This is a particularly inane statement, especially coming from the o.p. who postulates an undemonstrated and unnecessary mechanism for gravity based only upon analogy, with no attempt at a rigorous definition of the mechanics and no conception of why said theory has been dismissed in the past. The concept of gravitons as bosonic force carriers is in symmetry with other force carriers in quantum field theories (photons in quantum electrodynamics, W and Z bosons in quantum chromodynamics). Because the energies involved in gravitation interactions are much greater it is hard to construct a working quantum field theory of gravity using the current methodology for those theories, but acceptance of the graviton as a force carrier in an extension of the Standard Model to cover gravitation is widely considered to be very likely, or at least until someone comes along with a more overarching theory of all fundamental force interactions.
No one has said that gravitons cannot be detected, and in fact there are several current efforts (VIRGO, LISA, and LIGO) that are designed to detect coherent gravitational waves which would let us verify the properties of gravitons. What isn’t feasible is to detect a solitary graviton. There are two reasons for this; one is that we don’t (as far as we know) ever find single gravitons in nature, and the second is because the capture cross section of a graviton is so tiny it would take a literally planet-sized detector to ensure capture of a single graviton, upon which it would exert an immeasurably tiny influence.
A mostly shielded object would also become unstable and would tend to pitch off-axis rather than be drawn directly along its centerline, for the same reason that the center of pressure has to be aft of the center of mass on a stable aircraft.
Another part of the problem is that all known sources of significant gravitational waves are extremely low-frequency: There is no known process which would produce waves above a few kilohertz. And gravitational waves would have the same relationship between frequency and energy as electromagnetic waves, so a single graviton would have an incredibly low energy (about 10[sup]-12[/sup] eV).
Not if the ‘foam’ or ‘aether’ or ‘wormhole soup waves’ was moving at the speed of light (wormholes would seem able to move very fast by their nature), all effects would be at the same speed regardless of velocity, do no drag force.
Would that make a difference? I was talking about 2 stationary (drifting) ships, not under power. The shape doesn’t seem to matter much. Matter is mostly empty space anyway, so perhaps just a small amount of this ‘aether’ would be deflected. though the mare matter the greater the deflection and the more gravitational attraction.
One drifting ship can reduce the wave drift of another so that it drifts faster than the affected one, but they will have to be close. It sounds very theoretical because this is really small compared to Bernoulli effect and the wind area will probably makes a much bigger difference, but ok, we’re searching for a theoretical analogue.
Considering that, the situation is also very unsymmetric. The leeward ship cannot affect the windward ship unless they’re within meters of each other and even then probably by pushing it away (while the drift on the windward ship is still a bigger factor and causes a collision). Both ships are subject to an external force unrelated to the presence of the other. Now one of them reduces the force for the other by a tiny amount. I can’t see an analogy to mutual attraction.
You are looking at the effects of wind, I am looking at the effects of random wave actions (waves from all directions - and with no atmosphere,so no wind effect at all). Both will be attracted to each other due to the calmer water in-between them.
So far I have not seen anything that actually discredits my theory, just imposes some characteristics on it, such as the waves moving at the SoL.
It would means that gravity is not a property of matter, and going further may mean that matter is somehow a property of gravity ‘waves’, which would indicate that everything in the universe is a property of gravity ‘waves’ all energy and matter. Actually what we call gravity would be a ‘lack’, or a ‘hole’ not a force in itself.
I believe this does go along the lines of ancient aether theory, and does also sort of line up with micro-wormhole theory.
I would like to know if gravity as not a function of matter has been theorized, and if matter is a function of gravity has been.
What you are proposing is in disagreement with the known laws of physics. Whether the ‘foam’ was moving at the speed of light or not, there would still be an induced pressure against the direction of movement – a drag force.
