Thursday, May 6, 2010

Further thoughts on the Induction of Gravity

Hans Christian Ørsted with assistant. Notice compass on the table

It is often said that if one is determined to find truth, then go back to the source. In this case, the source is an accidental experiment performed by a Danish scientist called Hans Christian Ørsted.
On 21 April 1820, during a lecture, Ørsted noticed a compass needle deflected from magnetic north when electric current from a battery was switched on and off, confirming a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism.
This experiment became the bulwark, the foundation of our theories and concepts of electromagnetism, the underpinnings of our theoretical and applied sciences.

What was NOT discovered at that time nor since, is whether there was a simultaneous induction of gravity. This is not as amazing an idea as it sounds. Scientists have believed since the age of empiricism that all the forces of the Universe are in some way inextricably linked, yet to this day no one has demonstrated a direct relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic.
It is not is surprising that gravitational induction may have passed unnoticed for so long. The force of gravity is 1 x 10 to the 39 times weaker than magnetism, so that if the forces are proportionate, the induction of gravity of Ørsted's experiment would be very hard to measure indeed.

With the advances in our ability to produce large electrical discharges, such as a z-pinch, combined with a laser optical precision capable of monitoring the slightest gravitational disturbance of a beam, would it not be possible to repeat the experiment and confirm one way or the other if there is a gravitational induction? To my knowledge this has not yet been attempted, which is surprising considering what is at stake.

Since I have offered a means to make my proposal falsifiable, I will briefly explain the rudiments of gravitational induction:
Gravitational induction may be brought about by the temporary 'tearing' of the space-fabric. These momentary 'rips' may be considered absolute vacuums, or non-space. Put simply, non-space can be considered the opposite end of the black hole singularity concept, in that the absolute vacuum is an absence of mass/energy rather than a concentration thereof. The only way we can determine the existence of an absolute vacuum is by the behavior of the space-fabric surrounding it. If you have difficulty understanding the concept, think of it like this; 'hollow' is a space with nothing in it. 'Empty' is a volume with no space in it. The space-fabric attempts to annihilate the absolute vacuum, and the nature of this implosion is gravitational. Hence, we have an instances in nature where mass/energy/space may be gravitationally attracted without a corresponding quantity of mass.

If gravity is being induced, then several pieces of natures puzzle fall together without calling upon extraordinary additional particles or other intangible subatomic forces:

  • Dark energy: Particles in intergalactic space reach exceedingly high speeds and on those rare occasions when they collide, these produce temperatures of millions of degrees. At the moment of collision, a tiny amount of gravity/non-space is momentarily produced but collapses immediately, lacking any means of sustaining itself. However, by virtue of the volume of colliding particles over vast regions of space, a 'field' of gravity is maintained. Might this not explain the phenomenon that we call 'dark energy'?

  • Red Shift: Entertaining the above-mentioned, that it is the collision of particles that are inducing gravity, could it be that as one looks towards the event horizon, the 'weight' of so-called empty space begins to accumulate, causing the spectral redshift?

Curiously, looking back on my thirty years of speculation I appear to have begun my journey, throwing myself into the complex realm of solar observations, only to find the possible falsifiable answer in Ørsted's accidental experiment, performed 190 years ago. Is life not wonderful?

Your thoughts and comments will be appreciated,

Stephen Goodfellow

No comments: