Gravity, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Expanding Universe
Homepage
. William Gilbert . Isaac Newton . Rene Descartes . Albert Einstein .......... Light
.......
General Image Theory 
That 'gravitational force' is produced by objects only
proportional to their inertia or mass, seems proven by Galileo's
on-Earth experiments, by Newton's proof that planet motions seem
consistent with that, and it being demonstrated with laboratory
masses by Cavendish in 1798 (see Vision Learning Gravity).
And that the 'gravitational force' decreases with the square of the
distance from a producing object seems proved by Newton's
gravitational planet motions and by the Cavendish experiments.
Of course there are claims that this does not hold accurately
always, mostly based on astronomical evidence of apparent amounts
of gravity and apparent amounts of matter in space seemingly having
both localised and universe-wide discrepancies. Some try to explain
such apparent gravity discrepancies by assuming the existence of
local Black Holes and universe-wide Dark Matter, but with maybe
little if any direct evidence. Modern physicists make major 'counter-intuitive'
or ridiculous claims about gravity, but the most interesting ideas regarding gravity were
in fact by William Gilbert and then better mathematized by Isaac Newton to an extent if not perfectly.
Gravity and its causation
Applied external forces generally, including 'pushes', seem to
accelerate bodies in inverse proportion to the mass of the body.
That bodies responses to gravity seem likewise inversely
proportional to their inertia or mass, is consistent with Newton -
and with Galileo demonstrating that all objects fall to the surface
of the earth with the same acceleration, independent of the density
or inertia or mass of the falling object. That applies to all kinds
of force, but to date gravity is the only natural force with good
evidence of also being produced in proportion to a source objects
mass (but generally bigger magnets also give stronger magnetism, and a larger number of electrons give stronger electric attraction).
Of course these facts are maybe not full proof that gravity is actually an
external force pulling bodies, only that gravity works like there
is an external attraction 'force'. Gravity is 'universal' or indiscriminate, in affecting all
material mass bodies, unlike eg magnetic force but like 'contact push force'.
Newton noted that as magnetic force was proven to originate from magnetic bodies so gravitational force must originate from gravitational massive bodies.
Cartesian physics had gravity originate in his 'ether' which Einstein seemingly developed into originating in his 'spacetime contimuum curvature' (but Einsteins's physics seems to try to 'have the cake and eat it'
by supposing that its spacetime continuum curvature originates with gravitational massive bodies though with no actual mechanism).
It seems that Einstein had no knowledge of the real Gilbert-Newton signal-response 'Attraction Physics' that had got lost in science history.
It is easy enough to build mobile robots that each emit signals
proportional to their mass and each accelerate themselves towards
another in proportion to the strength of received signals and in
inverse proportion to their own mass. Though such gravity-robots can be
built and could be very useful for gravity research, it seems that no physicist has actually
tried building them to date. Now anyone can download free a practical Ebook
manual "Build A Remote-Controlled Robot" by David Shircliff from Hotfile.com at
http://hotfile.com/dl/94090930/a5870ef/Build_A_Remote-Controlled_Robot.rar.html
Such 'gravity robots' would be dynamic gravity
model mimic equivalents of William Gilbert's dynamic magnetic
Terrella models of the magnetic Earth which he used for many of his interesting magnetism
experiments. Of course such 'gravity robots' could only mimic
gravity with response programs as Newton's laws or others, while Gilbert Terrella models involved actual magnetism.
Gravity would have to be a much stronger force than it is to have
useful 'Gravity Terrella' models - small black holes might do well
if they can be produced and controlled !
That gravity production and response can be mimicked by robots
emitting signals and responding to such signals, is of course no real evidence on whether gravity
is actually produced and actually works in such a manner or
not. But that can certainly be made to work and help explicate gravity and perhaps other physical forces while not needing
billions of funding, though a realistic equivalent push-physics gravity model maybe looks less attainable.
Isaac Newton produced the first good gravity theory, apparently based on William Gilbert's 'attraction physics',
and then Albert Einstein produced a spacetime continuum gravity theory related to Johannes Kepler's field-push physics.
But some have claimed that gravity has issues that may challenge both gravity theories.
Too much gravity.
Dark Matter ?
Gravity can work at different levels at the same time - as in
attracting an apple to the ground and in holding the Moon in orbit
around Earth. It can produce actual or potential accelerations of
various bodies, with varied possible effects at very large or
small distances.
But the motions of galaxies appear to some to require much more
gravity than the visible components of such galaxies should
produce. This has led some to conclude that there must exist some
Dark Matter producing extra gravity, perhaps based on uncharged
and maybe slow-moving neutrino-style particles (of small or big
mass) that interact little with normal matter and so will give little
evidence of their existing. Of course dark matter can go with
attraction theory physics which has no requirement that matter
emit light, and indeed has no general requirement for light - unlike
Einstein's relativity theory. But dark matter could also maybe go
with some other physics, and dark matter might also require some
as yet undiscovered dark forces ?
Instead of dark matter for 'missing gravity', Modified Newtonian Dynamics
or MOND gravity theory basically involves gravity response maintaining a
minimum value even when gravity signals drop - so giving more gravity than
expected as at galactic-plus distances. This is of course compatible with an
attraction physics signal-theory in which response to signals might be expected
to have some minimum level. For recent evidence supporting MOND gravity see
Galactic Gravity.
Of course some signal response systems can involve all-or-none digital-type
response, and/or signal-threshold response, response delay times or other
signal response effects. So identifying all applicable parameters
for a signal-response gravity covering all circumstances may not be easy and
may need much more accurate and complete data than is now available.
Black Holes ?
Some areas of the universe that appear to produce more
gravity than their visible components ought, are thought by some to
contain super-compressed matter as 'Black Holes', whose gravity is
claimed to be extremely strong and to be able to even prevent the
emission of light or other radiation from itself. Of course this
requires that light can respond to gravity as objects with mass do.
But in General Relativity gravity is basically only space curvature, so to confine
emitted light would seem to only need the spacetime continuum being
'closed down' locally - however in that case the gravity within a black
hole should also be confined and have no effect beyond it ?! A basic conflict with the
evidence if General Relativity was true, so black holes certainly
cannot be evidence for that theory. And black holes can go with
attraction theory physics which can allow of light being attracted by some force, with Newton giving possible explanations of the
reflection and refraction of light by local attraction acting on light.
Black holes could also maybe fit with some other theories.
Of course maybe for anything, including Einstein's spacetime continuum, to have variable curvature
it must be a pushy thing and a pushing thing - which Einstein insisted his spacetime continuum could not be in his physics ?
So his physics does not really give any actual explanation for gravity or how it works.
And to Einstein gravity was NOT unique as many physicists wrongly claim, as he spent many years trying to unify the theory of other forces with his theory of gravity !
Most physicists now really only know well some tiny bit of physics they themselves are working on.
A simpler possible explanation of both dark matter and black holes might be
that light emission and lower matter density is associated with
charged particles. Uncharged particles and gatherings of them may
be more common in the universe generally than apparent on earth. A
gathering of neutrons or neutrinos could be both darker or blacker and denser,without
involving any strange theory. Neutrons or neutrinos look more like simple
'Descartes-atoms', and indeed it may be that charged particles and
more light emitting matter based on them are actually the somewhat rarer
phenomenon.
Too little gravity.
Gravity acting as an attraction force, it perhaps should cause the
universe to be contracting. And there does seem to be evidence of
at least some gravity contraction in that most galaxies seem to have a
greater concentration of matter nearer their centres. However there is
claimed evidence for an expanding universe, basically resting only on
observation showing that light over longer than galactic distances appears
to lose more energy - though there could well be other more likely
explanations for such observation. The evidence for
the universe expanding, is largely apparent Hubble light redshifts being
greater for more distant galaxies. The Doppler relative-velocity Effect
(apparent change in frequency and wavelength of a wave for relative
movement between it or its source and an observer) may be applicable to
starlight. So physicists now commonly assume that the received amplitude
of starlight must be a linear measure of the distance of its source, and star
redshifts being related to starlight amplitudes is taken as being a measure of
universe expansion. But the Tired Light Theory of Fritz Zwicky posits that star
redshifts are a measure of the energy depletion of the amplitude of light from
travel over great distances and indicating a non-expanding or even contracting universe. And over
such large galactic distances very small reductions in the speed of light over
very small gravity gradients may give another possible mechanism as Hubble
favoured in his 'Tired Light' Theory?
