Gravity, from a different point of view

In summary, the conversation discusses different theories and ideas about the concept of gravity. One theory suggests that gravity may be caused by a constant force from all directions, which becomes disturbed when passing through a mass and results in a net force towards that mass. However, this theory has been disproven due to the Earth's orbit not being affected by particles from the front. Another idea suggests that gravity is caused by matter influencing the distribution of vacuum fluctuations. However, there is still a lack of evidence for this theory.
  • #1
Owen
36
0
Gravity has always been thought of as an attractive force between two masses. Is there any reason for this view? just because the net result of gravity is that two masses attract each other, is this really all that is going on.
About an hour ago an idea hit me, and thinking about it since then it seems to make more and more sense. could it not be that "gravity" as we see it is caused not by exchange of particles or a disturbance in space time but by a mass getting in the way of another force. There may be a constant force on all objects from all directions, which when out in space and free from any gravitational effects would cancel out. when this force (what ever it may be, a flux of virtual particles in my opinion) passes through a mass of atoms it loses energy. if this disturbed force is now observed out in space away from the mass which it passed through it will be a lower magnitude than the force from all other directions, the net result of this is that any object in this region of space will experience a force toward the mass which disturbed the force.
This may seem a needlessly complicated way to explain a simple effect but I would be interested to hear peoples opinions on it. you never know this might lead to a "better" theory of gravity, more in line with the other 3 forces, but i doubt it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That's called "pushing gravity" and its not a new idea, but the main problem is there is no evidence for it.
 
  • #3
I had a similar idea and posted it once. Got this reply:
ox----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what physicist Richard Feynman had to say about
a similar theory:

Many mechanisms for gravitation have been suggested. It is interesting to
consider one of these, which many people have thought of from time to time. At
first, one is quite excited and happy when he "discovers" it, but he soon finds
that it is not correct. It was first discovered about 1750. Suppose there were
many particles [bullets] moving in space at a very high speed in all directions
and being only slightly absorbed in going through matter. When they are
absorbed, they give an impulse to the earth. However, since there are as many
going one way as another, the impulses all balance. But when the sun is nearby,
the particles coming towards the Earth through the sun are partially absorbed,
so fewer of them are coming from the sun than are coming from the other side.
Therefore, the Earth feels a net impulse toward the sun and it does not take one
long to see that it is inversely as the square of the distance... What is wrong
with this machinery? It involves some new consequences which are not true. This
particular idea has the following trouble: the earth, in moving around the sun,
would impinge on more particles which are coming from its forward side than from
the hind side (when you run in the rain, the rain in your face is stronger than
on the back of your head!) Therefore, there would be more impulse given the
earth from the front, and the Earth would feel a resistance to motion and would
be slowing up in its orbit... so this mechanism does not work. No machinery has
ever been invented that "explains" gravity without also predicting some other
phenomenon that does not exist.
ox----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  • #4
What if the distribution of particles is Lorentz-invariant ?
The the argument of more impact at the front of Earth
does not imply. Vacuum fluctuations do have indeed
such a distribution (I remember an old Sci.Am. article
about this.) Gravity would then be caused by matter
influencing the distribution of vacuum fluctuations.
As far as I know, Sakharov had such an idea many years ago.

By the way, check out http://yolanda3.dynalias.org/wbpage/wpage.html !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
coast99 said:
What if the distribution of particles is Lorentz-invariant ?
The the argument of more impact at the front of Earth
does not imply. Vacuum fluctuations do have indeed
such a distribution (I remember an old Sci.Am. article
about this.) Gravity would then be caused by matter
influencing the distribution of vacuum fluctuations.

I don't know much about vacuum fluctuations. How does matter influence them? Is it inversely proportional to square of distance?
 

1. What is the difference between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of gravity?

Newton's theory of gravity, also known as classical mechanics, states that gravity is a force of attraction between two objects with mass. It follows an inverse square law, meaning that the force of gravity decreases as the distance between the objects increases. On the other hand, Einstein's theory of gravity, known as general relativity, explains gravity as the curvature of space and time caused by the presence of mass and energy. Unlike Newton's theory, general relativity takes into account the effects of time and space, and has been proven to be more accurate in extreme conditions such as near massive objects or at high speeds.

2. How does gravity affect the motion of objects?

Gravity causes objects to accelerate towards each other. This means that objects will fall towards the center of mass of a larger object, such as the Earth. The acceleration due to gravity, denoted as g, is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared near the Earth's surface. This means that every second, an object will fall 9.8 meters closer to the Earth's center. However, the acceleration due to gravity can vary based on the mass and distance between objects.

3. Can gravity be manipulated or controlled?

Currently, there is no known way to manipulate or control gravity. However, scientists are constantly studying and researching ways to harness gravity for space travel and other applications. Some theories suggest that gravity can be manipulated by generating strong gravitational fields, but this has not yet been proven.

4. How does gravity affect the shape of objects in space?

In space, objects do not experience the force of gravity in the same way as on Earth. In the absence of other forces, gravity pulls objects towards the center of mass, causing them to form a spherical shape. This is why planets and stars are round, as their own gravity pulls them into a spherical shape. However, other forces such as centrifugal force or collisions with other objects can affect the shape of objects in space.

5. Is there a limit to the strength of gravity?

Scientists believe that there is no limit to the strength of gravity. As two objects with mass get closer and closer, the force of gravity between them becomes stronger. In theory, this strength can continue to increase infinitely as the distance between the objects decreases. However, in reality, there are other factors, such as the structure of matter, that may limit the strength of gravity in extreme conditions.

Similar threads

B Questions about the Universe: Positive & negative fields and effects
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
3K
B 'A Brief History of Time' question on gravity
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
1K
I Is Negative Gravity Possible?
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
5K
A Gravity Measured with Milligram masses
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
290
I Understanding of gravity in the Middle Ages
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
32
Views
5K
B Physics in a manual angle grinder machine
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Why is anyone looking for a graviton/force mediator if it's so widely accepted that that gravity is not a force, but physical curvature?
    • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
395
B Gravity Thought Problem: Theoretical System of Electron and Positron"
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Spring balance analysis from a system point of view
    • Classical Physics
Replies
24
Views
720
I Why Does Gravity Remain when Star Mass Dissipates?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
489

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top