Alternative gravity theory-how gravity works, what causes gravity

[MrPentatonicScale]

awesome, you are so much smarter than all those wiz kids and physics professors who start babbling about space time (smart ass for apples fall to the ground without further explanation). Perhaps you have heard of the Van der Waals forces? It is a topic in physical chemistry that explains why non-polar molecules randomly attract each other, who says this electromagnetic force can't extend to the far reaches of the universe?

[Jammieg001]

@MrPentatonicScale Thanks, I don't think this is Van der Waals forces, it is something similar but electrostatic, my memory is that Van der Waals forces are polar attractions between molecules, like water, and that this force varies to the inverse cube of the distance, whereas electrostatics and gravity vary to the inverse square...it has long been thought that gravity and electrostatics must share a relationship. Physics is overly glorified imo.

[kibbles2140]

thanks for this

even if your are wrong this is the fist i've been able to find someone try to find a reason for gravity insead of an equation or fact about

[Jammieg001]

@kibbles2140 ya or sell a book or tv show or magazine, all I ask is 5 minutes of people's time to consider it.

[theELUSIV]

Its impossible to differenciate the affects of gravity and acceleration. We no that the universe is constantly expanding at the speed of light. As space is a constant when it meets mass such as our sun the mass is accelerated which causes the affect of gravity, this also explains the decay of matter measured as time an the theory of relativity. As mass exists inside space the curbiture of space relative to the size of mass also explains why planets rotate around the largest mass (our sun).

[Jammieg001]

@theELUSIV Interesting, so you are saying there is a relationship between the expansion of the universe and gravity, that one causes the other in some way.

[theELUSIV]

@Jammieg001 This is a theory called "equivilance principal" many physists agree that this is the most promising theory to explain gravity. The ony way we can differenciate the pull of gravity and the G force of acceleration is by observing our surroungings..this is the fundamentals of relativity. If i was on a plank of wood being accelerated through space i would have no sensation of movement yet i would be aware that a force was pinning me to the plank of wood, it would feel like gravity

[theELUSIV]

@theELUSIV remember constant expansion is not a force in one direction nor does it occur from one point it is a constant continuim expanding in every direction within space (areas not consisting of mass and atmosphere) it is at the point it colides with mass that the affect observed as gravity takes place.

place a glass verticaly in the palm or your hand while spinning around to put some perspective into place.

[bernzeppi]

gravity is not the byproduct of electrostatic forces... paddle pop sticks not withstanding.

geeze youtube...

you boob!

[davmus12]

I enjoy communicating about this with you

[Jammieg001]

@davmus12 hey thanks, you're one of very few.

[davmus12]

interesting....what about the black hole?

[Jammieg001]

@davmus12 IDK, I haven't studied up on black holes, my real interest is gravity.

[1982Barnard]

Isn't gravity the main part of a black hole?

[davmus12]

I just had a thought about your spinning magnets. I asked you once how this would work in a more complicated system like a uranium atom (where it makes sense in a simple system like hydrogen atoms) but now I think of a nuetron star that has no electrons and a strong gravitational force or a black hole that has no atoms even but still the the strong field. Something is pulling the mass towards all other mass, there must be a reason.

[Jammieg001]

@davmus12 Neutrons are also made up of + and - bits of matter. The way this applies to uranium is by the theory of super positioning(not my theory look it up on wiki), that is all the + and - bits of matter orbiting around can be compared independently regardless of what every other bit of charge is doing- in this way it makes no difference the results are still the same whether an atom has 1 electron or 1 billion.

[raydredX]

I did not fully watch your video and I am not giving it so much thought. Forgive me for that but.

Electromagnetic fields don't bend light's path.

How do you explain gravitational lensing?

[Jammieg001]

@raydredX I don't know, never really gave it much thought. Do you have an explanation?

[raydredX]

@Jammieg001 Well I have the usual one. Gravity bends space-time in which the light travels bending the "light's path" too.

I can not explain this with your theory. (I didn't watch the entire video but you appear to say there's changes to the fundamental laws except gravity doesn't exist and the gravitational phenomena is explained by electromagnetic forces already)

So unless you change something this theory can't explain gravitational lensing.

I hope I didn't make any mistake.

[Jammieg001]

@raydredX Thanks, I'll keep this in mind, and I can't explain it. I am saying that gravity is electrostatic/magnetic in origin, yet apparently most physicists agree electromagnetism can't bend light, which is good evidence against this theory.