Those claiming that the universe
is actually expanding, generally offer variations around two types
of explanation for such expansion ;
A. The universe began with an explosion and momentum maintains its
expansion at some fixed velocity.
B. There is a stronger repulsive force produced by 'Dark Energy' working against gravity
expanding the universe at some fixed acceleration. Apparent
Hubble light redshifts being greater for more distant galaxies, if due to
the Doppler relative-velocity Effect being applicable to light, seemingly
supports a B type expansion rather than an A type expansion.
However B needs a suitable repulsive force and some posit Dark
Energy for that, but there is little supporting evidence. Of course there
could seem to be other possibilities, one being a gravity expansion
involving gravity from outside the currently visible universe as from
an external shell of matter or from 'invisible dimensions'.
However universe expansion, and Dark Energy, is disputed by some astronomers though supported by many.
See No Dark Energy.
C. The universe began with an explosion and momentum maintains its
expansion at a fixed velocity but with centralised gravity
decelerating bodies nearer the centre more strongly than bodies
further from the centre. This should give Doppler red shifts that
are stronger towards the universe centre than towards the universe
edge radially, but with some blue shifting tangentially.
D. The universe is gravitationally contracting, with centralised
gravity accelerating bodies nearer the centre more strongly than
bodies further from the centre. This should give Doppler red shifts
radially towards and away from the universe centre but with some
blue shifting tangentially.
The explosion Big Bang explanation, A, alone should give no Doppler
redshifts - while B, C and D explanations should give differing
redshifts more radially than tangentially to different extents.
Einstein time-dilation gravitation-redshifting predicts some
redshifting from higher-gravity locations and blue-shifting from
lower-gravity locations. Many current astronomers support a general
space-expanding explanation, and some even a FitzGerald
matter-shrinking explanation, giving Doppler-equivalent redshifts.
What explanation, or combination of explanations, of apparent
universe-expansion is more likely depends on having exact numbers
for redshifts, distances, velocities and masses - and current
astronomy numbers are maybe not very exact, but if the universe is
expanding that does not itself seem to favour any of the general
physics theories particularly.
There is debate about the claimed rate of expansion of the universe, with some claiming that it is around 9% faster than some others are claiming.
There is also claimed to be evidence that redshift universe expansion
may be somewhat weaker - or dark matter repulsion be weaker, or
gravity be stronger, or whatever - at longer distance and at later
time. (see eg Afshordi, Geshnizjani and Khoury)
But a signal-response gravity physics might perhaps rather predict some closer-distance stronger-signal above-threshold attractive response proportional to signal strength, becoming at some greater-distance weaker-signal a below-threshold repulsive response still proportional to signal strength ?
The strong nuclear force might also more logically work that way, as involving some closer-distance stronger-signal above-threshold responses being repulsive proportional to signal strength, but some greater-distance weaker-signal below-threshold responses becoming attractive but still proportional to signal strength,
rather than the 'counter-intuitive' or ridiculous strong nuclear force of David Gross ?
Classical relative motion involves the Addition of Velocities Effect which basically says that for any two bodies moving towards each other, at velocities v1 and v2, their relative velocity vr is v1 + v2 with opposite motion being -vr.
The Doppler Effect simply applies this to periodic emission motions, such as are commonly found in waves in mediums. For waves, their frequency is their velocity times the inverse of their wavelength, or is their period per second, as F=v/L. Periodic particle beams, eg of particles emitted each 5 seconds as their period, can have equivalent measures including frequency, velocity and period length.
Hence a positive velocity of a signal detector relative to any periodic signal, adds to the relative signal velocity and so increases the signals apparent frequency and decreases its apparent wavelength or period length as F=(v1+v2)/L, and no accelerations or acceleration forces are required for such Addition of Velocity or Doppler effects. (an increased apparent frequency can be called a blue-shift and its opposite a red-shift).
