## The Mechanism of Gravity

17th October 2015

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

The Mechanism of Gravity.

Before you read this Tea Break Book you should have read most of my past Tea Break Books, so that you can get the best benefit and understanding, otherwise be careful how you interpret my words.

Is there a Mechanism of Gravity?

As always the answer will depend on the person you ask this question, but in simple terms the answer is yes.

Do we know the Mechanism of Gravity?

Again as above the answer maybe yes, or no.

For those that think there is no mechanism, it simply means that they are ignorant of any mechanism, or they are incapable of working out a mechanism.

For those that think they know the mechanism, they only know a partial mechanism.

Why do I say partial?

The reason I say partial is because they only describe one aspect of Gravity.

Let us look at two descriptions.

Below sub light speeds.

Newton's description was that there was an instantaneous force inversely proportional to the square of the distance and proportional to the masses that brought the masses together.

Is this true?

I'll be brief, yes and no.

If we analyse this in detail, then there is no such instantaneous force at a distance and the answer is no.

But if we assume "instantaneous" means a force so fast that we are incapable of detecting the speed of this force by any means at our current disposal at the time that this statement was made, then the answer is yes.

Now let us look at Einstein's description, which basically says that it is the distorting of the fabric of spacetime which is attributed to the masses themselves and the masses just move along these distorted spacetime lines and there is no force. (These are my words or interpretation of Einstein, but the gist is the same).

Now is this statement true?

Again yes and no.

The reason I say yes is because it can be interpreted as such, but I also say no, because it is incomplete and it partially contradicts Newtons description.

So what is the 'Real' truth?

Before I answer that, let me give another example of a description of a floating body (let us say a ball) in the sea, that due to the currents and waves is washed up onto the shore.

If we were to look at this from a birds eye view from above (and assume the bird could not see the currents or the waves) and speeded up the process what would we see?

We would see (depending on the currents and waves) the ball move in a line towards the shore.

We could do as Newton did, and describe a force along that line that would bring the ball to the shore.

Our formula would exactly describe its movement.

Would this description be correct?

You guessed it, yes and no.

Yes, because it does describe the movement correctly, but No, if we look at the details.

If we look closely we would see the ball increase and decrease slightly in diameter as it went up and down the waves, and maybe move backwards slightly with the waves or currents as it moved forwards, and even maybe spinning in different directions as it moved towards the shore.

As you should be able to see from the above example, the concept of partial description. Even that description would be incomplete, because a truer description would be to take into account the density of the water and the density of the ball so that the buoyancy of the ball can be taken into account, and even further the friction and texture of the ball .... Surface tension, wind etc.

Back to Gravity.

We can make both Newton and Einstein correct by saying that they only supply a partial description of Gravity.

Does that answer the question?

Only partially, because we have not supplied a fuller description.

I will endeavour to supply a fuller description of Gravity.

Einstein's description is ok, except that he dismisses the force.

The question that should be asked is what force (or more precisely forces) distorts the fabric of spacetime?

The distortion is attributed to the masses of the objects, so it is obvious to me (and should be to you also) that the fine structure of the masses is important. The mass distorts the space.

How does the mass distort the space?

A mass is not just a mass (remember partial description).

A ton of coal is the same mass as a ton of feathers.

But do they distort spacetime in the same way?

Again yes and no.

From a distance the result would be the same for any object moving towards them, but it would not be the same at close quarters.

Why?

Let me give you another example. Imagine that the coal and the feathers were loosely spread out evenly in space, in the form of a cylinder.

So we have two cylinders, one of coal and one of feathers. The two cylinders would be of different sizes because of the different densities of the coal and the feathers.

Now if we place one cylinder in space, let us say the coal, and we place an object along the line of the cylinder far away from the cylinder.

Space would be distorted in such a way (Einstein) and a force would be applied (Newton) to bring the object towards the cylinder (Gravity).

At a far enough distance the same effect would be seen with the feather cylinder.

Appears to be the same distortion of spacetime.

[Spacetime is distorted towards the centre of mass].

Now if the cylinders were of the same diameter then the feather cylinder would be of a greater length (because of the density, more feathers to produce the same mass).