[circle559]

Lol good reply.. And yes I do know something that Einstein didn't .. Not to say I am better than he was.. I can realy say poor Einstein started becoming confused

[circle559]

Lol,, sorry but this theory elucidated your lack or miss understanding of the force you are trying to explain.. It doesn't even agree with how magnets will act in that scenario you proposed.. Sorry.. Then again many have got it wrong too..

[Jammieg001]

@circle559 i made another video showing how magnets act that way, lol back, no one truly understands gravity, even Einstein admittedly failed to unify gravity with the other forces, I don't see how you could know for sure that many have got it wrong unless you already know what Einstein didn't.

[davmus12]

Part 2 The individual particles with mass each must have a small gravitational force, the more you have, the more gravity you feel. So how does a proton work in this example?  It has 3 quarks moving inside kind of like the spinnig magnet. I am seeing something as I think about this but still there are problems. The proton is surounded by the negatively charged electron. So the hydrogen atom is like your magnet. But what about uranium?

[Jammieg001]

@davmus12 The structure of different atom probably has something to do with their mass, that is mass is intertwined with gravity, so along the periodic table the charges of electrons and protons do not add up to the whole of uranium for example. I used the example of bar magnets because it's very familiar to peeps and easy to grasp, meant only to convey the rough idea of gravity, if we look at gravity as particles it is a way of interpretation also, like the 3 blind men describing an elephant.

[Jammieg001]

@davmus12 There's Kevin Frueteche's video where he attempts to explain gravity as particles but I didn't understand it, and I didn't like the first video he made because it didn't get into the reasons but seemed to talk around the idea instead of about the idea, IDK I could say the same about my own videos. There's actually a bunch of reasons and questions and reading I had to do to come to this point it made enough sense to me to post an "alternative theories" youtube page.

[Jammieg001]

@davmus12 ...basically I'm trying to give people a unique alternative direction to understanding how gravity works, but not what gravity does. I would think since science never claims to be the gospel truth, that lots of alternative theories would actually be more useful than just 1 or 2 "acceptable" theories that everyone has to learn to get their degree. I'm fairly sure that if we understood gravity better we could manipulate it, because everything we understand better we can control more.

[davmus12]

The question is, what causes gravity? You're answer is that...well i don't know, exactly. You say that you want to use an example of two bar magnets like you do in the video. Ask yourself this question, what does the the examle show? What I see is that you have clearly shown that there is an attractive force between the two magnets. What other conclusions can we draw from this example? Well, if we can think of particles as spinning and if we can show.. it starts to get complicated.

[davmus12]

Reverse the two comments to read "I like it" first

[davmus12]

The spinning magnet as a whole, has no charge, 50% positive and 50% negative, they cancel out. The particle is differerent, it is considered either always positive or always negative, isn't it?

[Jammieg001]

@davmus12 Thanks, but I don't know much of anything about particle physics, I've only approached this from coloumb's laws of electrostatics which seems simpler. I think it could be approached from several directions to arrive at similar theories of quantum gravity. I do know that when you break down the electron, proton or neutron they are also made up of + and - charges in motion, tiny magnets within themselves, gravity probably emanates mostly from this level , but also at the atomic level.

[Jammieg001]

@Jammieg001 Search wiki for "Quarks" -an explanation of sub-atomics. But to me it seems conceptualized, and complicated. The main thing I got out of it was particles are made up of + and - charges and move like bullets and/or waves. Regardless, charges in motion must generate EM fields and obey the electrostatic laws, so it's easier to look at gravity as random electrostatic interactions. They can't find the gravity particle because all particle/wave interactions produce gravity.

[davmus12]

I like it! Brilliant! Now this issue of di-pole and mono-pole comes to mind. all magnets have a possitive and negative side, but we are only concerned with particles and of course they are always referred to as either positive or negative.  Why is that, in fact if you look at your spinning magnet in the example, your explanation of the attractive force being greater than the repulsive force because of the rate of change of force as it relates to the distance makes sense.

[yynnmmbb]

This idea fails. Suppose you build a house with very thick lead floors, lead walls and lead ceiling. Electromagnetic forces from outside of this house will not be able to influence the contents of the house through the lead walls. So, if you drop an apple in the house, it will fall to the floor as opposed to the nearest wall or ceiling. Gravity is working at the smallest particle level without pos/neg forces.

[Jammieg001]

@yynnmmbb How is it that gravity can penetrate threw an entire planet during a solar eclipse? IDK... but it could be that we aren't talking about standard EM fields from cell phones, TV, etc but something of much much higher frequency and vastly more waves, that of the revolutions of subatomics...It could be that gravity waves ripple threw matter like waves on the ocean, pull on one end of water and it goes on and on like a tsunami- ie gravity is an EM field that actually affects a motion.

