Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > What is gravity ?

What is gravity ?

Posted by: Rolf Guthmann - Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:57 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 74 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
What is gravity ? 
Author Message
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 6
Post What is gravity ?   Posted on: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:57 pm
What is gravity?

What is its cause or source?

Many minds have attempted to solve this ancient puzzle, but no one has yet been fully successful. For Newton, the force of gravity was merely a function of masses and the distance between them. For Einstein, gravity caused a deformation of the space-time continuum. On this basis, he developed a highly complex algebra that merely describes it geometrically. The majority of studies to date explain only the effects of gravity and not its nature.

The unification of gravity with electricity has been a challenge for many great physicists of the last century. Einstein dedicated almost 35 years to the problem without success, while, in 1968, Dirac suggested that it would not be possible to unify the fundamental forces.

There is now a large body of evidence to suggest a strong connection between – and perhaps a common fundamental origin of – electromagnetism and gravity, as exemplified by an innovative experiment presented at the recent meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Carried out by the University of Missouri – Columbia and the National Radioastronomy Observatory, it used precise measurements to show that gravity is propagated at the same velocity as light.

The relationship between gravity and electricity is also demonstrated by the fact that both obey the inverse square law, despite the immense differences in their relative intensities and distances.

In the Quantum Theory of Gravity - “QTG” we where demonstrates both the origin of this relationship and the reason for these differences.

Further evidence is derived from Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and is based on the principle of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass, whereby both experience the same acceleration in a gravitational field, with immense precision. This theory shows that gravity and inertia are the same thing, because both act on a body in the same manner, with their forces proportional to the mass of the body. It can thus be acknowledged that gravity and inertia have a similar origin. It is important to remember that the latter results from a very common phenomenon: the application of a force to a massive body.

The question of gravity can thus be answered through the two facts presented here: gravity is an inertia and is caused by an electromagnetic force of nuclear origin. The evidence also shows that the source or cause of gravity is the relative difference between the electrostatic and centripetal forces within atoms. We will see that the origin of these differences lies in the relativistic motion of electrons and the time reference they adopt.

In order to understand the workings of gravity, we must understand the origin and workings of time and the connection between time and gravity. We must therefore find a physical interpretation that better matches observed phenomena, replacing the Uncertainty Principle with the Temporal Uncertainty Principle as the factor of imprecision in the behavior of subatomic particles. Under the Temporal Uncertainty Principle, a particle is always out of phase with the present or with its local time reference. For any observer at any moment, there will be a slight temporal dislocation either towards the past or towards the future, resembling a sine curve when visualized in two dimensions, or a spiral in three dimensions, in both cases centered on the x-axis, which represents the atom’s local “present” or local time reference.

Gravity is generated only when an atom is found in a gravitational field, without which there can be no temporal reference, this being defined by the presence of at least one other atom. The beginning of time thus occurred as of the existence of the second atom in the universe. The gravity generated also depends on the intensity of the gravitational field, hence the expression that “gravity gravitates”.

Time passes at different rates in different locations in the universe according to the intensity of local gravitational potential, a property exhaustively tested and demonstrated by the Theory of General Relativity. Adopting time as the factor of imprecision, the same atom under the influence of gravitational fields of different intensities will experience time passing at different rates: the sensation of the atom’s mass or gravity will also be different in these different locations. This variation will be extremely small, to the point that it cannot be calculated with scientifically acceptable precision, but its existence is sufficient to explain a number of cosmic phenomena not previously understood, such as dark matter and the gravitational anomalies experienced by deep space probes.

On the basis of the above, we can disregard the controversial Mach Principle, which establishes that the inertial and gravitational properties of matter are somehow linked to the existence of all of the matter in the universe. We can also disregard the influence of distant stars in the definition of an atom’s local time reference: the behavior of the water in Newton’s famous bucket experiment (How does the water know it is in rotation? In rotation with respect to what?) can be explained perfectly well if we consider that gravity is generated by the atoms. In this case, the reference will be the atom itself accelerated in relation to the others, because each atom is a source of gravity-time and therefore a temporal reference: a collection of such references defines a local time reference.

All the intricate and complex philosophy surrounding the difficulty of explaining relative or absolute acceleration is resolved when we refer the present or local time reference to the nucleus of the atom. It is in the dependence of inertia and gravity on the local time reference that we find the explanation for the question of the inertial reference system: the rate of time experienced by the observer will define what is observed.

In this way, we can regard gravity not as one of the four fundamental forces, but as a relative difference between known interactions: electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force.

Quantum Theory of Gravity - “QTG”
The Powerful new law of the gravity !!
In the QTG we will demonstrate how gravity can be found in atoms and the importance of the time.

See more details in the following Site:

http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/English/index.html

_________________
Quantum Theory of Gravity - “QTG”
The Powerful new law of the gravity !!
http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/English/index.html


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:58 pm
Anybody who knows theoretical physics feel like giving us some more input on this?

