TED Conversations

Dave R
  • Dave R
  • Toronto , Ontario
  • Canada

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Movement causes gravity.

I have a crazy theory that it is the movement of mass through space-time that is the cause of gravity. I believe that the movement of mass causes a 'wake' or gap in space-time that forces other mass to try and take the place of the moved mass causing the gravitational attraction. I have come to think this, because of Einstein's relativity theory, string theory, the 'Bozon' particle theory, and the fact that everything that has gravity is moving. The best way to illustrate this would be- if you were to draw a paddle through water, other water will take the place of the water you moved. Does anyone have any thoughts/insights into this?

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • May 9 2012: The other reason why this wouldn't work is because of the Quantum Field theory. This is probably the biggest obstacle because an object going at a constant velocity would undergo changes in gravitational pull due to quantum fluctuations in the amount of dimensions in the universe (as stated by the M-theory and string theory). This couldn't work with your theory because as I stated above in order to make your current theory apply to observations the amount of gravitational pull would have to be relative to the amount of motion in the object due to general relativity (I realize that E=mc2 has been proven false by the neutrino however the concept of a relationship between mass and energy based on a constant integer is still relevant). This flaw would be much more difficult to work out however if you did work it out your theory would be much better suited to fit into current theories of the universe.
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      May 9 2012: I don't mean movement as a whole, like a planet moving through space.. Universally, it would have be the measure of the movement on the sub-atomic level (like the periodic table of elements) and then compounded to the amount of mass as a total. So a planet could remain "motionless" but still have gravity because of the activity on the quantum level..
      • May 10 2012: That could fix the reference point problem but quantum fluctuations could still occur on a sub-atomic level. Also how would your theory react to a change in the coupling constant of the strings making up the matter (i.e an electron turns into an electric monopole which doesn't nessecarily move but stills contains has a small gravitational field?
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          May 10 2012: Is gravity an absolute constant?
      • May 10 2012: Not necessarily because in the quantum field theory if your in part of the universe with different amounts of unraveled dimensions then not only does it change the coupling constant but it also changes the gravitational force. It's a pretty simple formula though
  • May 9 2012: This seems like a pretty good theory except a few problems which I will get to in a minute. Just a warning though because even if this is modified to make it fool proof it most likely will not be accepted any time soon because such a radical idea would destroy many foundations of physics.

    The first problem in your theory is the fact that with motion you would have to have a reference point. The reference point is crucial because the fabric of space time is steadily expanding so what you choose as the reference point has to literally be universal. In order for your theory to match current observations the amount of motion would have to effect the magnitude of gravity (the speed of movement determines the potential energy so e = mc2) would have to be included. With that said the only to places in the universe that this could be applicable in is the center of the universe or the entire circumference of the universe. If the center of the universe was the reference point then the mass there would be no movement in the exact center of the universe yet matter would still have a gravitational pull therefore ruining the theory. Having the outside of the universe as your referrence point creates the exact opposite problem where at any given point in time the expansion of the universe creates particles infinetely close to the border of the universe. But being infenitely close means that their still will be a growing distance even in one point in time because the universe expands faster than the speed of light. This means that when the matter is infenetely close it would be pulled at the edge of the universe with an infinite amount of force causing it to stay on the outer edge for ever which doesn't match the fact that we aren't on the very edge of the universe. This could be fixed by using a reference point in the megaverse theory but you need to figure that out yourself.

    look at my next comment for the next reason because I'm out of space now.
  • May 3 2012: Gravity, acceleration, time, and mass are all related. As you accelerate, time will slow down. This is observed relative to our position when we put a clock on a space shuttle. Satellites, as well, lose time as they are away from the gravity of the Earth and are in accelerated movements. Your theory has merit based on these facts alone. Einstein also postulated that as an object increases in relative speed, it gains more mass, and therefor more gravity. This increase in mass is why it takes more energy to accelerate the object to faster and faster speeds making the speed of light the galactic speed limit. The problem with suggesting that acceleration is the sole cause of gravity, however, is that black holes, that are super massive, do not necessarily move quickly. We can observe and document their relative speed. This is only relative speed, so it is possible that we are not able to accurately measure their true speed relative to the center of the Universe, but it is unlikely that we are very far off. Most likely, it is a collection of mass displacing space/time relative to the speed of the object and relation to other objects.
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      May 9 2012: "Most likely, it is a collection of mass displacing space/time relative to the speed of the object and relation to other objects."
      : ) This is what I meant by "movement".. like a wake in space-time..
  • thumb
    May 15 2012: Here's something else for you to think about. If time slows to a stop as you approach "c". Does that mean time for a stationary object runs infinitely fast. That's why everything is moving because the stationary stuff ceases to exist as time moving infinitely fast means from that objects point of view the universe has already ended. N.B. By stationary I of course mean in all senses the object would have to be at absolute zero to be truly stationary
  • thumb
    May 4 2012: Not being very scientifically minded, but more of a fan, all I can say is that it sounds cool to me!
  • thumb
    Apr 27 2012: I do believe that whatever happens on the physical level is caused by something on the spiritual level. Everything a human does is done because of a thought (based on a love).

    Since I also believe this whole universe to have a spiritual Cause, we need to know more about that Cause in order to have some idea how it works.
    Recently put this link on one of Edward's question, maybe it will help here too.
    http://thegodguy.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/spiritual-gravity/
  • thumb

    E G 10+

    • 0
    Apr 19 2012: According to your words the movement of mass causes gravity
    but in the theories you mentioned and inspired from the gravitational acceleration is caused by gravity , it meaning that is thought the gravity causes the movement .
    It's a basic principle that nothing moves from itself (the gravity is thought to be a force) would a movement cause a force or would the force cause a movement ?
    • thumb
      May 4 2012: In our life, or body, it is a love that causes every single (purposeful) movement. Nothing, indeed, moves from itself but has a cause.

      The book "Proving God" by E. Sylvia, goes into every detail.
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      May 9 2012: We could consider 'The Big Bang' as the origin of movement in our universe.. As for the gravitational acceleration, that is when you look at gravity on the macro scale. The "movement" that I am referring to is happening on the sub-atomic level and is compounded when taken to the level of gravitational acceleration.
  • thumb
    Apr 19 2012: Cause and Effect is a tricky subject. Does Light cause Vision, or does it play a contributing role to the functioning of the sense of sight? Does Food cause Hunger, or is it the remedy for hunger? Does movement cause the attractive force which caused it (cause its own cause), or is there an attractive force in all masses which acts upon all other masses? Pencils don't cause misspellings, light bulbs don't cause electricity, the Cubs will never win the Series, and movement doesn't cause gravity.
    • thumb
      Apr 19 2012: I believe in physics, movement needs an initial force to move, but without initial force the object would stay in place. Momentum of trains, for example, doesn't happen on its own and it is initiated through an engine. Though, maybe Dave will draw a more complete picture, but so far, I think Gravity is the initial force that moves an object by the size/mass of an object which pulls upon another object that is smaller/less mass, which in turn creates movement.

      Just checked out your previous thread on "Super Gravity Theory" interesting. I will read through it a bit.
      • May 9 2012: That couldn't be it because you could say that singularities such as the big bang and black holes could be the initial movement.