[Jammieg001]

@yynnmmbb funny avatar btw, "this idea fails" I like that and thanks for the input.

[K1asH3r]

its the mass...every single object that has mass has gravitational force

[Jammieg001]

@K1asH3r yep, that's true, but that is the simplest answer, but if we want to understand gravity in more detail then we have to ask what causes mass? Why does a more massive object have more resistance to a change of motion? What is the connection between gravity and mass?

[MultiMasterqueef]

right, gravity is also what forms water into a flat circlish shape when poured on tables. math view: 1 oxyg. & 2 Hyd. atoms combine, but net charges are NEVER zero. so water pulles itself together. same for all parts of the earth. so a mass as big as the earth can pull on us with every little foce that doesn't add up to zero (from all atoms and molecules). in relativity: if the earth was 1/4 of normal size, it would pull 1/4 of our weight. bump that down further and gravity almost doesn't exist.

[Jammieg001]

@MultiMasterqueef Scientist would say it's Van Der Walls forces that gives water it's cohesion and capillary motion, but it's not far fetched imo to say there is a relationship between Walls forces and gravity, though Walls forces are considered magnetic which varies to the inverse cube of distance, gravity is electrostatic varying to the inverse square. The both work by creating magnetic and electrostatic attraction between matter- all matter has asymmetrical charges in random motion.

[MultiMasterqueef]

@Jammieg001 well i cant be wrong. 2 or more objects of "mass" or ENERGY!!!!!!!! pull together if there is little, specific, or no external forces. plus that was a guess before i found out. yay. so thats probably out of the way, if planets have gravity, planets are attracted to eachother, but why in orbit? does it really resemble energy functions?

[Jammieg001]

@MultiMasterqueef I'm not really sure what you mean, but it does seem strange that planets stay in orbit because if you drop a coin or ball in a convex like funnel it rolls around and around until it falls to the middle, so why don't planets decay in orbit and the Earth fall into the Sun?  I don't know for sure, there is already the established answer, but my guess is it has to do with a balancing act between gravity and anitgravity(aka solar wind or ion wind, essentially all EM radiation).

[DahPianoNut]

@Jammieg001 When you drop something in a cone, friction and drag will slow it down and make it fall into the middle.

In space there is no friction or drag, and the planets will not loose their momentum.

Your argument is false.

[Jammieg001]

@DahPianoNut If that were completely true then a planet in orbit can maintain its orbit without change indefinitely, but what about mercury, it is so close to the sun it is bombarded by strong solar winds that create tremendous pressure pushing it outward, light also creates pressure in itself, yet it's orbit doesn't continuously go further out it stays about where it is, why? I don't know but I think there's more going on to gravity than anyone knows.

[DahPianoNut]

@Jammieg001 Light does not have much mass, and much of the energy is transferred to heat, not momentum, so I don't think the pressure is "tremendous".

There is lots of possible solutions to why mercury does not move away from the sun, so you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the theories of gravity are wrong.

[Jammieg001]

@DahPianoNut So you don't think solar winds create a force on a planet?

[DahPianoNut]

@Jammieg001 It does sound plausible, yes. But I do not think the force is so powerful. It might even be that it does push Mercury away from the sun, but in such a slow speed that it is not measurable.

[Jammieg001]

@DahPianoNut It could be just an insignificant detail of theoretical models of astronomy, but I have a hunch that if I calculated the force of solar wind based on what we know of gravity it wouldn't add up and Earth's orbit after 5 billion years should be much further out. "Einstein proposed (and experiments confirm) that photons have a momentum p=E/c;[3][4] therefore, each light photon absorbed by or reflecting from a surface exerts a small amount of radiation pressure"- Solar Sail(wiki)

[Jammieg001]

@Jammieg001 ...what I mean is, like we are taught in school gravity doesn't do work, there's just potential energy and kinetic of falling objects, so the Earth's orbit should stay about the same even after billions of years because there's no friction in space like dropping a coin in a funnel, but if solar wind is substantially applying a continuous pushing force and yet the orbit stays the same, then something isn't adding up or there's something we don't know or maybe just I don't know.

[Jammieg001]

@DahPianoNut Thanks for your comments and interest in watching the videos and discussing it btw, whether anyone disagrees or agrees.

[slaughtz]

I don't understand why the attraction force would be greater than the repulsion force... Going to check your other video though...

[Jammieg001]

@slaughtz well think of two magnets pulling each other together maybe floating on water, as they get closer together the force between them gets stronger, they start off moving together slowly then faster and faster until they are so close they slam together. Now if the magnets are repelling 50% of the time in the same scenario what happens?

