A few comments on the first half of this above article
- Gravity information is already exsisting, the Earth follows this exsisting path of information
- Orbiting bodies do not predict ("predict" as in a substantially greater speed) and thus follow thier prediction, read previous
- It does not mean gravity travels at faster than the speed of light
- If the Sun suddenly got more massive, the effect on surrounding distant bodies cannot be instantanious
- Yes an interesting but problematic idea about gravity as a geometric property rather than or in combination with an propagated force
- "Fact: Gravity Has No Aberration" I dont quite see that as fact, my first thought is to say Not true, gravity information has transit delay and it is stated within the article "It will readily be recognized as the same angle defined in the first view due to transit delay" Unless Im missunderstanding what abberration is.
- "Orbit computations must use true, instantaneous positions of all masses when computing accelerations due to gravity for the reason given by Eddington" I agree that has to be in mind when computing them, but also explained with the results. With that, an alternative calculation given for the "false" or rather observed/ past-true
- "If gravity is a propagating force, this 3-body (Sun-Moon-Earth) test implies that gravity propagates at least 20 times faster than light" I dont see that reference to the test, any case that sounds wildy off the mark
- "In electromagnetism, it is said that moving charges anticipate each other's linear motion, but not acceleration, and that acceleration causes the emission of photons. If gravity behaved in an analogous way, moving masses would anticipate each other's linear motion, but not acceleration, and accelerating masses would emit gravitational radiation" Thats like saying the future is alreay known. You read a book a second time you anticipate what happens next. If time were to really be moving backward, or the future is already known
- "The Sun's motion during the light time to the planets is appreciable, yet its gravity field is continually updated without apparent delay." Where did that come from? Thats not how I would say it. The observed could or may seem without delay, but that is only because the new information has already occupied that space when the object travels to that area

"Space-Time Curvature and Retarded Potentials
1. Is gravity caused by a curvature of space and time?
.........."

This section was very well written and as stated above about gravity as geometry has serious problems. Something Ive long since known myself. However there is one huge point absent from the article regarding this fabric of space analagy. The material may be able to be stretched therefore an instantanious effect to the outter areas would not be felt. You of course need to think big, not on a small scale fabric wise. If however the fundemental elements of matter/space were not able to be stretched, then an instantanious effect would occur no matter the scale. Obviously agreeing with most this idea is absured.

One other interesting comment was made regarding "refracting medium", where it says "In essence, the bending of light, gravitational redshift, Mercury perihelion advance, and radar time delay can all be consequences of electromagnetic wave motion through an underlying refracting medium that is made denser in proportion to the nearness of a source of gravity"

I wouldnt assume right away that denser is the correct term. However with regards to that let us make an analagy to gravity as sound, the closer to the source of the sound the louder it is. The wavelike nature of sound compliments this analagy and gravity in my mind is understood as wavelike.

BUT when we add the allowance of space to be able to be stretched as per geometry models, you would think that it would be the opposite of dense. Looser because its spread apart. Now what are we talking about? Were talking about electromagnetic radiation needs a medium to act upon, otherwise if there was nothing there, light from anything/a star wouldnt be seen this is a fact. Just as light needs a medium to travel, gravity must also need a medium does it not?

Gravity is very bizare. Just like 2 similary charged magnets repel each other, that in itself I find facinating. You dont immediatly recognize geometry, you focus more on the effect itself. Geometry and position non the less has a role to play in how and where the effect is felt. Astronomically speaking, we deal with mostly one shape, a sphere. To be measured and understood by us, we must study gravity on this large scale because its so weak.

To be continued..

The Possibility that mass does not necessarily assume gravity

Wouldnt it be just to easy to say that gravity is just like a magnet? A function of charged particles? This got me thinking and in short time it made sense. A popular misconception is that mass assumes gravity. The more massive the more gravity right?

What if gravity is material or composition dependent? Metals would be a natural candidate, how about plastic? A plastic ball the size of texas weighing millions of tons, wouldnt necessarily assume gravity in my mind. In Fact, Im not sure it would have Any gravity pull whatsoever. Humor me for a second.

Metals are a natural substance in every planet, star, and even blackhole. Im going to go ahead and say blackhole here even though I havent clarified previously I dont think, that I believe blackholes are not a singularity. They are an actual geometry of mass, extremely dense you better believe it but... Real quickly explained, If I had to guess Id say a classification of one substance can be made but with a different exponent value to the degree of weight. For example, a substance named X can only naturally be found within blackhole, every blackhole is not the same weight and thus its substance X is of a varing density and classification. Not to say that one substance fits all, there may be several unknown distinct different substances associated with blackholes according to weight. But at the same time, only one substance can occupy a given blackhole, eg its not a mixture. The important thing is, it has geometry.

