The
current concepts of gravity, mass and time as core elements within physics are not proven and not fully understood. Even Einstein was unable to provide us with a set of rules for unifying the core of physics. In the mind of the author this is because gravity has been totally misconceived. The theory of a Principal Force redefines gravity and explain a way of putting it "all"
together without the need for tweaks such as dark matter and dark energy.
Let's start with gravity as this is the core physics concept affected by the theory.
The idea that gravity is a kind of indefinite remote force where "masses" are pulled towards each other over vast distances seem unlikely as a physical phenomenon, even if we include Laplace fields and creative science. Especially if the universe originated from a type of "big bang" event or from a simplified initial state of the universe, where something made it "all" start expanding and forming into observable "waves/particles", planets and planetary systems. It all spells forces tearing stuff apart and stuff being forced away from each other, not being "pulled" together. Why would distant objects create a pull on each other in such a scenario?
The observant reader will of course rightfully say; We know for sure that there's gravity!
Surely, we are observing that an apple will "fall" to the ground and the moon circles the earth. We can hold a Mass in our hands and feel "gravity" - right?
Despite all this socially accepted and universally lectured understanding of gravity, there are many open questions regarding the correctness of the concept of gravity and many resources already claim that we do not understand gravity or that our understanding is not correct. Spacetime makes an attempt to explain gravity, and while the theory has been proven to be correct in several observations, it falls apart as it requires dark matter and dark energy to make sense on a cosmic scale.
For sure we do not have actual proof of gravity as a force as we do not understand how this force (as observed) is created (other than possibly Einstein's theories). There are many well documented objections that challenge the classic concept of gravity from many different sources. Anyone may seek these at their own discretion. If the Moon pulls on the Earth due to gravity, what is the pulling anchor? Soil, water, molecules, atoms, quantum particles or some magic "dark matter" within the Earth?
Nobody knows...
In the opinion of the author the indefinite and unlimited nature of gravity as explained in classic physics makes no sense whatsoever and common logic should dictate this. If a wave, particle, quantum/atomic wave/particle, or some sub-substance of the same is causing gravity, how come this "substance" can provide an unlimited amount of gravity pull to any number of other "substances" in any direction without any limitation? Also, gravity is assumed to pass through a galaxy without being affected to create a pull that is the same between objects regardless of where they are in the galaxy?
What other system in physics can provide an unlimited number of forces or effects in any direction to be applied with the same properties for all relationships? If an imagined quantum sub-particle for example is the anchor of a gravitational force, how can it provide this anchor and force to be relating to an indefinite number of other anchors? It simply does not add up.
The thesis herein claim
is that "gravity" is merely an observation of forces that appear to happen as a pulling force between "masses", while in fact it's not caused by pulling forces.
Another type of influence creates the "gravity" we know.
The Principal Force is in fact the "gravity"
we observe.
Many popular illustrations of the falling
apple of Isaac Newton have been made and we all know them from school and
popular media as the core information we need to know to understand it "all"
within physics.
From mid-school and
upwards children has been educated for a fact that a force is pulling the apple
to the earth, because they attract each other through "gravity".
Also, most high-level
education in physics start out from the three laws of motion as described by
Isaac Newton. No wonder mankind has established gravity as a fact.
Unfortunately, Newton
got it wrong. There is no force pulling the apple against the earth and no,
there's neither any bending of time or other exotic stuff causing the gravity forces to occur.
Instead, there's a resulting force pushing the apple and earth against each other.
As Einstein explained we will observe the Earth coming against us if we fall with the apple, while we at standstill on earth will observe the apple as being falling to the ground. Either way there's no pull forces present!
This is likely where some readers will start laughing and may be tempted to stop reading as the
apple obviously is attracted to the Earth.
Don't.
Stay in here for a
while, as the forces in play will be explained. A number of steps are required
to get the picture, but they are really easy to understand - promise.
Please clear your mind and forget about gravity for a while. Pretend you know that the visual pulling arrow/force between the
apple and the earth in the Newton illustration you have seen many times is misleading and
confusing. Gravity does not exist!
Instead imagine the
apple only. According to the Principal Force theory the apple is in fact not sending out gravity
"requests" attempting to attract other object with a mass. Neither is it travelling in Spacetime somehow.
The apple is however
being hammered with Principal Force waves from all directions. We already know
it's hit with photons/light, radio waves and other "stuff", as well as cosmic
radiation. It's a hard time being an apple, being hammered from all directions.
