Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:08 amI agreed with the refraction of gradient density could explain gravity.
Nonetheless, I disagreed with the mass of an object is the causality for the gradient density that renders the effect of gravity with its refraction in the different densities; it is the gravitational singularity of matter in the object that does it as a point mass.
Well, from a certain distance, that's safe to assume, but nearer to the surface the gravitational anomalies of mascons (concentrations of mass) in the crust has to be considered.
Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:08 amDespite the refraction of gradient density could explain the mechanism that causes gravity, it could not actually explain the causality of the gravitational force.
I'm one of those freaks who suspects the universe is actually made of some 'physical' stuff - basically an aether. I suspect this aether is densest around 'material objects', and the reason I think that is that if the big bang story is broadly true, then whatever subatomic particles are made of, it's the same stuff that went bang roughly 14 billion years ago. The one property we can ascribe to that stuff is that it has an extraordinary capacity for expansion. What's true of the big bang is true of everything that is made of big bang stuff - everything in our universe. In the maelstrom of the hot, dense early stages, with every bit of big bang stuff pushing against every other, then yeah, all sorts of 'vortices' would occur. Some of which get mixed up with others and form atoms. Anyway, the story continues with the big bang stuff still expanding today - in other words, every particle is a twist/knot/vortex of rapidly expanding stuff; hence the colossal power of atomic bombs, which basically unravel atoms allowing them to expand freely. Anything that expands uniformly does so according to an inverse square law, which is basically Newtonian gravity, but since all celestial bodies are moving, there is some 'aether drag', which is what this link you provided shows
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 4may_epic/ , hence relativistic aether.
Paradigmer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 5:08 amI understand you are doing a great job to vindicate the original works of Einstein.
Thank you. I'm not really vindicating his ideas, that's for experimental physicists to do; I'm just trying to put them into terms that everyone can understand, which to be honest is pretty much as Einstein laid them out in the first place. As Einstein said:
Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.