A New Theory of Gravity?
The problems with the force of gravity are that it doesn’t work in a manner similar to any other forces and there isn’t enough observable mass to explain reality without creating dark matter.
If you have to create some invisible entity to make your theory right, your theory is wrong. The law of gravity should have been discarded when the concept of energy and the conservation of energy was established. Instead potential energy was invented and various completely irrational excuses were invented to try and maintain the law.
A mass cannot produce both one hundred percent of the force and zero percent of the force in order to make things work.
The premise for the new theory to explain gravity is that energy is not a property of an object but a thing. It is one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. Energy and matter combine to form the objects that make up the universe. Matter gives an object substance while energy gives it structure. The matter of an object radiates electrical fields while the energy radiates an energy field which we call the magnetic field. A neutron molecule is a hydrogen atom without energy. It has electrical fields but no energy field.
The size of an object, whether it is an atom or a solar system, is determined by its fields, not its matter. The fields emitted by the sun extend far beyond the outer Ort belt and extend until they meet an equal field emitted by another star. We see distant stars because a disturbance in one field is transmitted into the fields of neighboring stars and transmitted throughout the universe.
Newton’s assertion that an object will travel in a straight line unless a force acts upon it, is wrong. Nothing in the universe, including light, travels in a straight line, so how can you determine what a straight line is? The premise for the new theory of gravity is that an object will maintain its energy unless energy is added to it or it loses energy.
The second premise for the revised theory of gravity is that an object will try to equalize energy with the energy field it is in. It will give up energy to the field or absorb energy from the field to attain equilibrium with that field. Energy fields organize objects creating equilibrium between the objects and the energy source creating units from different smaller units
If you take the velocity of a planet squared times the distance it is from the sun you get the same value for all the planets, which is the strength of the energy field of the sun. The planets are in equilibrium with the energy field emitted by the sun and are not being pulled towards the sun. If objects are being pulled there is work being done and this entails the expending of energy. This process cannot be one hundred percent efficient so energy must be continually expended from one or both of the objects to maintain their orbits. If objects are in equilibrium they coast and there is no expenditure of energy. The planets form orbits where they remain in the same energy field radiated by the sun. In order to move out of the energy field they must either lose energy or gain energy from another object causing them to again equalize with the strength of the new energy field they are in.
A satellite in orbit around the Earth is in equilibrium with the energy field radiated by the Earth. If you add energy to the satellite it loses energy to the field and moves into a weaker energy field further from the Earth and ends up with less energy and a slower velocity than what it had before the energy was added. If you slow the satellite, removing energy from it, it moves into a denser energy field gaining energy which results in it going faster and having more energy than it had before the energy was decreased. The mass of the satellite is irrelevant and its velocity and energy are determined by the distance it is from Earth and the strength of the energy field radiated by the Earth at that distance.
Every object has its individual fields and the energy fields of object can combine to form larger units. Atoms combine their energy fields to form molecules that then become a unit with its own energy and electrical fields. The Earth and the moon have their own individual energy units that combine to create the Earth-moon unit that equalizes with the energy of the sun and becomes part of the solar system unit. The Earth and moon, as individual units, do not have a velocity or position relative to the sun. It is their combined unit that equalizes with the sun’s energy. Jupiter and its moons form a single unit that equalizes with the energy from the sun. The reason the asteroids in the asteroid belt did not form a planet unit is because they encounter both the organizing energy of Jupiter and the sun’s organizing energy preventing the formation of a unit.
On the Earth, along the Earth-moon combined energy axis, water will try to equalize with the stronger combined energy field creating high tides on both sides of the planet. This stronger energy field also increases the speed of light, which is a disturbance in the energy and electrical fields, so when the Earth-moon and sun align you get the appearance of a super moon, larger than at other times when the energy fields do not add together.
The utilization of the energy fields of planets was used by the voyager satellites to gain enough energy to escape from the solar system. The satellites were directed close to planets where they absorbed energy from the planet’s energy field. They then moved out of the planets fields before losing all the energy they had gained. By repeating this process with different planets the satellites were given enough energy/velocity to escape the energy field of the sun.
The creating of larger units from smaller units means the laws of physics are constant through out reality and do not change with size. The forces that form the small units that are the building blocks continue to work in the larger units formed from those units.
This theory of gravity removes the need for the creation of potential energy and the need for an expenditure of energy to maintain objects in orbits. It also makes things simpler than a force of gravity. With a force of gravity there is a different gravitational force for every object in orbit around the sun and that force is specific to that object, not interfering with other objects. When Mercury passes through the large force of gravity between Jupiter and the sun, it is unaffected. When the moon is behind the Earth, hidden from the sun, the force of gravity between the sun and moon is not affected even though the light emitted by the sun is blocked off. The new theory of gravity explains these phenomena making the behavior of gravity conform to the working of other forces.
With the new theory of gravity the energy field is uniformly radiated from the sun decreasing with distance. The planets and the units they form with their moons try to establish and equilibrium with this energy field. The theory is far simpler and behaves in a more reasonable manner than the theory of a force of gravity.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
General Relativity dispensed with the notion of the gravitational “Force” in 1915 and replaced it with a field effect. Though the field was still envisaged to be the “Gravitational” field, being the “Curvature” of space time (of space and time). I think there is still a contradiction within mainstream thinking in that there is still the notion of a “gravitational force”. I agree, this idea is wrong.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken’
Since I do not believe in the photon or the constant speed of light I do not believe in general relativity. Any formula that long has to be wrong. If you believe the theory that is fine but I would like to point out to you the diagram used to demonstrate the theory is wrong and is comparable to the diagram where if you descend four flights of stairs you will arrive at where you started.
