Dear George E. Van Hoesen,

I am reluctant to give definitive opinions about what gravity is. I like the thought that gravity is the result from the working of the zero point energy. In the Quantum Mechanics theories we have a calculation that the total energy of the vacuum is so extreme higher than what astrophysics calculates that it is called the biggest misfit in science. I have shown in my article that the total amount of energy/matter in the universe can't have a relation to it's expansion in the way it is described in the Friedman Equations. As soon as this relation is removed we can accept the results of QM and can start to reason what this energy could do.

Then we have to think how this energy is described. It is described as all the wave modes that are possible in the volume of vacuum. With that we have to conclude that any matter will be a limitation to that energy. It forms a node, a zero, in the wave functions. This has as a result that the space between two entities of matter has a lower level of energy than outside. From here we can see that the outside, with the higher energy, can push the matter towards the side where the energy is lower.

You see that under this assumption gravity would be a force that pushes and not pulls matter together. It is a complete different view than curvature, but it has the consequence that there would be a maximum for the gravity force and also that the effects of gravity are different on large scale and small scale. With that we can explain the dark matter.

Regards and thanks for your question,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul,

Almost 20 years ago I went down the path that I think you are talking about. I see the attraction of this model and I am not so sure that you are not correct. Yes this kind of model would change the entirety of the science. However there were some things that made me move off the model.

In my opinion a model that has vacuum as the primary motivator or lack of Quantum Energy density one can find that much else in the Universe would have to be much different looking. For instance, if this were the model of gravity that would be found to be true there would have to be some other things that could not be possible.

As we go from galaxy to galaxy the inside of the galaxy would have less of an attractive force than the supper forces that would exist outside the galaxy or in between them. This would mean that the gravity or force in the deepest of space would have to be the greatest and the Universe as a whole would not be able to look the way it does.

The Universe could not be separated for vary long before it would be forced into a singularity. No matter how I looked at this model I was not able to make the Universe look like it does right now.

I have never liked the big bang and have known it was wrong sense I was a child but I could not except this model that leads only to all the mass in the Universe having to be in one place at one time. This is exactly what the model that is based on vacuum energy means for the Universe as a whole.

I am not 100% sure of my model but I am more at ease after coming to the conclusion that we had missed a key equivelance between entropy and the force that we see as gravity. These two actions are diametrically apposed to one another yet in different scales.

Gravity is strong on vary short scales and falls off with the inverse square laws. Entropy is strong in the medium scales where vibrational interaction of contact is maximized and has no inverse law that rules its ability. This is where the two forces interplay becomes seductive. Gravity holds things together but as you add energy to something or mass to it you see its move to radiate and then throw off matter in an energetic way at sometimes great speeds. As this matter and energy are sent out gravity and the long term affects of the inverse square law will eventually stop the movement over time and distance.

This makes a model that looks like the Universe we live in today and accounts for things like the red shift that we see in the galaxy and in the other galaxies far from us.

Thank you for answering.

George Van Hoesen

In this very exciting and stimulating discussion between Paul Gradenwitz and George E. Van Hoesen I wish to mention that in my old paper published in Journal of Mathematical Physics Vol- 25, (1984) pp 351-354 in an attempt to unify generalized Electromagnetic force with Gravity I found that at extremely short distances (microscopic scale) the gravity is attractive as well as repulsive like usual electromagnetic force and hence its quantization becomes a possibility to give quantum gravity like QED and then unification of quantum gravity (strong Gravity) and QED becomes possible.

George E. Van Hoesen,

I have to keep better track of the answers I get. Sorry that I let you wait.

Your answer implies that you think that the gravity can have an effect on the scale of the universe. With this I differ in opinion. You can look into my article, that now is published in JHEPGC, where I show that there can't be a relation between the scale of the universe and the total mass inside. I dare to doubt the validity of the conclusions of ethics Friedman equations.

'The Universe could not be separated for vary long before it would be forced into a singularity. No matter how I looked at this model I was not able to make the Universe look like it does right now.' This is based on the Friedman equations.

You state that the gravity would be strongest in the empty space between the galaxy clusters. But when it is a push it never will do anything else than squeeze the clusters in a smaller film between the voids.

Any assumption that space changes scale, in my eyes, is as irrational as the assumption that space rotates around the static earth and that the bulge of the equator is generated from the pull of all the fast moving objects around us. This model generates a rotational Hubble law. Just see how similar this is to expansion. The rotation model can accept any parallel line as rotation axis of the universe. There is no preferred rotation axis and a 'Hubble law' of rotation tangential speed. In the expansion there is no preferred expansion origin and the Hubble law of recession speed. Stop both and space has no more singularities and no more speeds above the speed of light. Maybe you see out of the comparison of these two that we should label both as irrational and not just reject rotation and embrace expansion.

Balwant Singh Rajput, I had no time to look into your work, Sorry. It may be of interest together with loads of other work. You mention that gravity could be quantised. I have in the moment no more comments wrt. this thread.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Paul,

No the affects of gravity are local. Only on the galactic scale. I am afraid that we have tried to make it more than it could possibly be. My whole point is that gravity has a limit to which it can be felt.

Friedman was not my concern. All the equations and people that use General Relativity to show that gravity is infinite are wrong. Albert was right to think that the universe was static on the largest scale he was just miss guided on why. He thought that the Universe had been here for ever and was eternal. I do not know, nor do I care, if that is true or not but it is not my motivation for the conclusion that the Universe is static on the largest of scales.

Gravity like all things that are real and non mathematical is limited. There is nothing other than space and time that are infinite. Do not get me wrong time is not infinite in both directions. Time can only go in one direction and we are wrongfully lead in the wrong direction by the math that implies we can have time in both directions.

Our definitions of these things like space and time give use bazar conclusions when we abuse the way we look at things.

Man forever has wanted to be able to go back in time and change things that went wrong. Dreams may help us to understand ourselves but they do not always translate into reality.

My statement was not that gravity would be strongest in between the galaxies as a matter of fact it would be non existent between the galaxies. Only galaxies that are close together and are falling into one another right now are the ones that would have gravity affecting the travel of the galaxies.

For the most part I thing the galaxies are stable and not moving to much at all. In my eyes the Hubble constant is only a way to tell how far the galaxies are from us not how fast they are traveling away from us. I think that the affects of gravity can only be felt on the scale of a few hundred thousand light years and therefore the Universe is generally safe from total collapse.

When you talk about a rotating Hubble Law I think you are referring to the Friedman model of the Universe that is rotating around some central point. I have no problem with the Universe and no concern that it is rotating or not. This would bring up other problems in different ways. Anyway it is irrelevant in my eyes.

Gravity is not infinite and cannot be felt over infinite distances. This would be an illogical conclusion.

Gravity has a point at some distance X from the center of a mass where the force is less than Planck's constant and falls to zero. This is a limiting factor for gravity as it is a limiting factor for all energy. This being the case the limits of gravity are dictated by the inverse square rule and Planck's constant. Just as one electron cannot be felt from the other side of the planet neither can a star be felt from the other side of the known Universe.

What we are seeing is not gravity but the propagation of matter in the form of light.

Sorry for the long response but I do not want you to miss quote me or think of my thoughts as what you stated.

George Van Hoesen

The relevance is that gravity is limited and the travel of quanta like light are not. The Quanta of gravity is a field that affects other masses and although may have a speed at which it is felt at a distance from it is not traveling at that speed. Light quanta on the other hand have been emitted or freed from the mass and are traveling at a speed c from the source with a direction that is only varied by other fields and masses as it travels close by. This means that these two things are fundamentally different phenomena.

In the Quantum world I think we make the mistake in thinking they are the same thing. Gravity and photons are not the same.

In short Gravity is an affect of mass and quanta are an emission from mass.

George Van Hoesen

Dear George v Hoesen,

This question is in my project, yet I get no hint that there are updates here and I am quite busy with payed work,..

Maybe you look into my article. I propose there that space is constant and that we shrink. This is reciprocal to we are constant and space expands. In another discussion with another George Dishman, we discuss the problems of that view with respect to how many parameters are involved.

I have several articles that show that the GRT and SRT are in problems. Then I have other articles that say these same principles are irrefutable proven. I come to the conclusion that space is not dependent on the content for its expansion rate. Then I think that any expansion is not realistic. But we have to stick to the observation with a distance versus redshift correlation. The z parameter has a huge scale from 0 to 1079. Each integer is one times the speed of light if it is according to the Hubble law. We have to explain that. I do that with shrinking matter.

The thought that gravity would even be more limited and can reach zero value is an interesting thought. In an expanding universe Gravity would be limited to the distance to the particle horizon. But you are talking about much smaller distances.

My calculation that matter doesn't change the expansion rate is based on the fact that time goes one direction only. I would wonder what you think about my deduction in the article.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

Thank you for this answer. You confirm my idea of a push. You locate the origin in the Higgs field and not in the zero point energy. I assume you have a better knowledge about Quantum physics than I have.

