Turning Gravity Inside Out To The Infinite

Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
It has always seemed to me that if you turned gravity inside out from Relativity's local macro-verse "centers of gravity" to the non-local event horizon fronting the infinite (the gravity of the outland 'dome' horizon (or as I have termed it before, the gravity of the forest rather than the trees)) you end up with -- you have -- the look, and probably the reality, of the micro-verse of Quantum Mechanics.

Actually I didn't go far enough. I didn't mean the one facing alone, but the two, actually the many, but especially the two what might be called 'hyper-level-opposed' overlaying and entangling, influencing and forming. Returning to the analogy; the trees are in the forest, making up the forest as an entity onto itself, but at the same time, that entity of forest is in each and every tree.

I wish the Quanta Magazine article, "How Gravity is a Double Copy of Other Forces," hadn't skimmed that concept so lightly. It's all I find anywhere so far. I seem to be, and have been, visualizing something somewhat paralleling that but reversed.... my conceptualized duality (inland centered and outlanded event horizon) of gravity being the major formation, or, if not the major, the background of and to those foreground "other forces".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Connor
Feb 8, 2021
58
25
35
Welcome back....that sounds like you've done the quantum loop...
Joel Primack has a great book, "View from the Center" where he uses the "cosmic ouroboros" as a scale model for the small and large which I constantly use and keep in my brainial capacitor.

My next questions/conjectures are going to be about mass and how to get some... the cause for spin in the universe and how this creates mass...but I am still digesting my last meal....peace
 
Feb 8, 2021
58
25
35
Another view is if our 3 or 4 % visible universe within the 97% darkness is the nucleus within a shell of dark energy...a quantum view of the universe instead of the classical? This is how universes get made, it takes only 4% of stuff to get things moving...
And I think the background is dark energy that is phase shifting the rest of the universe we see and gravity, EM etc are all different scales/phase shifts of this inflating space/plasma...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Connor
Aug 14, 2020
718
126
2,060
The relationship of all local "centers of gravity" to an all universe (u) englobing non-local event horizon -- I describe -- as that collapsed horizon relates to gravity (common to all centers of gravity anywhere and everywhere), might come up the constant of 'G' ("big G", as I understand it is often called), a constant I could not fathom to my satisfaction, or turn to my own use, until this point in my modeling.

And adapting it to my modeling, I've just realized something else I hadn't realized until this point, neither 'c' nor 'G', anymore than '0', are infinite or finite. It puts all three in a special class of value, neither infinite nor finite. I've long been pursuing that concerning 'c' without really understanding that that was what I was doing. Now, realizing that classification on a par with '0' concerning 'G', I've finally realized it concerning 'c'. Again, it's not infinite, but it's not finite either. It's in the class with '0' (('0' (herein also 'net 0' (('1')('-1'))) ('c') ('G') ('Planck horizon' and/or 'BB horizon', one and the same collapsed -- alternately; 'event' --horizon; neither infinite nor finite, and/or, both infinite and finite)).

Cheez, I like that concept of Multiverse multi-dimensionality. It is the greatest abstract of all reality possible.
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
I am open to correction, by those more knowledgeable than I, in this area, but I would assume yes . . . . . . . . . but:
In the Newtonian model, the effect being inversely proportional to distance squared, you are correct in assuming "unnoticeable/incredibly miniscule".
In the simplified relativistic model, one might imagine the curvature of the trampoline tangentially approaching zero, ***
. . . . . . . . . with the same result.

Cat :)

*** thus there is plenty of scope for other 'depressions' of varying depth in between.
 
Aug 31, 2021
46
18
35
It has always seemed to me that if you turned gravity inside out from Relativity's local macro-verse "centers of gravity" to the non-local event horizon fronting the infinite (the gravity of the outland 'dome' horizon (or as I have termed it before, the gravity of the forest rather than the trees)) you end up with -- you have -- the look, and probably the reality, of the micro-verse of Quantum Mechanics.

Actually I didn't go far enough. I didn't mean the one facing alone, but the two, actually the many, but especially the two what might be called 'hyper-level-opposed' overlaying and entangling, influencing and forming. Returning to the analogy; the trees are in the forest, making up the forest as an entity onto itself, but at the same time, that entity of forest is in each and every tree.

I wish the Quanta Magazine article, "How Gravity is a Double Copy of Other Forces," hadn't skimmed that concept so lightly. It's all I find anywhere so far. I seem to be, and have been, visualizing something somewhat paralleling that but reversed.... my conceptualized duality (inland centered and outlanded event horizon) of gravity being the major formation, or, if not the major, the background of and to those foreground "other forces".
Well, gravity is one of the fundamental forces of the Universe, weak / strong and electromagnetic being other three - with dark energy probably existing and quantum mechanics certainly existing but on the subatomic level. Therefore, you would have to go beneath the creation itself and into the realm of underlying fields or even beyond all the way to the outside source whatever it may be. I mean, you can not observe or manage the box while inside. You must get out and do it externally. You would have to interfere with the Big Bang source code. You would have to give gravity the positive value and hence creating a repulsive force which we already have in the form of the dark energy. What would your Universe look like? Everything would be expanding and distancing even faster with galaxies unable to hold stars and matter clinched. Your Universe would be dispersed, dissoluted and nothing could enter the black hole not even light. :) The only solution I offer is countering the gravity of the black hole which theoretically can be done with the equal or stronger black hole or similar artificial object than the targeted one. Waves will cancel each other and you would have your black hole restrained yet not counter directed. No, you can not reverse the gravity. In this Universe! But who says that there are no Universes with different set of laws or different characteristics at least? Maybe there are Universes where gravity is positive. Then particles and objects would move away because of the gravity, in addition to other influences like dark energy, and you would freely float across the Cosmos enjoying the panoramic view of becoming more and more alone in the vast voids at near absolute zero temperatures with occasional warmth coming in the form of heated gas and star dust. :)
 
Jul 24, 2020
24
7
1,515
Macro gravity of stars and planets can be understood only through quantum gravity
in the Cosmic Vacuum (there isn't any other way). Macro gravity is the effect of matter
and energy. And on micro-cosmic level quantum gravity is unity between Planck
quantum active particles of energy E=h*f and Boltzmann passive k-matter particles
S=kTlogW, when EM force is ~10-38 to 10-40 stronger than the gravitation stuff.
Their unity created everything. Gravity is a local phenomenon in the Cosmic Vacuum
 
Jul 24, 2020
24
7
1,515
forest and trees: macro-gravity (Newton/Einstein) and micro-gravity (?) . . . "So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest." /Albert Einstein/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absolute zero
Jan 19, 2022
31
12
35
forest and trees: macro-gravity (Newton/Einstein) and micro-gravity (?) . . . "So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest." /Albert Einstein/
Given
Rs=2MG/C² then G=RsC²/2M
Replacing G with 1 and resolving for M we have

M=RsC²/2=D³/2T²

I interpret the equation as mass being equal to the average of a volume of spacetime. Comparing to a different average volume with the same mass

RsC²/2=RV²/2 or V²=RsC²/R or V=✓RsC²/R

The last equation is for escape velocity without using force. Coupled with Gravitational doppler being caused by the ratio of time dilation between the observed and the observer, I am of the opinion Gravitational force is in the same category as centrifugal force. Both are a result of a non-inertial reference frame.

Is the above forest, trees or waste land.

Ps
A good place to start looking for a quantum connection to gravity is to express G in terms of plank constants.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY