Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity

An exploration of why no one, except Newton, invoked a "force"

Conrad Ranzan

Published on the Cellular Universe website (www.cellularuniverse.org ) 2011, rev 2019-8
URL: http://www.CellularUniverse.org/ G5_GravityNotAForce.htm

Contents:

1. Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity
2. Other World Systems
3. Summary : Who Needs a Force of Gravity?

Gravity, in fact, is not a true force.
It needs NO force carriers.

1. Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity

Most people are surprised to learn that Copernicus (1473-1543), indeed, did not need a gravitational force. In his "revolutionary" view, the Earth did not need a gravitational force and neither did the Copernican Solar System. The motion of Earthly objects and of the planets (and other heavenly bodies) was governed by principles developed by the Ancients. ... Gravity was not one of them.

Credit: Synnberg Photo-gravure Co., Chicago, Philosophical Portrait Series, Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago, courtesy AIP Emilio Segre Visual Archives

If we look back to the Ancient Greeks and examine the system devised by Aristotle (384-322 BC), we find that his Geocentric cosmos did not need a force of gravity. The cosmos was ruled by the principles of natural motion. The natural motion of any terrestrial object involved "seeking its natural place." Since their natural place, it was reasoned, was at the center of the Earth, all falling objects were in "natural motion." No force was involved in such motion. As for celestial bodies, their natural motion involved moving in circles around the Earth and, so, they accorded with their natural position as an embedded body on one or another transparent-and-rotating celestial sphere. In the celestial realm of concentric crystal spheres, Aristotle's system embodied Pythagoras's geometric ideal of perfect circular orbits. In the celestial realm, as in the terrestrial, no force was involved.

We could go even further back, before the time of Aristotle, and consider the rings-and-spheres system devised by Anaximander. Anaximander of Miletus (also known as Anaximandros) was born about 610 BC and died some time after 547 BC. Anaximander argued that the Sun was a hole in a fire-filled ring that encircled the Earth and revolved around it. The Moon was an opening in a separate fire-filled ring. The Moon-ring, however, had passages shaped like pipes through which the light from the fire escaped. Thus the phases of the Moon were explained by the Moon-pipe opening seen from various angles. The stars, he believed, were nothing more than holes in a rotating sphere, revealing otherwise hidden fires of the firmament.

And what, you might ask, kept the rings and spheres turning and kept the heavenly bodies moving along their celestial paths before the discovery of "natural motion" by the Ancients? ... It was the intervention of divine beings, the truly ancient mythical gods. It was pure magic. Helios the God of the Sun was conveyed in a chariot drawn by seven horses on daily journeys across the sky. The Egyptian version has Ra the Sun God being ferried by a heavenly boat as it cyclically sails across the daylight sky and through the dark Underworld. Each wandering star (planet) was under the control of a patron god or several gods.

Aristarchus of Samos
~310 to ~230 BC

The mathematician/astronomer Aristarchus of Samos (circa 280 BC) did not need a force of gravity for his Heliocentric system. Although Aristarchus is usually credited with being the first to place the Sun in a stationary state at the center of the universe the idea can be traced back to earlier philosophers. There was Philolaus of Croton, a pupil of the Pythagorean school in the 5th century BC, who suggested that the Earth orbits the Sun, not vice versa. Then, in the following century, the philosopher Heracleides of Pontus built on Philolaus’ ideas. The final touches were added by Aristarchus, who was born in 310 BC, the same year that Heracleides died.^[1] Like his fellow contemporary Greeks, Aristarchus subscribed to Aristotle's principles of motion for keeping his system running effortlessly. No force was required. Earth and the planets simply followed preordained, perfectly circular, orbits. However, having the Sun stationary at the center with the Earth flying around in "natural circular motion" was, at the time, considered too radical ! The idea was shelved and lay dormant for almost eighteen centuries.

Heliocentric versus Geocentric:

The Greek State (and later the Roman State) was the center of the civilized world —the focal point of reason and order. But it is the nature of a powerful State to inflate its own importance beyond all reasonable bounds. Why be content with holding the central position of Man's world, when the State could be at the very center of the Cosmos. And so, the Geocentric system received State sponsorship, the Heliocentric system did not. And the Earth became the center of the Universe.

