gravity force : A new view

Recommended Posts

Well , I'm not against GR this is a new view added to GR view of space time curvature of positive and negative attraction concept.
Does space exist inside mass m? No since mass m occupied the place of space.

Does mass m exist in place of the space I mentioned? No space is nothingness there is not mass occupied in it

So mass m occupy space , this space is equivalent to mass m.

If mass m occupy space " there is not space in the place of the mass" then mass m causes Non-existence of space in that place

If we have to masses M and m they will attract each other This is due to mass m is attracted to non-existence of mass M and mass M is attracted to non-existence of mass m.

Mass tends to fulfill the non-existence of space caused by other masses .The two " space and matter" are opposite mass means no space , space means no mass so they have such interaction of fulfillment .

The fulfillment tendency causes potential between masses and force we have such concept in electricity where positive charges are attracted to negative charges.

Non-existence of space could be like a negative charge and mass could be like a positive charge.

Notice the medium here for the force is space itself so I'm not against GR .

I mentioned the space which has been occupied is equivalent to the mass m so in the equation of Newton gravitation mass m and M can represent both masses and equivalent space

Fulfillment tendency happens for sure. If mass interacts with space and curve it according to GR then mass"positive " will also interact with non-space "negative" causes attraction between two masses

Edited by awaterpon

Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Does﻿ space exist inside mass m? No since mass m occupied the place of spa﻿ce.﻿

Space is just measurements of distance in three dimensions. The atmosphere has mass so you are saying it is not possible to measure distance in the atmosphere. This is obviously not true.

36 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Well﻿ , I'﻿m not against GR this is a new view added to GR view of space time curvature of positive and negative attraction concept.﻿﻿

Let’s see the mathematics of this new extension to GR then. Which of the tensor are you changing?

Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Well , I'm not against GR this is a new view added to GR view of space time curvature of positive and negative attraction concept.

A quick comment; a lot more details and math is required since the idea seems to say that Newton and GR is incorrect. Example: As far as I know a star that have run out of fuel may collapse. If for instance the result is a neutron star we have about the same mass in less volume, ok? What is your definition of "space" in this context? Does the star loose a lot of gravity when it turns* into a neutron star, according to your model? How does your idea match observations? There are already mainstream models for this.

*) I don't know the correct name for the process

Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

A quick comment; a lot more details and math is required since the idea seems to say that Newton and GR is incorrect. Example: As far as I know a star that have run out of fuel may collapse. If for instance the result is a neutron star we have about the same mass in less volume, ok? What is your definition of "space" in this context? Does the star loose a lot of gravity when it turns* into a neutron star, according to your model? How does your idea match observations? There are already mainstream models for this.

Space doesn't mean measurements from mass edges .There is still gaps between particles. Gravity is particle to particle attraction the collection is mass m.

Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Space doesn't mean measurements from mass edges .

What? If you measure the size of a piece of wood, you measure it from one edge to the other.

4 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

There is still gaps between particles. Gravity is particle to particle attraction the collection is mass m.

This doesn't make much sense. That is why you need the mathematics, instead of vague words.

How do you propose to modify this equation: $R_{\mu \nu} - \tfrac{1}{2}R \, g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}$

27 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Gravity is particle to particle attraction the collection is mass m.

This is overly simplistic. The mass of an object is greater than the mass of the particle that make it up.

Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Space doesn't mean measurements from mass edges .There is still gaps between particles. Gravity is particle to particle attraction the collection is mass m.

Ok, so the idea is about particle physics. How do you define a particle, radius and space in your idea? Is your definition compatible with quantum physics or are you suggesting something different? Radius, volume, density are not the most usable concepts at the small scales of subatomic particles, how does your model look? Is there a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure*, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure?

Share on other sites

What predictions can you make, based on your idea? How can it be tested?

4 hours ago, awaterpon said:
If we have to masses M and m they will attract each other This is due to mass m is attracted to non-existence of mass M and mass M is attracted to non-existence of mass m.

What does this mean?

4 hours ago, awaterpon said:

Mass tends to fulfill the non-existence of space caused by other masses .The two " space and matter" are opposite mass means no space , space means no mass so they have such interaction of fulfillment .

That’s not what space is in mainstream physics.

Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, so the idea is about particle physics. How do you define a particle, radius and space in your idea? Is your definition compatible with quantum physics or are you suggesting something different? Radius, volume, density are not the most usable concepts at the small scales of subatomic particles, how does your model look? Is there a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure*, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure?

Whether there is internal structure or point particle in general we have mass that fills a place of space and we have space that fills the place where there is not mass.

Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Whether there is internal structure or point particle in general we have mass that fills a place of space and we have space that fills the place where there is not mass.

If it is a point particle, it does not occupy any space.

Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

What predictions can you make, based on your idea? How can it be tested?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What does this mean?

Mass m is attracted to non-existence of space inside mass M and mass M is attracted to non-existence of space in mass m.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not what space is in mainstream physics.

I made another mistake mass and non-existence of space are opposites if there is mass then something is missing by the existence of mass " this thing is space itself" causing non-existence of space

Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Whether there is internal structure or point particle in general we have mass that fills a place of space and we have space that fills the place where there is not mass.

6 hours ago, awaterpon said:

Space doesn't mean measurements from mass edges

Ok, that's two versions of what space not is in your idea.
What is your exact definition of the "space" that the mass "fills"? What is "mass" in your model?

Share on other sites

When an object moves  , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object"  logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .Exerting force continuously will result in displacing space continuously and making non-existence in space continuously .The two forces " force exerted on an object and  resistance force by space will make energy creation "as energy and mass are interchangeable then the process actually creates new mass amount I can conclude to this:

If space exerts force on mass "inertia" then non-space will also exert the same force on space.

if non-space exerts force on space between two masses and this space exerts force on the other mass then attraction or gravity will appear according to my view.

All these entities " space, non-space , mass " exert forces on each other mutually.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

What is your exact definition of the "space" that the mass "fills"? What is "mass" in your model?

Space is everything that is not anything mass is what has weight.

Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, awaterpon said:

Space is everything that is not anything mass is what has weight.﻿

That definition seems too vague, please improve.

When matter is compressed density increases; same amount of mass occupies less volume. When matter is compressed, what happens with gravity according to your model?

Share on other sites
3 hours ago, awaterpon said:

Mass m is attracted to non-existence of space inside mass M and mass M is attracted to non-existence of space in mass m.

How do you quantify this? It sounds like gravity should depend on volume rather than mass

3 hours ago, awaterpon said:

I made another mistake mass and non-existence of space are opposites if there is mass then something is missing by the existence of mass " this thing is space itself" causing non-existence of space

Why does a kg of osmium cause the same attraction as a kg of helium, when they don’t occupy the same volume of space?

Share on other sites
3 hours ago, awaterpon said:

When an object moves  , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object"  logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .

That violates Newton's first law. You've already been asked for evidence of an earlier claim. Making new claims without evidence isn't really that path we were hoping for.

It's inconsistent with the rules of the speculations forum.

No evidence, no discussion — there's no point. So: DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?