Einstein claimed that light uniquely does not show classical relative velocity effects, but does show both acceleration effects and gravitation effects from his claimed Acceleration-Gravity Equivalence Principle. Light passing a massive body will be deflected towards the body as its speed is reduced more in regions of greater gravity or under greater acceleration - and it will hence also suffer some reduction in frequency (red-shift) ... predicted effect values are greater than classical motion effect values alone, but in itself that still allows that the classical effect may hold but with some extra factor also applying.
Spherical Gravity ?
Newton showed that the strength of gravitational attraction
seems to decrease in proportion to the square of the distance from
a source object, and one explanation of that might be something
emitted spherically from the source and diluting with distance with zero attenuation, as would the surface
area of expanding spheres around it. The
surface area of spheres is proportional to the square of their
radius.
Of course at present the only gravity detectors we have are other
gravity sources responding to gravity, which perhaps cannot
distinguish gravity being actually directed spherically from gravity being
directed to other gravity sources ? The fact that bodies like
galaxies and solar systems seem generally to be flat discs, rather
than being spherical, may cast some doubt on gravity being actually
spherical and require another explanation for Newton's inverse
square law ? Newton's inverse square law for gravity is of the form
G(d) = Go/(d.d), in line with unattenuating spherically diluting
signals, but may not precisely hold for all distance scales.
Non-spherical attenuating part-diluting signals should mean an equation form
G(Xd) = (Go/(π.((d.TanX).(d.TanX)))) - 10alog(d), which could
possibly match Newton's law over some range of equation values and
might have wider application also ?
And it would be very useful if we could produce gravity beams like light beams ?
At the atomic level, spherical non-discrete forces may seem to fit
more with field, wave or space continuum ideas while non-spherical
discrete forces may fit more with body-body digital signal ideas.
The fact that electrons seem confined to very specific atomic
orbits maybe better fits a non-spherical non-continuum force
holding them, and if one force is non-spherical and digital then
maybe all such forces are also.
Many scientists and mathematicians have considered the sphere to be
the most 'perfectly ordered' of shapes, but in nature the spherical is
often in fact the most disordered. If something basically has some
specific linear emission directionality, then lots of things having random
linear emission directionalities will average an approximately spherical
emission directionality. A spherical directionality can be effectively no
directionality or random directionality. The Sun seeming to emit both
light and gravity spherically does not prevent either such emission at
the atomic level from perhaps being directionally linear emissions. And
the claim that particles and medium-waves differ in the former
propagating linearly and the latter spherically may hold only at some
general approximation levels reflecting the extent to which mediums
traversed do or do not disorganise their transit.
Light emission by emitting objects might well appear spherical emission if nothing could shield light or redirect light,
so maybe gravity is spherical only because nothing commonly shields or redirects gravity ?
But if gravity basically involves straight-line body-to-body signals
then part of signal dilution with distance could be due to relative
body-body motion and might also include some movement anticipation
with apparent faster-than-light response as considered near the bottom of our main section on Einstein.
Of course if that holds between two elementary particles, a large
isolated body having vast numbers of such particles could be
expected to leak some gravity signals spherically and that leakage
might reasonably approximate to Newton's inverse square law with a
little extra attenuation. The gravity between two large bodies
would be leakage gravity plus some body-body gravity that might
about balance any extra attenuation. Distinguishing and quantifying
the various factors in such gravity would not be simple.
If bodies emit gravitons only in response to gravitons received,
and if the probability of a body emitting a graviton in response to
a graviton received is proportional to the mass of the body, then
two isolated bodies at relative rest should maintain some graviton
emission intensities directed at each other proportional to their
masses. And if there are also additional background random
gravitons of some intensity then, in response to that, the two
bodies should also maintain some additional spherical graviton emissions
with intensities proportional to their masses ?
The orbits of artificial Earth satellites seem to support Earth's gravity being spherical, and the directionality of Earth's gravity signal emission being independent of the directionality of its gravity signal reception from other bodies since it does not seem to be significantly stronger facing the Moon
or Sun ? Of course Earth's tides do not require big pulls from the Moon and Sun, with the Moon pull on Earth being only about 1 × 10−7 g. Where gravities are strong is interesting but where gravities are very weak may be very interesting but difficult to detect and measure.
