(Sit down for a spell, this is a long one)
I had just started being active on this forum when I came across one of the most oft repeated postulates in physics:
Little Bang, on 24 Feb 2018 - 11:20 AM, said:
It would help if we could take gravity out of the equation because it may be a function of another property of the Universe?
I had seen this statement many times, and (as I made to reference earlier) A LOT of scientists have long since speculated that this may be the key to solving the ToE. So, in my efforts to solve Superluminal travel I ended up working gravity out of the equations, both literally and figuratively. I say work it out, but in all honesty gravity just kept falling out. Dr. Scott Tyson did the same in The Unobservable Universe, and his book is entirely about those efforts. However he went on to explain it away in a direction that didn’t fit my [young] model.
Several years back I ended up talking to him about his theories [and his book] and while we had both came across this adjustments to our equations from totally different approaches, the mathematical results were almost the same.
In my model I had to account for every physic equation that referenced Mass and the force of gravity, AND through conventional means explain what we can feel and measure here and across the cosmos. I won’t spend any time on going through the equations (Dr. Tyson did a great job of that but it took him 300+ pages) but it’s enough to say I wasn’t the first scientist to mathematically prove the force of gravity is not a Fundamental Force and I am very sure I won’t be the last.
The force of gravity behaves almost identically to the electromagnetic forces of magnets. The formulas that describe the magnitude, direction and variations in this force are very similar as well. Both are dependent the distance between the masses (r2). In a nut shell each of these forces are described by the Mass (Matter) and distance between these Masses.
Albert E was before my time, but I was not surprise the learn that [according to history] Albert E went to his deathbed still trying to meld the two force into his GR postulates. I know that’s an over simplification of his efforts, but none the less I think it’s worth noting at this time.
According to numerous postulates and equations, if Gravitational forces are not Fundamental Forces then they must be resultant forces. The force of gravity is real, observable and measurable ... but is it what we think it is?
The main stream scientific community has long since contented that it is an attractive force created by (or a by-product of) Matter (Mass) (like Electromagnetism), and all efforts to define it have been biased towards that effort. I looked it another way. I hypothesized that the force of gravity is a repulsive force, or lack thereof. In other words, when two objects of Mass are in close proximity to each other they are pushed together. The closer they get, the harder they get pushed.
The PRIMARY driver for this assumption is the first construct in the framework: Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. IF this construct is valid, then how can stable Mass create Energy and not loose Mass? To which Magnets lose Mass as their magnetic field is used to create work/force, as well as unstable Matter as it radiates energy. To which, if I add Mass to an object (make it more dense) how can it increase its Energy signature (force)? It’s like double dipping at the Energy – Matter buffet line.
This train of thought suddenly answered a myriad of unanswered question, but the big one for me was this: If all of the Matter in the universe can (and will eventually be) compressed into a Black Hole, then why after 14 Billion years are we not one big Black Hole? If not one big Black Hole, then why [after 14 billion years] isn’t every galaxy that has a Black Hole at its center still observable? Shouldn’t it be a Black Hole by now?
At this juncture in my constructs the answers to the origins of the force of gravity became overwhelmingly simple. All I had to do was look around at the tools that physics has given us to create my construct. I started modeling my answers to look like what we know to be valid, provable and definable then pick the right tools. That part of the construct took quite a while. I went through several major iterations, and when I finally narrowed down the construct of the model, it got even far simpler than I imagined.
The next significant construct in my framework was that the force of gravity was based in particle physics. Not a big deal one might say, after all - over the last 30 years science has generally tended towards the postulate that most of our physical universe is particle-based, in both GR and QFT.
I then used known, proven particle dynamics & definitions to validate my hypothesis. As I built this construct I hypothesized that the particle(s) would physically behave as every other particle we have proven in existence. Light particles (photons), electrons, protons, radiation,… - the whole gamut; These particles had to behave like every other known particle. After several iterations I came to some definitive physical characteristics and made them fit contemporary physics and current observations concerning Mass in the universe. (I’m not stalling here, I’m compressing a number of years’ worth of efforts into my conclusions.)
My next construct in the UFoP was this: The Void energy is comprised of these particles, and it is its own unique particle. This particle behaves as every other particle in physics behaves, and interacts with Matter in the same manner as every other particle does, but unique to its own size and property. It does mimic many particles in these interactions, and not like many in other ways.
