A down-to-Earth approach to understanding gravity

What more is there to say about gravity? Extensive astronomical observations by Galileo and Tycho Brahe laid the foundations for Kepler to formulate his laws of planetary motion and then for Newton to come up with his theory of gravity. In the twentieth century Einstein recognised that the universe is not a clockwork machine and that it has no fixed frame of reference, everything is relative. Then we had black holes, planetary precession, gravitational waves and the enigma that is sub-atomic quantum theory that we cannot yet square with the cosmic scale.

Now, H. Ron Harrison of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, at City University, London, hopes to simplify our understanding of gravity by going back to Newtonian theory extending it and embedding an understanding of Einstein's special theory of relativity that takes relative velocity based on the form of the measured data into account. In this new simpler of gravity, which Harrison describes in the International Journal of Space Science and Engineering, he derives a single explanatory equation. "This equation expresses relative acceleration between two masses as a function of their masses, separation and, now, relative velocity," Harrison explains.

This formula accounts for many of the gravitational phenomena we have observed through many decades if not centuries and offers a simpler explanation for the likes of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the gravitational deflection of light, the Shapiro time delay (an effect that retards the transmission of a signal passing close to a strong gravitational field), the Schwarzschild radius which accounts for escape velocity and why you cannot escape a black hole, and even .

Harrison suggests that his formula is less open to misinterpretation than those of Einstein. Moreover, he considers "force" to be a secondary property as was suggested by Hertz at the end of the nineteenth century. Force is the sleeping partner of gravitational formulae; it is to dynamics what money is to commerce. Tests on real observations corroborate this demotion of force and the replacement of Einsteinian complexity with a simpler set of equations. So, the Principle of Equivalence does not arise," adds Harrison.

This new interpretation which does not undermine relativity even points to the possibility of the existence of a repulsive phenomenon one might refer to as anti-gravity. At a more immediately practical level, however, it should be possible to calculate non-Newtonian variations in the trajectories of satellites, for instance, using Harrison's equations.


Explore further

Verlinde's new theory of gravity passes first test

More information: H. Ron Harrison. Post Newtonian gravity, a new simpler approach, International Journal of Space Science and Engineering (2016). DOI: 10.1504/IJSPACESE.2016.081569
Citation: A down-to-Earth approach to understanding gravity (2017, February 1) retrieved 19 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-02-down-to-earth-approach-gravity.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
8 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 01, 2017
This new interpretation which does not undermine relativity even points to the possibility of the existence of a repulsive phenomenon one might refer to as anti-gravity.

Hopping on one broken foot towards the finish line....but heading in the right direction.


Not by publishing in this journal he won't be. I tried to find an impact factor for it, and it wasn't even listed in the places I looked!
http://library.tu...pact.csp

People publish all sorts of weirdness in open access journals. Doesn't mean it has much, if any, merit. I suspect that PO only produced this article for the clickbait that it would generate from the many and varied cranks who tend to visit here.

Feb 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 14, 2017
Let me guess. Gluons interact with pions to make the strong (nuclear) force. Pions decay at a rate of about 1 every 10^-8 seconds so gluons would have to interact with the decaying pions at about 10^8 hz. Positrons and electrons don't decay so magnetic fields don't need gluons to maintain their force.

Mar 14, 2017
This new interpretation which does not undermine relativity even points to the possibility of the existence of a repulsive phenomenon one might refer to as anti-gravity.
For the record note that lesser repulsion could amount to attraction. So all gravity could be repulsive, as fed by expansion. Especially between galaxies. Of course there are exceptions such as being on a collision course with Andromeda. But this could be due to some random effect in the motion of galaxies. Or it could be there really is a gravitational force between us and Andromeda if there is more expansion going on outside our combined neighborhood than within it. Actually there is gravitational force between all galaxies which we know of because of the filaments between galaxies which counters the force of expansion.

Mar 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 14, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Mar 23, 2017
Could it be we have found the elusive white hole hiding out there in plain sight? -
http://wallstreet...gravity/

Mar 23, 2017
As atoms turn out to be 99.99999999% empty space, one wonders where all the empty space goes when the black hole feeds. Could it be into a white hole entangled in another part of the U? Note if the entangled particles of the ones falling into black holes were antiparticles, they would not be visible in the growing white hole as I see it because antiparticles experience anti-gravity.

Mar 23, 2017
@Seeker2 :" because antiparticles experience anti-gravity." What is your evidence for claiming that?

Mar 23, 2017
@del2 Positrons produced by thunderstorms apparently fall up where they get trapped by the radiation belts. Best not go there. Electrons produced by thunderstorms fall down, apparently. More importantly antimatter appears to hide out between galaxies or wherever they can escape gravity. The missing antimatter does not aggregate, apparently. If so, show me the evidence.

Mar 23, 2017
cont
Actually the missing antimatter could be a driving force in the expansion of spacetime between galaxies. This article seems to present an extreme case in the neighborhood of a white hole.

Mar 23, 2017
cont
Actually the missing antimatter could be a driving force in the expansion of spacetime between galaxies. This article seems to present an extreme case in the neighborhood of a white hole.
A better article is at http://wallstreet...-4098061

Mar 24, 2017
cont
better in the sense of more directly applicable to our subject.

Mar 24, 2017
"Positrons produced by thunderstorms apparently fall up" More likely due to electric fields, near thunderstorms?
As far as I am aware no definitive experiments have yet been done on gravitation of antimatter, but the expectation, based on conservation or mass/energy, is that their mass is the same as the corresponding particle, only the charge being opposite. Also, some (neutral) particles are their own antiparticles.


Mar 24, 2017
"Positrons produced by thunderstorms apparently fall up" More likely due to electric fields, near thunderstorms?
I'd think the electric fields trapping the positrons would be in the radiation belts far above the ones produced by thunderstorms.

Mar 24, 2017
...the expectation, based on conservation or mass/energy, is that their mass is the same as the corresponding particle, only the charge being opposite.
I would guess their charge is also the same as the corresponding particle but they are actually particles moving backwards in time - as Feynman would say.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more