Sydney>: the symmetry of the Higgs field is disturbed by the rest mass so there is a creation of huge vectors within the flat Higgs field around. These vectors point towards the rest mass so we get Newton's equation about gravity.

If the gravity should be explained as a push then the gravitational constant G would be dependent on the Higgs field. The Higgs field then would be different if the disturbance is further away. From this I could imagine that the average density of matter has a relation to the value of G. What we measure and interpret as Dark Matter, could as well only be the mapping of the variation of G and this based on the variation of the Higgs field.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

You are describing gravity in a way the very much resonates with my view. You state that matter interferes with, interrupts, the the vectors. The vectors are in the direction of the field magnitude change and the length corresponds to the slope. So from each mass object to the next the magnitude increases to empty space and decreases to the next mass. I only can reach maximum height if a am very far away from any mass. Take a sheet, stretch it and place some stones on it. Then you will see dips where the stones are and slopes around. But when you have some stones together then in between the sheet will not come up to the average undisturbed level but will remain a bit lower. This could illustrate what I mean. Now My statement is that any gas atom will force a dip in the filed. When I have only stars and no gas then the field between the stars will raise to a much higher level than if I have some gas in between. The height, magnitude, of the field is in my thinking related to the gravity parameter G.

In normal galaxies the gas density is related to the position of the stars with the highest density at the centre. If I go further out of the centre the gas density drops and the G parameter rises.

The Bullet Galaxy example shows that the gas is trailing the location of the stars so the largest density is outside the star region. Now the large G value area is with the stars. The simple Newton gravity equation states f=GMm/r2 In normal explanation the problem is solved by adding more mass to M. But we have only the product GM to work with. I also can keep M constant and change G. G is in my view dependent on the distance to mass. So as soon as you measure G at small scale you will end up with the same value.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

In your long life, 9 more than mine, you had a lot of chance to bring your explanations to perfection. You see the scalar field as a set of quanta. These Quanta are, to my understanding, at rest. They form a lattice of equal value, equal filled volume, of space. Now you talk about a place where these quanta are reduced. I have little problem to imagine that this will create an unbalance. The same unbalance that is found in a small volume around the 'deflated balloon' is further out available but with a larger surface area. That is why we get the 1/r2 law of Newton.

But the deflation only has reduced the pressure and has not yet reduced the size of the balloon? So the maximum sized quanta are the equal balloons with each the same pressure and size. When there is a gradient because some quanta have changed, then that has not changed the scale of the rest of the field. It only has changed the equilibrium of pressure to the adjacent quanta. The vector represents the unbalance size and direction.

Sydney>: So when there is a homogeneous gravity field

What is for you a homogeneous field. For me that is a field with parallel vectors of equal size. The potential planes are parallel flat planes. I can not recollect that I have known of such kind of field in nature. But when I have a large field then local I can have nearly a homogeneous field. All vectors at the adjacent planes have a monotonous rising value.

An object in such field will again disrupt the field but the unbalance already available from the underlaying field will result in a push towards the source of the large scale imbalance (Newtons Attraction).

Deformation of quanta absorbed by EM fields is mass. I need a bit more to understand how that correlates with electrons, protons and neutrons.

You state that gravity is transferred in zero time?

If mass moves some quanta at the front get deformed and at the back get restored?

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry De Mees,

I am in no way capable to redo any calculation about your viral theorem. But an Engineer does not know everything but he knows where to find it. I asked some friends. With super computer power it is possible to do a multi body simulation of a galaxy. Here we have no models but pure gravity evolution by step wise integration using light cone and gravity model of choice. A model of only stars has no stability. You need Dark Matter or MOND to get a flat galaxy. My position is that a simulation of some giga particles is more accurate than a model that makes abstractions and assumptions. Because the, in my understanding, more accurate model disagrees with your solutions I will conclude that our model result is further away from reality than the simulation results.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

The last picture is a rounded version of the intersection of an octahedron and a cube. In this structure every plane has 6 vectors separated by 60°. together with your first picture that shows a (1,1,1)(?) crystal lattice all the vectors would touch. But your drawing is a parallel projection that needs a lot of experience to transfer to a 3D picture. Maybe you could try to make a more perspective projection with a slight rotation offset.

Ok, a homogenous field in this sense is one that can be reduced to one point source. I have to be careful with this kind of terms because in different environments they can be different. When I have a flat plate capacitor then the electric field between the plates is a homogeneous field. So I have to be flexible and adapt the understanding to the subject we discuss.