[TheDestoned]

I prefer this theory than the curvarure of space. I beleive Gravity is simply Electromagnetism on a large scale. micro - attraction between protons and electrons. natural - two magnets pulling eachother together. macro - gravity. Im glad i found this video

[Jammieg001]

@TheDestoned thank you, I think it takes a lot of courage to judge things as they are over overwhelming popular and authoritarian beliefs. I do believe Einstein's theory is very useful, but it's a description of what gravity does, to claim general relativity is the complete theory of gravity would be naive, and truth be told I don't think this video or anyone else really knows how gravity works completely but that this is somewhere in the right direction I have no reasonable doubt of.

[K1asH3r]

@TheDestoned its not electromagnetism..i can tell u that much

[listen2meokidoki]

And seeing it is such a SIMPLE experiment, to suspend a spinning magnet next to another, I's sorely tempted to try it. Except I'm sure it only works for what we call Paddle Pop Sticks. A Paddle Pop is a chocolate icecream confection mounted on a Paddle Pop Stick. Timber is notoriously non-magnetic. Thus we have to take your word the magnets are drawn together.

[Jammieg001]

@listen2meokidoki I made another video showing the magnet experiment, if you want to see it.

[listen2meokidoki]

PS: I doubt your imaginary spinning magnets behave as you say. I'm sure that the will be DRAWN TOGETHER if the spinning was slow enough. Otherwise it doesn't seem right, to me.

[Jammieg001]

@listen2meokidoki Do your own experiments and draw your own conclusions, i did not expect it either it goes against the grain of common sense, although common sense is often short sighted.

[listen2meokidoki]

1. There are many people alive who are much smarter than me.

2. Go have your ideas PEER reviewed.

3. Are you smarter than me?

[Jammieg001]

1. There are many different kinds of "smarts" in the world.

2. No thanks, youtube is a far more efficient means of mass distributing an idea uncensored to ANYONE who can easily find alternative theories on gravity. To me that is more important.

3. I usually start with the assumption that everyone is smarter than me.

[greame5]

sorry but for gravity to be a factor of electrostatics wouldn't it require all objects to have a net charge =/ to zero. large objects have roughly equal charges or a net charge of zero so how would electrostatics work? this is why there is Newtonian physics (describing big objects) and quantum mechanics (describing small particles)...i think???

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 Lets say you have a statically charged balloon, gravity force is still acting on it and yet it also is exerting a static electric force on a different level...I suspect gravity originates mostly at the atomic and/or subatomic level, that this idea is best applied there, even a single atom of the simplest hydrogen is still affected by gravity. Superpositioning allows for calculating the effect of a single charge on another atom independently of everything else going on in a large object

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 Well I think Newtonian physics is a simple a description of what gravity does fairly well on a large scale and that's all, Einstein revised, fumbled, and eventually added to that description making it a lot better but still not flawless and as to how it works, well he never finished it...as far as I know quantum mechanics has yet to find an explanation for gravity that is quantum mechanical enough, there are a dozen or so viable theories out, yet it's been long sought for.

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 Also Feynman wrote a cool book that got me interested in physics called "six easy pieces", I actually read the book after I thought up this idea thinking that gravity was already completely understood...I was wrong- we know what it does but not how it does what it does. Feynman is good at presenting things in a simple way, relating to daily life, asking questions, and revealing what we don't understand...he roughly said "there must be a relationship between electrostatics and gravity".

[greame5]

@Jammieg001

ok for the most part i could not follow what you where saying at all! from what i know and have studied gravity works on large objects but does not work on small objects like atoms - it is such an infinity small force due to very low mass that electrostatics (and strong forces for nuclei) are the only forces acting on these particles. Because of this discontinuity between large and small things there are currently two different sets of principles which we use to describe them.

[greame5]

Applying Ockham's razor physicists today are trying to find a unifying theory to describe both large and small things, thus things like string theory and the boson particle search. this is what i understand of gravity in a simplified sense. I do not know HOW it works specifically but from my decently comprehensive understanding of electrostatics gravity could not be cause by some manner of after effect from charges as all large objects have roughly equal number of + and - charges.

[greame5]

the amount of unbalanced charge in a large object would not create a force equivalent to that of gravity (much smaller) and even if you argued that you could have local charges they are short lived and simple probability can show you that. though i agree there is an uncanny similarity between the functions of gravity and electrostatics i find it easier to believe that is because our understanding of gravity is wrong and although the models fit and work well they are not completely correct.

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 Well, I'm not talking about the charge imbalance of an object as a cause of gravity. I'm not talking about van der waals forces either. Mostly I need to make another longer video on this someday and show it mathematically because that was what convinced me it was more than an idea. I believe this "...gravity could not be cause by some manner of after effect from charges as all large objects have roughly equal number of + and - charges." is a false assumption...

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 because, look at a magnet it has roughly an equal number of + & - also, yet because of the odd way a very very few of those atoms/charges get patterned it creates a seemingly mysterious extra effect, that is even much stronger than the weak gravity yet has a much shorter range. I see gravity as something much like this, an extremely weak byproduct effect of what at first glance is assumed to just "cancel out"...

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 Look at it this way, a single atom of hydrogen is usually electrostatically neutral, because the electron is orbiting the proton boggleingly fast and entirely at random it's just as likely to be in one position as another so for "all" practical purposes it has no van der waals force or magnetic effect or electrostatic effect. But, pretend for a moment this atom of hydrogen is frozen in time, for that brief moment it looks very much like a magnet...

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 , it's charge is imbalanced, and relative to another atom there might even be an magnetic and electrostatic attraction or repulsion between the two however slight and fleeting if they were to remain frozen like this it would be apparent...now consider that time is somewhat relative, that is if things happen ultra fast or happen over millions of years(such as rocks being compressed) the effects must still be there, these ultra tiny affects happening over...

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 ultra tiny measures of time and great distance must still exist, yet we might easily assume that they just cancel out, or are too minute to be of any consequence and that is why I suspect the real cause of gravity has been so and remains a mystery...Also society may simply not want to know such things, if such things lead to atomic bombs or other horrific weapons. Imagine what kind of weapons we would certainly create if we could manipulate the force of gravity- think railguns.

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 Usually I hate arguing, I believe people should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, if people can't see the truth of something it's usually because they don't want to, and usually trying to "convince" others makes both parties even more resistant to new ideas... or less likely to make mistakes depending on your point of view, but I have a hunch... and felt like explaining it in a different way.

[greame5]

@Jammieg001

sorry not trying to argue just trying to understand you!...which i really don't i read through to your comment about magnets and stopped cause you don't know what your talking about...you say my statement that all large objects have roughly equal charge throughout is false but its not, all atoms have roughly the same number of protons and electrons you can't argue that. your comment about the magnet is moronic because magnets just have aligned charges not an unequal number of them.

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 "you say my statement that all large objects have roughly equal charge throughout is false but its not", hmm I didn't say that or I didn't mean to make it sound like that, here's what I said while quoting what you said:

"I believe this "...gravity could not be cause by some manner of after effect from charges as all large objects have roughly equal number of + and - charges."-(greame5) is a false assumption..."-jam

What I mean is that's a very broad assumption imo...

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 I also didn't say that magnets had an unequal number of charges, I said:

"...because, look at a magnet it has roughly an equal number of + & - also, yet because of the odd way a very very few of those atoms/charges get patterned it creates a seemingly mysterious extra effect".

[greame5]

a magnet looks like this...

+-+-+-+-+-+- ... the charges are all aligned in the same direction giving a dipole...magnets do not look like this,

+++++------- .... if magnets did look like that string theory would have already been proven as you could cut this magnet in half resulting in two monopoles. i read further now... your comment about freezing an atom in time and it looking/acting like a magnet also doesn't work because in a large object there are trillions of other atoms that cancel

[greame5]

out this effect at the same instant then you have to add the fact that you can't actually freeze the atoms. now that you are talking about small objects and small amounts of time you are again getting back to the discontinuity between large and small objects. there is a discontinuity for a reason and its been there for many many years, im doubting that if the best physicists in the world haven't figured out exactly how gravity works then i doubt the answer is as simple as the relationship

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 Rest assured, if anyone ever came up with a simple answer to the problems of gravity on youtube even in the slim chance it was right, no one would ever hear about them, although the idea would eventually become known if it were in fact true, likewise if the best physicist in the world told people we lived in multiple universes with a clown universe and a flying elephant universe, many people would believe it.

[greame5]

maybe i have missed your point but i assure you that with the relationship between electrostatics and gravity its been looked at an nothing has come of it (at least not yet) that is what im saying with the top physicists, the fact that some ppl will believe what ever leading scientists will say is not my point, on the contrary it was what they haven't said that i feel makes the relationship between e.s. and gravity more of a coincidence then a similarity.

[greame5]

between electrostatics and gravity. maybe i just really don't see what your driving at but from what i can tell your theory wouldn't pass for grade 5 physics!