Of course gravitational bodies can move, have tides, collide, contract, expand or explode and show other change producing gravity perturbations or waves that may be very hard to detect if distant. And different gravity theories may also predict differences in gravity that may be very hard to detect.
A somewhat improved version of Descartes old particle-push gravity theory was
propounded first by Nicolas Fatio in 1690 and then maybe independently by Georges-Louis Le Sage
in 1748 and can be termed the particle push Shadow-Gravity theory.
Supposedly proven and in line with general Cartesian physics, it claimed that bodies shielding each other to an extent from 'universal gravity particles' would be attracted to each other in accordance with Newton's laws of gravitation.
It requires space everywhere having lots of some randomly moving fast
particles (or maybe waves) of unknown origin, but it has been
claimed that they would create excessive drag and heat that is not
observed and involves other problems.
Most physicists rejected this theory with Newton rejecting the Fatio version and Maxwell the Le Sage version.
Of some small interest is the fact that Le Sage's father in the 1720's to 1740's seems to have supported Gilbert-Newton attraction physics against Fatio-Le Sage Cartesian gravity physics, publishing in 1743 "Truth is not always probable. In physics, the principle of impulse is most probable; but that of attraction is established fact." He was aware of the Cartesian physics preference for impulse (contact forces) as the means of conveying every causal effect, and the apparent difficulty of explaining gravity that way.
Newton raised the drag issue for gravity mechanisms that involve
push - and the issue holds for any particle, quantum, field, ether,
or continuum mechanism that works by push - since push should
produce drag and/or heat and there is strong evidence that space
produces very little drag or heat for planets or other
bodies.
Of course some kind of push gravity may still be possible with the
right mechanism, which might need most of the push to somehow
convert to eg spin energy instead of drag or heat ? Maybe even some
field-push or continuum-push theory not yet fully specified ? Of
course that would seem to need a response mechanism of some kind
and so might still favour an attraction gravity or signal-response gravity
that seems more able to avoid the problem perhaps ?
2010 in England sees an interesting publicised addition by the Royal Society
for the first time to the internet of one physics related manuscript relating to
gravity and Isaac Newton, but maybe adding to long-running lies rather than
to the truth ? A 'friend' of Newton in his 1752 'Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton's
Life', regarding an around-1666 event, seems to translate Newton's idea of
gravitational attraction as referring to 'a drawing power' - which might be a pull ?
In William Stukeley's words, "as when formerly the notion of gravitation came
into his mind. Why does that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground
... assuredly the reason is that the Earth draws it. There must be a drawing power
in matter. If matter thus draws matter ; it must be in proportion of its quantity.
Therefore the apple draws the Earth, as well as the Earth draws the apple." -
from the Royal Society manuscript at http://royalsociety.org/library/turning-the-pages/
This maybe does not help clarify whether Newton actually first thought of gravitation as being an attraction or as being a pull or in line with his later
published position as being possibly either. Newton's own words include no gravitation 'drawing', only "attraction(signal response) OR impulse(push-pull)". Rather perhaps Stukeley exemplifies how
Newton's actual gravitation theory ideas were misrepresented while his physics mathematics were misappropriated for a Descartes mechanical physics when they
perhaps better fitted a William Gilbert effluvia-signal-processing attraction information physics.
Strong sources of magnetic force can be moved and otherwise controlled by a scientist, unlike strong sources of gravitational force. And everything responds similarly to gravity, but only some things respond to magnetism and some magnetic effects are said to work at greater distance than others, and some to work slower.
If magnetic signals go to the same distance and are the same speed but responses and response times differ then that would seem to prove that a signal-response effect is indeed involved and William Gilbert concluded that he had proven that for magnetic force. But the nature of gravitational force does not allow such direct experimental proof for how gravity works
excepting that the mathematics for gravity are basically consistant with that for magnetism so that it must also be a similar signal-response force. Both Gilbert and Newton seem to have believed this though Newton did not fully commit to it publicly. Gravity may be big but magnetism is maybe really key to physics.