My problem with a Hilbert space is that it is a virtual mathematic entity that is good for mathematical description but can't have decisive influence on reality. I recently made an example about space coordinates. You can project coordinates on a projection screen. On that screen you place objects. Then you can alter, rotate, translate, deform the coordinate system. But that will not move any object on the screen. Mathematical objects can describe realty. They can't influence reality.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry De Mees,

You have shown this with 120 stars. That is a cube with 5 stars on one line. 53=125. What I am talking about are simulations where they use 1003 or more stars and apply nothing more that Newton's attraction and acceleration law. The attraction is the sum of all objects who's worldline intersects the backward light cone of the object. That is a static evaluation of that moment. That gives the vector of force out of the sum of all individual gravity force calculations. The fore calculation can use different rules like Newton, Mond, etc. Then the mass and the vector of motion defines the next position over a=f/m and ∆s=1/2at2 the gravitomagnetic effects should come out of this kind of simulation because they depend on the final speed of the gravity. With these calculations a galaxy becomes elliptic without Dark Matter or Mond.

In these calculation there is no use of a Kepler law, Viral Theorem, potential energy, or any thing like that. It is straight forward integration. With the same kind of calculations they place an object on the surface of mars. To get the entrance window in that atmosphere you need to do good calculations.

You might have seen that I have my own explanation why there is no Dark Matter, but here I modify with my rules the value of G. That means that I would step in at the point where they calculate the gravity force.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Paul: "Then the mass and the vector of motion defines the next position over a=f/m and ∆s=1/2at2 the gravitomagnetic effects should come out of this kind of simulation because they depend on the final speed of the gravity."

Thierry>:That is not clear to me since circular disc galaxies don't have any acceleration of that kind.

When you run an integration you are not interested in centrifugal forces. You have a momentary speed and a momentary force. Then you integrate the distance the mass will move under influence of that force. The result is that through the inertia of the mass a force pointing to a central mass will make the object follow a trajectory that could be a Kepler orbit. If you take small steps only linear integration would do. If you take larger steps you would take the solutions of a few previous calculations and apply a correction for better curve fitting. You derivate the magnetic effect of gravity out of the finite speed of the gravity. When you calculate the precession effect of a spinning rotor you don't need more than force and inertia to get the result out but you need accurate integration. Then it is easier to derive an equation that speeds up the calculation. In the same way the gravitomagnetc effect is included in such large scale simulations.

Their simulations are set up to test different gravity models. They run them with different models to see what model has a result most similar to real observations. So they could run the same simulation with G*=G/10 or with a rule 1/r3 the computer is patient and will give you some result. Then you will see that it doesn't resemble reality. The same happens for only stars without extra. It doesn't resemble reality.

Thierry>:I made this calculus, and did this for a mass distribution of ~1/R in a disc galaxy. The result is giving a flat velocity curve, even a bit inversed from Kepler's.

You simulated 120 stars moving through a mass distribution of 1/R. I understand that as that you have a mass distribution unresolved of many stars and had 120 stars to see how they interact with such unresolved distribution. For me you then had a 1/R dark matter distribution with 120 stars. The other simulation is just the stars with average size distribution and a large BH in the centre.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

I suspect that in your model of this quantum scalar field the unit is basis to the other units of nature. You explained me the field with a diamond crystal lattice. That lattice has a principle anisotropy. How do you explain that space as total does not notice this orientation preference?

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry de Mees,

Thierry>:But the problem arises when the global mass of a disc galaxy is estimated through the Virial Theorem, as they do.

They don't. There is no extra mass when they simulate stars only. There is only the billion stars of the galaxy and for the rest nothing. When they simulate there is no Virial Theorem. Without extra mass above the stars there is no stable disk galaxy.

For the rest: it is too late. I have to sleep also. The rest later.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm,

What is the relation between the scalar quanta and photon quanta?

Regards and thanks for your answers,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Your gyrotation field is derived from what basic equations? It is from the movement of objects in a gravity field. At the moment where I calculate with the light cone and the intersection of the world line of objects with that light cone, then the gyrotation is an effect that you can see happening. I state that the simulation does not need to take into account the perpendicular gravitomagnetic force because that results from the delay of gravitational information exchange.

