What is Gravity?

[Physics Guy]

We had to derive so many equations that I wouldn't be surprised if I have derived [Kepler‘s Laws] lol. The ones I remember working on are the laws of thermodynamics. Ugh.

I’m sure you can derive them. You’re a physicist.

(It’s okay if it might take you a while to remember and think. Me too. I’m going to have to teach this again in a couple of weeks and it’ll be Okay, for the tenth time now, how did that go again?)

[Valo]

Question: Would the Michelson-Morley experiment be reliable to contradict the ether if this were the case:

"Simple, their experiment assumed that the Aether would just go around the earth. But it doesn't, it goes through the earth and into the earth and into the matter particles and is annihilated. So if their experiment does not assume the correct details they are not going to arrive at the correct results and they are not going to see what they expected to see."

ChatGPT: If the Michelson-Morley experiment had assumed that the ether was a moving force that permeated through and interacted with matter particles, rather than a stationary medium as was conventionally believed at the time, it could have potentially led to different expectations and interpretations of the experimental results. Here's how this scenario might play out:

1. **Assumed Interaction with Matter:** If the experiment had been designed under the assumption that the ether interacts with matter particles and is not simply a background medium, the experimental setup and analysis might have been different. For example, the experimenters might have considered the possibility of ether-matter interactions influencing the behavior of light waves in the interferometer.

2. **Expected Effects:** With a different understanding of the ether's properties and behavior, the experimenters might have anticipated different effects or signatures in the interference patterns observed by the interferometer. They may have looked for deviations from expected patterns that could be attributed to interactions between the ether and matter particles.

3. **Interpretation of Results:** In this alternative scenario, the interpretation of the experimental results might have focused on the influence of ether-matter interactions on the observed interference patterns, rather than solely on the absence of an ether wind effect due to the Earth's motion through a stationary ether. The presence or absence of certain effects in the interference patterns could have led to different conclusions about the nature of the ether and its role in light propagation.

Overall, the reliability of the Michelson-Morley experiment to contradict the ether would depend on the accuracy of the assumptions underlying the experimental design and analysis. If the experiment had taken into account a more nuanced understanding of the ether's properties and interactions, it might have yielded different results or interpretations that could have impacted the subsequent development of physics.

[IWMP]

We had to derive so many equations that I wouldn't be surprised if I have derived [Kepler‘s Laws] lol. The ones I remember working on are the laws of thermodynamics. Ugh.

I’m sure you can derive them. You’re a physicist.

(It’s okay if it might take you a while to remember and think. Me too. I’m going to have to teach this again in a couple of weeks and it’ll be Okay, for the tenth time now, how did that go again?)

that's reassuring . Do you enjoy teaching?

[IWMP]

Question: Would the Michelson-Morley experiment be reliable to contradict the ether if this were the case:

"Simple, their experiment assumed that the Aether would just go around the earth. But it doesn't, it goes through the earth and into the earth and into the matter particles and is annihilated. So if their experiment does not assume the correct details they are not going to arrive at the correct results and they are not going to see what they expected to see."

ChatGPT: If the Michelson-Morley experiment had assumed that the ether was a moving force that permeated through and interacted with matter particles, rather than a stationary medium as was conventionally believed at the time, it could have potentially led to different expectations and interpretations of the experimental results. Here's how this scenario might play out:

1. **Assumed Interaction with Matter:** If the experiment had been designed under the assumption that the ether interacts with matter particles and is not simply a background medium, the experimental setup and analysis might have been different. For example, the experimenters might have considered the possibility of ether-matter interactions influencing the behavior of light waves in the interferometer.

2. **Expected Effects:** With a different understanding of the ether's properties and behavior, the experimenters might have anticipated different effects or signatures in the interference patterns observed by the interferometer. They may have looked for deviations from expected patterns that could be attributed to interactions between the ether and matter particles.

3. **Interpretation of Results:** In this alternative scenario, the interpretation of the experimental results might have focused on the influence of ether-matter interactions on the observed interference patterns, rather than solely on the absence of an ether wind effect due to the Earth's motion through a stationary ether. The presence or absence of certain effects in the interference patterns could have led to different conclusions about the nature of the ether and its role in light propagation.

Overall, the reliability of the Michelson-Morley experiment to contradict the ether would depend on the accuracy of the assumptions underlying the experimental design and analysis. If the experiment had taken into account a more nuanced understanding of the ether's properties and interactions, it might have yielded different results or interpretations that could have impacted the subsequent development of physics.

I remember learning about this experiment and at that time, I liked the idea of an ether. I liked to question and argue. And I remember thinking that's horse****. I think in my mind at the time, I visualised an ether that travelled with the expansion of space. And that the end of the ether was the end of existence. But that begs the questions, what is an ether? How did that come about? I think the problem lies in our need to have an explanation and a reason. I don't think our mind allows us to grasp nothingness. And so we replace that with something. I guess I've avoided the question about gravity and I am guessing people need an ether to explain gravity. I assume gravity doesn't exist in space where there is no matter, no stars, no debris. I think the mesh that people draw to help visualise space gravity can cause confusion. It can make us believe there is something in every part of space. A force. I argue that the something that exists in all parts of space as we understand it is EM waves/fields. The objects in the universe are travelling because an object continues in motion unless acted upon and that motion began at the beginning.
My intuition doesn't believe that the gravity we visualise as being the force that keeps planets in orbit is entirely the same as the gravity that causes objects to fall. If I think about it, I can start to see that it probably is the same. At least I have no recollection of anything that would suggest there is a difference.

Clearly gravity at the centre of the universe isn't strong enough to prevent the universe from travelling away.

Lost my train of thought.


Edit.... Ugh... Too many afterthoughts.

Gravity is space being different to gravity on earth... Does light change direction on earth because of gravity. Does light travelling at an angle relative to the gravitational pull travel any differently to light travelling at a different angle or even opposing it? Does light direction change when travelling to a place with a slightly different value of gravity (even subtly)? Does the earths magnetic field affect gravity? I don't really understand space time. To me I imagine space time is created as the universe expands. I can't visualise space time existing prior to the existence of everything floating around out there. I don't imagine intuitively, space time to be an ether of sorts.

[IWMP]

https://www.livescience.com/physics-mat ... y-suggests

Not sure how real this is. But interesting.

[IWMP]

I propose a thought experiment...

What if it isn't gravity that bends light but rather the fields that are coming from objects in space?

[Res Ipsa]

I propose a thought experiment...

What if it isn't gravity that bends light but rather the fields that are coming from objects in space?

What is the field and how does it interact with the light?

[IWMP]

I propose a thought experiment...

What if it isn't gravity that bends light but rather the fields that are coming from objects in space?

What is the field and how does it interact with the light?

Magnetic field.

[Valo]

Question: Would the Michelson-Morley experiment be reliable to contradict the ether if this were the case:

"Simple, their experiment assumed that the Aether would just go around the earth. But it doesn't, it goes through the earth and into the earth and into the matter particles and is annihilated. So if their experiment does not assume the correct details they are not going to arrive at the correct results and they are not going to see what they expected to see."

ChatGPT: If the Michelson-Morley experiment had assumed that the ether was a moving force that permeated through and interacted with matter particles, rather than a stationary medium as was conventionally believed at the time, it could have potentially led to different expectations and interpretations of the experimental results. Here's how this scenario might play out:

1. **Assumed Interaction with Matter:** If the experiment had been designed under the assumption that the ether interacts with matter particles and is not simply a background medium, the experimental setup and analysis might have been different. For example, the experimenters might have considered the possibility of ether-matter interactions influencing the behavior of light waves in the interferometer.

2. **Expected Effects:** With a different understanding of the ether's properties and behavior, the experimenters might have anticipated different effects or signatures in the interference patterns observed by the interferometer. They may have looked for deviations from expected patterns that could be attributed to interactions between the ether and matter particles.

3. **Interpretation of Results:** In this alternative scenario, the interpretation of the experimental results might have focused on the influence of ether-matter interactions on the observed interference patterns, rather than solely on the absence of an ether wind effect due to the Earth's motion through a stationary ether. The presence or absence of certain effects in the interference patterns could have led to different conclusions about the nature of the ether and its role in light propagation.

