Study finds flaw in emergent gravity

August 10, 2018 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
Study finds flaw in emergent gravity
Illustration of a three-dimensional hypersurface. Credit: Wang and Braunstein. Published in Nature Communications

In recent years, some physicists have been investigating the possibility that gravity is not actually a fundamental force, but rather an emergent phenomenon that arises from the collective motion of small bits of information encoded on spacetime surfaces called holographic screens. The theory, called emergent gravity, hinges on the existence of a close connection between gravity and thermodynamics.

Emergent gravity has received its share of criticism, however, and a new paper adds to this by showing that the holographic screen surfaces described by the theory do not actually behave thermodynamically, undermining a key assumption of the theory.

Zhi-Wei Wang, a physicist at Jilin University in Changchun, China, and Samuel L. Braunstein, a professor of quantum computational science at the University of York in the UK, have published their paper on non-thermodynamic surfaces in a recent issue of Nature Communications.

"Emergent gravity has very strong claims: that it can explain things like dark matter and dark energy, but also reproduce the decades of work coming out of regular general relativity," Wang told Phys.org. "That last claim is now knocked on its head by our work, so emergent gravity proponents will have their work cut out for themselves in showing consistency with the huge canon of observational results. We've set them back, not necessarily knocked them out."

In the cosmological context, surfaces refer generally to any two-dimensional area in spacetime. Some of these surfaces, such as the horizons of black holes and other objects, are confirmed to be thermodynamic. For black hole horizons, this has been known since the 1970s, since the very laws that define black hole mechanics are directly analogous to the laws of thermodynamics. This means that black hole horizons obey thermodynamic principles such as and having a positive temperature and entropy.

More recently, surfaces that are not horizons have been conjectured to obey the laws of thermodynamics, with the holographic screens in the emergent gravity theory being one example. However, so far these conjectures have not been fully justified.

In the new paper, the scientists tested whether different kinds of surfaces obey an analogue of the first law of thermodynamics, which is a special form of energy conservation. Their results reveal that, while surfaces near black holes (called stretched horizons) do obey the first law, ordinary surfaces—including holographic screens—generally do not. The only exception is that ordinary surfaces that are spherically symmetric do obey the first law.

As the scientists explain, the finding that stretched horizons obey the first law is not surprising, since these surfaces inherit much of their behavior from the nearby horizons. Still, the scientists caution that the results do not necessarily imply that stretched horizons obey all of the laws of thermodynamics. On the other hand, the finding that ordinary surfaces do not obey the first law is more unexpected, especially as it is one of the key assumptions of emergent gravity. Going forward, researchers will work to understand what this means for the future of emergent gravity, as well as explore other possible implications.

"We spent a large amount of time working out how to reproduce the original results for from the 1970s," Braunstein said. "Although the methods from the 1970s were extremely tedious to replicate in detail, we found them very powerful and are thinking now about whether there is any way to generalize these results to other scenarios. Also, we think that our formula for the deviation away from the first law as one moves away from horizons will have important implications for quantum ."

Explore further: Escaping gravity's clutches: The black hole breakout

More information: Zhi-Wei Wang and Samuel L. Braunstein. "Surfaces away from horizons are not thermodynamic." Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05433-9

Related Stories

Black hole thermodynamics

September 10, 2014

In the 1800s scientists studying things like heat and the behavior of low density gases developed a theory known as thermodynamics. As the name suggests, this theory describes the dynamic behavior of heat (or more generally ...

New theory of gravity might explain dark matter

November 8, 2016

A new theory of gravity might explain the curious motions of stars in galaxies. Emergent gravity, as the new theory is called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that is usually explained by invoking dark matter. ...

Recommended for you

Neutron stars may hold an answer to neutron puzzle on Earth

August 15, 2018

According to University of Illinois physicist Douglas H. Beck, "Neutrons play some unusual roles in our world. Free neutrons decay in about 900 s but, bound in nuclei, they are stable and make up somewhat more than half the ...

54 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

novasp9
2.7 / 5 (10) Aug 10, 2018
"Holographic screens"? Do they sell them at Walmarts, in the pseudoscience section?
fthompson495
1 / 5 (14) Aug 10, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

There is evidence of the supersolid dark matter every time a double-slit experiment is performed, as it is the supersolid dark matter that waves.