The four dimensional space-time continuum is represented by a two dimensional plane why the mass distortion it is represented by a three dimensional sphere. Does this mean the mass has five dimensions and the distortion of the plane is also a fifth dimension? This dimensional inconsistency invalidates the diagram. A more accurate diagram would be if you had the space time-continuum represented by a cube and a two dimensional disc representing the mass but this would not give a distortion that would support the theory.
There is no such thing as time much less a dimension of time. Time is just a unit created to measure change and is no more real than a kilometer, gram, .acre, or any other unit created to help give a common reference for communication.
Everything changes and the idea that you need four dimensions, time and the three spacial ones, to describe something is wrong because it assumes an object is constant and does not change. I would bet a description of you in high school does not give an accurate picture of you today. Everything changes and this change happens at different rates. Time give a common reference,The rotational energy of the Earth, moon, and orbital energy the Earth that is common to all. If I say I will meet you later there is no definition. If I say I will meet you in an hour I am saying I will meet you when the position of the sun in the sky has changed by fifteen degrees. A second can be a longtime or short time just as an eon can be a long time or short time depending on what it is reference. Time is just a means of communicating using a common reference what we are trying to say about changes.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
“If you have to create some invisible entity to make your theory right, your theory is wrong. The law of gravity should have been discarded when the concept of energy and the conservation of energy was established.”
Your further statement: “The premise for the new theory, ..” What was the old this theory to which this statement implies to exist?. The law of gravity is not theory, it is merely the summary of what has been consistently observed. Newton noted that the stars (our sun) are positioned great distances apart to minimize the influence of their gravity upon each other and upon any possible bodies orbiting these stars.
I have read that the Hubble Telescope is only viewing the visible radiation of the universe. And I have read that sometimes it ‘sees’ galaxies in which a star had not yet formed. When I read this I question what is the light source which allows us to see any of such a galaxy’s matter. So I question your concern about the possible existence of dark matter.
But back to the issue of a theory of gravity. I know this is what Newton concluded, near the end of The Principia, (as translated by Motte) with: “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have not place in experimental philosophy. In thes philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea.”
I believe in the Creator God and I read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, … .” (NIV) Without light all matter is dark.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Squidly
| #
Interesting. This is the first I have heard of this “law”.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Herb, I like this new theory. Nicely done! .. makes a lot of sense to me!
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
“The law of gravity should have been discarded” There is nothing wrong with the LAW of gravity. The question requiring an answer is what is the correct THEORY of gravity?
“Matter gives an object substance while energy gives it structure.” I assume matter with structure is mass. If so, this is a one sided view of E=mc^2 However it is worth noting this expression is reversible. We know, for example, that radiation converts to mass. If this reversibility can happen very quickly, we may have the beginning of a theory to explain the law of gravity. This leads me to theorise that there might be a connection between gravity effect and entangled particles, which seem to embody very quick changes between mass and energy as a feature of their transmission and entangled association.
“The planets form orbits where they remain in the same energy field radiated by the sun. In order to move out of the energy field they must either lose energy or gain energy from another object causing them to again equalize with the strength of the new energy field they are in.” Planets move in elliptical orbits. This means energy is being progressively altered to maintain the planet orbit. IMO this energy is comes from gravity changes which are required in large measure to maintain the overall orbit progression. Without this force the planet logically moves off in a straight line. The challenge then is where is this huge and continuous supply of energy coming from? My suggestion is it comes from black holes which turn matter into gravitational energy, and gravitational energy is then consumed in orbiting star system bodies, but also converts to additional mass in those bodies (witness the expanding earth).
“This theory of gravity removes the need for the creation of potential energy and the need for an expenditure of energy to maintain objects in orbits.” And “With the new theory of gravity the energy field is uniformly radiated from the sun decreasing with distance.” It seems to be a brave assumption that the force required to hold a object in orbit is inherent to the larger pivotal mass, and does not require any refuelling from outside the immediate system.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Robert,
Your statements: “The law of gravity should have been discarded” There is nothing wrong with the LAW of gravity. The question requiring an answer is what is the correct THEORY of gravity?”
I can agree that there is nothing wrong with the LAW of gravity as used by Newton to explain the motions of the planets and the seas. I question if there is a theory of gravity.
You wrote: “Without this force the planet logically moves off in a straight line.” What you claim to be logical is what might be said to be the LAW of Inertia.
Richard Feynman in (“What Do You Care What Other People Think?”) described how his father, a uniform sales person, taught him to become a scientist.
“My father taught me to notice things. One day, I was playing with an “express wagon,” a little wagon with a railing around it. It had a ball in it, and when I pulled the wagon, I noticed something about the way the ball moved. I went to my father and said, “Say, Pop, I noticed something. When I pull the wagon, the ball rolls to the back of the wagon. And when I’m pulling it along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls to the front of the wagon. Why is that?”
“That, nobody knows,” he said. “The general principle is that things which are moving tend to keep on moving, and things which are standing still tend to stand still, unless you push them hard. This tendency is called ‘inertia,’ but nobody knows why it’s true.” Now, that’s deep understanding. He didn’t just give me the name.”
Newton stated in The Principia he knew of no theory (hypothesis) of gravity because he knew no observations which pointed toward an hypothesis. The same is true of inertia which you just referred to as logical even if we cannot explain it.
So some significant scientists appeared to be comfortable with what seems the fact that they (and we) could not explain (what a theory is) everything.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply