacuum went at a constant speed for a long time. I think it was like ten or twenty fing years. I mean it went past Uranus and Neptune, I think.

Speed remained predictable.

Then…

Then all of a sudden… like four years ago…

OMG speed decreased.

Probably because it ran into the big old dust cloud that surrounds our solar system? The Kuiper belt? The Oort cloud!!>!?!?

Scientists do not think it hit the Kuiper belt, and the Oort cloud is like a infinite miles beyond the Kuiper belt. It hit nothing. There is not a fing thing there. Nobody knows why.

There are no theories why. Nobody fing knows WHY WHY DECREASE SPEED?!?!?!

WHY DARK MATTER??! NOBODY KNOWS WHY!

I apologize for the bandwidth constraints caused by my requirement to create a new thread to ask why people think voyager decreased in speed.

Are you just going to ignore this question?

The shadow cast upon me by the earth is greater than that cast upon me by the house? Am I understanding you correctly?

I was there, in my heart. I saw it happen, figuratively, with my zany theory.

I mean that is exactly what I am describing. This is no crazier than Einstein and his first proposal of Special Relativity, which I find hilariously zany. Imagine the professors of the time: “Oh time is the variable?! /monocle!”

The hypothesis is that there is a force from outside “shining” upon Earth and all upon Earth such as to cause them all to be pushed together, right?

If that is the case, then anything that is blocked by shadow from the force, would not be affected or at least affected less.

If that force is pushing down upon your house such as to keep it on the Earth, but you are inside that house, shadowed from the force, your piss would not be pushed downward. The mass of the house above is much greater than that of the piss and thus should cast a “shadow” of non-gravity, just as it does from Sunlight.

If you propose that the mass an object determines how much of a shadow is cast, then the idea of cone geometry no longer applies. A small object of great mass above you would have to cast a shadow greater than a larger light weight object above you. Where does the cone geometry gets its radial size? If two small massive objects were above you and side by side, where would the focus of the shadow be? I would think that you would find that there would not be a “center of mass” effect, but rather a distributed irregular effect (and hard to calculate).

I don’t know if you are right about gravity or not. But Newton’s constant isn’t so arbitrary.

Newton probably wrote down something like Fgrav = (M*m)/d^2

so he had, ma = m^2/d^2

In units [mass] * [length]* [time]^-2 = [mass]^2 * [length]^-2

This equation is not right. The units on both sides have got to be the same. So he knew he had to have a constant with the right units to balance out the equation. Else he wouldn’t have an equation just nonsense.

So, he had to come up with what we call G. It should have units [ mass]^-1 * [length]^3 * [time]^-2 multiplied by some number that has to do with how the units are measured. Like depending on weather you use feet or meters.

It’s not Newton’s constant that is arbitrary, but the units you use to measure things with.

The theory would have to assume that the effect of the roof of a house is much smaller than the effect of the entire girth of a planet or moon in their abilities to “block” the force pushing inward. I have read vaguely about a thing called the zero point field, which looks like a giant random chaotic mess of particles showing up out of nowhere for no reason, in every spec of space; enough energy in every cubic meter to boil all of earth’s oceans (?!). We assume that this mess appears at the exact same rate and density everywhere in the universe. My theory suggests that this rate may differ, and the differences cause gravitational shifts. Perhaps a different field that we have not yet detected is the culprit (it seems possible and likely that the ZPF is worked into observations of distant objects? I have not heard anything about that and I doubt it, but do not know).

Gravity is literally forty zeroes less powerful than any other force.

I do not believe that we have measured the specifics of the zero point field outside of particle accelerators, let alone wherever Voyager One is. I could be wrong about the particle accelerator requirement, but really, who knows what changes would occur in measurements taken from Voyager One’s current position (outside Pluto, and Voyager One recently decreased in speed; EDIT: the professionally accepted reason is a lack of solar tailwinds; I actually find this explanation of the slowdown compelling. My theory does not rely on an immediate decrease in resistance at any threshold outside of Pluto; I do believe my theory would have benefited from it, however, and that is why I mentioned it. I stand by my guess that the zero point field may appear slightly different at V1’s position)?

Yes I apologize. It is not an arbitrary equation, and not flawed in any way.

The part that is arbitrary (and I may have overstepped the boundaries of the epithet ‘arbitrary’) is that it relies on ONLY the distance between the two objects and the mass.

