Gravity could be the interplay of the -expansion of matter- versus the expansion of space. More specifically, it is the expansion of "repulsive" activity (matter making contact with matter) and the amount of space expansion going on between them. More space expansion (greater the distance between the objects) = less gravitational effect (less "pull" between them)
A few weird things that this would mean:
--Things do not "pull" eachother, but they actually expand into eachother. So nothing really falls into something, it is actually growing to the point of bumping into something else.
--The past is very very small in comparison to the future, but we can't tell because we are growing at the same rate as all the rest of matter.
--Given that we cannot witness the expansion of matter, denser materials (more matter in an aggregate) will expand faster than lighter materials (less matter in an aggregate), but the result is that the denser materials will appear to "attract" a objects faster than the lighter materials.
Ok so imagine 2 expanding balloons, represented by "()":
(.)......(.)
Now over time, they expand:
(..)....(..)
(...)..(...)
(....)(....)
Boom they make contact. But when it comes to using this to explain gravity, it is important to note that we --do not witness this increase in size of object-- because we are also growing along with the objects, so they appear to remain the same size relative to everything else. Yet, such a phenomenon would appear -to us- like this:
(.)......(.)
.(.)....(.).
..(.)..(.)..
...(.)(.)...
^^^^^^^^^^
Gravitational "pull"
The earth is constantly pushing me with its expansion outwards at a constant rate of acceleration, and I am helping with my body's constant expansion into it. The denser materials towards the Earth's core causes the "acceleration" effect which is why I appear to be held in place. This relationship between acceleration and gravity is known to anyone who has seen or felt the effects of "G-Force", which is what happens when something is accelerating your body in a direction. When the car moves forward fast enough, you get pushed into your seat until your body matches its velocity, and if there is enough acceleration, you can achieve "G's" which are increments of the "pull" of Earth's gravity. 9 G's is a pull 9 times the gravity of the earth's pull.... But really "pull" is misleading, because it is a push in the car, and under my theory, it is a push on the surface of the Earth.
Now, why aren't we and the moon (or any other extra-planetary body) about to make contact if we are expanding at the same rate? This is because of either two reasons:
The obvious reason:
Orbital kinetics: Because the moon is kinetically moving away from the earth at a rate which is fast enough to keep the objects from expanding into eachother... and:
Space expansion: Which is the expansion of space itself, which is well known by the fact that the further two objects are away from eachother, the faster they become separated. Supposedly driven by "dark energy", which basically means they don't know how it is expanding exponentially.
Now, I actually think these two effects could be one and the same thing under this new theory, but for all purposes of making this simple for me, I have to relate this issue to why it appear to make a circular motion around the Earth in order to stay separated from it. This is probably the most difficult part of this explanation. and I will come back to it below.
Now on the subject of practical earthbound relationships between objects:
If my matter is technically expanding as fast as the earth (as well as all matter) is (which is why I'm being 'pushed' against it at a constant rate of acceleration), and the laptop I'm writing on is also expanding just as fast, why am I and the laptop -not- expanding into each other horizontally? Well, it is because we are both supported by an expanding object (the earth) which is pushing us apart faster than we can expand horizontally towards eachother. So it would be like a "V" shape.
_______________
...Laptop...Me....
........... V........
.........Earth......
_______________
Make sense? Now this brings up an important point, because it may be the case that all objects are becoming more and more diluted, right?, because that amount of earth between me and the laptop must be losing some degree of density of something-I-know-not-what, but in order for it to be conceivably "growing". Well this is conceivably consistent with the laws of thermodynamics which claim that everything is losing "order"... everything is spreading thin, so to speak. When you have the heater on in the car, and you open the window to the cold air, the hotness in your car expands out into the cold air, and the same can be said of matter itself... over time, all atoms decay.
--Smallness of the past and light--
Ok, you know how they say the sun is actually behind its "actual" position in the sky? That's because it takes light time to travel to the Earth, so the sun we see is some odd amount of minutes older than the sun in the present time. Anyway, the next subject is why wouldn't light travelling from a great distance away reveal an object which is incredibly small since the object we see, is technically representative of the past? And indeed this requires an extraordinary amount of abstraction on the part of whoever is reading this, as I'm having a hard time convincing myself of it:
Ask yourself the question:
Why is it that the farther the object is away from me, the smaller it is?
The practical response is, "Well, the closer objects are taking up more of your field of vision on your retina, the distant ones take up less."
Well this is not an answer to the question, because it doesn't explain why they are taking up more or less space on your retina. I actually believe that the further an object is away from your eye, the smaller it will appear, because the further away it is from the present moment. Specifically, the representations of the past appear smaller to the objects of the present, namely my perceptual apparatus: the eye.
This is pretty amazing stuff, and I'll keep writing as I come up with more of it, since there are a lot more things to cover.
