how gravity works, new idea

This is my own idea of how gravity works. It's nearly five years old. I wrote it while smoking so I guess I'm seeing how it does on grass forum.
One can see in the drawing that the 3D image of gravity looks similar to the 2D experiment with a weight on a sheet of fabric or elastic. That experiment is 2D because it only works because of the gravity below the sheet.

 

Am I correct in assuming there is a field in spacetime that is outside the gravitational attraction of the quark? I always assumed every particle that has gravity attracts every other particle in the universe that has gravity, no matter how trivial.

 

Yes the field outside the gravitational attraction of the quark is empty space in the drawing that is only very weakly affected by either gravity field in the drawing. When the two strong fields of gravity touch, the denser parts of the field squeeze on the less dense parts of the other field, pulling the objects together.

Thanks for the open minded reply. There isn't a lot of open mindedness on the internet. I find that creative people do it the best, where close minded people claim to have all the answers and are sarcastic and rude.

 

You can call me sarcastic and rude but please don't call me close minded. The source of gravity is SPACE, I've been saying it for years.

Fluctuations in space create time matter and energy. It's often called space-time but might as well be called space-energy or space-time-energy...

Space is constantly expanding, an expanding field is naturally REPULSIVE. Space repels matter, pushes matter together. Gravity is a product of space.

This video almost has it right, but remember where time comes from.

 

The thing is I wonder if time is even a thing, at least on the same level as space or matter-energy. In other words, is time more a matter (no pun intended) of rational perception than space is? My instincts suggest time is more phenomenon.
I guess the ultimate question is how is time fundamentally different from these other things? Or is it?

 

Just watched the wonderful video, & time seems more tangible, for lack of a better word, to me now. This could explain the counterintuitive craziness of light. But is there something fundamental about time that limits the speed of light? And does this limit apply universally to all subatomic particles? Are these questions even valid? (I do realize that physical things can move faster than the speed of light through spacetime by manipulating space in a certain way.)

 

Time = movement = energy. It is all the same thing. there is no movement without time, there is no time without movement. It is all energy. The limits of light speed is a property of space-time, probably universal, but warps with space and gravity. Also special relativity effects observers perception of time. It is possible that our measurements of lightspeed are off because of our own high rate of speed through the universe and being trapped in our solar system.

 

I believe gravity is an effect on space, as far as the universe is expanding, to me that means that space itself is losing density, which is what happened after the Big Bang, but I don't think its still happening where space is expanding and becoming 'thinner'.

 

Concerning time dilation, the density of space in a gravity field could be stretched out so that say 10m of a gravity field would stretch out to 12m of empty space without a gravity field. The time dilation experienced by a person sitting still in a gravity field would have an equal effect on a person moving at a certain speed through empty space. When you put pressure in the form of density from a gravity field or moving through space on the individual atoms that make an object, the EMR wave (or electron but I don't believe the energy in an electron shell is a particle) that occupies the electron shell becomes slower as a wave until at maximum density it's at a standstill and emits no light. The light that particles emit is what causes time dilation.

 

Motion is relative. So, for something to move, doesn't it have to do so relative to some object of reference? It seems to me moving in space itself is an absurdity, in the intellectual sense. Maybe I'm misunderstanding motion.
And if I infer correctly, the gravity of something like a black hole would be necessary to "stop" an electron shell. What would the speed (however we define it) of an atom have to be in order to make it collapse? Is the magnitude of the speed required theoretically possible? Does amount of mass effect the necessary speed?

 

I don't think space obeys man's observed "laws" of thermodynamics. I think space-time-energy generates space-time-energy. It doesn't make sense that anything exists at all but it does, stuff comes from something. That something is either space or an omnipotent omnipresent demon.

 

Relativity is a stumper. It basically seeks to explain gravity without using space as a medium. Apart from the two clocks parradox, my own example involves a tree. If the earth is a truck pulling on a rope that is its gravity field attached to a tree which is the edge of the universe, without an edge to the universe, what does the rope pull on? How can it pull on infinitti? What does that look like? And what would prevent all matter form clumping together in the center of the galaxy?