[Jammieg001]

@greame5 well I think you are missing it almost entirely you seem to think I'm saying that gravity is just extra electrostatic charge which is not the case at all, and have misread what I wrote and said several times now...I don't know what to say but calling something "moronic" or "wouldn't pass for grade 5 physics" isn't really "trying to understand it" imo, but maybe you're right. Check out a bose-einstein condensate if you want to see "frozen atoms".

[TheOrigionalMattT]

@Jammieg001

Have you actually worked this out the equation? Why would there be a net acceleration in the positive direction then the forces are inversely proportional to there distance squared. It makes no difference if both charges are positive or if one is positive and the other negative

[Jammieg001]

@TheOrigionalMattT ya I have worked it out, it's neat.

[Evenderly]

So, are you saying that an object's gravitational pull is proportionate to it's magnetic pull while in rotation?

[Jammieg001]

@Evenderly Not really but sort of, I'm saying at the atomic level everything is made up of charges in random motion, magnets are easier to grasp than coulomb's laws of electrostatics but magnetism varies to the inverse cube of the distance, yet both gravity and electrostatics vary the the inverse square of the distance. So there must be a connection between them as Feynman said, but gravity is some 40+ orders of magnitude weaker than electrostatics, how can gravity and electrostatics be related?

[Jammieg001]

@Jammieg001 The relationship is that gravity is a byproduct of electrostatic forces in random motion, that is when you take 2 simple atoms and apply coulomb's laws and random motion to the charges, one would think that the forces of attraction and repulsion would cancel out, they do not cancel out because of the inverse square of the force, i.e. as they attract distance reduces so force goes up, thereby attraction is extremely little more than repulsion, this is why gravity is extremely weak.

[Merhabina]

This is a nonsens...

[Jammieg001]

@Merhabina It may be that you did not give it much time or effort to understand or just aren't interested in the topic, just as not making the much effort to spell out the word "nonsense". But if it still makes no sense to you I would very much like to hear why in more detail because that means I may not truly understand it, or I maybe I'm not be explaining it well enough.

[nikolayzou]

Gravity and magnetism are not related. I believe in an aether and the fundamental particles of the aether do have a negative and positive charge. The particles may align creating an electric field or spin creating a magnetic field or both, electromagnetism. Gravity is caused by the amount of 3D space these fundamental particles require which is dependent on mass, this is the fourth dimension, ( not time ) and results in gravity, the effects of time is a consequence of this fourth dimension.

[smokingun7]

@nikolayzou the aether is a classical notion, modern physics has but this to bed... just like the notion of how light behaves and propagates neither does gravity.

[nikolayzou]

@smokingun7 Yes, I know the aether was apparently disproved in the Michelson Morley experiment, but their assumptions about the aether where wrong. There is more evidence now days that an aether is probable. The wrong assumption was that mass moves through the aether but this is not correct. Mass if made from the aether and distorts the aether, science call this (Space - Time) a poor explanation, but the mathematics works with what they know so far. You will see the aether make a big comeback.

[Jammieg001]

@nikolayzou The physics establishment changed the name for it, quantum vacuum, dark energy, aether or whatever to save face, you know what I mean? The Michelson Morley experiment proved the aether can't be a fixed substance, that is all, to then say if it can't be fixed it must not exist is illogical. It has already made a comeback depending on your point of view, I think people argue over the semantics mostly for egotistical reasons, almost as if science were becoming a new religion.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 Yes, I know what you mean.

[Jammieg001]

@nikolayzou Hmm, it would be more accurate to say gravity and magnetism are dissimilar, and similar in other ways, and if we understood the relationship between magnetism, gravity, and electrostatics we would be a lot closer to having a complete framework to understanding the universe, maybe even controlling gravity like magnetism. Gravity and electrostatics both vary to the inverse square of the distance between them, yet electrostatics are some 40 powers stronger, what is the connection?

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 I will try and explain how I think these forces are related, this is going to be hard. Imagine an aether particle as a tiny sphere of energy in our three dimensions. This sphere of energy takes up a certain amount of space, the amount of space it takes up ( I don't want to use the term volume as this space is relative ) becomes the fourth dimension. The goal of these energy particles is to simply expand, take up more space, which make that space relative. Do you follow me so far?

[Jammieg001]

@nikolayzou Sure, although I would ask later after you've explained it and I've thought about it ,why do they "simply expand".

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 What I have said so far does make you think. I have a mind experiment to illustrate a problem with Einstein and time being a dimension. Image that the Universe consisted of only two space crafts A and B, both crafts are identical having the same mass . Space craft A is traveling near the speed of light and space craft B is at rest. The question is, time would slow down for which space craft? Remember, there is no other matter in the universe except the two space crafts.

