gfellow wrote:Whether they be momentary or sustained, it is the surrounding space that alerts us to its presence.
This is an unsupported (by evidence) hypothetical interpretation of 'appearances', with much in refutal against it.
Every time something is thought to be a 'vacuum/nothing', advances in our means of examination/perception find more 'stuff', and as often as not, 'life'!!! Every time!
If it cannot be perceived, it cannot exist.
Perception = existence!
It's about here that I regret you cannot see my video outline of my speculation. You can view an earlier paper I wrote on the subject
here - it's a simple html page, so it ought to be easy to open.
I have perused it. Scientists don't even understand what gravity is, and have various hypotheses, none really advancing to good theory-hood, much less how to 'create' it.
Gravity;
I have such a simple and unrefutable (to date) theory of 'gravity' that Occam gave me his razor to be it's new Master! *__-
A few quick observations from your paper/site;
ABSTRACT
The Sun is inducing gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass.
I don't know how every ounce balances out, but from wiki, "the
'sun' by itself accounts for about 99.86% of the Solar System's mass; the remainder consists of the planets (including Earth), asteroids, meteoroids, comets, and dust in orbit.[9] About three-quarters of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen, while most of the rest is helium. Less than 2% consists of other elements, including iron, oxygen, carbon, neon, and others.[10]
Of the 50 nearest stellar systems within 17 light-years from Earth, the Sun ranks 4th in mass.[19]"
Thats what wiki says, anyway, but astrophysics is
not my area of expertise.
NON SPACE
Since this paper is chiefly concerned with the verification of gravitational induction, only a brief summarization of 'Non Space' will be presented here.
On a rudimentary level, non-space behavior can be compared to a vortex, which is a 'low energy' example of this phenomenon. Milk added to a stirred cup of coffee outlines a vortex, which consists of a high pressure exterior and a low pressure center. The vortex behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion(1). Objects placed closer to the center of the vortex orbit at a greater speed than objects further out from the center, in accordance with Kepler's Laws. The depression in the center of the fluid is thus a relative absence of matter producing an effect mimicing gravity.
My sitting on an apple tree branch throwing apples at the ground (how else would they get there?) is also "producing an effect characteristic of gravity".
Would the same be true if I threw the apple in the opposite direction?
It is easy to be "producing an effect that is characteristic gravity" (to some degree), that is different than producing actual gravity.
No observable space in the universe is a vacuum.(2) It is notable that most dictionaries describe a vacuum as: " A space devoid of matter." This definition is no longer sufficient description of a vacuum, since it appears that all known space contains some measure of mass/energy. Perhaps a more accurate description would be: " A vacuum is a volume devoid of space."
Not possible to define that which does not exist; space defines volume, volume defines space. Space is the
apparent relationship between volumes/things.
If the interior of a sunspot is closer to the Sun's supposedly active core, why does it get cooler and darker instead of hotter and brighter in these areas?
If we travel from sea level toward the hot sun, why do we get colder along the way, until we freeze, eventually.
Have you ever read James (I think) Churchward's Books of Mu ('The Science of Mu")? He says the sun is cold, and it's 'rays' are cold but the 'heat' that we feel is the rays' interaction with the earth's atmosphere.
In it I suggest that sustained absolute vacuums induce gravity, and I point to basic phenomena that appear to be doing this.
One can create simulations that mimic some effects of 'gravity', but like 'time', 'gravity' is a matter of Perspective; in the eye of the beholder. Gravity lives in certain 'thoughts' about 'appearances, nowhere else.
I've not written about it yet, but your mention of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' may be noteworthy,
Duuude, I've not mentioned either 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'. I don't need to offend Occam so badly in my ToE.
Let me illustrate;
Take a movie of an apple falling (being thrown) from a branch, finally settling on the ground.
Now, cut every frame apart from the others until there is a pile of frames on the table. This is how discrete quantized moments of time exist, all at once. We all, being Perspectives, look at these moments differently. Some have memories of other moments where the apple is a bit higher then another moment and another moment it appears lower. We, thoughtfully, tie this appearance together in thought and posit some means, some 'causal' (obsolete) 'reason' for the apple to appear to 'fall' to the earth.
Another Perspective will see what appears to be the a[[le 'falling' upwards to attach itself to the branch. He might hypothesize 'reasons' for such a behavior and might call it 'gravity'.
Other Perspectives perceive other perceptions and thoughts (memories) and watch the apple sitting motionless in mid-air. We hypothesize because we see what we see and a linear perception with memories implies 'reasons/causality'.
Gravity that is posited from 'motion' remains in the Perspective's thoughts.
Physicists Who Know That Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Is time an illusion? (no 'time'/no 'motion')
Impossibility of Time
No 'time' = no 'motion' = no 'gravity'
All are 'mirages', appearances in thought alone.
That is why studies of 'time' (and 'motion' and 'gravity') as an actuality, result in paradox, a sign of error.
They exist as mirages in thoughts.
A matter of Perspective.