 

What prevents all matter in the universe from clumping together? I've heard the answer is dark matter, or perhaps I should say dark matter-energy. We've been told the universe's expansion increases in speed as time goes by, from the beginning of the supposed big bang. But does dark matter work under the same "rules" as gravity? Is it a similar warp of space-time, or is it something completely different? And if it is similar, why does it repel (or seem to repel) while gravity attracts?
The only thing I can say about infinite space is perhaps there is an "end" but not in the linear way most humans think about it. Maybe it's cyclical using a bizarre network of wormholes. Or maybe there are more than 3 spatial dimensions within which the universe exists. (This seems to be the case subatomically, where I think one string theory hypothesizes up to 21). A high enough number of spatial dimensions may explain things elegantly. Unfortunately I imagine only about 0.5% people in the world have a working understanding of four dimensional space, and maybe about 20 people total understand five spatial dimensions. Maybe one person has lived who was comfortable with six. And even if computers can juggle these spatial dimensions around, do computations, etc., the vast majority of humans will never comprehend it!
And then, are there multiple temporal dimensions? Maybe that explains time differentials on different points in objects under force of gravity. Hmm, if time is more complex than we conceptualize it, or perceive it, maybe there's something to motion without reference to anything outside of itself. Or maybe a physical point of reference becomes that much more important. I can't think that high to determine which one.

 

I kind of like the explanation matter is just a manipulation of space. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but it is one way to look at it. But one can just as easily say physical objects manipulate space. It's a chicken and egg question, but ultimately I think both are equally interchangeable ways of looking at the question.
But I feel we should also look from the other direction too, to try to explain why "stuff" exists. Subatomic particles are weird as shit, and combine to form matter-energy. But why does a multidimensional string wound one way become a lepton and another a muon? Do they all exist in the same time? Can they exist in the same space (or is this getting into the area of multiverses)? Is what we perceive with our senses really an average of sorts, of different space and time of different particles?

 

Yeah there are many attempts to explain theories like multi dimensions and dark matter. I've been reading about those things for thirty years and still don't really understand them. From what I've read the most intelligent answer is that we don't have answers. Have you ever heard of Michelson and Morley? There famous experiment to detect for space as a medium returned results that said space is not the medium for light. From this we've gotten a landslide of theories most notably relativity. But as you can read in my other post Is space the medium for light waves? new experiment I believe that space is the medium for light and that the video from the femto camera proves that. This would be a huge turnaround in the scientific world if it held true.

As far as time being a dimension, I think it is no more a dimension then sound or smell. Trying to locate an objects x,y,z coordinates by the light it emits or 'time' does not give the correct coordinate of its position, example stars that are very far away aren't in the position that we see them.

 

There is a li

Or at least every particle within about a 52850 light year radius...

 

You can ponder all this until you end up on the funny farm, but at the end of the day, I think that it all boils down to our strange brains not being able to comprehend infinity.

 

Very true, at least if we use a linear frame of reference. One way I find somewhat helpful is to consider convergent series to use infinity to define a finite number. ∑ [from n=1 to infinity] 1/(2^n) makes sense to reduce to 2. Yet I still don't instinctively understand why ∑ [from n=1 to infinity] 1/n is divergent.

 

But that is cheating.
We all tend to consider things like the quantity of water on the planet as infinite, but it can be measured, plus or minus a few billion tons. Not to forget the water that has separated into hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen has hooked up with another element for a few weeks.

 

Not to try to turn this conversation away from the original topic, but what I meant more was trying to break down infinity to terms that are more tangible for human minds to understand. It still involves doing this computation literally forever, which is still out of our reach to grasp in concrete terms, but we know the answer to this theoretical infinity is two.
And yes, we tend to think of arbitrarily huge numbers as infinite. Considering 3/4 of the world's surface is water, it seems like an overwhelming amount, immeasurable by current practical means. But overwhelming and immeasurable are not infinite.