Anyway more on that later.

Back to the possibility that mass does not assume gravity. Is there any reason for this to be discounted? The only place we can go to find the answer is the atomic level and study the structure and composition that dictates gravity producing substances. But how do we prove that only certain substances make gravity?

Before that lets try to disprove it.

1. We could always opt for the geometry model of gravity eg fabric, and in that case mass does assume gravity.

2. Take a substance fairly equal in weight to a GPS (gravity producing substance) that is found within the Earth, now replace all that with a GPS. Would the Earth suddenly have a substantially greater pull to it? If you can say no, then you just disproved it.

If you cant say no, but say yes, then you just proved that gravity is substance dependent.

Is Magnetism the key? No because think about it, you can throw a plastic ball in the air and it falls to the Earth. If your following along, plastic is not a GPS. So how can a magnet (the Earth) act on plastic?

Now were starting to see just how bizare gravity is, and it cant so easily be explained as simple magnetic forces.
Nor can it be explained so easily as a effect of geometry.

Understanding of centrifugal forces and perpetual motion is needed. Perpetual motion must exsist in space to maintain the constant orbits we observe. The Earth neither slows down nor accelerates is velocity, yet maintains a perfect balance of centrifugal force against the Sun.

Is there a centrifugal force associated with that plastic ball we throw in the air? Something tells me there is, even though it looks like it goes straight up and down. Truth is the Earth's physical geometry prevents the ball from starting an orbit. If you were to throw it high enough, where a sattalite is, it would attempt to make an orbit but fail and crash into the Earth because of geometry. Throw it at an angle up there and centrifugal forces may allow it to attain orbit given proper speeds. Real bad example yes, but you get the idea. This all happens on the atomic scale and models as well.

But this still doesnt explain gravity, you wouldnt need centrifugal forces if there wasnt gravity. Gravity is what centrifugal force acts against, its not a part of gravity.

What are the conditions that allow a body to orbit constant its host? No drag and the correct velocity. This is perpetual motion basically.

Or are we missing something here? Lets go back to geometry as a gravity model. In order for geometry to be the correct idea, our Solar system should be curved that of looking like a funnel where the Sun is at the center.
Its not.
Along those lines, lets

Free-fall

Ever seen where they take people on a cargo plane then dive so that the people are weightless? This is called free falling. In order to free fall, there must be a point or origin to which we are falling to. In order for gravity to be felt or mass realized is to have a pressure point on which the force is countered. In other words, without a fabric of space the Earth would weigh nothing to space itself. Fabric suggests geometry spacial distortion or Gravity. Its not impossible to imagine the Earth not weighing anything either. It certainly has shape and density, but that doesnt mean it weighs anything in space. We have weight on Earth because we are freefalling faster to the Earth than the Earth is falling to its location.

Before you freak out, Im not saying the Universe is free falling to some point and will splat. Im just throwing out ideas and facts that have to be associated with such ideas.

-----------------------------------

An exerpt from a previous date

Ok but now this
"It is fascinating that at C.U. where they have created new matter called Bose-Einstein condensate, the velocity of light in this condensate can be almost as slow as the velocity of sound. It would be instructive to perform diallel line experiments in conjunction with B-E condensate matter. This high-density material could lead to some interesting validations of this new UFT due to the higher energy densities present."

[May 18
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html
There is your BEC, it sounds like its been around for awhile.
And yes I would want to see the result such a dense substance has on gravity information being passed through it.
We dont say "frozen solid" for no reason

Temperature is not a function of geometry in the negative value (we know that because we can freeze water and it retains its shape, yet heated substances melt or evaporate) yet is seen to be a funtion of density.

What about mass?

Confusing

June 3 2003

The 4Th Dimension

Everything physical that can be imagined can be also be expressed as a math formula. Take a sphere for example, you can imagine it visually by itself because you know what a sphere looks like or you can visualize it through math with or without knowing what a sphere looks like.
The formula to explain a sphere is not complicated, but add another sphere to explain its location in 3d space and we get more complicated. Everything needs a 2nd element to explain the location and perspective of itself, without a 2nd location relative, it has no location. Now explaining its location in conjuction with a 3rd element it gets even more complicated. Now imagine what it looks like once you add motion, using math to explain its location relative to a 2nd and 3rd body of with each has its own motion.

One imagineable idea of the concept of a 4th dimension is to know 2 things, a simple understanding of the previous 3 dimensions and 2nd the idea that each is based on its perspective or frame of reference relative to the whole. Lets call the Earth a single perspective, a required second element for perspective and location that relates to that lets imagine Mars. For our 3rd perspective the Universe as a closed model. To introduce our 4th perspective we will need to either go outside the closed Universe, or call in a second Universe.