For an overview of 'Gilbert-Newton' gravity see
The Attraction Theory of gravity and other forces or Attraction Physics
(en Français -
La théorie d'Attraction de gravité et d'autres
forces),
(auf Deutsch -
Die Attraktivität Theorie von schwerkraft und andere
kräfte).
Two significant general gravity issues
Two possibly significant general issues have been raised
relating to gravity, and they may well be inter-related issues
;
1. Does a mass with more energy generate a greater gravitational
attraction than the same mass with less energy, ie does energy like
mass also generate gravity.
2. Does a gravitationally accelerating body actually show any net
gain or net loss of mass and/or energy from its gravitational
acceleration ?
While there is evidence that any such effects must be small, in
line with gravity being a weak force, there seems to be no further
real experimental evidence to date on such effects ?
Newton certainly proved that gravitational attraction seems to normally
transmit at some very fast speed, and seems to normally work in straight
lines - to at least some good approximation for most common circumstances.
There remain issues about the exactness and the universality of both these
aspects of gravity, with some claims for a gravity speed-of-light fixed
velocity and for gravity bending like light if not having some other light-like
properties. To date there seems to be no evidence that gravity or magnetism reflects or
refracts like light does. Gravity affecting many objects to some extent that may be very weak,
it may never be possible to prove that something is entirely unaffected by
gravity or is entirely 'massless'.
James Clerk Maxwell's 1867 'demon thought experiment' linked thermodynamics and information which
maybe really needs William Gilbert's action-at-distance signal-response physics to explain it though
most physicists have strangely settled for simple push-physics or non-physics information 'explanations' ?
2010 sees a 'holographic information physics' being 'logically' developed from string
physics by Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde and others. Variations in entropy (or temperature-like)
directional information gradients with matter location exist, and they somehow give
directional pressures or forces acting as gravity. This physics seems to require that statistical
entropy information has some actual existence and is more fundamental than matter, energy,
space or time - which may be impossible to actually prove. And some supporters of M-theory
basically posit that the universe is an information hologram.
But since the Verlinde physics 'forces' seem to lack a mechanical push mechanism, such types
of information physics seem to require matter to be able to detect, and be able to itself respond
to, directional information. But gravity would then require matter to respond not to single
information bits but to statistical gradients of many information bits, yet this Verlinde 'information
physics' includes no information processing mechanism. And while an information processing physics
may be possible, a more discrete information processing physics (with statistical entropy information
a maybe less used derivative) may look more likely and may more readily fit an attraction physics.
And of course Verlinde physics maybe lacks rigorous definitions of information, energy, mass and
other key elements in the theory, such that it is hard to determine if the theory is logically consistent.
It seems a weak attempt at applying an ill-defined physics jargon to what looks a possibly good mathematics.
(see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf and http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.5445v2)
Massless Mini-gravity ?
Massive bodies that respond to gravity generally also themselves produce gravity, both being in proportion to their mass. Might there also be some massless bodies or energies that respond to gravity but themselves produce no gravity ? And might that include light ? Or might there also be some massless bodies or energies that do not respond to gravity but themselves do produce gravity ? And might that be 'Dark Matter' ? The universe does not show many significant concentrations of energy that are not associated with any mass. And gravity being as weak a force as it clearly is makes any mini-gravity effects like these practically undetectable with current technology for now at least.
Unusual Gravity claims
Gravity has been claimed to also have weaker effects producing
motion in a direction other than attraction's normal directionality. Hence gravity
has been claimed to have a 'Geodetic' or 'de Sitter' effect such that the gravity of
a fixed body will produce precession in a body orbiting it. Gravity has also been
claimed to have a 'gravitomagnetic' or 'Lense-Thirring' effect such that the gravity
of a rotating body will produce rotation in a fixed body near it. These claimed gravity
effects may seem doubtful, since comparable proved properties of magnetism affect
chiefly body alignment and not body precession or body rotation. Magnetic bodies suspended
over our magnetic Earth do not seem to show regular rotation or to show precession,
and only show a small 'rotation' to reaching some fixed alignment position ? Of course
gravity could maybe show some different effects, but the evidence is maybe not strong.