[Spacetime is still distorted towards the centre of mass].

Now when the object gets closer, it will at some distance penetrate the feather cylinder, but at that same distance it will not have reached the coal cylinder.

Let us say it penetrates the feather cylinder 1/4 of the way in, when it would have hit the coal cylinder surface.

The distortion of spacetime around each cylinder and the object now can not be the same.

The distortion around the coal cylinder would not have changed, but the distortion around the feather cylinder must have changed, because part of the mass 1/4 is now behind the object, and that mass will exert a force in the opposite direction to the movement (Einstein distortion if you like).

Can you see that at a detailed level the masses are not equivalent, they depend on the density of the 'Space' that holds that mass. [Remember interpretation of words, the mass is equivalent in just simplistic mass terms, but not in spacetime distortion of that mass].

I hope you understand the concept of partial description.

Now neither Newton nor Einstein gave a Mechanism of Gravity, both described what happened with Gravity, but not how (why) Gravity worked. Einstein partly described it by saying spacetime was distorted, but not how it was distorted. (Saying it was distorted by mass is insufficient).

The question should be how (and why) is it distorted? (I.e. The mechanism that distorts it).

Without going into the detailed mechanism here, I will just say it has to do with the detailed structure of 'Real Space' itself.

'Real' space is quantised and is dynamic and you have to consider the missing dimension of 'Space' which is the dimension of the 'Density' of space itself. This dimension of the density of space describes what the structures of 'Real' energy and mass are. They are made of one and the same thing, the density of the dynamic quanta of 'Real' space themselves.

[I call 'APE's]. (Explained in another Tea Break Book).

The mechanism of Gravity just becomes the net aggregate force and distortion of spacetime of these dynamic quanta of 'Real' space. Taking into account the additional dimensions of Time (Another Tea Break Book).

To summarise I do not give a detailed description of the Mechanism of Gravity here, but just to say that it is not just one force, at a detailed level it is a pulling and a pushing force, also a twisting force both clockwise and anti-clockwise.

[All forces are proportional to the cross sectional areas of their dynamic quanta, which by the way is true of black holes, not 1/4 of the event horizon (this is just a coincidence), but proportional to its cross sectional area, which is the sum of the cross sectional areas of its bits (quanta)].

You need to understand the dynamic nature of a quantum of 'Real' Space first.

Once you understand that, then all the forces are explained by these quanta, as are all the particles matter and antimatter, including light and all fields.

27th October 2015

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I thought I would expand it further here.

Matter and Energy are just constructs of 'Real' space. They are both constructs of the same quantised basic unit of space. They are just constructed differently, in terms of space: - Energy is inversely proportional to Matter. In other words Matter (space) is just locked compressed Energy (space) and occupies a smaller volume of space as we know it. This same Matter space if unlocked would occupy a much larger volume of Energy space, this just means that Energy expands space (I.e. Pushes things away from it) and Matter contracts space (pulls things towards it). [This is easily demonstrated with a nuclear explosion, but it is evident that energy expands things].

Think of it in terms that Energy wants its own space therefore wants to spread out, but Matter wants to stay together therefore pulls itself inwards. You can squeeze energy into a smaller space, but it just causes a pressure that it wants to relieve, because it has not been locked together or knotted together into matter.

3rd June 2016

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

When energy and matter occupy the same higher dimensional 3D space that we associate with, the energy is pushing things apart at the same time as matter is pulling things together in the same volume. Note: - it is not just a straight forward pull or push, space is twisted in both directions at the same time (a vortex in one direction and a vortex in the opposite direction), in a similar manner to magnetism. The North and South poles both pull towards each other because the vortex of each is opposite to each other, and they push each other apart because their vortex is the same direction.

9th December 2016

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Today I am going to neologise and define the word 'Vorsex' or 'Vorsexes' which is the vortex or vortexes or vortices of 'Real space' itself. In a similar fashion that a vortex of wind is called a whirlwind, or the vortex of water is called a whirlpool. Even plasma can have a vortex, but all these vortexes have eddies or smaller vortexes within them. At the atomic scales everything has vortexes of some sort or another. So convection eg. Hot air rises and cold air sinks, appears to be just up and down, but in reality this is just little vortices of air moving upwards and little vortices moving downwards.

