I want to take a very short journey along a thought I had earlier about gravity. I’m sure everyone finds themselves staring blankly at work their minds awash with whatever mundane task has somehow become theirs. It is in this moment naturally that you start thinking about physics and the universe at large. Not boobs or anything like that I presume? Good. As long as we understand one another.
(This might not be relevant)
I was thinking that perhaps gravitation is not actually a force. There isn’t anything actually acting on objects. It is instead – like evolution – an observation of necessary truths. If that didn’t really make sense I’ll try for the thirtieth time to quantify my thoughts on evolution in another post sometime this week. Mostly because I like trying and the failures are just as fun as the victories. Basically I’m assuming that gravitation is what we call the fluctuations in the energy necessary to maintain a constant speed across a certain perceived distance (that distance not matching the actual distance travelled hence our assumption a mysterious force is at work).
Lets make a few assumptions purely to help the idea be tangible. I’ve stated before that I see the three dimensional universe as a latticework. You could say that these cubes are intricately related to the density of an object and might even be exactly that. In their unaltered state each cube is a single unit (N). So if you have an area with absolutely 0 mass the length of the edges of the cube that makes up that area will be N.
The next assumption we want to make is that there is basically a certain amount of energy that it takes to move an object from one corner to the other corner of the edge. This is going to be variable depending on the size of the object and I’ll explain why I think that is in a bit. But lets assume for now that there is a perfect simple object whose force to travel N is exactly 1.
Lets make the secondary assumption that a single unit of “force” is however much energy it takes to move an object (relative to its size) across a single cube. So if you have 2 cubes side by side it will take exactly twice as much energy to move the object from one side to the other. This is not actually the case but I want to keep this simple. Just assume that when I say force I’m just saying the energy it takes to move through a single cube. We can even simplify it more than this by just taking a single edge of a single cube.
How does this play into gravity? Well we are going to hit some jarring stuff here because I’ll be skipping a few steps (since I don’t know what they are yet). Basically each cube is somehow related to the density of an object. In order to make things more dense you must “scrunch” these cubes. The thing is that original length of N still maintains and that is still how much force it takes to traverse that area.
The math is a little weird because I can’t imagine squishing cubes without using a cubed number of cubes. But then gravity is considered the “weakest” force and this might be why. Imagine you had 9 cubes. Stacked just like a rubics cube.
(Kill me… killllll meeeeeeee….)
The distance to travel from any edge to any edge on the same line is 3. Naturally diagonal lines would take longer but I’m already tired and don’t want to make this anymore complicated. Imagine then that we took all of these cubes and we squished them into the distance of a single cube.
The visual distance to you or I still looks like N=1 from the example up top (it actually isn’t. But imagine it is) and in real life when we look at a super dense object it doesn’t look any “bigger” than equally large objects that are less dense.
But in reality you have 9 squares worth of N in the same space as 1 square. This means that it would take 9 times the force (F) to travel a single distance N! Do this across the same distance of 3 squares and you have 81 times the force! Does that seem familiar?
“Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.”
Newton’s inverse square law. What we are seeing is not a force pulling things but instead we are seeing the changes in energy necessary to travel the same distance across a dimension we cannot physically observe ourselves. Which to be fair is what I think Einstein was trying to (or had said) in his time.
Going back to an earlier point this may be why gravitation is so weak. Because you can only get these effects proper with large numbers of cubes (1 cubed compression requires 9 cubes starting. 9 cubed compression requires 81 cubes starting. So on and so on.) we don’t see it noticeably without great mass.
This might also give us an idea of just how large this “distance” is.
That’s my closing thoughts on it I think for tonight. Gravitation is actually an observation of travel across contracted distances. Objects move faster when traveling towards the dense cubes because their force is magnified by the exponentially decreasing distance between cubes. Slowed movement when traveling away is just the initial travel through that dense cluster of cubes.
A black hole (I would presume) has infinitely many cubes between its center and the event horizon and this is why light cannot escape it. As light would need infinite force.
An object being slung around the Earth (for instance) is experiencing the combined phenomena of the dense cubes creating increasingly shorter distances in front of it (accelerating it forward) and the downward force of the dense cubes beneath it (accelerating it towards the Earth). As long as the acceleration forward is enough to offset the acceleration “downward” the object orbits the Earth.
So uh…yeah…that’s what I got to thinking about when my excel routine got to be a bit monotonous today.
PS. Light (and thus vision) also falls into this cube world and I’d wager that warped space and perhaps this entire mystery is because we literally can’t see it in action [we see it secondarily]. We are trapped in its machinations and would need to be a dimension higher to actually observe it in action.
Edit: I had mentioned this to my wife and she said “So like monitors?” Which is really good. To simplify this thought imagine that your monitor at some small resolution but its current screen width is the default distance. You could change the amount of pixels inside it by altering the resolution and thus increasing the number of pixels that your mouse has to travel to cover that same original distance (the width of your monitor). Just imagine that scenario but with a mouse icon that scales with the screen. You are still acting on exactly the same amount its just that now you have way more distance to cover. It ends up appearing like something is acting against you.