I have been thinking of writing something on these gravity-concepts for about a week now. I do not recall without browsing again through my articles if-or-not I have promised to talk about it recently. But everything can be re-read and re-explained again. So that promise won’t go to vacuua.

The pressing thing at work is Physics. Since Physics is a vast vast subject and to do justice to an average appetite of people one still need to devote well more than a few years whence I will stumble across unimaginable difficulties. (read unexpected also; such as more than known forms of uncertainty principle, the non-Einsteinian nature of some Einsteinian Relativistic ideas and the mostly tackled anomalies that I have unexpectedly come across) .. So lets expect I stay healthy and living and with a good appetite to learn and share interesting Physics concepts.

There already are some Gravity based articles in this website that I have mostly worked only in the last 2 years when based out from my private office at my home I have tried to be inspired as well as be capable to solve some problems amidst mundane difficulties and uncertainties of life.

So talking about gravity fondly I have made a remark “Its not gravity that makes you fall”. You would be shocked as if you fell down but its not due to gravity but something else is at work, Am I a Physicist propounding a phantom theory? The actual statement I made is “Its not gravity that makes you fall, it only makes you fall FASTER”. That was known to Galileo, which we often very conveniently forget and make an erroneous statement that** things fall because of Gravity**. So it caters to the law of inertia also. So satellites would still fall irrespective of the absence or presence of Gravity. **(although the inertia would mean they would be at absolute rest if we do not take into account enough of its past when something had hit it harder to slow it down or sped it up, in any case when enough history has been allowed to see that no forces or extra actions were disturbing its inertia, IT MUST BE MOVING AT UNIFORM MOTION without any debt to a force-bank called Gravity. If Gravity isn’t there the inertia is still the same and it would continue to be moving at the same speed, which as a specific possibility be ZERO) **

So apart from the fact that Gravity only causes us to fall faster its also an erroneous fact to say: Gravity is caused by Masses. Or its innocuous looking twin-statement masses attract masses and thats called Gravity. It has two basic history why its often thought or said so. 1. History of how theory of Gravity developed. 2. History of how Gravity was taught.

WRT 1; Newton/Galileo and all those other star-lovers of the last few 100 years Kepler, Tyco, Copernicus had NO way to know of phenomena like Gravitational Lensing. So while **they** **(circa 1665)** were capable of spotting one big dent in **your (Circa 2010)** understanding of Gravitational attraction (namely the one that I already explained above, Gravity causes faster motion not motion by itself, they understood the concept of inertia, they might have had tons of other concepts to insult you as **good for nothing 21st ****centurians**) they were not perhaps (as far as I understand by now) as capable to point out the 2nd dent, which is the reason why we were confused for centuries, kept on asking questions and made progress in science. That dent was there could be Gravity without that properties called mass. This problem was anyway squarely addressed by Albert the great Einstein. He said its not only mass which causes gravity (or rather responds also to gravity) its also energy and as a logical consequence momentum which would create or respond to Gravity. This is summed up as **General Theory of Relativity**. (This understanding of equivalence of mass, energy was put as a Tensor, what we often forget is the understanding of equivalence of energy and momentum is paraphrased a s 4-vector. So all in all mass-energy-momentum are all equivalents but they do not paraphrase as a 4-vector. mass and energy when they have to paraphrased they must do so as a more complicated quantity than a vector called a s tensor. After Einstein has solved the century old confusion and misunderstanding we are still making a mistake, its namely: converting everywhere we see mass as energy and energy as mass. What a stupid thing to do. If that were so Einstein would have written 100 papers in 2005, not 5. What we are doing as said above as a matter of how history of development occurred or as history of how its taught, “mass and energy are equivalents, hence convert every mass to energy and every energy to mass”. Here is what we are doing wrong.