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:46 pm
I'll defer to the expert...

http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates ... cture.html


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:22 pm
By Admin( Sigurd); Content of this post removed, linked to an other forum's index.
Unrelated to topic, and no other data except link in post.
No Value to this board or other users. And also seen as "spam".


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:55 am
Well I can't say I follow the reasoning, but then I haven't really tried. For purposes of me going suborbital or even to Mars, Newton's laws are enough. As for another theory of gravity, even if correct I wouldn't consider it as an answer to the question, "what is gravity?". It is just another way to describe the behavior of gravity.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:12 am
Posts: 321
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:12 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
Well I can't say I follow the reasoning, but then I haven't really tried. For purposes of me going suborbital or even to Mars, Newton's laws are enough...

Well, knowledge about the theory linking electrical and magnetic forces, allows us to make a magent using electricity. The great hope is that knowledge of a theory linking electrical and gravitational forces will one day allow us to make artificial gravity sources using electricity. Or negative gravity sources (anti-gravity) or gravity shields.

It doesn't take much imagination to see how one or more of these could be used for travel to orbit and beyond.

Hiding from the Earth behind a gravity shield, a small thruster could take you out of the Earth's 'gravity well', for little fuel.

Imagine a vehicle in interplanetary space that can project an artificial gravity source the magnitude of the Earth's 200 km in front of it. The acceleration would be 1000 G's. Remember, a gravity field affects all matter with the same acceleration at the same distance, so the vehicle and all its contents would be accelerated together. There would be no noticeable G-force, except for tidal effects (with your head pointing towards the source, you would feel one fiftieth of a G streching force, 2 G's across a 100 m long vehicle. ) This could make interstellar travel at relatavistic speeds possible. 8)

Of course none of this may be possible, even with a valid theory. :(


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 6
Post WHAT IS GRAVITY?   Posted on: Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:27 pm
The gravitational anomaly of the probe PIONEER 10, 11, Ulysses, Galileo….

The number of evidences in favor of the QTG doesn't stop of growing.

In the last days, I placed in the QTG web page, the most contusing of the proofs.

The calculation, using the gravitational model of QTG, of the gravitational anomalies of the space probes.

Using the principles of QTG, I’m arrived a very close result of the observed.

It is known, of the need of an adjustment factor, around 5,99.10-9 Hz/s, applied to the received electromagnetic signs, so that these can be tuned in.

See more:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... eer02.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0506/0506139.pdf
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/pior1011.htm
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503021.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0107/0107022.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0308/0308017.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9412/9412234.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504367
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9808081
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

In the beginning of this year, I was challenged to find through QTG a reasonable mathematical answer that explained this anomaly.

For the traditional physics, in the best of the hypotheses, the adjustment factor could not exceed something around 10-15 Hz/s.

For QTG it was in 5,19.10-9 Hz/s.

The incredible precision reached by QTG with your " variable G ", the one which, it doesn't leave more doubted regarding this new model of space-time, this leaving countless physical, many of the which didn't believe or they ignored QTG, of hair in foot.

Rolf Guthmann

lamentably it is not translated.
For the time being, version OF THIS CHAPTER available only in Portuguese.
http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/TQG2/tqg270.html

The complete text are in the following Sites:

http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/English/index.html
or
http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/

_________________
Quantum Theory of Gravity - “QTG”
The Powerful new law of the gravity !!
http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/English/index.html


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:54 pm
So does this theory give you an idea of how to make a new kind of space propulsion? If so, how would the new propulsion work? How would you make a space craft to use it?


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:31 am
I get the feeling that he's more interested in the physics for the sake of it than for any use us engineers might have for it.

Besides, from theory to design is a long time, much longer than we'll ever see.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 9:47 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) - capital of Israel!
Post Oh No!   Posted on: Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:43 am
spacecowboy wrote:
I get the feeling that he's more interested in the physics for the sake of it than for any use us engineers might have for it.

Besides, from theory to design is a long time, much longer than we'll ever see.


Good God, man, that's just. . . just . . .. far out, dude!

_________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”
-Anonymous


Back to top
Profile WWW
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:37 pm
Posts: 6
Post INERTIA GENERATORS   Posted on: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:03 pm
Spacecowboy:

My inertia generator is considered now, the best patent of an alternative system of propulsion of the world.

If you have some knowledge in physics, and to follow all the reasoning patiently, you can understand your operation.

http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/En ... heory.html

The origin of gravity resides in the asymmetry of the electromagnetic phenomena.

It is a relativistic question, that depends on the reference adopted.

If it goes of simple understanding, with certainty, this theory, it would already have been presented there is a long time.

It is impossible to explain with few words the whole philosophy that should be considered to understand the operation of the gravity.