Aside from that another way to look at it is that an argument can be made that since a required 1st perspective must exsist, that 1D is actually 2D. Your perspective add what your looking at. 2D is actually 3D, your perspective, add object with respect to another object. 3D is actually 4D.

And yet another idea of modified dimensions, is to add or account for the spectrum* of an object unseen by us eg ultraviolet radio gamma and xray, eg electromagnetic radiation of which every object has or gives off, to say that its a part of the object itself. In that sense an additional dimension can be added to the 3rd which is the 4th.

Theres 3 different choices, and possibly combined to add another choice. I myself am undecided which I want to relate to for the 4th dimension.

A special case of perspective can exsist where the 3rd dimension is hidden and if we didnt know better appears as 2D, opposite or vice versa of what you see in your computer monitor(2D looks like 3D), where your perspective is the 2nd element(Earth) looking at the 3rd element(distant object) whose true shape and form are hidden.

Thats fine for space but lets get back to Earth and whats currently around you. What you see it what it is right? What you see is 2D, what it is, is 3D. No not just word games, the truth. To see in 3D you would have to see through everything, think glass or a balloon. But whats the difference? Its still a 3D object seen as a 2D image. Your right, to see in true 3D we would have to have numerous simultanious 360 view of the object, the catch being from the same distant or radius, that is the object being the core of the sphere of observation. Imagine one big spherical insideout eyeball looking inside at an object at the epicenter. This is the view the Universe (if its closed) has of us. *grin*

This is all a play on perspective, you know what you see and you know what it is. You know that - that flashlight has other sides to it therefore its a 3D object. Geometry.

2D is much like explaining a bodies location in space relative to the whole with your perspective not counting as a element. Thats the key, not counting your perspective as a conditional element of what your viewing.

It can be said and understood with the addition of your perspective, you are what relizes the 3rd dimension. Both in a literal sense and a intelligence sense.

After all that if you can find your definition of a 4th dimension or you really want to have one then their is a start. For me I dont really care for one.

Here is one guys 4D but I dont follow him, Ill go out on a limb and relate his color scheme to my electromagnetic radiation.
http://www.oocities.org/Area51/Nebula/3735/4d.html

Rubber Sheet analagy for Gravity

Just one quick something. Im against this analagy being used. It can be useful but its also misused in context quite often. If I were to be for it, then it would have to be condsidered a 2D representation of space and gravity even though it has 3D charateristics and can be seen or interpreted as a 3D image, in truth its a 2D representation of what its true 3D model would be. That is- that rubber sheet is a slice(from any angle) out of the 3D image. Hope that makes sense, and now you can see why its a bad example because thier is no ground(sheet) to space so the sheet doesnt work, a field does. Why cant they illustrate a sphere with a buldging semi-translucent outter area instead? That would make alot more sense to me of whats really going on. Now would something a planet "roll/spin/funnel/orbit" around our true 3D model? Yes but That right there is a reason its necessary in a classical mechanics representation of gravity to take a slice and imagine it, although its 2 different things. And again its often hard to know what they interpret it as, 2D or 3D. The sheet as 3D with CM is false.

The only way the sheet works in 3D is to say that the Universe is ..No see It just doesnt work regardless. What does work better is infinite layer parrallel sheets, but then we are talking about a volume. The real problem with the illustration is it suggest a propagation of gravity from top to bottom, thats just not true. You mine as well flip the image 180 and it would be the same thing. Also a sheet would have to be per galaxy eg not exsisting in deep space because the orientation location and expansion of galaxies tells us this. And it may have its role in celestial terms but it has no place on Earthen mechanics, we would fall off the face of the planet...

June 04 2003

Gravity Theory Revised

The players

Referenced & (c) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/letters/ Eric Weisstein
Much appreciated

Electron
- The electron, denoted e- is a fundamental particle with negative electric charge that is found arranged in quantum mechanical orbits about neutral atoms. The electron is a lepton, and therefore has lepton number 1. The antiparticle of the electron is called the positron.

Positron
- The antiparticle of the electron, denoted e+

Nucleus
- The nucleus is the dense core of an atom or ion in which neutrons and protons (collectively called nucleons) reside, and which contains most of the atomic mass.

Neutron
- Neutrons are nucleons, but can also exist as free particles

Proton
- The proton is a charged elementary particle that can exist freely or in an atomic nucleus. It has charge +e , where e is the charge on the electron. It is also a fermion, having spin 1/2

Fermion
- An odd half-integer spin particle. Fermions act on each other by exchanging bosons. Examples include leptons (such as the electron), neutrons, protons and quarks. They are indistinguishable, have antisymmetric wave functions, and obey Fermi-Dirac statistics. Fermions obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.