*** They should still be satisfying what are called as laws of nature or rather laws of Physics. Its this part which took the Physicists more cocoa and less pizza and champagne. ***

So when you take out something as a scalar = **mass** and another Goddamn simple scalar = **energy **you feel a child like stupid inspiration to do whatever you want to do with these. But Einstein was not a simple stupid child no matter how his teachers did not understand him. You are doing some scalar operations, potato plus chill sauce = crap. But what Einstein did is he tool all the groceries into different list and there were several of them and then tried to find their interrelation to give the physical laws, and those laws while led from simpler logic led to aground breaking and path breaking ideas of the physical world. Their consequences were markedly different from those of the laws formulated by Newton and his star-loving other brothers. And none of them are wrong although Einstein’s is more correct. So Einstein’s must always in all circumstances return to those of the old school of brothers. 3 cheers for the brotherhood. (and any sorority queens, in those days they were mind-numbingly less). [**Its here that I have found some non-Einsteinian nature of his more famous Relativistic ideas, some published already, in this website, and they shall be NO surprise, since the relations of Einsteins called as General Relativistic laws of nature are merely more complete and complicated forms of the simplistic Newtonian Gravitational and Kinematic Laws of nature. In any case Einstein’s was the and is the last word and the more precise mathematical work, CLICK ON ME >> here is one example that was known to everyone before I was born ** ]

So the price we are paying for our stupidity (and not Newton Gang’s simply because they did not have as much caution in the air to tell them what they are doing is inconsistent.) is we replace in our head every-time we hear Gravity: MASS. But given that mass and therefore with the restriction that mass, energy and momentum must satisfy certain relations before they are used equivalently **, energy and momentum are also to be had in head in any discussion we have about Gravity after Einstein. In-fact as I have been espousing all the above lines, before we could simply through our talk exchange variables with other variables because they are certain equivalents as per Einstein we better be careful what inconsistencies our head-work is bringing forth into the conceptual framework known as Physics.

(**which we do all the time in our lose talk, check any so called good Physicists’s work you will find plenty)

One beautiful example is PHOTON. This Light carrier is often said to have a mass. (What a stupidity) This comes to our head like that because we think mass and energy are equivalents. But given we know that Photon is a wave-cum-particle (secretary-cum-wife) it was a pre-quantum-mechanics-unification which was cladding our understanding that it does not have mass but it has momentum and energy for which its able to move. Whats the real mix-up? One new concept that Einstein gave was mass and energy are equivalent, hence we blindfoldedly started talking about Photons having mass. Photons don’t have physical mass even if they have energy and momentum. They must first satisfy certain relationships between mass-energy-momentum and mass better be zero. WHY? Because Einstein’s is the final word for Gravity. Its not the final word for Kinematics. The moment we say mathematically and alas so very mathematically and beautifully mass can be wrapped up from its actuality of momentum or energy through those Einstein’s relation and be served as new meat, someone better saw sense. While that could be so the other danger that is waiting is Quantum Mechanics. This guy says there were waves, there were particles, particles killed the waves and the waves killed the particles and now there is only an union of those the wave-cum-particles. But the truth really is like the Einstein Theory must succumb to the specificity of Newton’s theory which preceded it as a **scientific theory** and hence can’t be completely discarded only inconsistencies better be thrown out, the Quantum Mechanics must, sans a few inconsistencies be seen as Waves and Particles rather than wave-cum-particles. What it means is remembering that in every list of things that got complicated there still are rules that must individually ALSO be satisfies and not only in relation to each other. That is, Wave nature and Particle nature consistencies be also satisfied apart from wave-cum particle nature consistencies. We have often been remembering only the more advanced formulations throwing the basics into a black-bag-wrapped-box. So wave would essentially mean: **NO** MASS + Only Energy + Only Momentum. Particle would mean: Only Mass + Only Energy + Only Momentum. Special Scheme: Photon = No mass: A particle but just just like a wave. **Laughing Out Loud**. It was not only a mathematical specialty that it be having mass=0, it also be having wave-nature (no mass but energy and momentum if it were to move) Because of this special nature the Photon was the origin of Quantum Mechanics. It brought into the conceptual neat-picking of mathematics and Physics so much botheration to the head of the mathematicians and Physicists for several decade that they **finally saw light**. (rather finally saw photon) So this slight special deviation that it be not having MASS even though its a particle also made it a wave. Laughing Out Loud is a acronym for Eureka. When the Photon’s Box a la Pandora’s was opened it created so much confusion and is still doing.

