Gravity: Does it Really Exist? Physics & Math Explained

[bluesman50]

Can Anyome with the math and physics background tell me (because I'm a layman-average joe) if this idea has weight?
It occurred to me the reason the graviton has not been discovered is the same reason it will never be discovered: The graviton, and therefore the implied "force" of "gravity" does not exist. "Gravity" is merely an observed phenomenon, like the "sunrise". The explanation is more fundamental- "space" is curved by mass.
the repesentation of gravity using a stretched rubber sheet is more accuate than people surmise. An object traveling through space travels in a straight line because no force is acting on it. the same object traveling in proximity to a large mass still travels straight, but the space around it is curved in respect to the mass.
This explains why "gravity" disappears in Earth orbit, or when in free fall toward the Earth (which is in reality the same thing anyway). This also presents a problem for cosmology- the observed phenomena of red shift of distant galaxies is then explained by the curved space theorem, which then results in grave doubts about the big bang theory in general. I guess that empty space is then an aether (which seems to be the argument anyway for an expanding universe) .well, what do you think? (please be kind)

 

[Ich]

The explanation is more fundamental- "space" is curved by mass.

Um, yes.

This explains why "gravity" disappears in Earth orbit, or when in free fall toward the Earth (which is in reality the same thing anyway).

Yes.

This also presents a problem for cosmology- the observed phenomena of red shift of distant galaxies is then explained by the curved space theorem, which then results in grave doubts about the big bang theory in general.

No. The "curved space theorem" is called General Relativity, is 94 years old, and is the foundation of cosmology.

 

[Mentz114]

The "curved space theorem" called General Relativity enabled the creation of models of the universe which predicted expansion, cosmological red-shift, gravitational lensing and black-holes, to name but a few. In fact it's possible to work out the relationship between the rate of expansion or contraction and the energy density of the universe. Cool, or what ?

 

[bluesman50]

oh yeah! Well i do regret using the term curved space theorem. as it sounds too high brow. been hearing a lot about that. I didn't properly get across the idea that since curved space is the "thing" to be explored, and not the elusive spectere of a nonexistant force of "gravity" that there might be an explanation for red shift that has nothing (or very little) to do with all the objects moving away from one another. In a static universe ( one in which the fabric of space is uniform) Gravity is a force (predictable and measureable) and the massive objects move through it. Light emitted from such objects is static (based on its atomic constituents) and travels through this static universe according to relativity. But if gravity is not a force, that curved space is the thing that explains the motions of objects, should cause us to redefine our notion of events that we observe, and there might be phenomena that should be attributed to other ideas. Such as: that there might be a different properties of space as yet undiscovered. That there might be an effect of great distance on the fabric of space that would cause such a red shift, and that it would mimic the the extrapolation of red shift due to motion, just as the misconstrued notion that that the sun rises and sets. the rising and setting is measurable (as is gravity), predictable and requires a profound juxtapostion in perspective to correctly identify the actual nature of the phenomenon (unless you have a spacecraft and can jump out and observe it. This is a more difficult proposition than spacefight. I could be wrong but if the only evidence of the expansion of the cosmos is hubble's red shift, we may be missing the forest for the trees.

 

[nicksauce]

I could be wrong but if the only evidence of the expansion of the cosmos is hubble's red shift, we may be missing the forest for the trees.

There is much much much much much much much more evidence.

 

[bluesman50]

wow, that clears it up for me, I'm convinced. and such a clever argument too.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Bluesman, sarcasm does not become you.

I'd encourage you to take a second look at the PF Rules. There are a number of sections there that bear re-reading.

Now, as it happens, you have made a bunch of incorrect statements. The natural response to an incorrect statement is "no, that's not right". If you instead have a question, you should ask it. If you want to argue a different theory is correct, please have that second look at the PF Rules I mentioned.

 

[bluesman50]

geez louise, Vanman. I thought I had asked questions and made reasonable arguments worthy of discussion. ok. would anyone like to post in response, and please elaborate further than a single "no, that's not right" , "much much much" or "um, yes". I have difficulty interpreting these statements as valid arguments, and I haven't gleaned any new information from them. I would like to point out that the jist of my question has less to do with gravity and falling objects whose motion is intuitively understood by most of the readers of this forum, and more to do with the ideas described in my earlier posts having to do with the possibility of a large group of people being jaded into a point of view be cause it has "been around for 94 years and is the foundation of cosmology". After all, the world was flat for a lot longer than 94 years before it became a sphere. And Aristotilian cosmology held sway for even longer than that. Please don't misunderstand, I don't mind being incorrect. I'm tough. I can take it. But can we please talk about the "meat" of the questions at hand? Isn't anyone as facinated as I with the idea that perspective maybe as important as observation with the development of a concept? Neils Bohr made significant contributions to the subect by changing his perspective and it wound up directly conflicting with Einstein. Maybe we as a forum could discuss these ideas rather than dismissing them out of hand. Maybe instead of commenting that mistakes have been made, one could choose to elucidate and educate.

 

[atyy]

In cosmology, curved spacetime and expanding space are the same theory in different guises.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0380

 

[bluesman50]

thank you for your input,atyy. It seems to me that curved spacetime and gravity are the same theory, predictions on the motion of objects at least in a local sense are handled with the same equations, and that the idea of an expanding space is predicated on the the evidence of increasing redshift per distance. This doesn't seem to prove gravity as a force, to be reconciled with the other forces.

 

[mikeph]

This also presents a problem for cosmology- the observed phenomena of red shift of distant galaxies is then explained by the curved space theorem, which then results in grave doubts about the big bang theory in general.

I think your argument here is the problem (lack of paragraphs doesn't help!).

There is a single observed phenomenon of red shift, but there are several physical mechanisms which cause it. You're talking about gravitational red shift, the stretching of wavelengths as they climb a potential well, of a planet, for example. This does not explain the Hubble observation of high-red shifted distant galaxies, because the photon undergoes the same stretching regardless of distance traveled (exit the well, travel for however long, enter well).

There is another kind called cosmological red shift which is due to expansion of the universe which you are discounting in your analysis: this is what contributes mostly to the Hubble findings you are talking about.

There's also a third one which is due to relative velocity, the simple Doppler red shift, which explains why Andromeda is actually blue shifted.

All three phenomena contribute to affect the frequency of observed light, not just one.

 

[Mentz114]

thank you for your input,atyy. It seems to me that curved spacetime and gravity are the same theory, predictions on the motion of objects at least in a local sense are handled with the same equations, and that the idea of an expanding space is predicated on the the evidence of increasing redshift per distance. This doesn't seem to prove gravity as a force, to be reconciled with the other forces.

This is just hand-waving.

The evidence for an expanding universe is pretty strong. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

 

[nicksauce]

This is just hand-waving.

The evidence for an expanding universe is pretty strong. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_acoustic_oscillations

 

[bluesman50]

yes, well thank you mentz and nick. lots to read and understand. I think if I had about 200 yrs to assimilate I would prolly still need guidance. yet on july second, all my baryons are going to witness eric clapton's baryons in indy, so all will be right with the universe, and the larger questions will be left to those more capable of their comprension.

 

[bluesman50]

please forgive my typos