Boson
- An integer-spin particle which mediates forces between fermions. Odd spin bosons mediate repulsive forces; even spin bosons mediate attractive forces. Bosons of the same type are indistinguishable and have symmetric wavefunctions. Bosons obey Bose-Einstein statistics.

Nuclide
- A specific atomic structure as determined by the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus

Lepton
- A class of fermion whose members participate in weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational interactions. Every lepton has a corresponding antilepton. All leptons have lepton number 1, while all antileptons have lepton number -1.

To clairify Charged Particles
--Electron
symbol e-, charge -1
--Positron
symbol e+, charge +1
--Proton
symbol p, charge +1
--Hydrogen Ion
symbol H+, charge +1

Atomic Mass Number
- The total number of protons and neutrons in a nuclide, also called the A#.

Coulomb Force
- The Coulomb force between two or more charged bodies is the force between them due to Coulomb's law. If the particles are both positively or negatively charged, the force is repulsive; if they are of opposite charge, it is attractive.

Inverse Square Law
Center of Mass
Angular Momentum

On to the theory

- Negatives repel, Positives repel, N P attract
- The Nucleus a positively charged element (see proton) is the point source or Center of Mass(as it relates to the Atom) of gravity attraction
- Electrons a negatively charged particle are attracted to the Nucleus
- The Nucleus of 1 Atom will repel the Nucleus of a 2nd Atom, as is the case the Electrons of 1 Atom will repel the Electrons of a 2nd Atom
- The Nucleus of 1 Atom will attract the Electrons of a 2nd Atom
- An Electron orbits the Nucleus and maintains orbit without crashing into the Nucleus according to Angular Momentum and classical mechanics (nature of orbits)
- When Atoms come together to form substances, the greater the volume and density the greater the attraction of a 2nd Atoms Nucleus to that of a 1st Atoms Electrons and the smaller the allowable radius distance to the Nucleus. This decides the size in spherical nature Geometry of the Atom - a high density matter will consist of Atoms with smaller Electron radius orbits thus a smaller Atom Geometry according to a spherical model

"Gravity is simply the force of charged particles" -TDuncan

- All that needs to be explained has been explained by the study of charged particles the mechanics and interaction of them, unknowingly all that work relates to and is what gravity is. However I am unknowledgeable about the nature of the attractive force itself eg the attractive information itself and what form it takes on (presumeably in wave format) or acts on to travel its path outward (information has to travel through a medium of some sort eg the atomic cloud).

In addition when you consider the force exerted on a massive object pulled to the Earth, by measuring the force exerted on the plane of force a scale for example you can get a weight measurement. The object however pulls the Earth to It, Earth wins of course but by the object doing so it increases the force exerted on the plane. Think any object, a car for example.

- Massive objects increase thier attractive force through the Quantum Gravity Combined Theorem* (to be revised with regards to Nucleus instead of Electron and (EMR?)) - simply states that the greater the atomic collaboration the greater the (attractive) force as a function of the whole matter.

I can imagine should the information be in wave format, that the frequency of

POSSIBLY the Nucleus does not send information out! It coherently via atom collaboration individually sets up the orbit of its guest Electrons. By doing so the radi and thus frequency (2 different contexts of exsisting frequency needs to be understood with relation to an Electron, see previous exerpts) by which the Electrons occelate is changed, this is according to atomic geometry. This given radius is the instructions of what information is sent out by EMR, and embeded in EMR is a likely candidate for this attractive information.

Should I have not remembered this possibility my next sentence would have to be the occelation or frequency by which the Nucleus operates. Considering now thats unlikely as I would conclude the Center of Mass to be fixed otherwise an unstable orbit would occur and classical mechanics tells me that an orbit wouldnt sustain for long in 360 occellation due to substantial wobble, and besides its just ugly.

The actual mass weight of a Nucleus is not to be ignored but replaced by the imagined that the greater the mass the greater the volume of protons. In a sense nucleic volume takes the front seat as nucleic volume is the mass because we are dealing with fundemental elements. Mass still has its priority on the macro scale.

Nuetral particles cannot exsist in nature withstood from any change in state. They would fall out of space. However a fluxtuating change in state such as between postive and negative can be allowed. An observed moment at a change in state may be mistaken as a constant nuetral particle. An allowed time is given to such particles to become charged once uncharged or such particles will cease to exsist (perhaps decay). Whether Neutrons can be classified as such is unknown to but thier specific role is absent to me (at the time) so it would seem to have none other. //A happy coinsidence remembering the Neutrons