by: Orion Karl Daley
Conventional View on Gravity and Orbitals:
When thinking of gravitational waves, Kepler’s Center of gravity or Sea Saw ( M1*D1 = M2*D2 ) has offered an understanding based on the theory that space is warped by the heavier body whereby attracting the smaller body in its wake.
From the Web –
This sounds sensible and especially when looking at a table model depiction, or picture of a plane or spacial fabric being warped by a larger body in the center causing a spiral to its core.
Here, its easy to imagine the smaller body being able to ride in the wake of the larger one while in having its own weight or mass, seek at the same time to spin away. The smaller body’s orbit can be theorized as stable between the pull of the spiral, and the pushing away due to the rotation of its own mass.
It is further easy to imagine that the spacial fabric itself could resonate based on the solar mass at its center, where by augmenting what is perceived as gravity waves –
When Trying to apply the Model:
When trying to imagine this as a three dimensional model, while assuming that spacial fabrics can warp, as opposed to just a two dimensional depiction, I wanted to consider how space is actually warped around a solid body. Hmmm . . . ?
Using a Different Approach to identify Gravity:
As an alternative to assuming that three a dimensional spacial fabric will facilitate the two dimensional conceptual model of the warped plane, in rearranging Kepler’s equation, instead, I found that we can account for fields to radiate from bodies. Like in the case of our Earth’s Electromagnetic Field, for Gravity, being also one of the four forces, it also can be considered a field from a body.
Consider Fields for Gravity to Radiate from Bodies Instead:
If to rearrange Kepler’s equation as (M1/D2=M2/D1), and if applied to the Sun and Earth, Distance 1 and Distance 2 ironically calculate to meet at the Exosphere.
Hickerphoto.com – Northern Lights
Distances D1 and D2 are derived as: R (total distance) /total mass * M1 = D2; and then for M2, it equals D1.
Above, distances D1 and D2 meet if applied to the Earth’s orbit is calculated near or where the Electromagnetic storm takes place between it and the Sun.
The Why behind Gravity:
When considering a field around a body, such as a gravity field around a heavenly one, so far we can only perceive what it is, but yet not specifically why it is, unless one assumes the conventional model. But still, why does any mass have a gravitational field itself?
We also should consider that bodies are attracted to each other in space, where their gravitational fields gather this way.
If to really understand the ‘why’ of gravity, we could try to account for mass being in fact matter which consist of molecules, etc.
Here all or the four known forces should be accounted for. In fact, matter can be considered some form of relative mass that incorporates all of them if these forces are considered related. Only in this manner, can we genuinely approach the question of ‘why’ is there gravity as a field from a body?
Matter and Radiated Fields
If to think of matter with respect to its potential energy, radiated fields are conceivable. One example of this is the electromagnetic field we have around Earth where its inner proximity to Earth is calculated above –
Thankfully, for potential energy, when thinking of Albert Einstein’s E=MC2, we can have another context for representing matter. That is, having matter being simultaneously described as a unique reference frame of some relative mass composed of energy and time where Fq =amplitude E/ velocity C2.
Could you imagine the Sun and Earth in this context? That is, to think of them in terms of some form of relative masses that posses some forms of relative forces; and then with respect to each other !
Regardless of how we imagine the Sun and Earth,we intuitively could know that they should have some form of an individual field strength for their unique gravity.
However seen, the Sun and the Earth do represent unique reference frames of asynchronous time with respect to each other. This should then pose the question about the nature of their shared gravity in some form of ‘relative equilibrium’.
The point of [ M1/D2=M2/D1 ) of where the Sun’s and Earth’s gravitational fields could coalesce, in lets say a point of relative equilibrium, was noted earlier.
The point is calculated in detail below and identified to be just next door to the Magnetosphere where the solar winds interact with Earth. That is, the point appears to be in the Exosphere. This calculation is done in the following:
Relative Equilibrium between the Sun and Earth represents a measure of equivalence in their mutual space:
for example: Matter 1/Distance 2 = Matter 2/Distance 1
This is where distances Distance 1 and Distance 2 are derived as:
(total distance)/(total mass) * M1 = Distance 2 . .
and . . * M2 = Distance 1
Applied for the Sun and Earth is in the following:
The Earth’s RE (5.97223 * 1024kg/ 452.4967391km)
= The Sun’s RE (1.99 * 1030kg/ 150656972.5km)
At the point of reference, and at the speed of light, the Sun and Earth’s gravitational fields are thought to coalesce:
Earth’s Relative Force @ 1.003507 * 1046 ( kg/km )
= Sun’sRf @ 1.003507 * 1046 ( kg/km )
Unlike for Kepler’s center of mass seesaw , the above formula calculates a point of Relative Equilibrium that is supposed to be located 452 km’s above the surface of the Earth.
In fact, Relative Equilibrium is supposed to calculate a point of net zero between any two relative masses.
As distance and kinetic energy between bodies appear to be inversely proportional, Relative Equilibrium can also act as a moving constant for acceleration based on the state of kinetic change with respect to distance between bodies.
Relative Equilibrium can also represent another or third reference frame derived from others; and similar to Newton’s G for Earth, it is intended to be to applicable to all solar bodies.
 |
Would you be willing to speculate that the relative masses for the Sun and Earth could share a syncopated state of superposition?
That is, consisting of a synchronistic event with respect to their field’s harmonics and amplitude: or frequency Zr = amplitude/distance as a third reference frame?
Like the magnetosphere and solar winds, the relationship of kinetic force between the Sun and Earth can be represented as a relative mass at the speed of light: for example – E/C.
In other words, the speed of light in terms of both distance and time can represent an absolute average of C2, or unit scaler for a wave length which can represent a shared fundamental between the Sun and Earth as relative masses.
( ESun/C2 >>>~~~{ E Kinetic Zr /C }~~~<<< EEarth/C2 )
Being a third reference frame, as a relative mass consisting of E Kinetic Zr /C, it is considered derived from, and shared as a synchonistic event between the asynchronous reference frames of the Sun and Earth.
What is considered synchronous is also a matter of phase. This is where phase shift can represent delay in terms of a current’s impedance.
Extending Faraday’s view’s, could we speculate that a 900 shift for the electromagnetic could represent the nature of gravity as some form of an current.
nationalmaglab.org
For example, an electrical force that we our selves, being accustomed to in being party to it, and which made Newton wonder about the apple?
If this is the case, then the Sun and Earth in superposition could be perpetually seeking ground through the other as mutual alternating currents at some frequency Zr
If you could imagine the universe this way, you might want the book: Essay on Relative Gravity. Its Published at: Amazon.com and LuLu.com
About the Theory of Relative Gravity 