# Gravity is a result of buoyancy and density of space affects time.

#### jiveabillion

Registered Member
Firstly, I am no physicist. I am just a web application programmer who has been contemplating the universe for about a week. I may be wrong about a lot of things here, but please try to look at the theory as a whole and fill in the science and physics that you know and see if they fit. I copied this from messages I composed to a friend this morning and I had new ideas as I progressed, so it might be a big mess.

The core part of my theory is that buoyancy is not caused by gravity, but is instead gravity is a result of buoyancy, and that everything, even light, has even sometimes immeasurable amounts of mass and buoyancy. Edit: I'm having second thoughts about the buoyancy of energy, but I do believe that light does have a medium through which it travels, we just can't detect it unless you count gravity's effect on light as detecting it.

Edit: For this theory to work, then the universe must be finite. I believe the theory that the universe is torus shaped (I previously mentioned this at the bottom of this post) to be correct and that everything in the universe is constantly moving towards the center in one direction forever to expand and contract. The contraction of the universe causes pressure as it moves toward the center and this is driving force of the buoyancy (for lack of a better word). Here is a great video illustrating this concept http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKtevjrZOGs

This is pretty hard to explain, but think of a balloon that you blew up with helium last week. It is now on the floor and has no more helium inside because it escaped. Now think of that balloon as a structure containing dark matter. I wouldn't be able to contain it for long if it could at all. Dark matter particles are so small that they have no trouble permeating the balloon.

Now think of a metal container like a gas can. It is able to hold it's shape because the pressure inside it and outside of it are equalized and it's structure allows it to hold it's shape. What happens when you quickly cool the air inside the can? It collapses because the pressure outside is greater than the pressure inside. What about if you put the same container in the vacuum of space with the lid open and then closed it? What is it filled with? Nothing that it can "contain", but instead its filled with radiation that permeates it (this is my guess).
Now think of everything in the universe being filled with substances that are trying to escape and expand, causing an inequality in pressure that sometimes is greater than the force that enables an object to hold it's structure and causes it to collapse.

This is observed as the force we call gravity.

Now let me explain why I also think that reason gravity can slow time is that it makes space more dense.

It's extremely hard for me to describe what I mean, but the illustrations that you find that depict how a planet warps the space around it with its gravity all show the space expanding, creating more distance between 2 points than there would be without the presence of gravity.

I believe that instead of expanding space around it, a planet compresses space with its gravity, making it more dense. I we were using light to measure the effect of gravity, both theories would have the same effect on the length of time it would take for light to travel the same "distance".

-----
Edit: I was thinking about the space warp illustrations this morning when I realized that they do illustrate an increase in density, they just try to illustrate it on 1 plane being stretched like in this image:

I think that images like that one are very confusing to someone just learning about how gravity affects space-time because it looks as though distance is increased. None of the things I've read mention density change when it's obvious that's what is happening when we look at it from another angle.

When viewed from above, that warp would look something like this:
View attachment 6315

This video does a pretty great job of illustrating the warp of space in 3D:
------

This would also mean that light has density, but it is one of the least dense substances known to exist. Electrons would likely be even less dense, but I suppose they could have arguably the same density as a photon, but be smaller.
There would need to exist at least 1 more substance that is less dense than a photon in order for my theory to be correct.

The easiest way to visualize my theory is to think if a bottle filled with a few colored liquids of varying densities. The most dense would be at the bottom, the least dense at the top, and the other in between in order of density.(realize that there is more to it than that, but density is the primary reason) This would be how it works for everything in the universe.

Now, that substance that is less dense than a photon needs a name. Lets call it Dark Matter
Since the universe isn't layered like the bottle filled with liquids of varying densities when they have all settled, that means it's all mixed up. We can shake the bottle to simulate this.

It will take time for the liquids to settle. During this time, the least dense liquid will be mixed around the with all of the other liquids, much like dark matter would be mixed in with the other substances in the universe.
Each liquid will take a varying amount of time to settle based on their viscosity, which is governed by the strength of inter-molecular forces and the shape of their molecules.
It is not only their viscosity that governs the time it takes for the liquids to settle, but also the amount of difference in the density between the liquids.
Friction is also a factor
Now, take this knowledge and apply it to the entire universe
Dark matter would be like the lease dense liquid with the least viscosity. Light would be the 2nd.
This would mean that dark matter can technically move faster than light

This also means that the speed of light is limited to the speed at which it can permeate dark matter
The more densely packed the dark matter is, the slower light (and everything else down to their smallest particles) can move
That's why nothing we know of can travel faster than light and also why time dilation occurs
Now I just need some physicists to use this idea to prove the other theories
One thing that I think supports my theory very well is the theory that the universe is shaped like a doughnut.

