Gravity, Magnetism and the Bending of Space-time

I've tried to explain my thoughts on this before, in the wrong forum so I'll try again here. Please entertain the following thoughts on space energy and matter...

They say that Gravity bends space. I'll just say space for simplicity, but really it's considered space-time.They make it sound like it's another force outside of space but I think the phenomena we observe as Gravity IS space itself. Similarly magnetism IS the bending or displacement of space itself. Magnetism occurs in objects as the slight polarization of gravity. Magnetism in the flow of energy occurs as a perpendicular field.

Energy is the propagation of balance, energy propagates as a ripple of displacement through space. If you took a cross section snapshot of energy, imagine if you could see it, you would see a slice of displaced SPACE with an upward shift on one side and downward shift on the other like a sine wave. If it's hard to imagine think of a wave propagating in water with peaks and valleys. Space IS a medium for energy to travel therefore it must 'bend' like water to facilitate propagation. The peaks and valleys are what we observe as magnetism, space bends to allow the propagation of energy.

Gravity, magnetism, energy and space are all intimately tied together... they are all states of SPACE. Essentially what we call nothing 'space' is the medium for everything. Matter itself exists as a complex displacement of space. According to Einstein's equation, matter is product of time and energy. Matter is composed of time and energy but mostly space. Complex interactions within multiple waves of energy across 3rd and 4th dimensions of space-time create atoms of matter. These are collections of energy where propagation is no longer linear but orbital. We have created working analogies and models of atoms and invented particles like protons neutrons and electrons to explain functions, properties and atomic densities. I highly doubt real atomic energy structures look anything like our current models of understanding.

Essentially atoms are collections of various amounts of orbital energy spinning at light-speed in extremely tiny area. Depending on the amount of energy, internal orbit numbers, frequency, etc... there is a perceived atomic weight or gravity. If energy is the displacement of space like waves in water then atoms are still displacing space in their circular orbits. Picture a whirlpool vortex in water, the circular energy is pushing the water away from the center creating a pit in the water. Gravity is often depicted as a pit or depression in a 2 dimensional plane of space, just like a whirlpool vortex. Only inside an atom is not one vortex axis but a virtual infinite amount creating a 3 dimensional sphere whirlpool and it's not water being pushed to the edge but SPACE ITSELF. The number and density of energy orbits within an atom determine how powerful it pushes or repulses space from it's center, what we call atomic weight.

If atoms are pushing away or repulsing space, they will have a natural tendency to attract other atoms and combine their repulsion of space. The more atoms that collect, the higher the collective repulsion of space and therefore the higher their attraction. This is the force of gravity, atomic attraction of atoms by repulsion of space. There seems to be a natural tendency for a small amount of atomic orbits to align or polarize creating magnetic polarity, across planets, solar system orbits and even entire galaxies. I believe this is why many are disc shaped.

 

I enjoyed reading your thoughts, I think that is a great way to visualize the forces of the universe! I would just substitute some of the terms you use. For example, the last paragraph is a bit off. Atoms are attracted to each other because of electromagnetism, not gravity. Gravity is much weaker, and only becomes significant on the macro scale.

There are four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong, and weak. Strong and weak are only present on a very tiny scale. Strong is responsible for holding together the particles that make up the atomic nucleus (protons, neutrons, quarks). Weak has to do with interactions involving other subatomic particles. Although the weak force is weaker than the strong force (hence the name), it is still much stronger than gravity, which is by far the weakest of the forces.

Scientists have been able to demonstrate that electromagnetism, strong, and weak are all interrelated and are basically different manifestations of the same force. However, no one has yet been able to show how gravity fits in.

 

.

 

I didn't say gravity was stronger than magnetism. I did say that I think magnetism in objects is essentially polarized gravity, well sort of anyway. That is to say more energy orbits or 'electron' orbits are aligned to magnify the displacement of space in certain directions, which is what we observe as magnetism. So yes, magnetism is much stronger. If I have an object that I observe to have a magnetic north and south pole, then I know that more atomic energy is orbiting inside that object in an east to west directional orbit because magnetism is perpendicular to the flow of energy.

The key points I'm trying to get across is that I think magnetism is the displacement of space perpendicular to the direction of energy. Energy in atoms is orbital and displace space outward in a spherical shape. Atoms tend to attract in their repulsion of space which is observed as gravity. If energy IS the propagational displacement of space, not cause of but IS in fact the displacement of space itself, then orbital energy in atoms must displace space outward.