The Strong Force that applies to some sub-atomic particle has been claimed to actually be gravity,
though stronger by a factor of around 1038
over a very short distance range only. It has been claimed that then Einstein's General Relativity
equation k = Gs.(8π/c4) where Gs is
the 'strong gravity' value of the G of normal gravity, can predict the masses of strong-force Hadron
composite sub-atomic particles - but not of non-strong-force Lepton elementary particles.
For these claims of gravity taking two forms, no explanation seems to have been posited yet , but if gravity
is a response to signals then there being two types of responses might well be more readily explainable
[ see http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0701/0701006.pdf ].
Attempts to explain gravity as a small difference between electric charge repulsion forces
and simple electric charge attraction forces, face the problem of similar charges seeming to distribute
similarly (eg negative charge particles orbiting outside positive charge particles) with such
attraction being between dissimilar charges. Hence negative charges being on average 1%
closer to other negative charges and positive charges being on average 1% further from other
positive charges, leaving opposite charges on average the same distance apart, need not
affect net attractions (or net repulsions). The same holds for any regular dipole distribution for
simple electric charge forces. Experiment does not seem to support any universal electric charge
distribution in matter that could give a universal gravity effect that way, without the addition of
perhaps debatable secondary field effect assumptions.
Of course both Newton and Einstein did much on gravity, though gravity is basically the simplest of forces in being just attraction.
They both made no real attempt to explain the much trickier force of magnetism as shown by William Gilbert's published experiments.
Indeed although some more modern physics theories do appear to explain some part of magnetism, chiefly its attraction and repulsion effects,
none explain all of the various magnetism effects as well as Gilbert's own action-at-distance physics theory. Physicists today of all theory inclinations
could really do with a close study of Gilbert's 1600 'De Magnete' especially perhaps in its most recent translation.
Attempts to replace Einstein's gravity theory with a quantum gravity theory that works have been various and all unsuccessful to date. Maybe a better quantum gravity theory would be a quantised signal theory gravity,
more in line with a William Gilbert style action-at-distance physics ? Clearly if gravity is one push thing, then evidence for it being quantized is simply evidence for gravity being quantized.
But if gravity is a dual thing involving both signals and responses then an apparent quantization of gravity could be just the quantization of responses to gravity, whose signals themselves might still be non-quantal ? Or the two could actually be differently quantal ?
Distant stars all around Earth show an about even distribution of redshifts claimed to be due to universe expansion, though that would seem to require that Earth is located at the center of the universe which seems highly improbable.
There is increasing evidence for redshift 'quantization' that suggests redshifts may not be due to the universe expanding (and incidentally that there may not be 'missing mass' dark matter).
There is also some evidence that redshifts may be slowly reducing with time, possibly due to the speed of light slowly decreasing quantally with time
(maybe due to gravity or other energy fields slowly increasing quantally with time ?). Perhaps little is yet really known about distant space or really about gravity.
A signal-response physics might perhaps more easily explain both Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Hence
1. at edge-of-galaxy distances gravity weakness, responses to gravity may somewhat strengthen with distance mimicking Dark Matter, and
2. at further-from-galaxies distances further gravity weakness, signal strength may weaken with more distance mimicking Dark Energy.
And similar effects might possibly be predicted also for other forces besides gravity. But there has perhaps been relatively little real basic experimenting on gravity, with major physics funding since the 1940s going to atom-smashing experiments.
With the existential problem of global warming looking to be beyond the abilities of current technology, we could maybe really need a big new breakthrough in basic science to deal with it. Encouraging more appropriate experiment funding might usefully help.
So basically Newton's gravity theory was very good for most gravity, but was a little out for extremely low gravity strengths and for extremely high gravity strenghts as might be better explained by an Information Physics.
And basically Einstein's gravity theory was a bit better at extreme gravity strengths but still not right, and it also has major theory contradictions that should be unacceptable in science.
It seems that the best gravity theory should be based on Newton's theory modified maybe more in line with a digital signal-response physics. Recent MOND gravity theory makes some attempt at this though maybe not really good enough.
