"New paper: Our understanding of gravity is totally wrong"

[JHL]

"A new paper claims our understanding of gravity is totally wrong
What if gravity is just an illusion?"

Maybe gravity as a function and not a cause is about to go mainstream?

A theoretical physicist has come up with a new hypothesis that could finally explain the mystery of dark matter - the elusive matter that's predicted to make up around 27 percent of the observable Universe.

According to the new paper, all we have to do to explain the weird effects of dark matter in the Universe is take gravity out of the equation.

"Our current ideas about space, time, and gravity urgently need to be re-thought. We have long known that Einstein's theory of gravity can not work with quantum mechanics", the author the new paper, Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam, told Dutch news site NOS.

[...]

Physicists predict that dark matter makes up around 27 percent of all the mass and energy in the observable Universe - in fact, if galaxies didn't have dark matter, gravity alone wouldn't be enough to hold them together - but no one has been able to figure out what it is as yet.

[...]

So Verlinde decided to look at the problem another way. If we only proposed dark matter to make up for an inconsistency with gravity, then maybe the issue isn't dark matter at all - maybe the problem is that we don't really understand how gravity works.

[...]

His suggestion is that gravity isn't a fundamental force of nature at all, but rather an emergent phenomenon - just like temperature is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the movement of microscopic particles.

In other words, gravity is a side effect, not the cause, of what's happening in the Universe.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-paper ... ally-wrong

https://youtu.be/ynRVnIh6wq4

[kell1990]

I'm all for the idea that gravity is totally wrong. In fact, all 3 of the other 4 forces have been rectified with each other. That is, the strong nuclear force, the "weak" force, and the "electric force" have been "unified".

Which leaves gravity as the outlier.

But there's something here that just doesn't fit. No one has ever seen a "graviton", which is supposed to transmit the force of gravity. Personally, I don't think such a thing exists, any more that dark matter or dark energy exists.

But there is some force that does attract other objects based on their mass. So what could it be?

The thing that has always fascinated me is that the forces listed above have been "unified" through the electric force. So it must also be true that the gravitational force will also be unified through the electric force.

[D_Archer]

attract other objects based on their mass..

That is also just an assumption.

Regards,
Daniel

[LunarSabbathTruth]

Gravity is incoherent magnetism.

In a normal block of steel, the magnetism from individual atoms are not aligned, and the block only exhibits gravity. If you pass an electric current around it, the magnetic fields align, and the entire block exhibits magnetism.

Gravity, magnetism, electricity, and static electricity are all related. And yes, there is an aether.

- joe

[upriver]

Gravity is incoherent magnetism.

In a normal block of steel, the magnetism from individual atoms are not aligned, and the block only exhibits gravity. If you pass an electric current around it, the magnetic fields align, and the entire block exhibits magnetism.

Gravity, magnetism, electricity, and static electricity are all related. And yes, there is an aether.

- joe

They are all fields..
i.e. We dont have a device that sees fields remotely without being influenced by the field.
Fields have no mass, or properties except for causing mass bound objects to move..

[Pi sees]

From the article linked by the OP:

Verlinde's model takes entropy and applies something known as the holographic principle. The basic idea is that there's fundamental bits of information stored in the fabric of space time - Verlinde describes these as 'atoms' of space - and these bits of information can shift in order to move towards high entropy.

According to Verlinde's calculations, this shift produces an entropic force that acts like gravity.

I think he's on the right track, but he's overcomplicating it when he makes recourse to the holographic principle and especially to the fabric of space-time (which imo is a fiction). If you think about the trajectory of a falling object, it is moving towards the place of maximum stillness, i.e. the center of the Earth. The falling object is trying to conserve energy.

[LunarSabbathTruth]

Gravity is incoherent magnetism.

In a normal block of steel, the magnetism from individual atoms are not aligned, and the block only exhibits gravity. If you pass an electric current around it, the magnetic fields align, and the entire block exhibits magnetism.

Gravity, magnetism, electricity, and static electricity are all related. And yes, there is an aether.

- joe

They are all fields..
i.e. We dont have a device that sees fields remotely without being influenced by the field.
Fields have no mass, or properties except for causing mass bound objects to move..

They are different alignments of the same field. Magnetism gives volume to the individual atom, and when the atomic fields are aligned (coherent), the entire piece (of iron, etc) becomes a magnet itself. Otherwise, it is an incoherent magnet, with a much weaker effect called gravity.

Because it is not aligned, the center of gravity appears to be a point in the center of the mass. If it was aligned, then it is a magnet, with the center of magnetism not being a point, but a plane in the center.

- joe

[kevin]

I don't often venture out of the mad ideas section, but...
IMHO..........
There is no such thing as gravity, it is a consequence relative to the difference in implosion over outrush.
Consciousness permeates all of universe( aether), it has a duality of spin that enables creation of matter, which becomes mass.
The net difference in implosion against outrush been utilised in creation.
At all scale this produces a heart centre reversal location.

The rate on this planet is 55 over 34, as I detect and can monitor via dowsing.
Fibonacci rules all.
Kevin

[webolife]

Kevin, thanks for joining us, but sometimes you just say weird stuff

I'd like to return to something from upriver:

They are all fields..
i.e. We don't have a device that sees fields remotely without being influenced by the field.
Fields have no mass, or properties except for causing mass bound objects to move...

I almost completely agree here. Additionally, we are not just "influenced" by the field, we are in fact a connected part of the field. As I see it, that "connection" is the definition of gravity. Gravity is not a thing or a cause, it is the outcome of the primary [unified] field action.

Along with light, EMF, and atomic forces...

[seasmith]

~
Kevin wrote:

There is no such thing as gravity, it is a consequence relative to the difference in implosion over outrush.

Sadly, i have nothing like kevin's natural ability to detect "heart centres" or Fibonacci spin ratios,
but if i may attempt a paraphrase of the above sentence in Platonic to 'modern' terms:
Matter coalesces as Gravity, and diffuses as Light; with the Aether as the dowser's medium maelstrom.

My apologies if i am totally misrepresenting the facts, and derailing JHL's thread.

[Webbman]

I like the aetheric ball theory of gravity.

all matter is a mass concentration of aetheric strands. Much like a basketball covered in Velcro but not as orderly. The electrical nature of our planet ( and a proton) cause these invisible strands to stand up (as they dissipate charge) on a grand scale and the rotation causes a sweeping action that draws everything in to its center While LOSING CHARGE or energy. Its not a perfect alignment like a wire, but more like a spinning wild mess. The sweepers are also matter organizers by density.

Large bodies like a planet cannot hold charge and are charge starved. The earth is the positive and EVERYTHING in comparison that is smaller than the earth is negative in this respect. Compared to the sun the earth is a negative. The sun cant hold charge either. You cannot compete with a larger (denser) body in terms of charge because potential charge is directly proportional to mass or gross strand count.

So if you "charge a foil" the earth doesn't care. The only time it does care is when the alignment strength is greater than the alignment of the sweeping effect and we see this only locally with magnetism. Its not easy to exceed the earths alignment strength.

so our little matter sweepers do what they do best. Draw in matter. Real entanglement in the most literal sense of the word. Gravity is a second order electrical process. Every strand does count and everything is made of strands.

no magic forces.

[kevin]

Gravity is incoherent magnetism.

In a normal block of steel, the magnetism from individual atoms are not aligned, and the block only exhibits gravity. If you pass an electric current around it, the magnetic fields align, and the entire block exhibits magnetism.

Gravity, magnetism, electricity, and static electricity are all related. And yes, there is an aether.

- joe

They are all fields..
i.e. We dont have a device that sees fields remotely without being influenced by the field.
Fields have no mass, or properties except for causing mass bound objects to move..

We Don't have a "device" as they are all dead.
Dead is to be at rest with the field of this planet....at rest.

Living beings have a separate field of consciousness, and can detect and determine this field....I can.

The living have a duality of field, any device is made from dead materials.

Most of nature operates with this system, humans are almost blind to it.

All living entities have detectable dual whorl fields , plants and trees know how to reverse their northern and Southern hemisphere fields to enable fluids to FALL within them( largely happens at equinox time spans)

They KNOW there is no such thing as gravity, thus they operate with that which creates a net vertical inrush into the heart centre of this planet at Fibonacci sequence of 55/34.
The difference been utilise up in creation of atoms( independent dual whorl fields)

This is basically fertility, the required duality of what most of You on here call charge...I consider all electrical properties are consequences of consciousness that most call the aether.

I have spent years researching TTBrown, and His life time works , which is all shrouded in disinformation.....for good reasons.
Gravity is time.
Time is gravity.

We are switching relative to the slither of the surface area of this planet, We are products of creation here.
The net rate of gravity ( which is variable) results in the time We know.

This is a pure electric universe, but not how We have been indoctrinated to BELIEVE.
Kevin

[TalonThorn]

What scientists have failed to learn is that when you run into a contradiction, or even when an explanation starts becoming problematic, you're probably wrong about how it works. This doesn't mean that your observations need to be compensated for by changing the theory, but rather you need to get rid of some assumptions which are gumming up the system. It is almost always the (wrong) assumptions which cause problems (though at times it is simply wrong conclusions or just government money making people fudge their results so that they get the "right" answer, but aside from those hazards it is simply the assumptions that need to be reevaluated).

First, what we call gravity can't be quantified. All we do know is that observation this and observation that, and so we've contrived something called gravity to explain observations without first finding out why we observe what we observe. Using this same approach, some scientist in the past determined that cold was a substance. He didn't understand why cold existed but slapped a name on it and probably started looking for the "cold" particle. His "cold" was of course subsequently disproven, showing that cold is just lack of heat, and even heat isn't a particle but rather a phenomenon explained by how particles interact with each other!

And Kevin, I have a wrench to throw: time doesn't actually exist. We just see things change and have memories and so we contrive time. If you want to measure "time" you actually use a clock and see change, not time. Maybe what we call time is actually motion, except motion is change of position over time. So, getting rid of the extraneous factor of "time" we are simply left with change -- and our mind's propensity to remember the past as if it is actually part of the fabric of reality.

[kasim]

Gravity, magnetism, electricity, and static electricity are all related. And yes, there is an aether.

I don't agree with the aether because it was created as a medium tfor electromagnetic waves to propagate in. Einstein explained the photoelectric effect that other people had found and he explained it in terms of quanta which he likened to particles. Unfortunately, he gave us the wave-particle duality theory but removed the aether from his theories.

Louis de Broglie, in 1923, found that moving particles have wave properties. So, photons of light must be particles that have wave properties. Proof from classical mechanics: a moving particle has kinetic energy KE = 1/2 mv^2. If that particle is a photon then KE = 1/2 mc^2. Total energy is E = mc^2 hence the other half is the internal energy of the photon particle. If the photon is a particle that has internal energy then it'll have mass as an intrinsic property i.e. it won't be massless. Besides, what gives rise to the electric and magnetic field components of an electromagnetic field? The photon must be made of oppositely charged particles that are spinning.

Given that electromagnetic photons are particles, they don't need an aether as a medium for propagation because particles can propagate anywhere without a medium.

[LunarSabbathTruth]

Gravity, magnetism, electricity, and static electricity are all related. And yes, there is an aether.

I don't agree with the aether because it was created as a medium tfor electromagnetic waves to propagate in. Einstein explained the photoelectric effect that other people had found and he explained it in terms of quanta which he likened to particles. Unfortunately, he gave us the wave-particle duality theory but removed the aether from his theories.

Louis de Broglie, in 1923, found that moving particles have wave properties. So, photons of light must be particles that have wave properties. Proof from classical mechanics: a moving particle has kinetic energy KE = 1/2 mv^2. If that particle is a photon then KE = 1/2 mc^2. Total energy is E = mc^2 hence the other half is the internal energy of the photon particle. If the photon is a particle that has internal energy then it'll have mass as an intrinsic property i.e. it won't be massless. Besides, what gives rise to the electric and magnetic field components of an electromagnetic field? The photon must be made of oppositely charged particles that are spinning.

Given that electromagnetic photons are particles, they don't need an aether as a medium for propagation because particles can propagate anywhere without a medium.

"... Einstein explained the photoelectric effect ..."

One can give an explanation of something, for example, that a phenomenon is caused by pixie dust but that does not mean it is correct, even if one gives a detailed description of said pixie dust.


"... Given that electromagnetic photons are particles ..."

Assuming that the aether does not exist leaves no other alternative but to imagine different colors and flavors of pixie dust, each of which is supposed to propagate / communicate / regulate a particular effect, like charge, mass, gravity, etc.

- joe

- joe