There are lots of highly complex interaction with atoms that I don't want to get into, electron charges, transfers and valence shells... I'm trying to provide very simple two dimensional explanations to this when it really exists in extremely complex four dimensional interactions. To say electromagnetism is why atom are attracted is derailing to my particular theory. It's almost like arguing 'does magnetism exist because of energy OR does energy exist because of magnetism?'. I'm saying when energy flows either in a linear direction or orbital direction, it does so by displacing space. Magnetism IS this directional displacement of space while energy is the flow or movement of this displacement through space. What came first, displacement or propagation of displacement? I'd say displacement so yeah, in a way you could say 'magnetism' did create energy. See, we're on the path to convolution but it's really all the same thing and in terms of ENERGY it is the PROPAGATION that means everything. Gravity exists with or without 'electromagnetism' or any particular magnetic alignments even if certain strong magnetic fields can seemingly cancel out or increase gravity. That might be considered one type of attraction, but nothing really to do with my particular theory on gravity that I'm trying to convey. It is the PROPAGATION of ENERGY orbiting inside the atom that MAKES the atom what it is and therefore the magnetism must be considered a secondary effect of that energy flow.

I have no education in science beyond high school. My background is in electrical, electronics and IT. I find most scientific literature excessively convoluted and contrived. I just don't know if my idea for explaining gravity has been written or thought of like this before, I've never heard it explained like this or so simplified for that matter. Maybe I'm completely off course but it all seems quite logical, in my head anyway.

 

Try reading a short course on Special Relativity and also on the reformulation of Maxwell's EM equations in Special Relativity. Some of the mathematics will likely go over your head, but as long as you grasp the main ideas, it might help you understand it better.

Unfortunately, General Relativity is a whole different beast. Einsteins' 9 (or near that) equations are almost impossible to decipher without at least a Bachelor's degree in Mathematics or Mathematical Physics. That is unfortunate since it is very profound, elegant, and simple. I learned the mathematics needed to understand the Theory as a Junior in undergraduate school for Mathematics in a course called Differential Geometry. There, you are introduced to tensor notation and things like the Christoffel Symbols. I am going into my second year as a graduate student in Mathematics and just recently felt as though I really "understood" the subject.

So, tackle Special Relativity first, then read up on your mathematics, and tackle the general theory.

 

i agree that space is gravity and if magnetism is the bending and not gravity as the warping around matter..is that right.
but space is gravity...i think time is simply the relationship between space and light...
and further that "time" is the 10th dimension in s.t. and all the rest are groups of threes.
m-theory has an 11th dimension which in my understanding of hinduism is the 4th state of consciousness. turiya.

 

Etkearne, I think you've just blown my mind. I think relaxxx is an intelligent person too though. I also think that the atomic bonds in any molecule have some thing to do with polarity/valence. Electron flow which is the basis of electricity and is also the fingerprint of the electron shell singnature of each element. If we understood the mysteries of Unified theory we would understant the correlation between ;gravity ,magnatism & electricity.If we understood it all it would'nt be a theory wich says we realy don't have many answers .

 

I am just saying that people need to view and talk about these topics with great humility, as there are probably only a few thousand people on the world who really understand these concepts. We can understand it better than others, but no one really understands ALL of it.

 

I've got no problem with spacial relativity, that all seems solid. It's the Quantum theories I don't really agree with. Well, string theory seems just ridiculous, loop theory - I kind of forgot what that's about and the particles... I have a problem believing in all these particles, they make it sound like there's completely different, independent substances than space. So the universe started with space, and energy, and mass, and dark matter... and 6 different types of quarks... and whatever other particles we need to dream up to validate our experiments!? It seems too contrived for me. Doesn't it seem more likely that the universe started with Space and energy? Energy being displacement of Space and the propagation of displacement. I believe what we observe to be particles are just complex patterns of spacial displacement, orbital waves of energy. Some combinations or patterns of spacial displacements act like different particles.

If matter was a separate substance from space why would it even bend or warp space? Matter must be a displacement of space, it gives and takes from the density of adjacent space and that is why space is warped around it. Of course the largest displacement of space would be a black hole and I just realized the center of a black hole can not be a singularity, it must be a very dense collection of energy orbits or my theory of gravity fails. Even a black hole can not be a complete void of space because mass energy is an orbital propagation of displacement through space. Space is the key word, you could not have a wave propagating through water if there was no water at all. Space is the substance of everything. 'Space' is the only real substance in the universe!

 

Relaxxx- I think you have been reading too many of the popular 'theoretical physics' books. They have gotten you completed confused (and for good reason- most are poorly written) and backwards about the basics.