You haven’t proposed anything that would be considered a theory. You’ve vaguely speculated about a superfluous and unaccountable alternative to general relativity based upon analogy. An analogy, by definition, a comparison of two unlike objects or concepts in order to illustrate a principle to an audience in terms with which they are familiar. It is not a valid way of reasoning from an unknown to a specific conclusion. You haven’t provided any falsification for this hypothesis, i.e. any way to test it for disproof, nor have you acknowledged, or indeed, appear to comprehend previous challenges to “pushing gravity” theories like this. Your entire basis for the theory is drawn from a situation that is both highly restricted–moving objects in a narrow channel of viscous fluid being affected by coupled differential flow–and indemonstrable, dependent upon “ancient aether” and “micro-wormhole theory”, which aren’t even stated in clear enough terms for a reader to be able to evaluate their applicability. The o.p. and subsequent responses read like someone who once watched half of a Learning Channel documentary on dark matter and now considers himself an expert on cosmology despite not being able to add fractions.
If the foam moves at the SoL, or waves through the foam propagate at the SoL, then it would strike matter at the SoL always no matter what the velocity of that matter. It would hit from all directions - always at the SoL, canceling each other out, so no drag or no net motive force, except if it were weaker in one direction, which would be caused by a obstruction from other matter (gravitational attraction).
So yes it is very much like pressure, acting in all directions equally with a net zero force, and also like buoyancy when there is a gravitational effect on the mass causing a unequal pressure and a motive force. I do not see how drag would come into play, as in aerodynamic drag, if that is what you are referring too. And the foam moving at the speed of light eliminates the effect of a cosmic zero velocity, which everything would slow down to.
We assume a standard ship design because that’s what we use. If you took 2 cube blocks and placed them in a wavy sea would they be attracted to each other, or 2 spheres, etc?
In making the jump to gravity, if the foam weakly interacts with matter, most of it going right through, but some colliding and then perhaps being uniformly or randomly dispersed, the more massive the object the more interactions with the foam, and the stronger the gravity.
Instead of ships matter may be better thought of a a bunch of floating (not sunken into the sea bottom, but free floating) piers holding up the ship above the water. The more piers and the closer the spacing of them the more waves it will deflect/absorb but waves will still get through, but less intense and cause a attraction to the other floating pier ship. This is the behavior of gravity and mass
Yes, and thanks for the term push gravity, it gave me something to search on. Something interesting from that, it seems like for push gravity to work the collisions have to be perfectly inelastic, which from how I read that would need to absorb the entire amount of energy from the foam with out reflection.
Doesn’t that create a circular argument? I’m just a layman but in Sean Carroll’s book From Eternity to Here he points out the difference between a high-entropy state in a universe with gravity vs. one without. A universe with gravity has a lot of clumping, and maybe the maximum entropy state is a singularity, whereas in a universe with no gravity, the maximum entropy state is matter so evenly distributed that the density is infinistesimal (book not at hand so I can’t quote it). My point is that we can’t say the tendency towards higher entropy is what causes gravity and then also say that gravity affects how entropy is defined.
(BTW I don’t think I would say that spacetime “seeks” anything, but maybe you meant that metaphorically.)
I basically described what I believe Verlinde is claiming; you’d have to read his paper to get the full desciption. For one thing, if he says that gravity is the result of some sort of increase in disorder, I’m unclear on just what it is that he’s claiming is becoming disordered.
Regarding the whole “shape of the two ships” debate, I wonder how rigorously one of the tenets of Newtonian gravity has been tested: that the gravitational attraction of an object is the sum of all the spherical gravitational pulls of every particle the object is composed of, and that therefore it’s overall gravity acts as though it’s coming from the object’s center of mass. The only objects whose gravity we have readily observed up to now are all oblate spheroids. You could put a space probe in a slow orbit around an irregularly shaped asteroid, except that any anomalies observed would be attributed to density variations within the asteroid. Or is there some proof I’m unaware of that shows that gravity has to behave in the assumed way or some obvious deviation from theory would have been observed by now?
Objects don’t, in general, act as though all their mass is at the center of mass. That only works for spherically-symmetric objects. For any deviation from spherical symmetry, you’ll get a perturbation in the gravitational force, and these perturbations in the gravitational force are routinely used to find hidden features of a planet (oil or other mineral deposits, caves, hidden weapon caches, etc.).
Yes it’s known as the bank effect in the case of a ship passing close to a bank or the edge of a channel. It’s known as squat when a ship is close to the bottom. It’s known as interaction when it is two ships passing. It’s all Bernoulli. I have never heard of the alleged cause given in the OP.