Supersolid dark matter ripples when galaxy clusters collide and waves in a double-slit experiment, relating general relativity and quantum mechanics.

grandpa
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2018
So the article says only symmetric spheres could have emergent gravity. Well I guess that means that everything is made of symmetric spheres.
joel in oakland
4.5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2018
@ fth495
interesting conjecture - hope you publish the math (or whatever) that led you to this idea.
Claudius
3 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2018
I wonder if anyone has yet considered dark matter could be a manifestation of the multiverse proposed by David Deutsch,etc.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2018
+/-Charge Exists; therefore any other particle or force of nature is derivative. Since the Center of each E Field is unique, ...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018
Logic! Anyway, we know dat since Coulomb! Add Maxwell, update speed relative to the center; but the center is moving ... yeah, so
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018
Gravity the DC Field & charges always comply, If only 4 charge or superimposed centers; Like charges further apart than unlike therefore Gravity; better if one sees what each charge must see, wither a control field or nature, the superimposed field appears as a Charge at a Vector point. Anyway set c=1; then dimension = lambda, perspective; each point has a set of attributes; you may ... save, reuse
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018
Notice: Stationary State 0; Chosen state, simply drop and stabilize, ... the elements or 2N stabile combos, unstable, useful, controllable, assemble, ...
What can a computer see and control, "to infinity and beyond!"
Whart1984
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2018
emergent phenomenon that arises from the collective motion of small bits of information encoded on spacetime surfaces called holographic screens
In my experience, if somethings in science sounds like abstract nonsense (strings vibrating in space) - then it probably is. Collective motion of particles and emergence has the entropic gravity common with dense aether model - but emergence isn't utilized in it in any way: it's just a void slogan. And holographics projections have no utilization in dense aether model at all. Occam's razor is actually a good clue of validity of theories.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2018
Since lambda is your dimension it is also a scale; you'll see how it easily builds bottom to top; the real info is the bottom; like 2 like an 1 unlike at a point; so forth. like the field the centers are also transparent; everything else update; Systematically create clusters or study nature and
Whart1984
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2018
BTW There were also attempts to explain dark matter with entropic gravity - well - these attempts failed as well (1, 2, 3, 4,...)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2018
BTW There were also attempts https://phys.org/...tml,...)

https://en.wikipe...%27s_law
Do you see the error in fundamental constants?
Whart1984
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2018
howhot3
1.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2018
Interesting article. I like the Emergent Gravity theory for explaining the two mysteries of modern cosmology, the apparent missing mass of spinning galaxies and the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. Two very difficult problems that are linked in Emergent Gravity. IMHO, gravity can be quantum and the gravity of a particle is not point like, but based on PSI, the quantum probability of position in a partition of space.

Now ponder that last sentence a few moments and the reply back why an apparent dark matter doesn't just emerge from quantum gravity. It has to,
tallenglish
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2018
One thing that bugs me - many assume "0" stands for nothing, i.e. it is some hard limit. Rather than 0 being the centre of everything, i.e. there is just as much below it as there is above it.

That goes for space as well as time, dark matter is just mass but on the bottom side, both make gravity wells from their own perspective bet repel each other. Dark matter is then the missing anti-matter from the big bang dark energy is the stuff that would be imaginary number equivilent to matter - trying to compress dark matter and expand matter.

By assuming time is only positive and real - we are ignoring 75% of the posabilities out there, and if dark matter creates gravity hills it may actually be masking some gravity from mass and ratios may well be closer to 25%/25%/50% for Mass, Dark Matter, Dark Energy - all made of the same stuff, just moving in different directions.

Simple answer is usually correct, complex ones are because someone has a huge ego.
tallenglish
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2018
Think of the universe having 4 phases - +real (+sine, Light/Mass), +imaginary (+cosine, +DE), -real (-sine, DM), -imaginary (-cosine, -DE). -DE would always be pushing us from behind, +DE would always be pulling us from the front. Galaxies, stars and everything else are just turbulence - exactly the same as tornados being spawned from a hurricane, specifically on the front right side - I liken that side to being the universe we can see. +DE could well be whats beyond the event horizon of a black hole. -DE is what compresses light into mass - aka likely candidate for higgs field as it wouldn't have spin from our perspective.