Quantum Theory was developed back in the 1920s. It has nothing in it about strings or loops. Its main claims are
1) Radiation (waves) and particles are one in the same.
2) Every perceived object/energy is likely to actually exist where you THINK it does, BUT, in reality, there is a 'wavefunction' of the object/energy which extends out infinitely, where the object might actually exist. That means that everything in the universe is intrinsically interconnected to some degree (even if it is a small degree).
3) Related to (2), the more certain you are about measuring an object's speed, the less likely you are able to truthfully label a position for it (since it extends out infinitely to some degree by its wavefunction).

All three are inter-related but were put forth by different people.

Particle physics that demands thousands of 'spooky' particles freely admits that most of it is due to our lack of true understanding of the nature of spacetime. But, for the time being, these 'phony' particles fill in the math sufficiently, and allow us to work on other areas of physics. Eventually, they will be replaced or re-organized. Most real physicists take that stance.

And you are completely correct about spacetime itself being the generator of mass and energy. All three are essentially the same thing. A severe change in the curvature of the spacetime manifold (M-4: The Minkowski Spacetime in 4 dimensions), will indicate there exists mass at that region (or energy, as the two are inter-related). It is just a matter of semantics to say which of the two is the "Real" one: The spacetime Manifold OR the particles with mass independent of a spacetime manifold background.

I am a mathematician, so I find the idea of the "illusions" of matter and energy to be really due to changes in the topological properties of the spacetime manifold more likely than the background-independent view. But, a lot of particle physicists would disagree.

 

what if the electical circuits in our computers were connected somehow to the magnetic poles of our neurons?...

 

Didn't our current models of understanding come around through observing atomic structures through electron microscopes?

As for your thoughts, please prove them. And if you can't, please give a viable reason (with examples) for the truth behind these thoughts. With no proof or backing, these views are completely squashed by more "conventional" atomic/quantum theory. Not that I'm an expert but I fail to see how your thoughts have basis in reality.

 

No. It's possible to distinguish individual atoms with electron microscopes, like in this image:



But no one has ever "seen" anything smaller than an atom. Models of atomic structure are based on experiments involving particle accelerators and detectors. I'm not entirely sure how the detectors work, but the only thing anyone actually "sees" is data from a computer. The accepted structural models of atoms (the Bohr model, etc.) are simply ways to organize the results inferred from this data into diagrams that can be understood visually.

It is fundamentally impossible to actually see subatomic structure. This is because in order to see anything at all, a beam of photons (light particles) has to bounce off the object and return the data to your eyes (or the microscope). As you might imagine, if the object you're looking at is of comparable size to the photons, you run into a pretty serious problem. For an analogy, suppose you wanted to take a photograph of this delicately balanced stack of tennis balls:



but, the only way the camera works is by firing golf balls at tremendous speed at whatever needs to be photographed. Just like with subatomic particles, it's impossible to observe the system without changing it.

The book The God Particle goes into this in more detail. It's a good read, I'd recommend it to anyone interested in this stuff.

 

Ah, I see. That makes sense.

 

IMO gravity and electromagnetic forces are the result of the positioning of energy towards compression at an event horizon. Just a thought..

 

Relaxxx

Well said on all counts. May not be 'what is' but sounds right.
I have my ideas that are not to far from yours, so i wont expound.

I will say this though. The first step is getting people to believe space is a medium.
I've used this
SCIENCE [Einstein]says space is warped by gravity. A thing MUST BE to be warped. Thus Space is. [ a thing in itself]. Mater and its motion [time] are intimately tied to space, so you see we are of like mind.

Those 'spooky' particles are just that. ghosts of the dreams of particle physicists. They have no say in the basic structure of Mater/Space aside from there position. Ie singularities.
'Our'
Universe is a 3d klein bottle .

one of millions

 

Are you referring to virtual particles?

 

fill in's

using particle physics to manage [the gaps of understanding] in the gross physical universe

Using dung to plaster the gaps in tungsten/boron plate

 

:sunny: I see what you mean by interfacing neurons to computer circuitry. A thought does not exist, yes?

 

Thought is structure in system. It exists as such
circuitry is like a rock. useless until used.,
Though uses circuitry and is of that..a neuroelectric pattern A dynamic structure dependent on the system but free to ...
Make new ideas.
Art
Love
Music

And thus the rock The circuitry be it biological or other is a base. a machine as we define it. 'Metallic circuitry'
can be as 'alive' as any other mind,, can hope and feel.

If we must that idiot god for anything. it is thanks for the ability to wonder.