[Jammieg001]

@nikolayzou  I would suspect spacecraft A would slow, but to me time is relative, man made, and more so a philosophical concept. I think the reasoning as to why it should slow has to do with the supposed cosmic speed limit, that is if matter can only move so fast in so many vectors, then increasing one to it's near limit must limit the other atomic speed vectors in effect seemingly slowing down time like freezing matter to near absolute zero temp.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 Because absolute motion doesn't exist, if craft A is moving and B is not, this implies that there is a third reference point, that is space itself (or the aether). So craft A is moving relative to the aether, HOWEVER matter is made from the aether and can't move relative to it. So there is no way in knowing which craft is moving and which is not so time for both crafts will pass at exactly the same rate, regardless of their relative speed.

[Jammieg001]

@nikolayzou Interesting way of looking at it, what does that mean? There must be an aether?

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001What does that mean, good question, not too sure, LOL. I think it means that there is something missing in the mathematics or the mathematics can be rewritten to eliminate the time variable, I'm not to sure. Anyway, back to the aether particles. I believe each particle has both a negative and positive charge associated with it making it neutral. All these particle want to do is expand, the only way they can expand is by forming structures.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 Let's go back a step and try to imagine a time before the big bang. The universe only consisted of aether particles, all taking up the same amount of 3D space. Now think about the 4th dimension, (NOT TIME), How much space does each particle take up? How many particles are there? There is a problem with this, can these particles be infinitely small and an infinite amount of them? I think the answer is no and is the reason we are here? Do you know what I mean?

[Jammieg001]

@nikolayzou I kinda see what you mean, it's like what is a dimension? There are the 3 physical dimensions and then all sorts of other dimensions we may choose to attach to describe the properties of matter and energy. I don't think the big bang happened for various reasons, I see the universe as infinite in time and space, and change, a continuous cycle, never ending where the law of entropy fails. Even a black hole takes up space, there must be some limit to how compact matter can be.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 I think the concept of infinity is always going to be hard for humans to comprehend. What I am suggesting is that our universe is finite in an infinite cycle of creation and destruction. What I mean is that the universe is cyclic in nature, it is created and destroyed over and over again. This theory supports the idea of multiple universes, but only supports four dimensions because I believe you can explain all the forces in nature using only four dimensions.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 I believe in a big bang, but I think the term big bang is unfortunate. It implies there was a singularity (infinitely small) and then a big explosion, I believe this is not an accurate description. I prefer the notion of aether particles simply wanting to expand and form structure. Matter did originate from a central point but not infinitely small. Anyway, our perception of space has a reference, the reference is the atom and that is relative to the amount of surrounding mass.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 So to say something is infinity small is ridiculous and doesn't work in the mathematical world. The point at which the universe changed from being a uniformly compressed mass to an expanding universe is called the point of inflation. This is when the gravitation stretch, I call this the aether stretch, over powered the forces holding the uniformed mass together. At the that point, hydrogen atoms where born and the universe started to expand and was very hot.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 The gravitation stretch was so great that the universe expanded very quickly which is probably why people go for the singularity - big bang idea. This rapid expansion period slowed because of the inward gravitational attraction forces of matter. But the stretch of the aether was always at work, as the aether particles want to expand, they do this by pulling matter closer. Today this is evident in the accelerating expanding universe which was discovered a decade ago.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 So, the universe is expanding in three dimension, HOWEVER, the universe is also shrinking in the fourth dimension. As the universe expands, matter is becoming more spread out which in fact makes the aether particles smaller. This idea does your head in a little, but does make a lot of sense if you think about it. Another factor at play are black holes and how they convert atomic matter back to aether particles.

[Jammieg001]

@nikolayzou That kinda makes sense, it could be that there is some kind of aether pressure that isn't quite constant everywhere in the universe because of this expansion, which might suggest light speed is variable, IDK. I agree with the black hole recycling idea, but I would suspect the Sun is doing the same thing on a smaller scale. I don't think the aether interacts with normal matter like normal matter.. You have a different way of looking at physics, I'll have to give it a think.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 I haven't pulled these idea's out of my hat the last minute. I have been thinking about them for over 25 years. In one sense, light speed is variable, but it travels at the same speed in every reference frame, like Einstein said. You can't think of the aether as a density, like you think of compressed gas, it is not like that. If you measured the density of aether anywhere is space, it will always be constant, like the speed of light.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 The stretch of the aether (gravity) has nothing to do with the density of the aether, the density is constant and quantitative. Then the aether stretches, atoms of matter experience the same stretch and therefore it makes is hard to understand and detect gravity. But gravity is very evident, just drop an apple or look at gravitation lensing effects when viewing galaxies.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 There was also another interesting discovery that points towards the idea of an aether. Scientist measured the light from a distance star, and discovered that different wave lengths arrived at earth at slightly different times. The longer wavelengths arrived quicker than the shorter ones. Their explanation was to suggest empty space was like bubble wrap and interfered more with the shorter wavelengths of light. To me, this is almost direct evidence of an aether.

