Saturday, April 14, 2007

What Do We Know About Gravity?

Newton set gravity as a property of matter in stone without knowing too much about it. He could, had he been of an analytical bent, sat down and listed the things we know about gravity, but that is not the way of science. Science seeks out concepts, ideas, products of the human mind, that it can claim are scientific fact, and then drops the scientific, claiming that it knows a fact it can never know, that gravity is a property of matter.
Science makes its claims to scientific fact long before all the facts are in, but once a scientific fact has been accepted by everyone as fact, there’s no going back. It’s true of gravity as a property of matter, light as a wave, and electricity as a moving charge. These are all statements that don’t tell us anything substantive, but which control our thinking about the nature of the items so labeled forevermore.
Basically, our picture of reality is controlled by dead men who knew nothing!
The two things Newton accepted as knowledge about gravity are that it is associated with matter and objects accelerate in its field with the sqaure of the distance over which they fall.
We know some other things about gravity.
One thing we know for sure, but which Newton and science refuse to recognize, is that gravity is a dynamic force. It moves objects from one place to another. Say what you will about the glory of Galileo, but his notion that gravity could not overcome momentum is simply absurd. Anything that can hold an object to the Earth can overcome motion, and thus Newton’s concept that gravity could overcome momentum is at least valid, if not applicable to the motion of the planets.
Science knows, or at least science should know, that a dynamic force cannot have a passive source. Gravity can overcome the motion produced by energy and therefore has to have as dynamic a source as the energy that produces the motion, whether that motion is produced by flowing water or jet fuel. Properties are characteristics we associate with matter in order to distinguish one type of matter from another. Properties let us categorize matter.
Thus properties are traits such as color, hardness and the like. These traits are not dynamic, but rather are simply the passive characteristics of a particular type of matter.
Properties do not produce energy and therefore gravity can’t be a property of matter.
When we look for the source of gravity, we have to look for something that is dynamic, something that is happening, if we want to find the source.
Experimenting with the effects of gravity on matter, we find out some other important information about the nature of matter, information that gives us insight into the probable mechanism that produces a force that causes objects to move back, with precisely increasing speed, toward the matter with which it is associated.
Weight is a very common experience in our existence. We know from childhood that some objects are heavier than others (the fact that Newton conveniently overlooked in constructing the first half of his proof that gravity was a property of matter).
We measure weight on a relative basis. We create a scale that allows gravity to move a particular object as far toward the ground (the source of the gravity) as it can while measuring on a relative basis the distance it allows other objects to move toward the ground. This leads to a conclusion science refuses to make, that gravity gives objects their weight. Science, believing that objects have some sort of mystical mass that produces weight, engages in such stupid pursuits as computing the weight of the Earth, when the weight of any matter depends on the gravitational pull that body is undergoing.
If gravity is what is producing weight in objects, then we would expect gravity to have no affect on the rate it causes an object to fall. This leads to a fourth fact we know about gravity. Regardless of weight, all objects fall within a frictionless gravitational field at the same rate.
This leads to still another fact about gravity, that objects within a gravitational field move against that force at different levels of force.
This is what produces weight, the ability to categorize matter on a relative basis by how much force it takes to move them against gravity.
These facts lead us to several more facts about gravity, facts that are perhaps a little subtler than the measurable facts.
If gravity accelerates objects with the square of their distance from the source of the gravity, then the gravity around the matter diminishes inversely with the square of the distance from the source of the matter. This is a mirror image of the fact that objects accelerate inversely with distance. Gravity can be considered to be a force emanating from matter (and anything emanating needs a dynamic source to produce the emanations) that surrounds the matter at any instance in a diminishing field. The further away from the source, the weaker the field, and the field is weaker precisely by the square of its distance from the source.
Reversing the acceleration measurement to show that the gravitational field diminishes, we find another very interesting fact about gravity, probably the most important fact of all. We find that an unimpeded gravitational field diminishes uniformly with its distance from the source of the gravity. We don’t see dropped objects speed up and then slow down, we see them uniformly accelerating toward the source of the gravity and therefore we know that gravity diminishes uniformly.
Why is this fact so important?
Because it provides us with the final, and absolutely most important fact, about gravity. With gravity diminishing uniformly, it needs a mechanism to regulate its expansion as it diminishes!
We therefore know 8 things about gravity, and as 8 things are far more than we know about many other things, they should provide us with a clue as to the nature of gravity, how it is produced, how it travels, and how it acts on matter to cause the matter to move.
The 8 things we know are:
1. Gravity is associated with matter.
2. Gravity accelerates objects with the square of their distance from its source.
3. It is a dynamic force.
4. Objects in a field of gravity fall at the same rate.
5. Objects moving against a field of gravity require different levels of force.
6. A gravitational field expands inversely with its distance from its source.
7. A gravitational field expands uniformly.
8. Expanding uniformly, gravity needs a mechanism to regulate its expansion.
Science congratulates itself on how well it uses analogy to uncover the nature of phenomena it seeks to explain. Analogy, science claims, is one of its most important tools.
Let’s see if we can find an analogy to gravity. All we need to do is find something that conforms to some of the 8 facts we know about gravity.
What could conform to some of those facts?
How about if 6 of the facts, on their surface, were identical to gravity? Wouldn't that lead us to suspect that the other two were also identical to gravity?
What are 5 of the facts identical to?
Light! It's associated with the matter producing it, it is dynamic (all you have to do to prove it's something is focus the sun's light with a magnifying glass on some cotton), it expands inversely from its source, it expands uniformly, and it therefore needs something to regulate its expansion.
What facts aren't, on the surface, identical to light?
Facts 2, 4 & 5, objects accelerate inversely, are measured to fall at the same rate and rise with different levels of force in a field of gravity.
What do facts 2, 4 & 5 equate to?
Does science pursue the analogy?
No, because one of its dead men who knew nothing has already determined that light is a wave and therefore nonexistent.
Can’t analogize something that exists, a property, to something that doesn’t exist, light!
Ah, the glory that is science.