If I add extra gyrorotation then I do double.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry De Mees,

For me gravitomagnetism is a principle that is too little understood by me to rule it out. So I have this on the list of questions if it could be right or not. I have seen you in discussion with several other people of RG and have not yet seen a lot of followers who start to agree with you. My view of the universe as even less followers than you, so I should not use it to discard things. In other theories I have found obvious impossibilities. In your theories I find some principles that could be correct and other where I disagree. With a full time job I have not the time to sit down and completely study all your work. Then I prioritise based on how other respond. I have no means to do such simulations my self. Also I am very eager to get someone explain me why my view of a static universe with contracting matter would be correct or not. You visit me here under comments on my theory but I am not sure if you ever have studied what I tried to tell.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry De Mees,

Thierry>: Concerning the contraction of the universe you propose, I have no idea because I don't know your reasoning. If you want, you can share this.

I propose no contraction of the universe. I propose that the universe is flat euclidian at rest and that all observations are the result of properties of the content of the universe. Why would we agree that all the rotation we observe is because we rotate. Why would we agree that all translation we observe is because we translate. Why do we not agree that all expansion we observe is because we contract?

This is the reasoning I have. Adding special properties to space always has been accompanied with problems. Each property that was removed from space an assigned to matter has solved a problem.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz

Dear Thierry De Mees,

You understand correct what I said. We had a theory with epicycles on epicycles and an earth that was the reference of everything. We need an ever more complex theory to cope with all our observations. So correctly we gave up on rotation of the universe. But if you analyse it you see that you would have a rotational Hubble law. You would find that for objects at double distance there is a double tangential speed. You also would find that there is not limit on the tangential speed of an object. You then could explain that this is no problem because space can move with any speed. There is only a restriction in the speed objects can move through space. Here I focus your attention on how you would need to argue if you assume that the earth is not rotating or that the galaxy is not rotating. We gave up on that and I completely support that.

Now look to the theory of an expanding universe. We see that with a Hubble law there is always a part of the universe that expands faster than the speed of light. If you assume an infinite universe then most of the universe is expanding with unimaginable speeds with respect to our local space. But again we have the same explanation. Space can move at any speed only objects are limited to move through space by the speed of light.

Our observation seem to point at an expansion as consequence I interpret that with contraction of matter.

Contraction of matter means that over time matter did shrink. A smaller hydrogen atom will emit a shorter characteristic wavelength. In older time matter was larger. Simplistic you compare the equilibrium between centrifugal force and gravitational attraction. With constant speed a double orbit time with a double orbit radius is stable with double the mass. So I scale mass with z, time with z. Wetterich did do a similar action where he changed some fundamental parameters and showed that then expansion can be compensated by matter contraction.

For me it is open what the real parameters are that change. The result is the same. In the past matter was larger than it is now. Matter will contract according to a simple rule. That simple rule is depending on the environment. If the environment is not the same then also the speed of contraction is not the same.

Based on the size of a planet with a solid crust the speed of contraction in the inside can be slower than at the surface. With that a lot of observations in our solar system can be explained. One of that is that the continents fit on an earth that is smaller in size. Not because the earth grows, but because the continents contract faster than the inside.

When matter contracts then the radius to mass ration stays about the same. This will change the density with a square rate. It is logical that density is part of the equation. With that contraction is not linear in time. Your question about exponential expansion becomes exponential contraction. Exponential curves are the most natural.

I have calculated that space does not care about how much matter is inside. When you have seen the discussion I have with Sydney Ernest Grimm about gravitational push, then you might understand that I even think that gravity itself is a function of the contraction. Dark matter comes out of the equation F=GMm/r2 then they see that this is not in equilibrium with F=mv2/r. You know all of that. You come with your gravitomagnetism for that. If you put these two equations together then you see there are 2 parameters that can change: G and M. The people are convinced that G is constant where it is not even Lorenz invariant. But they thus conclude that M is too small. But in fact the product GM is too small and we can ponder that with the missing mass that is still eluding detection maybe the G is not constant over large distances. MOND is one of the solutions, your Gravitomagnetism is maybe another solution gravitational push is for me very interesting.

Thierry>: Since the space between the matter doesn't contract, why would my contracting optical instrument measure redshift?

When matter contracts then the ruler you use to measure the meter will contract. The wavelength of the caesium atom that gives you the second will contract. As a result, it is impossible to prove if space expands or we contract. It is also impossible to prove that the earth rotates and space stands still. But one of the two explanations has the more simple theory. we made the wise choice that space doesn't rotate. We also should make the wise choice that space doesn't expand nor contract.

Regards,

Paul Gradenwitz