Alternative explanations for "Gravity"

Okay. I've looked all over the net and I can't find specifics for the "Expanding Particle Theory". Although I've read it, it is summarized as such - -

-Gravity does not exist. The force interpreted as gravity is produced by every particle in the universe expanding at a constant rate. You don't think this would cause "gravity"? Put a bowling ball next to a golf ball. Move the golf ball an inch away, then double both in size. The bowling ball has a much larger mass, so it would "expand" much faster than the golf ball and "catch up" to it. In relation to each other, they would be the exact same size, and the golf ball would have the impression that it was being "pulled" to the bowling ball.

In looking at the theory, it sounds too simple to make sense, but it does, so long as everything is expanding at the same constant rate. All distances would remain the same in relation to eachother, and you would always have that "pulling" effect.

"But I can't feel my molecules expanding, Mr. Poster." - "Can you feel all the atoms in your body spinning around?" Didn't think so.

Comments?

"But I can't feel my molecules expanding, Mr. Poster." - "Can you feel all the atoms in your body spinning around?" Didn't think so.

Comments?

1. The forces that keep the molecules binded together is stronger than the one that pulls them apart, so they stay together.

2. You can't feel them splinning around because you don't have neurological sensors to do so. If you did, you could in fact feel them.

No argument. I was responding to the reply I usually get. What you stated is just additional backup for my theory.

The first famous nuclear physicist who began to think of an alternative explanation for gravity, was none other than Andrei Sakharov.

He suggested that gravity might not be a fundamental interaction at all, but rather a secondary or RESIDUAL effect associated with other, non- gravitational fields. Gravity might be an effect brought about by changes in the zero-point energy of the vacuum, due to the presence of matter.

If correct, you could then consider gravity as a variation on the Casimir theme, in which the pressures of background zero- point energy were again responsible. Although Sakharov did not develop the concept much further, he did outline certain criteria such a theory would have to meet - for example, predicting the value of the gravitational constant G in terms of the parameters given by zero-point energy theory.

Another one was Timothy Boyer (New York University), he began asking what would happen if we took classical physics as it was and introduced a background of random, classical fluctuating zero-point fields. Could such an all-classical model reproduce quantum theory in its entirety, and might this possibility have been overlooked by the founders of quantum theory who were not aware of the existence of such a fluctuating background field?

Boyer began by tackling the problems that led to quantum theory being introduced in the first place, such as the blackbody radiation curve and the photoelectric effect. His upstart, neoclassical approach reproduced the known quantum results one by one. This approach is called STOCHASTIC ELECTRODYNAMICS (SED), in contrast to QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS (QED). Indeed, Peter Milonni at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US noted in a review of the Boyer work that if physicists in 1900 had thought of taking this route, they would probably have been more comfortable with this classical approach than with Max Planck's hypothesis of the quantum. One can only speculate as to the direction that physics would have taken them.

In order to understand what zero-point energy really is, we must go back to the aether theory.

I take a piece of string and run it all the way around the equator of the Earth (assuming its a sphere of the size almost everyone thinls it it). The I add 1 cm to the length of that string, how far above the ground is it assuming that its equally above the surface at all points?

I take a piece of string and run it all the way around the equator of the Earth (assuming its a sphere of the size almost everyone thinls it it). The I add 1 cm to the length of that string, how far above the ground is it assuming that its equally above the surface at all points?

It would be unnoticable in the same way taking a gallon of water from the ocean drops the sea level.

I take a piece of string and run it all the way around the equator of the Earth (assuming its a sphere of the size almost everyone thinls it it). The I add 1 cm to the length of that string, how far above the ground is it assuming that its equally above the surface at all points?

about 1,6 mm, exactly the radius of a circle with the circumference 1 cm