No need for a big bang then as the universe is eternal and inherently circular/spherical - but it is rotating - but it does assume for 12 spacial dimensions to 1 complex temporal dimension per universe and thats just for 3D+1T, who's to say there isn't infinite dimensions for space as well as time.
Shootist
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018
I thought the science was settled, "gravity" is not a force

emergent phenomenon that arises from the collective motion of small bits of information encoded on spacetime surfaces called holographic screens
In my experience, if somethings in science sounds like abstract nonsense (https://imgs.xkcd...ory.png) - then it probably is. Collective motion of particles and emergence has the entropic gravity common with dense aether model - but emergence isn't utilized in it in any way: it's just a void slogan. And holographics projections have no utilization in dense aether model at all. Occam's razor is actually a good clue of validity of theories.


uh, dunce ether model has no utilization what-so-ever.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2018
@Shootist
Gravity was NEVER a FORCE. It is a reaction to an action, whatever the initial action is/may be - but on the precondition of the presence of Mass. It also has nothing to do with Spacetime, whatever that is. Climb a ladder to the roof and jump off. That event is a good example of Gravity as a Reaction to an Action.

"Scientists" are in the habit of finding ways to turn the simplified science into a grossly discreditable bit of mincemeat with almost unintelligible definitions that actually harm the Truth.

I also have my own hypothesis, where Black Holes are not globular entrapments for Mass/Energy, but that they are instead, in reality, DRAINS in which Mass/Energy are sucked into - similar to the water circling the drain in your kitchen sink before the water goes through the pipe due to normal gravity. My idea of a DRAIN also follows the pattern of Spiral Galaxies.
Scientists may never consider MY hypothesis since Black "Holes" it is.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2018
@ tallEnglish
Time is NOT a Dimension. Nothing can be built into, on top of, around, etc. in Time. It just flows, and out there in interstellar space, Time builds nothing. Like Dark Matter no one has ever SEEN, heard, felt, smelt or touched Time. Whereas 3 dimensional Space can be detected and interacted with.
There is no such thing as SpaceTime. It is sheer fallacy that has continued to be taught to unwary science Ph.D's.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2018
dunce ether model has no utilization what-so-ever
Sparse aether models (aka thin gas PERVADING space) are even nonsensical. But the dense aether model (i.e. luminiferous aether FORMING space-time in similar way, like the water is forming surface) not only follows observations well, it also explain, what the emergence has to do with space-time. Unfortunately most of opponents simply confuse these two opposite geometries and argue one with another.
Time is NOT a Dimension
In dense aether model the time is compactified dimension of space-time brane. This is how this compactification would look in 2D/3D.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
Emergence Explains Complexity in the Universe This approach, applied to the world at large, is known as atomism. It holds that everything in nature is made up of tiny, immutable parts. But the emergence in dense aether model doesn't require the constituents to remain immutable - their collective synergies would persist even if they would remain dynamic and volatile like the density fluctuations of gas, which lead to blue color of atmosphere. Which is quite permanent despite that these fluctuations are very temporary. Therefore even volatile quantum fluctuations of vacuum may lead to gravitational lensing, red shift and similar permanent effects. Note also that the emergence is gradient driven: it doesn't matter if these fluctuations are of positive or negative curvature: they always expand the path for light spreading, so that their net lensing effect is always positive.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2018
Note that the evolution is also emergent and gradient driven: its random mutations can be progressive or regressive - but as a whole they gradually lead to an improved adaptation.
holoman
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2018
Could anti-matter hold the key to anti-gravity ?

https://drive.goo...HxpxPJhb
Nik_2213
4 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2018
#holoman, IIRC, there's work in progress to check anti-matter 'falls' in the usual way. Given anti-matter instantly reacts with the 'usual stuff', this is 'difficult'. Yes, any anomaly would up-end a lot of physics, but the odds are long on such. Figuring why free neutrons' half life seems so variable is another matter...
somefingguy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.



Do you just sit at your desk all day, wait for any new physics related article to be published, so that you can copy and paste the exact same thing over and over again? You know the definition of insanity, right?
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2018
Hmmm....so, what they are claiming is that Emergent Gravity is a Fundamental Farce.