For a modern analogy consider the American State during the 20th century. This powerful nation vastly expanded its influence and dominance over the world. It comes as no surprise that, as the ruling imperial State, it would (and did) sponsor an expanding-universe cosmology. The idea of a stable and steady-state universe was ridiculed. And so, our Worldview became dominated by an absurdly unnatural Big Bang.
The Big Bang cosmology is supported by the Official space agency, NASA, and big budgets courtesy of the imperial State.

It happened that Aristotle's system rose to dominancy. Sadly, what was actually valid, the Aristarchean Heliocentricity, had been rejected; and what was dubiously valid, the natural state of circular motion, had been retained. In time, this error, no doubt, would have been discovered and quickly corrected. However, the Geocentric system became the "official" system backed by State and Church (often one and the same). ... Aristotle's Worldview became the theoretical foundation of Claudius Ptolemy's detailed astronomical system, which he documented in the monograph know as the Almagest. It was also adopted by the Christian Church (to the future consternation of Galileo).

Fast-forward many long centuries. It is the 16th century and Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) has rediscovered the old Aristarchean System. By this time, not surprisingly, things had changed very little. The Official system still reigned (almost supreme) and everything still worked without a force of gravity.

"Copernicus himself seems to have thought, in Aristotelian fashion, that the natural motion of the planets is circular, and he therefore required no special force to keep them in their orbits." --M.B. Hesse ^[2]

We also find that Galileo (1564-1642) was a supporter of the no-force system.

"Similarly, Galileo suggests that the planets were at first given their uniform motion by the Creator, and that a circular orbit is appropriate to uniform motion, which can continue indefinitely." --M.B. Hesse ^[3]

Nicolaus Copernicus
Credit: AIP Emilio Segre Visual Archives, T. J. J. See Collection

Galileo Galilei Credit: AIP Emilio Segre Visual Archives, E. Scott Barr Collection

Copernicus, as well as Galileo, simply went with the flow: Aristotle had stated the rules of natural motion; the rules were understood and had become an enduring part of natural philosophy. There seemed no reason to change the fundamentals of the world system. (In this light, the Copernican revolution of demoting the functional position of the Earth appears rather timid.)

But then two discoveries spoiled everything.

First and foremost, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), after brilliantly analyzing the numbers that Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe had collected over many years, discovered that orbits of the local heavenly bodies did not have the divined perfection of circles. The visible planets actually moved in elliptical orbits. Now, this was revolutionary. Whereas Copernicus and Galileo had made changes in the visible structure of the world system, Kepler forced changes in the very foundation.

Meanwhile, the work of Galileo led to the "discovery" that the natural state of motion is neither circular nor exponentially downward, but rather uniformly linear. Galileo, after conducting numerous experiments with rolling balls, concluded that in the ideal case of zero resistance, horizontal motion would never stop.

Galileo's rule for horizontal motion:
Velocity is constant (constant magnitude, constant direction) provided no force acts on the body.

In the absence of a net force the motion of the moving ball continues without change in a linear fashion. Newton, building on the foundation laid by Galileo, formalized the state of natural motion in a single statement: An object that is at rest will remain at rest, and an object that is moving will continue to move in a straight line with constant speed, if and only if the net force acting on the object is zero.

Let me sum up the situation. Aristotle, Copernicus, and Galileo thought they had the ideal explanation for the orbital motions of the heavenly bodies. Aristotle had his rotating harmonious spheres. Copernicus had his idealized Solar system. Galileo had his Creator-induced heavenly-motion. They all believed that the natural motion of heavenly bodies is circular. But, in due course, Kepler found that that belief did not match reality. Kepler discovered that the planetary orbits are not circular. Real-world orbits are elliptical! Why was this discovery so revolutionary? ... Because it meant there was some kind of force, or influence, causing the planets to vary in speed and radial distance. It meant there was a force that causes the new Newtonian "natural" motion to deviate from its natural straight-line path.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727), in the 17th century, codified the force-law that could readily explain the evidence. At least he did so in mathematical terms. The cosmology that Newton constructed became the first in history to employ a force of gravity —a force that mediates the interaction of all mass throughout the universe.

