ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Physics

How gravity works

Updated on October 9, 2017

What prevents Mercury from leaving the Sun?


A new model of light, gravity and the atom - The Rope Hypothesis


Is there an invisible physical entity that mediates gravity? General Relativity says that it is warped space. Quantum Mechanics says that it is a 0D particle that delivers negative momentum. Science says that it is something else.


Mathematical Physics offers irrational explanations for gravity

General Relativity explains gravity as the warping of space (Fig. 1). The mathematicians claim that the planets orbit the Sun much like a tiny ball circles a roulette. What keeps Mercury from flying away from its orbit is a curved wall of space. On the other hand, Quantum Mechanics explains gravity as a force which is ‘carried’ by particles known as gravitons. This tiny bead strikes a bowling ball and delivers ‘negative momentum’ (Look under the heading: "How can they be responsible for attractive forces?) (See also Fig. 2, below)...

"If the momentum transferred by the wave points in the direction from the receiving particle to the emitting one, the effect is that of an attractive force. The moral is that the lines in a Feynman diagram are not to be interpreted literally as the paths of classical particles."

In other words, the religion of Mathemagical 'fizzix' only offers ridiculous explanations for how gravity works. The mathemagicians allude to this irrationality with the euphemism: 'non-classical'.

Figs. 1 and 2 Gravity Illustrated

The gravity proposals of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
The gravity proposals of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Yet most people in the world have bought into these theories simply on the basis of authority and passed them on from generation to generation. No one questions such nonsense because the explanations come from Nobel Prize winners. But who are the Nobel Prize winners if not other mathematicians who have been brainwashed at the universities and already bought into the theories and handed out the prizes in the first place?

The typical defense is that Mathematical Physics has been very successful. We have sent astronauts into space, developed computers and above all discovered GPS. Our extraordinary development of technology clearly demonstrates that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are, if not perfectly correct, at least very close to the Truth.

Unfortunately, these replies only expose that the majority of people have a distorted view of the Scientific Method. Science is not about developing technology. Science is about explaining a phenomenon of nature. Anyone can play with magnets and show how they pick up iron filings (Technology). Not one mathematician at Cambridge or Harvard can explain HOW one magnet PHYSICALLY attracts another (Science).

In a hypothetical 2-particle universe, how does one particle attract another?

Well, the only way we can rationalize this is by assuming that there is an invisible, elongated entity mediating the transaction. Invisibility does not mean supernatural. Invisibility is an issue of observers and their ability to detect. Action-at-a-distance without a mediator is what is irrational.

Here we will give a physical interpretation to gravity using the electromagnetic rope introduced in the series on the Rope Hypothesis. A physical interpretation is a theory you can make a movie of. If you cannot put it on the Big Screen, you are not doing Physics! This automatically eliminates General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. What is Relativity going to put on the Big Screen? Warped space? What is Quantum going to show? A zero-dimensional graviton?

Quantum's 0D, massless point particle: the graviton (to the right of the red arrow)
Quantum's 0D, massless point particle: the graviton (to the right of the red arrow)

The EM rope hypothesis simulates gravity

Let’s first get an intuitive feel for the theory. Hold the center of a stretched rubber band. Your fingers don’t feel any tension (Fig. 3). Now stretch the center away from the axis. Instantly, you feel the tug (Fig. 4), and unless the rubber band rips, you feel the tension at all times.

Figs. 3 and 4

Let’s now assume that we have a tug of war between two men of equal strength. Four others just grab ahold of the rope (Fig. 5). Therefore, neither of the two men tugging is affected by their intervention. If instead, the four men join one of them and pull individually against the other, the lone competitor will suddenly feel a much stronger pull (Fig. 6). This is an analogy of how gravity works with EM ropes.

Fig. 5

Fig. 6


We have 5 atoms which are part of a cube. They are all lined up one behind the other and pulling on a lonely atom (# 6) which is part of a cylinder (Fig. 7). We will assume that the ropes superimpose perfectly. This scenario resembles Fig. 5. The lonely atom # 6 is essentially tugging against one. (Briefly, the reason for this is that the atoms forming the cube pull on each other as well. For simplicity, we will just say that the tug of war is between # 5 and # 6.)

However, when the cube and the cylinder approach each other, the ropes fan out. Each of the 5 atoms of the cube now pulls independently on the lonely atom. The force of pull on atom # 6 is suddenly greater. Note that we achieved this effect simply by changing the locations of the cube and the cylinder vis-à-vis each other!

Fig. 7

Gravity works like this. When two objects are far away from each other, the EM ropessuperimpose and act as one (Fig. 8). However, as they get closer to each other, the ropes fan out, each atom now feels a greater tug from more atoms of the other object, and the two objects accelerate towards each other at an ever faster rate. Consistent with Newton’s gravitational equation, this phenomenon is a function of distance and the number of atoms comprising each object (i.e., ‘mass’). The video below shows this mechanism in action.

Fig. 8


How gravity works


No one has ever defined the term 'black hole'




Submit a Comment