[Yes...yes..I know. I'll show myself out]
Whart1984
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2018
Could anti-matter hold the key to anti-gravity
Nope, as the antimatter is attractive in the same way like normal matter - but the dark matter can as it could represent so-called mirror matter.
The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.
Also nope, as we know about massive galaxies with only negligible amount of dark matter and also about lightweight galaxies with large amount of dark matter. This is also problem of way more elaborated theories based on modification of gravity: the dark matter is independent on the mass of massive bodies and it can even exist on its very own. in dense aether model the amount of dark matter should depend on geometric arrangement of normal matter, being consequence of shielding LeSage model of gravity.
Whart1984
2 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2018
This is also problem of entropic gravity, which is modeling the gravity like the surface tension effect of gravitational lens:

F = T ΔS / Δx =
= T . 2.pi.m = - by Schwarzschild-Birkhoff theorem the spherical gravity field is cause with equivalent mass in its center
= 2E/N . 2.pi.m = - because of particle gas nature of that force the temperature T is expressed to mean energy with using of thermodynamical equipartition function (E = N kT/2)
- now we are handling gravity field here as a surface tension of virtual particle gas cluster...
= 2MG/A . 2.pi.m = - now energy E is expressed like equivalent mass M at the center of spherical field with using of Einstein's formula (E=Mc^2)
= 2MG/(4.pi.R^2) . 2.pi.m = surface of gravity field A is expressed with using of formula for the surface of sphere (A = 4.pi.R^2)
= MmG/R^2
AllStBob
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2018
Occam's razor is actually a good clue of validity of theories.

By that criteria nonsense theories with no content, like yours, must be correct.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2018
Dense aether model is purely emergent without any ad hoced geometry added (which would become a source of inconsistency with emergent model soon or later, thus constraining its validity). What you put in is what you get. You cannot get wrong with it, but you also cannot get too much predictions without extensive particle simulations. But it enables to exclude theories based on another postulates and to point to their weakness. For example, all models utilizing holographic projection consider, there is some high-dimensional geometry, which remains flat and which enables this projection. But dense aether model has no upper number of dimensions limit, therefore every theory with fixed number of dimensions remains just an approximation of reality. Within strong gravitational curvature - like this one of black hole - the holographic screen models would fail, because their screen isn't flat there anymore.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2018
But emergent gravity model has problem even with its thermodynamics, as it utilizes equipartition function for dense gas. In dense particle system the gravity breaks the naive thermodynamics, which says that entropy of system increases once it expands. But once some gas gets sufficiently dense, it will start to collapse with its own gravity and its thermodynamics will get reversed. No physical theory actually accounts into it, which leads into entropic paradox of black holes and also entropic paradox of entropic gravity, which this article is all about. I'm of course aware it's because the space-time gets inverted at the event horizon, but the entropic gravity isn't. Even its critics may not be aware of it - but they can derive easily, that bellow event horizon the equations of entropic gravity would fail. It's always better to understand geometry of problem first before starting to combine equations from its intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives blindly.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
Their results reveal that, while surfaces near black holes (called stretched horizons) do obey the first law, ordinary surfaces—including holographic screens—generally do not. The only exception is that ordinary surfaces that are spherically symmetric do obey the first law.


This is also understandable, because only spherically symmetric objects can be described completely within 3D space. Believe it or not - but any deformed sphere isn't 3D object anymore from perspective of gravitomagnetism - but a hyperdimensional one and the nonradiation condition wouldn't apply to it: any object accelerating during falling into black hole would radiate gravitational waves. From dense aether model perspective such an object experiences common diffraction like light ray at the water surface, so it cannot be considered as a thermodynamically closed system anymore.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
Not really surprising since energy in general relativity is not easily conserved, c.f. the many different energy conditions that can formed. Entropy had the chance to be more fundamental, and as the paper claims the first law conservation that is more general than thermodynamics, but evidently they have problems too.

So the article says only symmetric spheres could have emergent gravity. Well I guess that means that everything is made of symmetric spheres.


Actually the paper implies symmetric sphere geometries cannot have it either, I think.