Is this particle a Graviton? Yes, in the sense that it is responsible for the force of gravity. But, No, it is not as defined in current theories being discussed in GR and QFT. In my modeling construct I usually referred to it as the Graviton, but that recently put me in a pickle with the US Patent Office, so in this forum I don’t want to label it as a Graviton; herein I’ll call it GravX. (I literally just made that up J )
One of my first definitions of the GravX particle is that it has an opaqueness to Matter (Mass) based on the density of the Matter and that it has energy (it is a charged particle). (Later on I went to define this energy as Electromagnetic in principle; GravX has a negative charge).
I proved the validity of this definition by just running a simple, hypothetical experiment: If the GravX behaves like every other charged/energy particle then all I had to do was mimic its reaction to Matter using a similar, known energy particle that interacts with Matter by observable means. I chose the Photon, because while all Matter is not opaque to the Photon (glass, clear liquids, etc.) Matter can exist in a state opaque to light (metal, plastic, organic, etc.).
My hypothesis was this: if the Void was completely full of GravX particles, it should behave as the Photon does when encountering opaque Matter since the universe is completely full of Photons too.
I took two dark blue plastic balls [about 10” dia.], painted them with several coats of ultra-flat black paint and hung them in our test lab’s photography booth. (I say ‘booth’ but it was actually a purpose-built room with industrial lighting on all surfaces). The booth was lit from every surface (wall, ceiling and floor) but in case I found a dark area (using a very sensitive photoelectric meter) I increased the lighting as necessary such that all of the direct and reflective light measured the same in all but the corners. (I made sure the lit area was as close to a square cube as I could.)
I hung the flat-black spheres from the ceiling, at the exact same height, about 3 inches apart, in the dead center of the room from very, very thin clear monofilament lines on a pair of PLC-driven test lab-grade linear track drives. I mounted linear drives in the ceiling through a linear slit the translucent lighting panels. I hung the thinnest photoelectric cell [I could find on the open market] using micro-electrical wires right between the two spheres.
I then moved the spheres together at a several incremental rates of speed (starting at .1” per minute) until I had measured and recorded the luminary drop between them as they drew closer and retracted away from each other.
The results were as expected; the measured Lumens dropped at a ratio of r2 as I brought them together [until they touched the cell], and the opposite was true as I pulled them apart. Try this experiment at home, on your kitchen counter, with a couple of opaque hemispheres under a lot of light in a well-lit room. As you bring them together a shadow will form between them.
In summary, the next major construct to the UFoP is that the Void is a particle-based energy field, comprised of GravX particles that are not in the construct of stable Matter.
Since the GravX is negatively charged it may lie within the realm of Electromagnetic Forces (more on that later).
Therefore, if the Void is an unrestrained, measurable energy field, constructed of similarly charged energy particles, it must have pressure and density, and that we can measure this pressure and density.
Since I have defined the Void as a particle-based energy field, and that the interactions of these particles must mimic the behavior, and known properties, of any [or all] of all of the other known energy particles when interacting wit Matter, I was able to construct a simple mechanical model to describe the force of gravity using GR physics:
As two objects of Mass (Matter) approach each other [even to the point of contact] the density of the Mass in this Matter determines the density of GravX particles between them. Then, as the volume of the space between these objects of Mass decreases so does the density of the localized Void energy field between them by a ratio of r2. As the density decreases in a stable field of Void energy so does the localized pressure of Void energy.
In simple terms, the force of gravity is the resultant force measured from the pressure differential between the exterior surfaces of two objects of mass in close proximity, and it can be measured and recorded on any conventional scale (like pounds/in2 – PSI).
In summary, at this point of the thread the major constructs of this UFoP are:
- Matter and Energy can neither be created nor destroyed;
- There are only two states of existence in the universe, Matter and Energy;
- Of the four ‘accepted’ Fundamental Forces in the universe, only Electromagnetic force(s) are real in origin, observed (and observable) and quantifiable;
- Gravity is not a Fundamental Force;
- And the Void is an energy field comprised of charged particles.
In the next thread I’ll explain how this framework explains many observed physical phenomena, including Newton’s Principia; Newton’s Laws of Motion. (If you read this last post thoroughly, and if I didn’t leave anything out, you will readily surmise how it does.)