If my theory is correct, that would mean that the universe is contracting, not expanding (although both would appear to have the same effect).
The center of the doughnut would very dense, while the outermost edge would be the least dense. If everything in our observable universe is moving towards the center of the donut, then everything would be getting more dense, supporting my theory that the universe is contracting.

Edit: The half of the universe moving towards the center of the torus is contracting while the half moving away is expanding. It may be possible that the half that is moving away from the center experiences time increasing in speed. If so, then if we could shoot a light beam all the way around through the torus without its source moving while the light beam was traveling, would the light beam display any evidence of red or blue shift?

Last edited:
I'm sorry, but that's basically gibberish. It isn't so much wrong as meaningless.

Why speculate on things that are known? It would be easier and more productive to just learn them.

Two small examples: the expansion of the universe is not a theory, it is an observation and light has no mass.

I would like to encourage you, especially since you have been in the business of hypothesizing for only a week. I too am a layman science enthusiast and I have been at it longer than you , not to say that my ideas are any better :shrug:

I'm replying because I agree that the density of space affects time, but only if I can interject the stipulation that the energy density of space affects the rate that clocks measure time, not the rate of time itself.

In addition, after reading your "theory", and I wouldn't call it theory but you can if you want, there are a few remarks I can make to encourage you to keep at it. I posted a few of them below:

Firstly, I am no physicist. I am just a web application programmer who has been contemplating the universe for about a week. I may be wrong about a lot of things here, but please try to look at the theory as a whole and fill in the science and physics that you know and see if they fit. I copied this from messages I composed to a friend this morning and I had new ideas as I progressed, so it might be a big mess.

The core part of my theory is that buoyancy is not caused by gravity, but is instead gravity is a result of buoyancy. And that everything, even light, has even sometimes immeasurable amounts of mass and buoyancy.

This is pretty hard to explain, but think of a balloon that you blew up with helium last week. It is now on the floor and has no more helium inside because it escaped. Now think of that balloon as a structure containing dark matter. I wouldn't be able to contain it for long if it could at all. Dark matter particles are so small that they have no trouble permeating the balloon.

Now think of a metal container like a gas can. It is able to hold it's shape because the pressure inside it and outside of it are equalized and it's structure allows it to hold it's shape. What happens when you quickly cool the air inside the can? It collapses because the pressure outside is greater than the pressure inside. What about if you put the same container in the vacuum of space with the lid open and then closed it? What is it filled with? Nothing that it can "contain", but instead its filled with radiation that permeates it (this is my guess).
I'll concede that point if you will concede that the radiation is passing through the space defined by the can and the space surrounding it as well, and you can't really say any radiation is contained in it. That is a small point, but you haven't explained gravity if one of the substances that contribute to the buoyancy effect (photon energy) cannot be contained in the can under the terms of your theory. Maybe you can work on that example, but I find that it is hard to convey an new idea by analogy.
Now think of everything in the universe being filled with substances that are trying to escape and expand, causing an inequality in pressure that sometimes is greater than the force that enables an object to hold it's structure and causes it to collapse.
I can understand the concept and I don't have any criticism of the idea, but this is where you should couple the idea that the energy density can slow the motion of wave energy passing through it. The density of the matter is greater than the density of the emptier space, and so the energy "passing through" the space occupied by matter would travel slower, and thus the matter would contain more energy than the emptier space. Again, maybe that has no merit but it does correspond with ideas I have had about space filled with matter vs. empty space.
This is observed as the force we call gravity.