The problem for emergent gravity is that disturbances breaks it. Spheres obey the first law and can be disturbed "just so" (I assume in the radial direction) to keep obeying it. But general disturbances (such as newly verified gravitational waves) fail the law again.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
IMHO, gravity can be quantum and the gravity of a particle is not point like, but based on PSI, the quantum probability of position in a partition of space.

Now ponder that last sentence a few moments and the reply back why an apparent dark matter doesn't just emerge from quantum gravity. It has to,


No, dark matter can emerge from quantum fields (as WIMPS, say).

It is easy to quantize gravity - look up Wilzsek's Core Theory - but the problem is that the resulting standard quantum field theory is only approximative. Sure, it is more robust than all other fields since it fails first at Planck scales, and it is "rocket science" and replaces Newtonian gravity. But you need general relativity to understand how to build GPS systems, say.

Personally that makes me unsure that "quantum gravity" is the next step, since it is already taken. String theory seems more useful to recoup the inherent non-linearity and derive spacetime as well. But of course we don't know.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
The complete formulation of quantum gravity is actually impossible with formal determinist math - you can only get less or more approximate solutions. Which would be useless in addition, as we already have strightforward, way more effective methods, how to calculate mass of nearly every particle developed.

So that there is not actual value added in quantum gravity research - I mean other than neverending salary and grants generation for scientists involved. It's just occupational driven lobby like any other: it ignores the effective solutions on behalf of this clueless ones. An approach of medieval Holy Church comes on mind here: the modern methods are indeed different, but the cheating principle remains the same: just instead of God another impossible promise is provided.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2018
This doesn't mean, that there aren't many secrets which just wait for its acknowledging - whole the scalar wave physics of overunity and antigravity phenomena including dark matter is the quantum gravity subject in fact. In this sense the most progressive branches of physics are just these ones, which are denied most obstinately by scientific establishment for whole century. They just cannot be calculated with abstract combinations of general relativity and quantum mechanics - we already have more straightforward methods developed for it as well.

But just because these methods are more effective, they potentially steal the jobs for neverending lookers from the side of mainstream science, so that they're ignored as well. The fact they deal with taboos of physics just ads to it. The quantum gravitists are just similar criminal tax payers cheating lobby in its very consequences like the GMO research or proponents of "renewables".
Whart1984
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
From dense aether perspective the problem of quantum gravity description is geometrically not more difficult to grasp, than the description of water surface from perspective of both underwater sound waves, both surface waves at the same moment. But once you attempt for it, you'll immediately realize, that these two phases - I mean underwater and surface - are two quite different media, which are separated each other by singularity of nearly infinitely sharp gradient of water surface. The speed of waves changes stepwise at this phase interface, there is no apparent transition. These phases simply have nothing in common, despite they can exchange energy freely mutually: the underwater sound waves would generate some noise at the water surface and vice versa - but the causal portion of information will be lost. But just this causal portion of information is what the deterministic equations of quantum mechanics and general relativity can describe.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
The nature indeed has no problem with handling both phases as a single one - only low-dimensional determinist math has. When we heat the water surface under pressure, then at some moment both phases will dissolve mutually - the surface gradient singularity simply disappears. But just before it a strange milky layer appears at the phase interface: the critical opalescence. This is just the moment, when complex fractal hyperdimensional geometry takes place and this is also the way, in which nature handles singularities. In AWT we are living inside such a hyperdimensional geometry at the phase interface between general relativity and quantum mechanics too - just even more complex than this one forming at the water surface. But this phase is geometrically way more complex than the existing equations can describe, so that whole phenomena is still ignored by mainstream physics in similar way, like way more esoteric physics at the quantum gravity scales, despite it's easily reproducible.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2018
Logic: Charge exists; therefore, any other particle or force is unnecessary. QED
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2018
QM is a tool, not science. Gerry rigged to express what is measured.
savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2018
all nutcases and kooks think that gravity is an emergent property
Ojorf
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2018
I can prove you wrong savvys84.
What do you think gravity is?
savvys84
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2018
I can prove you wrong savvys84.
What do you think gravity is?

Chk my papers here https://www.scrib...savvys84
and prove me wrong
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2018
I can prove you wrong savvys84.
What do you think gravity is?