-----------------Continuation:--------------------------
In order to account for why it appears that satellites (such as moons) must take on an elliptical orbit in order to avoid expanding into another object, I must appeal to the idea that rather than thinking of matter as expanding, perhaps it is better to think of it as 'space is shrinking'.
After looking up for other people's explanations as to why things appear to get smaller the further away they are, I ran into this forum's webpage:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=514827
(I joined in, recently, after it dies)
Just like all of us bright minds, the poster "Wierd Theory" was criticized as a result of proposing exactly along the same lines that I am proposing, but due to its speculative nature his point was thrown off. I will admit that his explanation helped me shed some light on this different perspective, albeit for another purpose. He believes, perhaps incorrectly, that the entire Universe is shrinking. His post is as follows:
Thread: Why do things get smaller as they get further away
Poster: Weird Theory
Title of response: Shrinking Universe:
Post:
"You are all wrong...Things do actually get smaller the further away from you they are...We are in a shrinking universe...The further things are from you in time the smaller they are.....That is why when you approach something,the time it takes to reach it means that it retuns back to it's "normal" size relative to you.If we could approach something in the distance at the speed of light ie in "no time" It would actually be dwarfed by us.This is why a laser beam diverges into the distance.... and why it doesn't follow the earths curve into the distance...because at the speed it travels the beam you perceive is actually travelling into the past and the earth would have been bigger then....It's difficult to explain.
The further away something is,the further it is into the future relative to you,and because of this "universal shrinkage " and the time difference the smaller it appears ."
This is perfect, but where we differ is that he believes that a light beam is revealing something about the future, and I disagree, since it is revealing something about the object's past. Although, I could be wrong in flux, so I'll have to think it over.
Technicalities aside, I wish I could find this guy because he is onto something when he says, "This is why a laser beam diverges into the distance.... and why it doesn't follow the earths curve into the distance...because at the speed it travels, the beam you perceive is actually travelling into the past and the earth would have been bigger then....It's difficult to explain."
In this line of reasoning, which is something I am trying to follow, probably lies the answer to why objects appear to take circular paths in order to avoid expanding into each other. He points out that a laser beam will diverge, and -not- converge into the distance. But I'll point out that any other object, say a spear thrown into the distance, or a city street, will appear to converge from base to tip.
Imagine putting a laser beam in front of you facing down a straight street. If that laser beam were making contract with the long road (lighting up a red line of laser light down the road), it would appear to diverge (spread apart), and the street would appear to converge (come together). Way ahead of this hypothetical street, the laser beam will be making contact with the entire street. So it isn't that the street was -bigger- as he suggests, but it is that it was --smaller-- in the past... allowing the beam at my feet to make contact with half an inch of street and the same beam to make contact with the entire street miles or something away from me.
As for what he says here, "and why it doesn't follow the earths curve into the distance...because at the speed it travels, the beam you perceive is actually travelling into the past and the earth would have been bigger then" No the reason why... oh my god I figured it out, thanks to this guy, the reader is witnessing epiphany
It doesn't follow the Earth's "curve" because the appearance of a "curve" is a result of the smallness of the Earth in the past. As we look down the surface of the Earth, the ground appears to converge, not only in a horizontal sense, but also in a vertical sense with the bottom of the Earth. Now, this would explain why the Laser beam gets further and further away from the Earth as it travels straight off the planet rather than curve along.
------------------Ok, now on the subject of the circularity of gravitational Orbits---------- (notes)
Curvature appears to be an illusion in which we perceive the light from objects so far in the past that they pinch into invisibility. I hate to even write this, but there are fruitcakes who refuse to believe that the Earth is round because it isn't Biblical, but I am afraid that this theory will understand everything as technically being a flat plane, by which denser materials will pinch the amount of space between two objects. This is why we believe wormholes will work for space travel, and (I know this sounds crazy), but why it would be faster to travel straight through a sphere to the other side, than to travel the whole way around (why it would be faster to get to China straight through the Earth if a hole were made). The moon only appears to go "around" the Earth, but it actually "pinches" off, since it isn't "disappearing behind" but rather "appearing in front of" objects which have been "pinched off" from view in the distance. The reason the moon appears to speed up the closer it gets to the Earth (called "gravitational slingshotting") is due to the fact that the denser materials (basically: areas of less space) have expanded so close to eachother that they shorten the amount of space that the moon is travelling horizontally across the sky... consequently the moon stays visible less while it orbits closer, and more while it orbits farther away. I may be reinventing Einstein's spacetime, but in such a way that I am explaining gravity as the acceleration against the expansion of matter, rather than the shortening of space, but both are true.
----------------------------------Light being bent by dense objects --------------------
Take 3 balls this time using the expansion explanation above where "()" represents an object:
(.)......(.)......(.)
If they are all the same density, the 2 on the outside ones will touch the middle one at the same time:
(..).....(..).....(..)
(...)....(...)...(...)
(....)..(....)..(....)
(.....)(......)(.....)
But if the first one is a greater density, the first object will now make contact with the second one before the second one contacts the last one:
(.)(.)......(.)......(.)
(..)(..)...(..)....(..)
(...)(...)(...)...(...)
(....)(....)(....)(....)
And since matter expansion cannot be detected due to it being in flux with our matter, we think we are experiencing a greater amount of "attractive force" from the denser aggregate (albeit appearing the same size), when we are really dealing with a mass which is expanding faster than another mass. For this reason, gravitational lensing occurs in which light will travel longer over a denser material (since it is larger than we can perceive it to be) which causes the light to "bend" around the object.
.....................................................................................
The following post shows a dialogue between me and one of the posters on the forum, and explains better the curvature of spacetime:
I write:
"Originally Posted by Neveos
But, herein is precisely the problem, and why this is just a restatement of the object in question:
Your answer is:
"If you move the object further away, this angle will decrease"
This doesn't answer the question: Why is this the case?
and to say it is a basic fact, while possibly true, still is not an answer to this question.
Your answer is of a geometrical nature that actually rests on another question:
Why does the "field of view" increase in the distance? But this is answered by:
All objects appear to decrease in size in the distance.
Which simply brings us back to the question at hand.
While I do have an answer to this phenomenon, and I am surprised a moderator did not know enough about space-time to understand this, Weird Theory actually puts the most valid answer to this question when he believes the distance from observation shows representations of a different state of the Universe. One which he believes is shrinking, but one which I believe is expanding since light in transit represents the past and not the future. Thus the claim that they actually "are smaller", is under my view, "were smaller", and the expansion is doing a lot more than just this phenomenon, but even causing the appearance of "curvature" and "gravitation". I would write more, but seeing as to how the moderator considers this to be outside of the focus of science, I don't think they will actually allow me."
______________________________________________________________________________
He writes:
"Originally Posted by insane_alien
i suggest you look up triangles.
lets say you have 2 points 1 meter appart. your eye is 1 meter away from them in a manner so if you joined the dots with your eye and the two points so you form an isoceles triangle.
the distance from your eye to either of the two points would be 1.25 meters and you would observe an angle of 53.1 degrees. (inverse sine of 1/1.25).
now, lets say you moved back to ten meters. the distance to each point from your eye would be 10.25m and the angle between them would only be 5.6 degrees.
the distance between the two points hasn't changed (there is no change in size as weird theory is suggesting) but the angle has got MUCH smaller. this means it will appear smaller as the area of retina detecting the object is smaller."
_______________________________________________________________________
And I reply:
"Originally Posted by Neveos
You are restating the object in question again, and I sympathize because I know this is hard, but look at your conclusion:
"the angle has got MUCH smaller. this means it will appear smaller as the area of retina detecting the object is smaller."
You are answering by assuming this fact is unquestionable:
The field of view increases in the distance.
If asked why, the answer is the object in question:
"Objects appear smaller (appear to converge) in the distance" ("allowing us to see more objects as FoV is increased")
This is circular, and thus the fault in that reasoning.
The reason we have the ability to ask this question is due to the separability of the concepts of distancing and spread of FoV (convergence of objects).
Have you ever looked up a tall radio tower or looked straight down along a tall building? It may frighteningly appear bent away from you causing you to question its weight distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KL2006.jpg
Convergence of horizontal angles, alone, simply would not explain this phenomenon, but convergence of angles in a 3 dimensional space would. Which means it is appearing to pinch not only in a horizontal sense, but also from front to back (top to bottom)... we just do not think we tend to witness this other pinch, but this other pinch is considerably independant of our view of the object's backside. This is the entire reason we have a concept of curvature.
Point being, a simple explanation that distant objects take up less of our FoV triangle is just rebegging the question. Why is it doing that?
If the observer is a point, and the point orbits around a circle looking at it the whole way around, all that is happening is that the observer is getting closer to points that were once farther away, and relative to only the observer/circle system, the point is travelling consistently in one diagonal direction, thus making the circle's path a straight line to the observer, and the observer is travelling along that line. The points further around the bend are exactly the same thing as if they had simply been further along a straight line, they exhibit distance from observer albeit different distances:
Consequently there is a reduction in size of further points to the observer in both scenarios, and thus the points around the circle are simply farther away than the points along a straight line. This is why travelling in what is commonly known as "straight" is considered simpler than travelling in what is known as "around". And this is why travelling straight through a circle to the other side is faster ("less distant") than travelling around the circle to the other side. It is all considerably flat, and all of this begs the question:
Why is there an association between distance from observation and reduction in size? One which I have previously provided an answer."
__________________________________________________________________________