Normally a cone has one side that is a big, flat circle, and one side that ends in a tiny point. Now imagine a cone that has a big circle, and also a smaller circle at the other, NOT a tiny point.

That would be the proper way to measure gravity. Luckily for me and Newton, we can ignore that when talking about planets a hundred trillion miles away from eachother.

I, in particular can ignore it, because what I have shown here is that such a shadow, whether point-topped, or circle-topped, INCREASES WITH AN INVERSE SQUARED RELATIONSHIP TO DISTANCE.

I am sorry that I will not be performing the calculations right here to determine the surface of a cone where the one end is not a point. I don’t want to look up those equations. I do not think it is tenth grade stuff.

I do, however, believe that a cone where one end is a circle and the other end is also a circle INCREASES WITH AN INVERSE SQUARED RELATIONSHIP TO DISTANCE.

That means, if you change your distance to be 1/2 as big, you will multiply your surface area of your shadow by 4.

This may be subject to a complicated and seemingly arbitrary constant. I can calculate that constant to match my observations after the fact. The equation will remain valid. Right?

I think there would be strong problems with explaining the entire cone of shadow effect, especially since it would be coming from all directions.

I am intimately familiar with that “field”. It’s actual energy content is almost nothing. The good of it is that it never fades. It is an endless stream of energy, but the energy within is seriously minuscule.

Your “theory” in that regard is partially right. The field (the field of affectance) is such that it has high and low density which then causes both electric/magnetic and gravitation aberrant effects.

I am currently building a program that demonstrates, not that such is true, but rather exactly WHY it must always be true - what is happening such as to cause what we call “gravity and EM” fields.

I am sure that I read somewhere that the energy from the zero point field, if it was all sent in one direction, and not chaotically going against itself like a tumultuous sea, WOULD CONTAIN, IN ONE CUBIC METER ANYWHERE, ENOUGH ENERGY TO BOIL ALL THE OCEANS OF EARTH! Is this capitalized statement an exaggeration of my paperback book I read? I can imagine that it was.

Differences in the ZPF have been observed?!?! Where and why!?

[/quote]
I also would like to know why! I believe the reason why is that gravity is “AN EMERGENT FORCE” and not a “FUNDAMENTAL FORCE”

by that, of course, I mean that gravity only exists because the three other FUNDAMENTAL forces exist. Those three OTHER forces seem to be pretty close to exactly the same.

Gravity is forty zeroes weaker. Really forty zeroes.

There is but one field. All other fields are merely aberrant effects from that one. But this is a really, really deep subject. Subnuclear and particle physics has nothing over it as it generates everything within that arena.

Did you mention that there are different values for the power of this field?

Like when you said this:

Do you mean that it creates tiny little high and low density effects on a tiny tiny scale?

A scale that we have only measured in particle accelerators?

Particle accelerators which exist predictably right around the surface of the earth, also known as the center of the entire universe?

It is the one field of which all other fields, including all matter, is made.
In a vacuous type volume, the energy within can only be obtained by accessing a part of the field from very far away unless you actually put a great deal of energy into it locally. And then you only get out what you had put in plus a tiny bit.

Local energy is the issue, but the reason it looks like a energyless vacuum is that fact that you have removed all local energy from it. The idea that you can get huge amounts of energy from such a device is entirely exaggerated fantasy for magazines and Sci-Fi programs.

With extreme, extreme, extreme effort, one could cause a more true vacuum bubble within that vacuous volume and have an extreme energy situation, one that would collapse almost instantly with a very, very loud bang (but only by putting the energy into the effort of creating the bubble). If that bubble were to be put into a harmonious spin, it would endure much longer, probably in the order of nanoseconds before it obliterated the entire building. If it were made large enough to quantize, it would be a miniature black-hole which would last much longer still, perhaps milliseconds before it uncontrollably grew and then removed that side of the planet due to not being stable enough.

From all I can see, they are no where near actually doing any of that even though they are trying. From my perspective, they really don’t know what they are doing, despite their expertise. But if some day you suddenly feel the Earth swelling up as though being broken in two, you could probably bet that someone on the other side of the planet was just about to say, “oops”. But since your life and everyone else’s would be over shortly anyway, I’m not sure such a judgment would be relevant.

Maybe it is a complete vacuum out side the All-mass, actually pulling.

Check my idea out at this post: “An idea on Gravity…weird”
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=175689