Chk my papers here https://www.scrib...savvys84
and prove me wrong

Don't agree. e.g. the 'simple pendulum. You claim time moves slower. That is not so. The longer the period the slower the PENDULUM moves. You are saying that time is the pendulum. So you need to explain that first.
granville583762
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
Gravity is most definitely a Force!

Gravity attracts every particle in the direction of the gravitational source in proportion to its mass inversely proportional to the square of separation

There is no reaction on the source particle as it experiences no force - just as the moon experiences no force when attracting the earth, as the moon orbits the earth, where as the earth orbits the moon - as two distinct separate orbits.

Gravities graviton travels through the vacuum from earth to moon - where it interacts with any atomic particle of inertial mass - whereby that particle acquires acceleration in the direction to the source of the graviton!
Ojorf
5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2018
I can prove you wrong savvys84.
What do you think gravity is?

Chk my papers here https://www.scrib...savvys84
and prove me wrong


You didn't answer my question.

What do you think gravity is?
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2018
I can prove you wrong savvys84.
What do you think gravity is?

Chk my papers here https://www.scrib...savvys84
and prove me wrong


You are right. If you can disprove General Relativity by the means of a pendulum, I believe there will be no person or fact in the world that can prove you wrong.

Especially the part about waving the pendulum near an event horizon was convincing, truly solid science!
granville583762
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2018
Gravities addition of gravitons
Where the sun attracts the earth by visible evidence of the tides, as the suns gravities graviton attracts the earth during a new moon where by the sun – moon – earth are in line, the graviton passes through inertial mass on it journey through the vacuum, the suns graviton attracts the moon and passes through the moon and attracts the earth, likewise the moons graviton attracts the earth.
The two gravitons combined increase the tidal ranges on earth, where the trillion upon trillion of gravitons passing through the vacuum from the sun and the moon attract the earth whereby they continue through the earth and continue through the trillions upon trillions of light years of the vacuum attracting any particles of inertial mass in the direction of the sun and moon at the point in the vacuum from the gravitons emission!
Because by this time the sun, moon and earth are no longer in the same coordinates.
Captain Skip
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2018
OMG the comments are so funny Dark matter semetry and other hocus pokus
It can be shown that gravity is simply neutrino string inductive refraction.

the premise of dark matter violates the simple and basic Gaussian gravity rules that have been proven for centuries.. the gravitational effect of masses higher than you in a massive body cancel out and the effect is entirely based upon your distance from the center..

anybody who even accepts the premise of dark matter as the expansion of the universe is a fool and does not understand the basic inverse square law mathematics

Mass is not a property but an effect ... and inductive effect.

savvys84
1 / 5 (1) 20 hours ago
I can prove you wrong savvys84.
What do you think gravity is?

Chk my papers here https://www.scrib...savvys84
and prove me wrong


You are right. If you can disprove General Relativity by the means of a pendulum, I believe there will be no person or fact in the world that can prove you wrong.

Especially the part about waving the pendulum near an event horizon was convincing, truly solid science!

so how would the pendulum behave close to, or at, the event horizon?
Whart1984
1 / 5 (2) 13 hours ago
Russian astronomer and physicist Nikolai A. Kozyrev - a Russian version of Nicola Tesla has made lotta experiments, which would demonstrate that gravity has entropic character - unfortunately his observations weren't attempted by anyone else with exception of physicist Gregory Hodowanec from New Jersey has made similar experiments with electronic equipment.
Whart1984
1 / 5 (1) 13 hours ago
Kozyrev claimed, that processes which increase entropy, such as evaporation of acetone, always repelled the small mass, thus serving as a source of antigravity. In his terminology such processes "emit time," and create right handed torsion. No matter on which side of the arm the acetone was placed, it had the effect of pushing the small mass away. In some of his experiments a different type of torsion balance was used: a flat circle suspended in the center, instead of the long torsion arm. This is shown in the right diagram of figure here.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet 11 hours ago

Chk my papers here https://www.scrib...savvys84
and prove me wrong


Especially the part about waving the pendulum near an event horizon was convincing, truly solid science!

so how would the pendulum behave close to, or at, the event horizon?


I assume close to EH the angle and frequency of the pendulum would increase with the increase of gravity. What happens on or beyond, I wouldn't know.

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

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.