A 'Grand old Duke of York' experiment
There is an interesting old English nursery rhyme about Richard Duke of York
and the War of the Roses 1640 Battle of Wakefield ;
The Grand old Duke of York.
The Grand old Duke of York he had ten thousand men
He marched them up to the top of the hill
And he marched them down again.
When they were up, they were up
And when they were down, they were down
And when they were only halfway up
They were neither up nor down.
Obviously the Duke did not physically push his men up the hill or down.
And clearly this type of men-march-to-signals repeated action would leave the men exhausted, but could there be a physical forces equivalent ?
Are bodies actually being worked on by external forces or are bodies themselves working in response to mere signals ?
It should be possible to do a decisive physical 'Grand old Duke of York' experiment as using a Galileo inclined-plane
with a steady gravity pulling a steel ball downhill and a steady electromagnet switching on periodically
pulling the steel ball uphill again repeatedly. If all the work is being done by the gravity and electromagnetism
then the ball will never tire, but if all the work is actually being done by the ball itself then the ball should show
a reducing responsiveness over time in losing some energy and/or losing some mass ? The effect may be very small and some friction might need to be
accounted for and gravity and magnetism might work somewhat differently and might fade differently but the calculations should be interesting and test two forces but could be modified to test just one.
This experiment may be better done perhaps on bunches of electrons using an automatic attract - drop - attract - drop or maybe as some horizontal tug-of war.
Do you know of any physicist trying to do a decisive physical 'Grand old Duke of York' experiment ? Or the calculations for such ?
(If so please email Vincent Wilmot or X/Tweet @vwilmot)
And if objects responsiveness to gravity signals tends to slowly decrease with time that could cause universe expansion with time ?
But if objects production of gravity signals is itself a response to gravity signals then that could also slowly fall with time ?
Modern astronomical data does seem to throw some real doubt on the gravity maths of both Newton and of Einstein.
Many physicists today seem to support some form of modified Newtonn gravity theory or modified Einstein gravity theory, but both dealing with basic gravity equations and not really including any actual explanation of how gravity may actually work ?
Gravity and solar system instability
Newton showed that the orbits of planets and moons in our solar
system under the Sun's gravitational attraction should have
substantial stability. But he did not specifically consider the issue of the
Sun's stability under the varying gravitational attractions of
these orbiting bodies, which involves a number of factors ;
1. The total gravitational attraction exerted on the Sun.
2. The mean directionality of gravitational attraction exerted on
the Sun being equatorial due to orbit planes.
3. The point gravitational attraction exerted on the Sun due to
planets being discrete.
4. The time variance of point gravitational attraction exerted on
the Sun due to planet orbit velocities giving varying degrees of
planet conjugations.
These gravitation factors must be the chief causes of the observed
instability of the Sun as shown by solar activity and its
significant variation over time. This solar instability would be
reduced if some of the planets orbited the Sun in a plane at 90
degrees to their present orbit planes, though somewhat strangely that seems rarely the case in natural solar systems.
For more on this, and to try our solar-system gravity software Sun Pull, see our
section on Solar
System Problems.
You are welcome to link to any page on this site, eg www.new-science-theory.com/gravity.php
OR if you like this site you could maybe make a donation ; It will help with site development, and just possibly with some key basic physics experiments long planned but never afforded.
[PS. and you may perhaps help make history for science ?]
(The fictional time-travel and multi-universe type ideas of modern physics theory have long totally discouraged certain lines of physics experiment despite there being strong reasons to believe them to be very promising if not essential lines of experiment. Some such lines of experiment considered here identified as early as the 1960s seem still to have had no work done on them and there is maybe not much more time here for this. Science funding both government and private unfortunately now all goes to basically safe standard mainstream science, and no money at all goes to any really innovative risky science though that might pay a thousand times greater.)
otherwise, if you have any view or suggestion on the content of
this site, please contact :- New Science
Theory
Vincent Wilmot 166 Freeman Street Grimsby Lincolnshire DN32
7AT.
© new-science-theory.com, 2024 - taking
care with your privacy, see New Science Theory HOME.