[nikolayzou]

@Jammieg001 Anyway, I will leave it there for now, and let it all soak in. I hope you can use any of these idea's to advance your own understanding. I might even write a book one day about all that's in my head. They might call be crazy or mad, but I don't give a shit about that.

[jqs1943]

A gravitational force field is inherent of extreme heat, born as the harmaonics of a family of frequencies as are many other naturally occuring energies such as electricity, magnetism, gamma rays, etc. This field is made up of two subfields, one excursive which repels other worlds and establishes their orbital corridors therefore impeding each from invading other orbits, and gravity which serves to coalesce and to unify matter towards a common concentric point from whence it originates..

[dtpietrzak]

then why is there still gravity between two stationary objects? which is true. and plus ur retarded, it would repel just as much as it would attract.

[Jammieg001]

@dtpietrzak "...and plus ur retarded...", well I give up then you have certainly won the argument.

[petefader]

I always had a problem with the traditional explination of gravity..now looking around..nice .

[Leadyb]

I am afraid I think I can see a few flaws myself and I am far from an expert.

First off there is no reason for one magnet to spin whilst the other is stationary, unless you mean relative motion. But you have not considered rotation in 3 dimension. A spinning magnet is 2 dimensions will just align itself to the opposite pole and attract, there is no need for it to continuie to spin. Matter is made of a postitive nucleus surrounded by negative electron 'wave', this is true for all atoms so...

[Jammieg001]

@Leadyb Ty but I think that the flaws are in my explanation.. I'm going to make a new video with real calculations using real data and only Coulomb's laws to 2 atoms to show that gravity is electrostatic without inventing any new words or energies.

One magnet is stationary because it simplifies the problem, they could both be moving, they could both be moving in 3 dimensions, but just to get the general idea one only has to look at what they would do compared by 2 opposite and equal positions.

[DanielWaerea1]

I like what you saying it makes perfect sense.

Thumbs.

[jybrghtwll]

looking forward to the updated video , never heard this theory before but makes sense to me.

[jybrghtwll]

The Stationary magnet is the earth. the spinning magnet it everything that is pulled to the earth, objects already on the earth charge to the earths net charge, subatomic particles of matter not directly touching the earth rotate in polarity because of electron motion in a atom. In the theory Jammie purposes that because magnetic forces attract stronger than they repel(move two magnets apart the less influence they have on each other) They create a net pull force we know as gravity.

[death2opposeme]

A. Consider using magnets.

B. May wanna consider what causes rotation... Why is one stationary, and the other rotating? Explain.

C. I think that the rotating (magnet/popcycle) would rotate, around' the stationary object. Gradually increasing speed. But i could be completely wrong, as i dont have magnets to play with either.

[Jammieg001]

@death2opposeme a: made a video just using magnets, b: heat causes atoms to rotate or move around everything is in motion because nothing is at absolute zero temperature supposedly(except maybe a BEC or a black hole), c: you could be on to something to do with why solar system forms accretion discs, there could be many other deduced by simple magnet or charges in motion experiments.

[diowk]

Hey Jammie, I know why everyone here is having such a hard time understanding the concept your trying to explain. First, in order to be truely persuasive you must do this video again using real magnets to prove thats actually the way they will act. Otherwise its not a theory, its just an idea. I found your views really interesting and suprisingly sensible but I havent experimented enough with magnets to know that they will act EXACTLY as you describe. PROVE IT

[Jammieg001]

@diowk I will do that, thanks.

[tuvoca]

LOL!

[realisoph]

I tried to understand your point, but I simply can't... where'd you derive the "attraction" from?

Alike polls repell and opposites attract... where's the net-attraction in that?

Why would you have one being static and the other one spinning?

[Jammieg001]

I will explain it in more detail later on, I've simplified it to make it brief and easier to grasp just the principle without explaining how or why I simplified it or the details of how it's generalized to gravity, or how it fits into physics, if one can see the truth of it they are better off answering those questions on their own...embarrisingly it took me 2 years just to grasp why the magnets attract so you are not alone.

[realisoph]

Please deliver those details... I'll watch it another few times and try to understand your realization... which I haven't gotten my mind to wrap around yet. Well, maybe I never will. ;o)