davidcarney said...

You don't define what you mean by "properties." Properties can be visual, mechanical, chemical, etc.

Dynamics is the branch of physics that deals with force, energy and motion. Calling gravity "dynamic" doesn't distinguish it from all the other "dynamic" relationships between matter and energy. How is gravity uniquely dynamic?

You have ignored special relativity. Einstein described gravity as the warping of spacetime by matter. Gravity is geometry, according to special relativity, not a force.

More recently, scientists have been trying to devise experiments to search for "gravitons," particles postulated to be exchanged when matter is effected by gravity. In other words, there is not one single doctrine of gravity these days. It's an exciting and frustrating field of study.

If not all 8 of your facts about gravity apply to light, then light cannot be said to correlate to gravity within your system of belief.

"Analogy" is not the same as a correlation.

You seem to do a lot of magical thinking. Science is practiced with the assumption that any hypothesis might be proved wrong at any time by enough clear evidence. If you do not understand the evidence, then how can you make informed decisions about scientific practices?

Scientists expect to be wrong sometimes. That doesn't make them liars.

Anonymous said...

Expect criticism for questioning dogma; the little ego defends Humpty dumpty.

In physics, the Eightfold Way is a term coined by American physicist Murray Gell-Mann for a theory organizing subatomic baryons and mesons into octets (alluding to the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism). He had a great quirky sense of humor and coined the term 'quark' as well, inspired from James Joyce in "Finnegans Wake".

Could patterns of various type of spin from subatomic matter produce a field?

What this moron is trying to say is... does the relationship of baryons spin to mesons spins emanate a field of gravity?

Further, how may we affect subatomic spin to control gravity fields?

Here's an idea... what about working through the photon, electron relationship where waves and particles become a bit of each types of 'property' of matter and of waves. Let's not get lost in semantics or become divisive, adhere to precepts to discover a greater truth.

Lasers can be used to refrigerate by engineering 'properties' of the photon-electron relationship.

Perhaps a by-product of 'Photon Coupling' would be an accidental discovery of 'graviton' fluctuations and control of gravity fields. Maybe you would be interested in 'Photons and the formation of Matter' from Dale Wahl's website: