Why bother if existing theories “work”?
|
The author was not the first nor will he be last to conclude that gravity links exist from everything to anywhere in the universe. Isaac Newton and Ernst Mach certainly were believers, but the baby got thrown out with the bath water when relativity and quantum theory came along. Those highly successful theories are not “wrong” but need additional ‘new’ concepts to be compatible and complete. If we ever expect to progress, the two solitudes must open up. |
Why bother? Right now scientists admit that we don’t even know what Gravity or Inertia really are; or what Dark Matter & Dark Energy are that make up over 96% of the universe. Imagine if millennia ago people in isolated nations were considering if they should learn how to navigate the seas and discover what’s out there. Where would we be if in every case naysayer shouts of “why bother” had won? |
Does page seem out of context?
For a fresh start, please go to Main Page.
Olber’s Paradox as an Objection
|
After viewing the page on gravity between nucleons becoming the strong force, someone raised a concise and profound objection. He did not believe that countless gravity links are on every particle in our bodies and therefore could not possibly become a strong force. We do not feel their formidable presence of course, because the pulls are in different directions and mostly cancel out. His objection went as follows: “Take a look at the night sky. Shouldn't the intensity of light from distant stars fall off in about the same proportion as their gravity?” |
Olber’s Paradox refers to the fact that an infinite number of stars do not result in a sky that is a blaze of light. The objection suggested that we must in fact establish a comparatively much smaller number of gravity links with the stars. Unfortunately, the question is a comparison of ‘apples and oranges’. The example of looking at the night sky with the naked eye involves not only subjectivity, neurochemistry and threshold problems but also light as a very different phenomenon to gravity. Let us start with the fundamental difference in density between the quanta of light and gravity. |
Density of Gravity Links is immeasurably greater than Photons
|
There are several reasons for the difference in density which combined almost explain the “paradox” on their own: 1. Only a few types of fundamental particles of matter emit photons but they all have millions of gravity links each. 2. When a charged particle does emit a photon it is only occasionally when something special happens to it. All particles of matter on the other hand, continuously exchange gravity links. |
3. A photon is a transverse pulse that can only survive on a whole bundle of links. Gravitons however, require only a single energy link and are thus more numerous. 4. The links in each of the already fewer photon bundles, are specialized as to direction of axial flow or spin (electric or magnetic). Gravitons can exist in any of the four orientations so their already superior number is again multiplied by 4. Now let us examine more reasons for the “paradox” one by one. |

Threshold Limitation for Individual Photons
|
Photons must exceed minimal threshold energy in order to be absorbed and detected by any means. Consequently, that same minimal energy must be involved in generation for the product to qualify as a detectable photon. The thresholds exist because the generation and detection processes involve work. |
Gravity links on the other hand, can join two bodies without necessarily any work being performed. Individual gravity links exert a miniscule pull but unlike light, every one counts and collectively they can indeed be formidable. |
Why the Propagation Horizon does Not apply to Gravity
|
There is still a significant number of stars way out there whose light simply has not had time to reach us yet. The pull of gravity is a very different phenomenon to light or even gravity waves which can propagate no faster than c. Photons are transverse pulses that can flex links only so fast. Most gravity links however, do not have to propagate far. Link segments are already there! Most simply put, we don’t have to wait for gravity from stars whose light has not reached us yet. Would all Relativists now please take a deep breath (and keep reading)? Gravity from those most distant stars linked with particles in our bodies before they became stars and long before we became us. Links were established and grew with the universe, right from the beginning. The net result is a “pre-wired” cosmos in which an average number of links always exists. |
Would you run a new wire every time between your house and everybody you talk to? It just does not make sense to run a new wire to the other side of town, then for the next call run one all the way to Kalamazoo! Thank goodness for the invention of the Public Switched Telephone Network and later, the Internet. As usual, nature did it first. Gravity links are not continually re-created over vast distances. When a link between earth and the sun breaks, we do not wait 8 minutes for a replacement! If the break was close to the sun, a new link melds onto the end of another one that already covers the rest of the distance. The net result is that gravity links fail and new ones are established over billions of light years almost instantly. Now it should be clear why a little neutron can fill its huge complement of gravity links to any of an infinite number of stars in the universe. |
Threshold Limitation of the Human Visual System
|
Telescopes compensate for limitations of the eye and have managed to collect and detect light from stars as much as 8 billion light years away. The human eye on its own however, is subject to an even higher detection threshold. For the human visual system to even just barely detect one dot of light, several photons are required. Light from a more distant star has spread out too much before reaching earth. |
The probability of multiple photons from the same distant star taking just the right path at the same time, and hitting your eye is slim. The more distant stars are therefore too dim to see. Even this group of stars is still effective for gravity however; because again, every little bit counts. Without being eliminated at either threshold, every gravity link can contribute to a collective pull. |
Gravity Links do not have a Phasing Problem
|
Even if multiple photons from the same distant star take just the right path at the same time and do hit your eye, you still probably will not see it. The photons are random in phase and their energies partially cancelling can result in missing the atomic detection threshold and/or the visual threshold. |
This does not apply to gravity. The author predicts that gravity waves will never be detected from a celestial body. Gravity waves do not get far without mutual reinforcement as is the case between fields in electromagnetic propagation. |
The implications for General Relativity
|
The virtually instant establishment of gravity links does not change existing general relativity theory one iota! The concept however needs to be added to make the theory complete. Because it is so fast, time does not really enter the picture and links are established in Euclidean planar space. This establishment phase and general relativity are not mutually exclusive. |
It is already done before GR even ‘knows’ about it. As far as GR is concerned, everything occurs as expected. The instantly established links produce a warp in space-time that extends at light speed. Gravity continues to be felt as per GR field equations. Any rapid acceleration or sudden displacement of a body also then propagates along the links at light speed (i.e. gravitational radiation). |
The Implications for Quantum Theory
|
The pull of gravity is not accomplished with “exchange particles” that are discrete in space and time. Firing “particles” at each other, bodies would actually separate. Something is of course going on and you could call it “anything” in a physical model without affecting any quantum equations that may be developed for gravity. |
The only model that makes sense is the energy link that exists as a continuous line in space. Because energy links are so thin they can be considered one-dimensional, and are unlikely to be measurable in the foreseeable future. They are nevertheless, the separate quanta of gravity. |
**********Other pages on this site ***********
Mutually perpendicular axes - Secret behind Hand Rule
Expansion, Energy, Matter–Life Cycle
Global Warming, Peak Oil - Truth
Spacecraft Fly-By Anomaly explained
Strong Force=Concentrated Gravity
What happened to all the Antimatter?
The missing link = ‘energy link’
Science can Kick Start the Economy
Note to Students: Researching and thinking “ahead of the curve”
is very commendable but be aware that this material is too new to be accepted
at school.
Copyright ã
2003 - 2010 by J. E. Tuzo