Now let me explain why I also think that reason gravity can slow time is that it makes space more dense.*

It's extremely hard for me to describe what I mean, but the illustrations that you find that depict how a planet warps the space around it with its gravity all show the space expanding, creating more distance between 2 points than there would be without the presence of gravity.
Yes, I think I can decipher that .
I believe that instead of expanding space around it, a planet compresses space with its gravity, making it more dense. I[f] we were using light to measure the effect of gravity, both theories would have the same effect on the length of time it would take for light to travel the same "distance".
I would agree with that on the surface.
This would also mean that light has density,*
Yes
but it is one of the least dense substances known to exist. Electrons would likely be even less dense, but I suppose they could have arguably the same density as a photon, but be smaller.
There would need to exist at least 1 more substance that is less dense than a photon in order for my theory to be correct.
Perhaps, but you are venturing into a danger zone with your statement that electrons would be less dense than light; I don't understand that, but it is low on the order of things I would question so don't go to any great pains to elaborate on it for my benefit.
The easiest way to visualize my theory is to think if a bottle filled with a few colored liquids of varying densities. The most dense would be at the bottom, the least dense at the top, and the other in between in order of density.(realize that there is more to it than that, but density is the primary reason) This would be how it works for everything in the universe.

Now, that substance that is less dense than a photon needs a name. Lets call it Dark Matter
Since the universe isn't layered like the bottle filled with liquids of varying densities when they have all settled, that means it's all mixed up. We can shake the bottle to simulate this.

It will take time for the liquids to settle. During this time, the least dense liquid will be mixed around the with all of the other liquids, much like dark matter would be mixed in with the other substances in the universe.
Each liquid will take a varying amount of time to settle based on their viscosity, which is governed by the strength of inter-molecular forces and the shape of their molecules.
It is not only their viscosity that governs the time it takes for the liquids to settle, but also the amount of difference in the density between the liquids.
Friction is also a factor
Now, take this knowledge and apply it to the entire universe
Dark matter would be like the lease dense liquid with the least viscosity. Light would be the 2nd.
This would mean that dark matter can technically move faster than light

This also means that the speed of light is limited to the speed at which it can permeate dark matter
The more densely packed the dark matter is, the slower light (and everything else down to their smallest particles) can move
That's why nothing we know of can travel faster than light and also why time dilation occurs
Now I just need some physicists to use this idea to prove the other theories
One thing that I think supports my theory very well is the theory that the universe is shaped like a doughnut.

If my theory is correct, that would mean that the universe is contracting, not expanding (although both would appear to have the same effect).
The center of the doughnut would very dense, while the outermost edge would be the least dense. If everything in our observable universe is moving towards the center of the donut, then everything would be getting more dense, supporting my theory that the universe is contracting.

What I think is that you have used the shotgun approach in your first post and you would have a better chance of getting help from the members who are better informed than I am if you limit the scope to your most important idea or ideas and avoid getting into too many specifics. Interesting start though, and good luck with what will hopefully be a long and enjoyable period of contemplating the universe.

Last edited:
The expansion of the universe is not a theory, it is an observation
An observation that would be the same if were density of space affecting the speed of light instead of expansion of space. However, increased density would mean the universe is contracting, not expanding.

Light has no mass
Yes, light has no "mass", but it has something that allows gravity to affect it. It basically has something that makes it more difficult to travel through denser space. It would be the same thing that everything has because denser space appears to slow time for everything in it. I don't know how to better explain that.

I'm replying because I agree that the density of space affects time, but only if I can interject the stipulation that the energy density of space affects the rate that clocks measure time, not the rate of time itself.

This is exactly what I mean. I've been spending the past few days trying to explain that observation to people with a lot of resistance.

I've tried to explain it from the viewpoint of an extra-universal observer named Joe. All time and motion is relevant to Joe, so all time in the universe appears to move more slowly from Joe's perspective. Light where Joe is moves faster than any light in the universe. Joe has a clock. Joe's clock runs faster than any clock in the universe, so we can measure real "time" by his clock.

"Time" inside the universe is affected by the density of space around it. Meaning that the more dense space is around objects the slower everything about that object moves, including electrons, photons, atoms, everything. Since a clock is included in everything, its movement relative to Joe's clock appears to be slower to Joe. However, since everything near the clock is subject to the same density, the clock would seem to move at a normal pace to an observer standing next to it. In fact, if two clocks were at opposite ends of the universe, but were subject to the exact amount of density since they started, they would appear to be in sync to Joe, even if they were running slower than Joe's clock.

I think they should stop saying that "time" slows down because it is very confusing. They should instead say that the "frequency of change" is decreased. Now, since the frequency of change in a light wave can be decreased when traveling through space with increased density, what do we call what slows it down? Dynamical friction? Light could have friction and even lose energy that we can't detect because we can't be an observer like Joe.

