Neomechanical Theory of Gravitation

Duncan Shaw says:

I received your book yesterday and have already read much of it.  Congratulations to you and Stephen.  It is quite a masterpiece.

There are a number of similarities with my latest paper on gravity -- copy attached -- and a number of dissimilarities (Shaw, 2012).  We both have incoming and outgoing "aether" and we both use the vacuum cleaner analogy.  One of the main dissimilarities is that you use vortices and I do not.  Also, I use heat that is generated by the impacts of incoming aether as the driving force of outgoing aether or its constituent parts, whereas you use rotation of cosmic bodies to launch the outgoing aether.  While these are distinct differences, I think that we are close on our overall approaches.

I am particularly interested in your distinction between solid-mass and gaseous-mass and how that can account for the pressure difference that causes inflow.  You are, I think, in good company.  Isaac Newton, in his book Opticks, made a similar point in his Queries on the subject of gravity:  see Queries 18 to 22, particularly No. 21.


Thanks for your comments. You touch upon some of the critical issues involving theories about the physical cause of gravitation. These are, of course, nonexistent for mainstream (MS) theories, which do not hypothesize a physical cause, such as the “attraction” attributed to Newton and the “curved empty space” attributed to Einstein. As Steve Puetz and I explain it in "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe," gravitation is the property of all microcosms, from the smallest to the largest. Through relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things), we assume that no two microcosms, in this case aether particles, are identical. Although, the rest of this explanation jumps into the middle of the infinite hierarchy, it applies to subsubaether particles as well as galaxy clusters. In intergalactic space, each aether particle has a unique momentum (i.e., P=mv, where m=mass and v=velocity). The more massive, slower aether particles are pushed together by the less massive, faster aether particles. The closer these massive particles become, the more they shield each other from the impacts of the less massive particles. That is the key to neomechanical gravitation. The mutual shielding thus produces a complex, which, by definition is slower and clumsier than free aether particles. Vortices get involved (see Fred’s video on the Vortex Water Experiment at http://scientificphilosophy.com) because aether complexes, being slow and heavy, tend to be pushed toward the center of any rotating cloud of such complexes. Because of this handy juxtaposition, the complexes become even larger, forming what we know as baryonic or ordinary matter. As their concentration at the center of the vortex increases, they tend to displace free aether particles, pushing the aether particles to the periphery of the vortex. The result is a layering effect, with heavy complexes in the center (solids) and less heavy complexes (gases) on the periphery. This battle between large and small is nearly interminable, with aether particles converging and aether particles diverging as per complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). As Steve explained so well in his analysis of celestial microcosms, any increase in the rotation of a vortex produces an accretion of matter, while any decrease produces an excretion of matter. As always, celestial microcosms come into being via convergence and out of being via divergence.

The upshot of the above is that the density of free aether is dependent on the absence of complexed aether--ordinary matter. Thus, the concentration of ordinary matter in any one place produces a Gravitational Pressure Gradient with its aethereal macrocosm. This gradient is analogous to the atmospheric pressure gradient that surrounds Earth—but in reverse. A helium balloon will rise in our atmosphere because the impacts of air molecules are greater from the high-pressure regions below than from low-pressure regions above. A massive object will do just the opposite. It will be pushed toward the center of the vortex (Earth) because the aethereal impacts are greater from above than below. Although the layering produced by vortex rotation tends to dissipate when the rotation stops, there always will be some layering, and therefore a Gravitational Pressure Gradient around every object. Again, this is because the presence of matter automatically requires the displacement of aether, and the tendency to produce an “aethereal vacuum.” Of course, the total absence of aether is never achieved because aether permeates ordinary matter as well. It flows through and around every larger microcosm, with the contact that produces gravitation often involving only the densest parts of the microcosm. In the helium example, nitrogen and oxygen molecules, being of greater mass, tend to succumb to aethereal impacts more easily than does helium. Helium, in turn, tends to succumb more to impacts from nitrogen and oxygen than from impacts due to aether.

Notice that the above explanation views gravitation as a universal, but local phenomenon. We know that there are no true pulls in nature, as recognized in Newton’s laws of motion. We gave up on other pushing theories for various reasons. The Le Sage Theory, for instance, hypothesizes an elementary particle that travels great distances between objects to produce the push via mutual shielding (Borchardt, 2007). Such a particle would have to travel from the Sun to Earth to do its pushing job. A change in the position of the Sun would not be felt on Earth until that trip was completed, which would be over 8 minutes at light speed, c. The effects of gravity, however, appear to be felt immediately. For that to be the case, the graviton or the motion of the waves within the gravitational medium would have to travel at a velocity over 2 X 1010 c (Van Flandern, 1998). This is 20 billion times the speed of light! While c is no longer considered nature’s speed limit, like Einstein assumed (The OPERA Collaboration, 2011), speeds that great seem unlikely. Neomechanical gravitation solves that problem. The physical cause of gravity is due to the hypothesized aethereal pressure differences, which are local and ever proportional to mass, just as Newton said it was.