A 'Vorsex' is specific to space itself, because it not only moves things like in whirlwinds, but moves space through each other in both directions and twists it in both directions at the same time (³Time, you need to understand time, explained in another Tea Break Book). The 'Vorsex' is created by the 'kquists' or 'twisting spiralations' of the 'APE's (quantum dynamic 'Real spaces') interacting with each other creating quantum fluctuations in vacuum energy at the lowest level, but also creating other energies and matter at higher scales. It is ubiquitous at all levels and scales.

14th March 2019

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Mass is inertial resistance in (and of) 'Real space' where the density of 'Real space' is such that other spaces flow through or around this space with resistance. [These spaces are fermions]. [Creating the gravitational flow or gradient of energy].

Energy has no inertial resistance because it is the 'Real space' that flows through other spaces without resistance or interacts with the other space to show the equivalent mass. [These spaces are bosons, (they carry the equivalent force)].

Remember that all 'Real space' is quantised (I.e. Made of 'APE's), whether it is in the form of knotted (combined space 'APE's, which produces the mass effect) or free unknotted space 'APE's (which carry the energy).

Also remember that each 'APE' has its own internal momentum which gives both the mass's internal potential energy (momentum), or the external kinetic energy (momentum).

The sum of all the momenta is constant. (I.e. The conservation of momentum, but also the conservation of energy, unless some of the energy is converted to mass equivalent or some of the mass is converted to energy equivalent). The sum of both together is constant, this is achieved by changing the macroscopic overall space or density distribution of the space. [Explains the expansion of the Universe]. See other Tea Break Books].

16th March 2019

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Just a quick final note. The dynamic quanta of 'Real space', the 'APE's have a density themselves, therefore there is an implied mass for each, which varies the density at our level, but the density is actually constant at the lowest level. You need to read another of my Tea Break Books to understand the mechanism.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

The Mechanism of Gravity.

Before you read this Tea Break Book you should have read most of my past Tea Break Books, so that you can get the best benefit and understanding, otherwise be careful how you interpret my words.

Is there a Mechanism of Gravity?

As always the answer will depend on the person you ask this question, but in simple terms the answer is yes.

Do we know the Mechanism of Gravity?

Again as above the answer maybe yes, or no.

For those that think there is no mechanism, it simply means that they are ignorant of any mechanism, or they are incapable of working out a mechanism.

For those that think they know the mechanism, they only know a partial mechanism.

Why do I say partial?

The reason I say partial is because they only describe one aspect of Gravity.

Let us look at two descriptions.

Below sub light speeds.

Newton's description was that there was an instantaneous force inversely proportional to the square of the distance and proportional to the masses that brought the masses together.

Is this true?

I'll be brief, yes and no.

If we analyse this in detail, then there is no such instantaneous force at a distance and the answer is no.

But if we assume "instantaneous" means a force so fast that we are incapable of detecting the speed of this force by any means at our current disposal at the time that this statement was made, then the answer is yes.

Now let us look at Einstein's description, which basically says that it is the distorting of the fabric of spacetime which is attributed to the masses themselves and the masses just move along these distorted spacetime lines and there is no force. (These are my words or interpretation of Einstein, but the gist is the same).

Now is this statement true?

Again yes and no.

The reason I say yes is because it can be interpreted as such, but I also say no, because it is incomplete and it partially contradicts Newtons description.

So what is the 'Real' truth?

Before I answer that, let me give another example of a description of a floating body (let us say a ball) in the sea, that due to the currents and waves is washed up onto the shore.

If we were to look at this from a birds eye view from above (and assume the bird could not see the currents or the waves) and speeded up the process what would we see?

We would see (depending on the currents and waves) the ball move in a line towards the shore.

We could do as Newton did, and describe a force along that line that would bring the ball to the shore.

Our formula would exactly describe its movement.

Would this description be correct?

You guessed it, yes and no.

Yes, because it does describe the movement correctly, but No, if we look at the details.