But there was a problem. A force of gravity, if it is to be consistent with what it means to be a "force," requires a force carrier —sort of a messenger particle relaying the force's influence to other bodies (or between bodies). The problem was, no force carriers have ever been found —not then, and not since. For many years Newton had pondered the question of the nature of the agent (modern "force carriers") necessary for the mediation of his gravitation force but could draw no conclusion; unable even to decide whether such agent is material or immaterial, particulate or ethereal.

However, there is really no need for us to dwell on the missing force carriers. It turns out that Newton's system was the exception to the rule. Gravity, in fact, is not a true force.

Now, since I have finished answering the question suggested in the title of this essay, it might be interesting to explore another chapter of this theme. I invite the reader to join me in applying the same basic question to three or four other world systems. The entire presentation is summarized in the accompanying table.

2. Other World Systems

Let us, then, briefly examine why Einstein (1879-1955) did not need a gravitational force.

Albert Einstein (date 1922)
Credit: Burndy Library Collection, Huntington Library, courtesy AIP Emilio Segre Visual Arch.

In 1916-1917 Einstein constructed a universe, commonly known as the Einstein Equilibrium model, based on a highly abstract theory of gravity called General Relativity. Einstein's gravity was not a force in the usual sense, rather it was an effect associated with the curvature of space.

The Einstein universe was a mathematical construction in which the curvature of space (a mathematical concept) was intimately connected to the presence of matter; that is, the quantity and density of matter determined the degree of curvature of space. Now since Einstein's "space" was a mathematical abstraction, the curvature distortion of such space must also be a mathematical abstraction.

But if the gravity effect is purely an abstraction, how is it connected to the brick-and-mortar world of reality? ... No causal mechanism has ever been found to explain how matter “curves” space and how “curvature” sustains a body’s orbital motion. The problem is deepened by Einstein’s rejection of the existence of any sort of detectable space medium. In his own words, taken from the famous Leyden Lecture (1920):

"The [a]ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all [original italics] mechanical and kinematic qualities."

"But this [a]ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media." –Einstein (1920) ^[4]

Einstein worked on the gravity theory for most of his life including the year of his death, 1955. It is my conviction that because of his insistence on having space as an abstraction (he called it the relativation of ether, or the relativization of space, depending on the German-to-English translation), the cause lurking behind the formulation of gravity was never found.

Now take careful note of the following. Originally (in 1905) Einstein had been "arguing the total nonexistence of the aether" but by the time he presented the Leyden Lecture (in 1920) he had modified his view.

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not [after all] compel us to deny ether." –Einstein (1920) ^[5]

His original nonexisting aether now became merely non-ponderable aether (as in the earlier quote above) !

In other words, the aether that filled space was not a material substance —granted— but it could be a non-material substance. Perhaps it is an ethereal substance with unusual properties —including gravitational properties.

Einstein's retraction was, in hindsight, a wise move indeed. He basically re-opened the aether door —the door to a non-material medium.

Let me sum up Einstein's Equilibrium universe. It was a static universe —notably non-expanding— which did not require gravity to be a force.

In the years 1927 and 1929 the first Big Bang universe appeared. Many versions followed throughout the rest of the 20th century. This period in the history of cosmology can best be described as the Golden Age of Expanding Universes. And, yes, even the Steady State models of Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle were (are) members of this class. The vast majority of these models did not require gravity to be a force. Why not? ... It was because they were based on Einstein's curved-space gravity theory. There's no need to repeat the problems with this concept; we simply accept that the Big Bang models are mathematical universes (albeit highly unnatural and highly speculative representations). Instead, there is a simple question to consider.

Given that gravity is a spacetime distortion effect, and not a force, why are Big Bang proponents searching for force carriers? Why this decades-long search for gravitons !? And make no mistake, we’re talking about a perennially fruitless pursuit!