Overall, the reliability of the Michelson-Morley experiment to contradict the ether would depend on the accuracy of the assumptions underlying the experimental design and analysis. If the experiment had taken into account a more nuanced understanding of the ether's properties and interactions, it might have yielded different results or interpretations that could have impacted the subsequent development of physics.

I remember learning about this experiment and at that time, I liked the idea of an ether. I liked to question and argue. And I remember thinking that's horse****. I think in my mind at the time, I visualised an ether that travelled with the expansion of space. And that the end of the ether was the end of existence. But that begs the questions, what is an ether? How did that come about? I think the problem lies in our need to have an explanation and a reason. I don't think our mind allows us to grasp nothingness. And so we replace that with something. I guess I've avoided the question about gravity and I am guessing people need an ether to explain gravity. I assume gravity doesn't exist in space where there is no matter, no stars, no debris. I think the mesh that people draw to help visualise space gravity can cause confusion. It can make us believe there is something in every part of space. A force. I argue that the something that exists in all parts of space as we understand it is EM waves/fields. The objects in the universe are travelling because an object continues in motion unless acted upon and that motion began at the beginning.
My intuition doesn't believe that the gravity we visualise as being the force that keeps planets in orbit is entirely the same as the gravity that causes objects to fall. If I think about it, I can start to see that it probably is the same. At least I have no recollection of anything that would suggest there is a difference.

Clearly gravity at the centre of the universe isn't strong enough to prevent the universe from travelling away.

Lost my train of thought.


Edit.... Ugh... Too many afterthoughts.

Gravity is space being different to gravity on earth... Does light change direction on earth because of gravity. Does light travelling at an angle relative to the gravitational pull travel any differently to light travelling at a different angle or even opposing it? Does light direction change when travelling to a place with a slightly different value of gravity (even subtly)? Does the earths magnetic field affect gravity? I don't really understand space time. To me I imagine space time is created as the universe expands. I can't visualise space time existing prior to the existence of everything floating around out there. I don't imagine intuitively, space time to be an ether of sorts.

What is light?

iwmp offered these questions and observations:

Everything is derived from the model. There are just a few parts to the model.

These are the components of the model.
1) There is aether
2) There is matter

These are the states of each component of the model.
1) Aether pressurizes the universe
2) Matter is being held together

These are the interactions between the components of the model
1) Aether at the center of a particle of matter ceases to exist
2) A low pressure area is brought about when aether ceases to exist
3) Surrounding aether then rushes in and the process is continuous
4) When aether rushes through and into matter it transfers a momentum impulse to matter

These are the effects of the interaction between the components of the model
1) Gravity as a pushing force
2) Aether spiraling into an atom of matter creating an "electron cloud"
3) When the aether spirals further in it supplies the strong nuclear force
4) The aether also form vortex that interlock to supply weak nuclear forces

These are the observable consequences of the model
1) Light as a propagation wave through the aether
2) Electricity is aether being forced down a conductor
3) Magnetism is atoms spinning in unison changing the direction of the aether
4) The big bang, enough of a pressure drop in the aether allowing the singularity to fly apart
5) Black hole, aether moving into matter faster than a propagation wave can escape
6) Halo around a star, The light from a star that is behind is bent by the moving aether when it passes the closer star
7) Ever expanding universe at an ever increasing rate, the aether is expanding always with acceleration
9) Sunspot cycle, Jupiter competing with the Sun for aether the closer they are the more unstable the Sun becomes

Predictions of the model
1) Light travels faster between the stars where the pressure is greater
2) Stars are not as far away as they seem
3) The rate of radioactive decay in unstable isotopes will increase over time
4) Other isotopes will become unstable
5) Stars will change from fusion to fission at some point
6) A long ice age will occur when a star changes from fusion to fission
7) Gravity will weaken
8) When gravity weakens far enough the universe will dissolve

In other words this model explains everything. And when something new is observed this model never requires modification.

I first proposed this model in 1969 when I was 12 years old.

[Res Ipsa]

What is the field and how does it interact with the light?

Magnetic field.

So, could we test that by putting powerful magnets next to a beam of light?