Also, it has to struggle defending itself from bugs!
The forces that push on the apple are an unknown type of waves; the Principal Force waves. A property of the Principal Force wave is that it has the
ability to push "stuff" away. In other words, Principal Force waves are able to induce acceleration forces
on "stuff" they hit.
If you throw an apple
into deep space, it will be (relatively) motionless and not move like it will
on earth. This is because the Principal Radiation pushes on it from all
directions (3D) and the apple is basically in an equilibrium of forces.
As the apple in the illustration is hit with the same amount of Principal Force waves from all directions, it remains stationary.
The apple will as any object react to the Principal Force waves and cause changes to the waves it's hit by. The level and what kind of effects it will demonstrate, needs only to be schematically perceived for now.
The illustration to the right shows how the Principal Force waves hitting the apple from the right will end its journey in the apple or continue on. Assume a very small percentage stays in the apple somehow.
Waves appearing from the right results in the apple "absorbing" (or reduce/slow down) the waves, where we may conclude that the apple to some extent reacts to the Principal Force. While illustrated in one major direction, this plays out in all directions (3D).
Most of the waves passes through the apple and continues its path in mostly the same direction as it was initially headed, while some of the radiation is reflected by the apple and may "echo" out in other directions or be "bent" slightly.
Principal Waves that do not hit the apple, will continue on in the same direction as it was headed for, and its "force" will be unchanged or possibly change the direction a little bit if passing close to the apple. Imagine all this taking place in all directions in the 3D space and with infinite density, where nothing that is hit by Principal Waves is unaffected.
Fine, but why does the apple fall to the Earth?
Any object as explained in step 2 will have "shadows" of reduced Principal Waves "behind" the object as seen from the vantage point where the waves come from. In other words, there's reduced Principal Radiation in all directions from the object, compared to the radiation that is not affected by the object. This shadow will have relatively more effect and is more concentrated closer to the object.
Getting there!
So.... What happens when we observe two objects, like two apples, in a relative vicinity to each other?
The above illustration shows a state where each of the two objects are not in a state of equilibrium as they each create a shadow of reduced Principal Waves onto each other. This results in "the other" object receiving less Principal Force pushing waves. As a result, the objects will be "attracted" to each other as they are pushed towards each other from the imbalance of pushing forces resulting in an inbound force.
They are in other words being "accelerated" against each other, due to Principal Force waves pushing them together.
Gravity do not
exist. The accelerating push effects Principal Force provide causes us to observe a pull between masses, but wrongfully so.
What we perceive as gravity is the effect of Principal
Radiation forces "out of balance" where objects will appear to be "attracted" because
they are in a Principal Force waves shadow of each other.
We may say that Principal
Force is perfectly impersonating Gravity by showing (almost) the same
resulting acceleration on what we perceive as masses, despite its force working
the other way around, compared to gravity.
The knowledge Isaac
Newton had available to understand what he perceived as gravity was of course
not enough for him to question his findings as we would expect science to do
today. He didn't know the universe is accelerating apart.
If he knew that the universe is in fact
expanding faster and faster, we may assume he would have got doubts about the
law. Where would mankind have been if Newton had this insight back then?
Einstein did know a lot more than Newton, but mankind learned about the growing universe after the theory of general relativity was written. New knowledge requires outdated science to be reconsidered.
New rules and mathematics need to support Principal Force. The new mathematics will in order to find the pull between to objects also need to consider any intermediate "stuff". In the below illustration the pulling forces between object "X and "Z" will in classical physics only consider the masses of "X" and "Z" and the distance in between them (and "G").
In the mathematics of Principal Force the forces causing acceleration between "X" and "Z" needs to consider that the object "Y" increases the shadow effects that cause the inwards acceleration. The reason to why effects of this anomaly is not commonly known already is most likely due to the fact that the "gravity" measured and calculated is very small, especially for very distant objects. Also, for Einstein's general relativity there are "compensations" for relativity and spin to correct for these anomalies.
For galaxies and "large" astronomic systems the anomaly is very much known however, where "dark matter" needs to be added for the classical mathematics to have any meaning. In fact, any theory and formula that does not consider the "X-Y-Z" system shown below will not be able to produce correct results for object accelerations within the system.
The new Principal Force rules and mathematics will in the mind of the author easily be able to prove that the increased "gravity" in galaxies is caused by substantial Principal Force shadows and amplified accelerating forces especially in the "outskirts" of the galaxies.