I'll concede that point if you will concede that the radiation is passing through the space defined by the can and the space surrounding it as well, and you can't really say any radiation is contained in it. That is a small point, but you haven't explained gravity if one of the substances that contribute to the buoyancy effect (photon energy) cannot be contained in the can under the terms of your theory. Maybe you can work on that example, but I find that it is hard to convey an new idea by analogy.

I agree that I didn't explain that in enough detail, but I was having difficulty expressing what I was thinking. You did, however, point out a fact that I had in my mind when you said that the container can't contain substances that can easily permeate the confines of it's structure. However, if the container is surrounded by more pressure than it contains, and more force is applied by that pressure than the force holding the container together to create room for the empty space, then the container will collapse. It is likely that the substance inside that container that was able to easily permeate it is also able to permeate the substance surrounding the container.

Since photon energy cannot be contained by, say a soda can, photon energy cannot crush nor prevent the can from being crushed by a substance that can be contained by the can. Anything that can permeate or be absorbed by the walls of the container can move freely throughout it.

You have to imagine how it works with something like air in a balloon where the container would have to have the same type of properties as the balloon in relation to the air. Now imagine that every substance has another substance that can contain it except for the least dense substance in existence.

Perhaps, but you are venturing into a danger zone with your statement that electrons would be less dense than light; I don't understand that, but it is low on the order of things I would question so don't go to any great pains to elaborate on it for my benefit.

You're probably right. I was just trying to think of something that was less dense than a photon. Since an electron is smaller than a photon, I was thinking it could be a good candidate. Maybe a photon is the least dense substance in the universe, but there has to be something else that slows light down. Maybe since photons have no mass, they can be excluded from the buoyancy idea. This is one of the many places where I need a physicists help. The real answer I need is one that would explain what causes light to slow down in warped space. I still think it's something like friction. I need an open discussion about this with a physicist so we can find an answer that fits my theory.

and Images

to my

Intial post

But the forum rules

Won't let me

Until I have

15 Posts

I spent over an hour

Editing my initial post

I haven't closed the window yet

So I hope this works. Sorry about the spam. Being a web developer, I understand the reasons behind not allowing images and links in posts initially.

Yes, light has no "mass", but it has something that allows gravity to affect it.

You are again trying to explain something that has already been explained by a rather amazing theory called General Relativity.

When compairing your hand waving explanations and the accompanied lack of physics knowledge to the rigiorus mathematical proofs found in GR, I fear that you are wasting your time.

Of course quantum wave and a few other psuedo-science types here will more than likely think your ideas are just peachy - so if that's what you are going for - enjoy....

You are again trying to explain something that has already been explained by a rather amazing theory called General Relativity.

When compairing your hand waving explanations and the accompanied lack of physics knowledge to the rigiorus mathematical proofs found in GR, I fear that you are wasting your time.

Of course quantum wave and a few other psuedo-science types here will more than likely think your ideas are just peachy - so if that's what you are going for - enjoy....

Ok, so what is the cause of gravity then? What is it actually doing to light to cause gravitational lensing?

If gravity warps space by making it more dense then how does a Cosmological redshift mean that the universe is expanding rather than contracting? Edit: I see now that by expansion they mean "Metric expansion" which is an intrinsic expansion. Again, confusing to someone who is learning about this. Still the effect of this metric expansion is better described as contraction or compression. If the universe is finite, then the whole universe can't be expanding or contracting at the same time.

Edit: I see that I am not alone in thinking that the way the expansion of the universe is explained is confusing. Look at the paragraph right before the "contents" block on this wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

I was using examples of General Relativity to support my theory.

I was using examples of General Relativity to support my theory.

Since you don't know General Relativity, your examples are faulty.

For instance, gravity does not make space 'more dense' . It warps space so that the geometry in non-Euclidian

I was thinking about the space warp illustrations this morning when I realized that they do illustrate an increase in density, they just try to illustrate it on 1 plane being stretched like in this image:

The illustrations, called embedding diagrams, are ANALOGIES. The do not depict what happens to space, they just try to illustrate it using analogy. You can't base something off of what the diagrams show.

The cosmological red-shift arises because the expansion of space also causes the wavelength of light traversing it to lengthen .

I see that I am not alone in thinking that the way the expansion of the universe is explained is confusing
Practically everyone is confused when they first encounter this. The confusion arises because the behavior of the universe on the large scale (and the very small scale) is counter-intuitive to what we are used to seeing around us.