Thanks Duncan for the wonderful reference to Newton. The MS view is that Newton denied knowing the physical cause of gravity (i.e., hypotheses non fingo), considering it to be “attraction.” That was in 1713. This propaganda is clearly debunked with the hypothesis he put forth on page 325 in Query 21 of the second edition of Opticks (Newton, 1718), a part of which I put below. He had the Gravitational Pressure Gradient idea all along! We are certainly reassured to have come up with the same conclusion independently, even if three centuries late. Looks like those of us in progressive physics need to search the original sources just like you did. We must be continually aware, that as in all battles, the results of philosophical and scientific struggles are always written by the victors.


Borchardt, G. (2007). The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein. Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, p. 189.

Newton, I. (1718). Opticks or, a treatise of the reflections, refractions, inflections and colours of light. The second edition, with additions. By Sir Isaac Newton. London, Printed for W. and J. Innys, printers to the Royal Society.

Puetz, S. J. and G. Borchardt (2011). Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically infinite universe. Denver, Outskirts Press. (www.universalcycletheory.com)

Shaw, D. W. (2012). "The cause of gravity: A concept (in press)." Physics Essays.

The OPERA Collaboration (2011). "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam." arXiv:1109.4897v1 [hep-ex] http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 .

Van Flandern, T. (1998). "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say." Physics Letters A 250(1-3): 11.

From p. 325 in Newton (1718):


Steve said...

Hello Glenn,

The text is a good start. It covers all of the basics, and it gives the reader a good idea of our model for gravitation. The only thing you might add at the end of the blog is this: Read the book for the full explanation. There are no shortcuts for reading the book. I get the feeling that people really don't understand any short-cut explanations of gravitation that I write. I think there are many reasons people must read the book:

1) Chapters 1 through 10 give essential basics. These are prerequisites to understanding gravitation. If people don't understand the Ten Assumptions, neomechanics, and the infinitely hierarchical model, they will not fully comprehend gravitation.

2) In Chapter 12, we explain gravitation from many different perspective -- doing it in detail. We explain it from the perspectives of rotation, size, density, solids and gases, layers, pressure, and complexification. Some of these explanation seem to click for certain people, and other explanations work for other people. It is hard to figure out why these different explanations work differently for each individual -- but they seem to work that way. Somehow or other, perhaps because of the continual repetition from slightly different perspectives, the combination of explanations work well.

3) A couple of reviews wrote that the case studies in Chapter 13 clarified the concepts we wrote about in Chapter 12. Once again, the different reviewers cited different case studies as their favorites. I'm not sure why one case study clicked with one individual and not another. My point is, based on the reviews, our detailed explanations of gravitation were still too vague after Chapter 12, but they became much clearer after Chapter 13.

4) In one particular case, the reviewer's concept of gravitation became clear during Chapter 15 -- on molecular bonding. One of the reasons he liked Chapter 15 so much was because it explained how molecules might bond mechanically -- via tidal locking and axial flows of matter. This chapter finally answered his questions about our use of the terms solidity, viscosity, bonding, etc. in the earlier chapters.

Anyway, I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Based on my own experiences, I've already given up trying to explain neomechanical gravitation with any shortcut explanations. I simply tell people -- you must read the book.

There is another reason to point out the complexity of explaining neomechanical gravitation. We have our work cut out for us in presenting our theories in 4 short 1/2 hour sessions at NPA 2012. Your short blog on gravitation is certainly a good start. However, the basics that precede the discussion about gravitation will be equally important. We must figure out which of the basics to stress the most.

Of course, when I follow-up your gravity talk with molecular bonding, it will enhance the ideas that you lay out. In this sense, out 4 separate sessions must be cohesive -- just like the book. I believe it is doable, but it will take some time to figure out which aspects of the book to discuss (and which to leave out) because each of us will only have 1 hour.

These comments are not intended to discourage you or change anything in your blog. I believe you should post it as it is. However, because of the numerous new concepts in the book, and because of the number of prerequisites, a lot of people will not understand gravitation with a short explanations. The prerequisites and our detailed explanations seem to be essential.


Rick Doogie said...

"Read the book for the full explanation. There are no shortcuts for reading the book. I get the feeling that people really don't understand any short-cut explanations of gravitation that I write."

Steve, I read through Glenn's explanation, and was surprised that you said that you have all but given up on explaining a short version of neo-mechanical gravity. I think Glenn's short version is very meticulous and succinct. If any short explanation of UCT gravity is useful, Glenn has it here.

That said, I know what you are saying about giving up explaining. First of all, I've tried explaining UCT gravity theory to a couple friends, and their eyes seem to glaze over after so much of my rambling, "blah, blah, blah".

Also, I have to look back at my first impression of reading the explanations of vortex gravity in UCT. I was very suspicious, since I was quite happy with visualizing a Le Sage-style theory of gravity involving pushing aether and shadowing bodies. I had to take a break from reading UCT and go study up on La Sage and his supporters and detractors. Only after reading about the problems of a simple La Sage theory of gravity was I finally able to move on and grasp the vortex gravity ideas.

Besides the complexity of the basic explanation of vortex gravity, there is also that huge barrier of "acceptability". People (even professional scientists and science writers) like to think that science has most of the basic answers figured out, and all we are doing with modern science is fine-tuning and harmonizing our great theories. It disturbs their worldview to hear someone claiming to have a new "theory of everything".

There I go again, pointing out the obvious. But someone's gotta mention the elephant in the room once in a while.