Gravity

1304 views
14 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February, 2013
Gravity
Posted by Shojin on Monday, December 30, 2013 5:14 PM

Let me see if I can phrase this question right. Let's take a tesseract sphere that has two points that are polar opposites equal distance apart. If we were to draw straight lines in the tesseract or hyper space, then distort that image into a three dimensional image, it should look like how we see magnets with poles work.

Also, imagine a sphere where two points opposite each other have equally flat areas, polar opposites. We'll rest the sphere on one flat pole so it is stable. Anything perfectly balanced, or resting within the boundaries of the flat spot on top would stay there if at rest with no external forces.

With these concepts, let us take gravity and make it polarized, but we put the two poles in a massive object, say a star or a black hole. This would represent the diameter of the flat pole on the bottom of our sphere. The opposite side of that sphere would have a Lagrange like spot of equal size diameter where matter would not fall into our massive object.

Now let's translate this idea as though our sphere represents the four dimensional tesseract hyper space, but from a perspective that we would observe in a three dimensional space. If the massive object were to be moved to the center of this tesseract hyper space, would not the polar opposite Lagrange 'area' appear as a disk of gravitational neutrality, a safe zone where matter would not fall into the massive object unless truly perturbed from our perspective in three dimensional space. Like a galactic disk, or the orbits of planets around stars.

Is this a possibly viable hypothesis that could explain galactic and solar system structures and perhaps a bit on gravity, or am I just crazed?

  • Member since
    February, 2013
Posted by Shojin on Monday, December 30, 2013 11:40 PM

As I think about it, could this Lagrange point also give a false gravity signature, perhaps some of what we perceive as dark matter?

Edit: Or perhaps the Lagrange space is the negative gravity pole? (anti-gravity?) Because the positive dipole is the 'center point' as observed by us in normal space, the negative dipole on the opposite side of the tesseract would appear distorted, and thus very weak to us from normal space. 

  • Member since
    February, 2013
Posted by Shojin on Wednesday, January 01, 2014 11:08 AM

Hmm, maybe the best way to describe this concept would be to think of a magnet with two positive poles. The opposite negative poles would appear to streatch out from between the positive poles out into a seemining infinite distance away. This anti-gravity would be very weak as seen from our third dimentional perspective due to this, but it would be enough to help play a role in making stable orbits for matter around our double pole gravity well.

  • Member since
    February, 2013
Posted by Shojin on Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:40 PM

The more I think of it, the more convinced I become. A positive dipole galaxy would have the disk of matter and gas that would not readily fall into the center. However, a globular cluster would have a single pole gravity point, with the anti-gravity point at the other end of the tessaract, which from our three dimensional perspective would appear to occupy infinite points around us if we could see along the curve of space. This would explain the structure and the lack of gas in a globular cluster as opposed to a dipole gravity well like that which would be found in galaxies, there is no anti-gravity field lines to keep matter from infalling into the center (from our perspective). It may also explain dark energy some. If you are close to your dipole positive magnet, then the opposite charge is strongly attracted, however, if you move the opposing charge far enough away, you'll soon be beyond the influence of the positive charges, and in the field where there is that very slight, seemingly infinite volume of negative charge as viewed from three dimensional space. Hence, if matter is close to one another, they will want to attract, but if you move them far enough away such that their hyper spheres of influence of positive gravity no longer overlaps, then the very slight, very large (as viewed from us in three dimensions) negative anti-gravity 'sphere' would take over, pushing matter apart.

 

It would also possibly explain why supernovas explode in hourglass like structures... and so much more I feel.

This makes sense to me since gravity and electormagnetism are supposed to be very similar anyway.

  • Member since
    February, 2013
Posted by Shojin on Wednesday, January 01, 2014 4:15 PM

Of course, we would not be able to observe the antigravity poles as they are in a sense beyond our three dimensional perspective on the opposite pole of tessaract hyper space. If all this hypothesising is even close to correct, I guess the next question would be, does antigravity affect antimatter like gravity affects matter, hence the seeming lack of antimatter in our neck of the universe?

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Saturday, January 04, 2014 9:39 AM

Shojin : Consider this, the path for gravitational lines of force propagate through the interface; you choose, e.g. meniscus, horizon, singularity, of the vacuum and the universe, which re-appears as dark energy, subject to properties of space-time's interaction with energy. Consider this as the supporting mechanism of mass within space-time. Just think about it.

  • Member since
    February, 2013
Posted by Shojin on Monday, January 06, 2014 5:41 AM

That is kind of what I eluded to with the hyper sphere (tesseract sphere) of gravitational field 'lines'. Though the lines would be closed and equal length in the hyper sphere, from our three dimensional perspective it would appear to 'propagate through' inteface x through to infinity (depending on which field 'line' you follow and yadda yadda), where x = your choice of interface.

Gravity I feel does mimic the EM spectrum. For most gravity wells where you have an accretion disk, I think of a gravity dipole. This would make what would appear to be hourglass shaped from three dimensional space. If you place these poles in a four dimensional tesseract space however, you'll find that all the field 'lines' between the gravity points and their counter part points on the opposite side of the tesseract sphere will be equal in length. It becomes difficult to think of them all in one tesseract sphere, but if you put them in their own tesseract spheres and then combine them it becomes a little easier to visualize. Remember, the positive and negative points are equal distance apart in their respective tesseract space. The gravitational 'lines' (or magnetic field 'lines' if you prefer) just appear to vary in length and strength and even seem to go to infinity from our perspective in three dimensional space.