If we look closely we would see the ball increase and decrease slightly in diameter as it went up and down the waves, and maybe move backwards slightly with the waves or currents as it moved forwards, and even maybe spinning in different directions as it moved towards the shore.

As you should be able to see from the above example, the concept of partial description. Even that description would be incomplete, because a truer description would be to take into account the density of the water and the density of the ball so that the buoyancy of the ball can be taken into account, and even further the friction and texture of the ball .... Surface tension, wind etc.

Back to Gravity.

We can make both Newton and Einstein correct by saying that they only supply a partial description of Gravity.

Does that answer the question?

Only partially, because we have not supplied a fuller description.

I will endeavour to supply a fuller description of Gravity.

Einstein's description is ok, except that he dismisses the force.

The question that should be asked is what force (or more precisely forces) distorts the fabric of spacetime?

The distortion is attributed to the masses of the objects, so it is obvious to me (and should be to you also) that the fine structure of the masses is important. The mass distorts the space.

How does the mass distort the space?

A mass is not just a mass (remember partial description).

A ton of coal is the same mass as a ton of feathers.

But do they distort spacetime in the same way?

Again yes and no.

From a distance the result would be the same for any object moving towards them, but it would not be the same at close quarters.

Why?

Let me give you another example. Imagine that the coal and the feathers were loosely spread out evenly in space, in the form of a cylinder.

So we have two cylinders, one of coal and one of feathers. The two cylinders would be of different sizes because of the different densities of the coal and the feathers.

Now if we place one cylinder in space, let us say the coal, and we place an object along the line of the cylinder far away from the cylinder.

Space would be distorted in such a way (Einstein) and a force would be applied (Newton) to bring the object towards the cylinder (Gravity).

At a far enough distance the same effect would be seen with the feather cylinder.

Appears to be the same distortion of spacetime.

[Spacetime is distorted towards the centre of mass].

Now if the cylinders were of the same diameter then the feather cylinder would be of a greater length (because of the density, more feathers to produce the same mass).

[Spacetime is still distorted towards the centre of mass].

Now when the object gets closer, it will at some distance penetrate the feather cylinder, but at that same distance it will not have reached the coal cylinder.

Let us say it penetrates the feather cylinder 1/4 of the way in, when it would have hit the coal cylinder surface.

The distortion of spacetime around each cylinder and the object now can not be the same.

The distortion around the coal cylinder would not have changed, but the distortion around the feather cylinder must have changed, because part of the mass 1/4 is now behind the object, and that mass will exert a force in the opposite direction to the movement (Einstein distortion if you like).

Can you see that at a detailed level the masses are not equivalent, they depend on the density of the 'Space' that holds that mass. [Remember interpretation of words, the mass is equivalent in just simplistic mass terms, but not in spacetime distortion of that mass].

I hope you understand the concept of partial description.

Now neither Newton nor Einstein gave a Mechanism of Gravity, both described what happened with Gravity, but not how (why) Gravity worked. Einstein partly described it by saying spacetime was distorted, but not how it was distorted. (Saying it was distorted by mass is insufficient).

The question should be how (and why) is it distorted? (I.e. The mechanism that distorts it).

Without going into the detailed mechanism here, I will just say it has to do with the detailed structure of 'Real Space' itself.

'Real' space is quantised and is dynamic and you have to consider the missing dimension of 'Space' which is the dimension of the 'Density' of space itself. This dimension of the density of space describes what the structures of 'Real' energy and mass are. They are made of one and the same thing, the density of the dynamic quanta of 'Real' space themselves.

[I call 'APE's]. (Explained in another Tea Break Book).

The mechanism of Gravity just becomes the net aggregate force and distortion of spacetime of these dynamic quanta of 'Real' space. Taking into account the additional dimensions of Time (Another Tea Break Book).

To summarise I do not give a detailed description of the Mechanism of Gravity here, but just to say that it is not just one force, at a detailed level it is a pulling and a pushing force, also a twisting force both clockwise and anti-clockwise.