But given that Photon was understood 80 years ago so very well the “Einstein’s tendency of the mediocre” still compels them to equivalence mass-energy-momentum without the basics of relations that need to be satisfied to be consistent with this fundamental nature of waves, particles and wave-cum-particles, at the very base they must have certain observed properties as has been gained and developed over centuries. Physics compels you to make grandiose mistakes and we often blemishly fake it in the name of Grand Masters like Einstein, but he did his job properly, we didn’t.

The other thing I wanted to point out is how I have written: **NO** MASS. Only Energy + Only Momentum. That simply means added degrees or directions in which you shall check everything before making a complex relation directly into a simple relations such as energy-mass are equivalents.

Now that you understood this much why is a photon getting bent in its motion in presence of Gravity Fields? Stop saying it has effective mass and its bending because Gravity is causing masses to be attracted. This is two degrees of incorrectness. 1. Gravity is attraction of mass. 2. Photon has effective mass.

1. Gravity is simply a force of nature which works like this: You have a sheet on which things will come towards you if you have a curvature that favors such. Even when you don’t have mass this fabric responds to your energy and or momentum and tells you how much your rolling on it will be favored and in what directions etc. This case is valid for Photons because I just said IT HAS NO MASS. But thats no problem for Gravity-Bank. You don’t have cash? No problem, did you get a membership card sir? OK No problem any credit card sir? Thats it. You are in to the conference hotel.

2. Why Einstein’s Relations known as General Theory then different from Newton’s? Because Newton’s was based only on the mass-purview of Gravitational interaction. By adding in momentum and energy Einstein suitably made more correct and precise.

There is an additional degree of complicacy I have to tell you before I close this article, and I have described this in some articles before. The idea of Invariant Mass. When I said above **Mass of photon is Zero, I always meant Invariant mass of one single photon.** In that case and in that case only we say Photon must travel at the constant speed of 2.99 x 10^8 meter/sec. (Not just in vacuum) When we go away from the conditions of vacuum and when we go away from the restriction that there is only a single photon complications arise that our habit hasn’t made us careful enough to look at before making grandiose Physics statements. So the complicacy is two-fold. i) Vacuum or Not? ii) One photon or not?

For ii) the definition of invariant mass changes. No more for even two photons the invariant mass is Zero. As I have described in those articles written few months ago, these two photons can no more travel at the speed of light even in vacuum. PERIOD. Now they will behave like a glob of stuff trying to move in opposite directions, hence speed-effective of the system of two photons will reduce from that sacrosanct value of 2.99 x 10^8 meter/sec. If there is more than two and more the speed will eventually average out to some “to be determined” value. Its because the momentum and energy which are part of that paraphrase **4-vector **we talked about above adds up like one (4-vector) and satisfy certain relationships known by Einstein, Newton et-al in different forms, in different centuries, and give a non-zero invariant mass for the system of photons paying absolutely little heed to the fact that individual invariant mass or simply mass of a photon must be zero. {Everything still, Newton or Copernicus or Photon=zero-mass are to be valid with a lot of precedence and privilege to newer frameworks of science that only brings **consistency and precision** on the face of **observation, **everyone’s work is still valid and be given credit with certain new modifications, which is why they invented the word et-al in science especially Physics** **} The other thing to note: Not only mass has a privilege in any framework, sometimes and almost always its the Momentum and Energy that will decide what the mass has got to be. So invariant-single-photon-mass = zero is what wins the game for a photon-system, not invariant-photon-mass, not mass-of-photon for example. Once you know how to construct the correct and consistent variables in Physics the smooth-talkers of Physics might love or hate you depending also on how you look. (also mass of a photon will decide the momentum or energy because they are equivalents? READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AGAIN PLEASE, but short answer construct the correct and consistent variables first then see the star-trek of these little bastards)

Next level is vacuum. In vacuum: we are not mindful of extra forces. In media we are. SO just we have additional parameters to see how something will or in what path it will move. That sheet is now spread out differently and photon or photons will roll differently. Hence the single-photon-vacuum moves at that sacrosanct Einstein speed but a bunch of them or even a single one in non-vacuua will not abide by that speed-factor-constancy of nature.