Rolf

The complete text is in the following Site:

http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/English/index.html

_________________
Quantum Theory of Gravity - “QTG”
The Powerful new law of the gravity !!
http://rolfguthmann.sites.uol.com.br/English/index.html


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:18 pm
I, for one, am going to continue to defer judgement until I've seen verification by some (any will do) sort of established authority. A peer-reviewed paper will do just fine by me.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:46 am
I've locked the other topic:
http://www.spacefellowship.com/Forum/vi ... php?t=1570

All discussions will continue in this topic, related to Rolf Guthmann's theory.

--- So far the other topic,

about this topic:

Quote:
My inertia generator is considered now, the best patent of an alternative system of propulsion of the world.


This is a theory, and you can't speak of the general population, since 80% or more don't know what you're talking about, so please give me sources, people who told you so, people who agree with you, facts, numbers, tests, experiments, etc...
On this moment all I can say is that "you" consider it the best patent etc etc.. it sounds very egocentric, so please provide more background information.

It's possible you're "perfectly right", but you're not doing good work with convincing me, with showing numbers of actual tests, pictures, a movie, etc etc cause you're making "assumptions" that need to be tested. And if you didn't test it, show me who and when, etc etc.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:55 am
There many fringe gravity theories out there. Some of them have been and are being investigated by NASA and other accepted authorities. None has yet been proven correct. I think this is just another such theory. At least it has every indication of being such. If it really does explain the pioneer anomaly, has it been sent to NASA or even the Planetary Society. And if so, what do they think? If it has applications for propulsion, have machines been built that show a propulsion effect? Can others duplicate the results? If the answers are all no then I am ready to pass judgment now.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:12 pm
So, my reasons for posting the Feynman link were many...

First, if anyone had taken the time to breifly peruse its' contents, they would have been able to accost me with the fact that the word "gravity" does not appear even once in his remarks. While I wouldn't expect the members of this community to show such diligence (after all, they have scarce little invested in this topic), I would think that my offering the work of perhaps the 20th century's greatest physicist as refutation would prompt some minimum-effort response on the part of the author defending his own work, but oh, well.

I actually was going to drop a link to the cargo cult science address at first, but decided (perhaps wrongly) that maybe this material didn't belong in that category.

In any case, the link in my original post is the address given by Feynman when he was awarded the Nobel Prize for the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics; i.e. the theory which applies quantum physics to the electromagnetic force. It is an interesting read because he explains in great detail how he came to create the theory and the numerous computational blind alleys and similar pitfalls encountered along the way. Which is really great because it offers some insight into what happens in the mind of a Nobel-prizewinning physicist.

One of the most striking things about reading the Feynman piece in regards to Mr. Guthmann's work was in fact the very paradox I brought up in the paragraph above: here is a legendary physicist whom was awarded science's highest honor for applying quantum logic to photons... and in his work he makes no mention of gravitation at all! Meanwhile, Mr. Guthmann would have us believe that the very same vector bosun for which Feynman is the patron is actually RESPONSIBLE for gravity? Could Richard Feynman simply have OVERLOOKED such a profound synchronicity? Is it concievable that he never even considered the possibility that he was already sitting on the GUT? I am doubtful to say the very least.

Another thing that jumps out is Guthmann's assertion that:
Quote:
Gravity is generated only when an atom is found in a gravitational field, without which there can be no temporal reference, this being defined by the presence of at least one other atom. The beginning of time thus occurred as of the existence of the second atom in the universe.


...which sounds a whole lot like one of Feynman's "blind alleys," in which he discussed discarding the notion of a particle's own force acting on itself in order to simplify the computations:
Quote:
That was the beginning, and the idea seemed so obvious to me and so elegant that I fell deeply in love with it. And, like falling in love with a woman, it is only possible if you do not know much about her, so you cannot see her faults. The faults will become apparent later, but after the love is strong enough to hold you to her. So, I was held to this theory, in spite of all difficulties, by my youthful enthusiasm.

Then I went to graduate school and somewhere along the line I learned what was wrong with the idea that an electron does not act on itself.


...now I don't have an extensive education in electromagnetic physics, I have always been preferential towards mechanics; still, If Guthmann wishes to show that gravity is a quantum EM force and his assumptions include that there must be two particles for that force to exist, then he has already run afoul of the man whom first quantized the photon and I have to conclude that the probability of correctness of anything so derived is extremely low.

I recognize the seductiveness of these ideas, that gravity and intertia have this mass-dependent cohesiveness, and yes, inertia is an electromagnetic drag force, as both Feynman and the eggheads at NASA's BPP program will attest. And it is true that (for interplanetary distances, at least) both gravity and the electromagnetic force are governed by the inverse-square law, and yes, I actually sat in the lecture hall at CalTech and heard Kip Thorne say that gravity waves travel at the speed of light... but all of these are circumstantial proofs (and exactly the kind of thing that originally motivated me to make the cargo cult connection).

At any rate, I am afraid that I have to assume that the validity of Guthmann's concept is tenuous at very best, until such time as the likes of Kip Thorne or Stephen Hawking will weigh in on the matter. If I were making odds, I would say they are (hmm) astronomically against.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use