[All forces are proportional to the cross sectional areas of their dynamic quanta, which by the way is true of black holes, not 1/4 of the event horizon (this is just a coincidence), but proportional to its cross sectional area, which is the sum of the cross sectional areas of its bits (quanta)].

You need to understand the dynamic nature of a quantum of 'Real' Space first.

Once you understand that, then all the forces are explained by these quanta, as are all the particles matter and antimatter, including light and all fields.

27th October 2015

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

I thought I would expand it further here.

Matter and Energy are just constructs of 'Real' space. They are both constructs of the same quantised basic unit of space. They are just constructed differently, in terms of space: - Energy is inversely proportional to Matter. In other words Matter (space) is just locked compressed Energy (space) and occupies a smaller volume of space as we know it. This same Matter space if unlocked would occupy a much larger volume of Energy space, this just means that Energy expands space (I.e. Pushes things away from it) and Matter contracts space (pulls things towards it). [This is easily demonstrated with a nuclear explosion, but it is evident that energy expands things].

Think of it in terms that Energy wants its own space therefore wants to spread out, but Matter wants to stay together therefore pulls itself inwards. You can squeeze energy into a smaller space, but it just causes a pressure that it wants to relieve, because it has not been locked together or knotted together into matter.

3rd June 2016

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

When energy and matter occupy the same higher dimensional 3D space that we associate with, the energy is pushing things apart at the same time as matter is pulling things together in the same volume. Note: - it is not just a straight forward pull or push, space is twisted in both directions at the same time (a vortex in one direction and a vortex in the opposite direction), in a similar manner to magnetism. The North and South poles both pull towards each other because the vortex of each is opposite to each other, and they push each other apart because their vortex is the same direction.

9th December 2016

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Today I am going to neologise and define the word 'Vorsex' or 'Vorsexes' which is the vortex or vortexes or vortices of 'Real space' itself. In a similar fashion that a vortex of wind is called a whirlwind, or the vortex of water is called a whirlpool. Even plasma can have a vortex, but all these vortexes have eddies or smaller vortexes within them. At the atomic scales everything has vortexes of some sort or another. So convection eg. Hot air rises and cold air sinks, appears to be just up and down, but in reality this is just little vortices of air moving upwards and little vortices moving downwards.

A 'Vorsex' is specific to space itself, because it not only moves things like in whirlwinds, but moves space through each other in both directions and twists it in both directions at the same time (³Time, you need to understand time, explained in another Tea Break Book). The 'Vorsex' is created by the 'kquists' or 'twisting spiralations' of the 'APE's (quantum dynamic 'Real spaces') interacting with each other creating quantum fluctuations in vacuum energy at the lowest level, but also creating other energies and matter at higher scales. It is ubiquitous at all levels and scales.

14th March 2019

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Mass is inertial resistance in (and of) 'Real space' where the density of 'Real space' is such that other spaces flow through or around this space with resistance. [These spaces are fermions]. [Creating the gravitational flow or gradient of energy].

Energy has no inertial resistance because it is the 'Real space' that flows through other spaces without resistance or interacts with the other space to show the equivalent mass. [These spaces are bosons, (they carry the equivalent force)].

Remember that all 'Real space' is quantised (I.e. Made of 'APE's), whether it is in the form of knotted (combined space 'APE's, which produces the mass effect) or free unknotted space 'APE's (which carry the energy).

Also remember that each 'APE' has its own internal momentum which gives both the mass's internal potential energy (momentum), or the external kinetic energy (momentum).

The sum of all the momenta is constant. (I.e. The conservation of momentum, but also the conservation of energy, unless some of the energy is converted to mass equivalent or some of the mass is converted to energy equivalent). The sum of both together is constant, this is achieved by changing the macroscopic overall space or density distribution of the space. [Explains the expansion of the Universe]. See other Tea Break Books].

16th March 2019

Private & Confidential Copyright © Mr A Pépés

Just a quick final note. The dynamic quanta of 'Real space', the 'APE's have a density themselves, therefore there is an implied mass for each, which varies the density at our level, but the density is actually constant at the lowest level. You need to read another of my Tea Break Books to understand the mechanism.

Morph your mind with Morphological at

apepes.com