It would be nice, but I really don't expect a common sense answer. Maybe there's a deep mathematical answer; maybe not. Meanwhile, the Big Bang continues to be highly unnatural, highly speculative, and, in light of the "force" ambivalence, highly confusing.

A new century, a new theory of gravity. The pivotal year of 2002 witnessed the introduction of a combined luminiferous and gravitational aether. In that year an Australian professor, Reginald T. Cahill, developed a quantum foam theory of space. Space is a quantum system undergoing classicalization and, at a deep substratum level, has the characteristics of a quantum foam. From this quantum-foam aether, Cahill constructed an aether theory of gravity. In his words:

"This quantum foam is in differential motion [bulk in-flow towards mass which acts as a sink], and the inhomogeneities and time dependencies of this motion cause accelerations which we know as gravity." –R.T. Cahill ^[6]

Gravity has now become an inhomogeneous aether flow towards mass/matter. Knowingly or unknowingly Cahill had explored behind the nonmaterial-aether door which Einstein had left open (back in 1920) but had never exploited.

Reginald Cahill
(1945- )
Courtesy: R.T. Cahill

The theory is truly powerful. Cahill has discovered a second gravitational constant, which is actually the dimensionless fine structure constant α, with which it is possible to resolve numerous so-called ‘gravitational anomalies’ —the experimental observations of gravitational effects incompatible with Newtonian gravity and general relativity. The best known of these is the “dark matter” effect, namely that spiral galaxies appear to require at least ten times the observed matter content in order to explain the high rotation speeds of stars and gas clouds in the outer regions of the spiral disk. The quantum foam theory of gravity makes it clear that the dark-matter effect is not caused by any form of matter, but rather by a non-Newtonian aspect of gravity. ^[7]

Such is the explanatory capacity of process physics. But the relevant point for us is this: Once more, gravity is not considered to be a force.

Turning now to the Cellular World-System called the Dynamic Steady State Universe (DSSU). Gravity in the DSSU is not a force. It is a side effect of a heretofore unrecognized natural process. Gravity is a side effect of the way in which all matter —mass and radiation— is conducted by, and through, the aether. Of course, keep in mind that the aether of our universe is, as Einstein proposed in 1920, a non-material aether —an almost-but-not-quite-material medium. (In DSSU theory it is the essence substance —described as the subquantum level of reality.)

Yes, gravity is a simple side effect. As gravity expert John Wheeler had predicted, decades ago, it is utterly and astonishingly simple —the simplicity that characterizes inevitability.

"To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, ‘Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?’ ” –American physicist John A. Wheeler (1985) ^[8]

Definition: The core (generic) definition of gravity for the DSSU is much the same as for Cahill's Quantum-Foam theory of gravity. The phenomenon of gravity is the inhomogeneous flow of the space medium towards matter, which acts as a sink. Note carefully, it is not the aether motion itself but the inhomogeneity (effectively the acceleration) of the flow that manifests the gravity effect. The direction of gravity is along the line of the maximum rate of change of the aether flow. The main cause (but not the root cause) of inhomogeneity is space-medium contraction (and, depending on the type of cosmic region, space-medium expansion).

The key idea that underlies the effect of gravity is the unusual mode of conduction of mass and radiation by the aether. The gravity that we are familiar with is the byproduct associated with the amazing mode of conduction of all radiant particles and all mass particles. To say that it is unusual is an understatement. The process of conduction is unique. Prior to the DSSU discovery, the concept simply did not exist ! Nothing like it has been found in the literature.

Kepler, Galileo, and Newton redefined the nature of motion. Now the Conduction Theory of Matter redefines the nature of gravity —revealing its root cause.

The following DSSU research papers present the profound details:

■ The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation, by C. Ranzan
(Originally published in the Journal of Modern Physics and Applications (JMPA) Vol.2014:3)
●Abstract ●Reviews ●Links

For the updated version see:
■ The Nature of Gravity –How one factor unifies gravity’s convergent, divergent, vortex, and wave effects, International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science (IJASS), Vol.6, No.5, 2018, pp.73-92. (Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijass.20180605.11 )
LINK to local Reprint ( www.cellularuniverse.org/G7Gravity(ijass)-Ranzan(2018).pdf )

Both of these articles reveal the mysterious Primary Cause of gravity.

DSSU theory clearly reveals why gravity needs no force carriers and therefore is not a force! ^[9]

* * * *

3. Summary: Who Needs a Force of Gravity?

SUMMARY TABLE: Who Needs a Force of Gravity?

NOT ANAXIMANDROS
NOT ARISTOTLE
(Geocentric System)

Was based on the principle that the natural state of motion in the heavenly realm is circular.

NOT ARISTARCHUS of SAMOS
(The original Heliocentric System)

No force was required. Earth and the planets simply followed preordained perfectly circular orbits.

However, having the Sun at the center was considered too radical !
Lay dormant for almost 18 centuries.

NOT COPERNICUS
(Rediscovered the System of Aristarchus of Samos, after Copernicus visited Italy)

Was based on the Aristotelian principle of natural motion.

PROBLEMS: (i) Kepler showed that the actual state of motion was ELLIPTICAL, not circular.
(ii) Galileo found that natural motion, that is, when there is NO FORCE, is LINEAR, not circular.

NEWTON WAS THE EXCEPTION
(Newton’s system has a force of gravity)

PROBLEM:
No force carrier has ever been discovered !

NOT EINSTEIN
(Einstein’s system uses a mathematical construction —the curvature distortion of spacetime induced by the presence of matter.)

PROBLEM:
No causal mechanism has ever been found to explain how matter “curves” space and how “curvature” sustains a body’s orbital motion. The problem is deepened by Einstein’s initial rejection of the existence of any sort of space medium.

NOT the BIG BANG PROPONENTS
(The Big Bang is based on Einstein’s mathematical system, aka general relativity; therefore, it does not use a force.)

PROBLEM:
Big confusion.
Gravity is not a force; YET for some strange reason researchers are looking for force-carriers called gravitons !

NOT R.T. CAHILL and PROCESS-PHYSICS PROPONENTS
(Gravity is not a force; rather it is an inhomogeneous aether flow towards mass/matter.)

PROBLEM FREE.
There are two gravitational constants, the Newtonian G, and the fine structure constant α. Resolves many problems (the so-called ‘gravitational anomalies’) in Newton’s and Einstein’s gravity —including the well known “dark matter” effect.

NOT DSSU PROPONENTS
(The DSSU does not treat gravity as a fundamental force.)

PROBLEM FREE.
Gravity is the unambiguous side effect of the mode of conduction of ALL matter at its MOST fundamental level.

* * * *

This is a fully open-access article and may be used in whole, or in part, and distributed and reproduced in any medium; provided the original webpage address (www.CellularUniverse.org/G5_GravityNotAForce.htm), the website URL (www.CellularUniverse.org), and the originating author (Conrad Ranzan) are properly cited.

2011; rev 2019-8

References and Notes

^ Simon Singh, BIG BANG, The Origin of the Universe (Fourth Estate, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2004) p22
^ Mary B. Hesse. 1961. Forces and Fields (a study of action at a distance in the history of physics) (Littlefield, Adams & Co., Totown, New Jersey, 1965) p129
^ Ibid. p129
^ Einstein's Leyden Lecture: Ether and the Theory of Relativity, An Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden. As in Sidelights on Relativity by Albert Einstein, 1922. Translated by G.B. Jeffery and W. Perrett (Methuen & Co. Ltd., 36 Essex Street, London)
^ Ibid.
^ R.T. Cahill, (2005) The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 A Critical Review of the Evidence, p11
Posted at: http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm#PP24
^ Ibid. p10
^ American physicist John Archibald Wheeler from a 1985 interview with Timothy Ferris (as in Timothy Ferris Coming of Age in the Milky Way p346)
^ C. Ranzan, The Story of Gravity and Lambda –How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery, Physics Essays Vol.23, No.1 P75-87 (2010 Mar) www.CellularUniverse.org/G2GravityLambda.pdf

Top of page Back to DSSU Home Page

C. Ranzan

Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org

Site updated: 23-01-06