Still, the hourglass structure would explain, to me anyway, why we have accretion disks around planets up to galaxies, and also why planetary nebulae take on the structures they do with their hourglass like structures. It would also seem to explain why globular clusters are spherical with no gas if you use a monopole. If the gravity 'core' were disrupted or crushed enough, such that you have a single gravity point, then you loose that disk of stability a dipole would create.

With all this in mind, I really feel we should be using calculations in no less than 4-1 dimensional space instead of the 3-1 we seem to adhear to. Just the observations of simple magnetic field lines strongly elude to a four spacial - one time dimensional universe at the very least, to me anyway. Just my humble little observations and hypothesis.

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Monday, January 06, 2014 11:04 AM

Shojin : What mechanism allows this additional local exposer of another spacial dimension, which routes the lines of force back and yet allows this galaxy to gravitationally interact with other  bipolar systems of galaxies? I'm not suggesting this can't happen, what would cause this to occur ? It, to my way of thinking, would give gravity in some specific configuration, a simularity to the strong interaction's confinement. Just my opinion. Thank you for your discussion.

  • Member since
    February, 2013
Posted by Shojin on Monday, January 06, 2014 2:58 PM

What mechanism allows three spacial dimensions? Answer me this and I might be able to answer your question. Besides, I'm really just trying to give form to some of our observations.

As far as the interaction, warping of space-time. Remember, from our perspective, and the perspective of our localized baryons, the 'anti-gravity' poles 'appear' to not exist, and if we could observe them through the curvature of the tesseract (hyper, four dimension) sphere, it would appear to occupy infinite points around us. (However, we would then be able to measure its distance.) Just as if you were to stand on the north pole and look along the curvature of the earth to the south pole, or even back to yourself, a pole at the southern pole and even you would appear as this wall that completely surrounds you. Because we are unable to observe the opposite pole however, it also gives the appearance of possibly being infinitly far away... until we are able to figure out how to measure the diameter.

Also, gravity seems to work more strongly on matter than itself.

I would agree with you on the confinement of gravity, it is just that what I picture as the four dimensional hyper sphere of influence appears to be so exorbinantly large, entwined with other hyperspheres of influence, and of course appears to go into infinity from our three dimensional perspective. Just as magnetic field lines appear to go into infinity when we observe them from three dimensional space. The magnet's hyper sphere of influence however is not infinite. How to measure the diameter of said hyper sphere of influence? Well, one step at a time. Just as humans of old did not know how to measure the size of the earth due to it's curvature, or even that it was curved.

Besides, are we not trying to tie gravity with the other forces? Guess you could call this my GUT feeling. (yeah, bad overly used pun)

My suggestion, watch a youtube of a tesseract cube in rotation. Imagine one point in the upper 'tetrahedral*' cube and another point in the lower 'tetrahedral*' cube. ( as appears from our three dimensional perspective.) Draw straight lines between the two points, then as the video rotates the cube, continue drawing straight lines between the two points and imagine what appears to happen to the other lines that you have drawn.

And please remember, this is all just a hypothesis, which is based on observations; mostly of magnectic field lines and tesseract objects as well as accretion disks and well, you get the idea... and not being content with thinking just three dimensionally. :P

Thank you for your questions and for keeping me thinking!

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Monday, January 06, 2014 5:20 PM

Shojin: Thanks for the idea. I guess I just like the GUT. I like to merge the interactions when possible. A good example of this happening is in the capture of the electromagnetic interaction through the energy density of the black hole. This gave rise to questions about how one would observe the feeding process of the black hole as if it was only a four dimensional object. This has indications of limitations in just a 3 spatial and 1 Time dimension system, however this may just be my opinion. I think the possibility exists which allows the merger of any 2 of the interactions other than the electromagnetic and weak or the electromagnetic without the weak and limited gravitational-weak, this is also just an opinion. Just think about it.

  • Member since
    February, 2013
Posted by Shojin on Monday, January 06, 2014 9:19 PM

I think your right. It makes sense that all four forces work in one form or another together, how can they not? Although we might not notice this interaction until we are at the right scale between them. Thus taking two and working with them makes sense, at least at the threshold where both seem to be of fairly equal strength. 

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 1:16 PM

Shojin : Yes, in the example of the electroweak the discription falls under the catagory of spontaneous symmetry breaking. It's sort of an interaction entropy related occurance. Just my opinion.

I, in fact, like to think of the evolution of the universe and reality as a spontaneous symmetry breaking. Just think about it.

You may want to look into this, the new string theory, D-Brane theory.

  • Member since
    February, 2014
Posted by Architeuthis on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 6:45 AM

I think my general IQ is around 130. If I make the effort do I stand a chance of understanding what you two are talking about?

  • Member since
    August, 2007
Posted by Primordial on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 1:47 PM

Architeuthis : The short of it is the evolution of dimensionality and the observed interactions, which are at different phases of this evolution and how to view this evolution. At present the string theory looks good. Just an opinion. Hope this helps.

  • Member since
    February, 2014
Posted by Architeuthis on Thursday, April 03, 2014 5:35 AM

I thought so. The trouble is, when it comes to astro-physics, I often have trouble holding these theoretical working models in my head long enough to elaborate them. They usually just appear as fragmentary flashes in certain parts of my brain.... often when I lay down to sleep. They are fleeting but when they come it all makes perfect sense. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

ADVERTISEMENT

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Receive news, sky-event information, observing tips, and more from Astronomy's weekly email newsletter.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook

Loading...