Could gravity be a convergence of waves?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the nature of gravity, questioning traditional analogies like the heavy ball on a bed sheet, which are deemed ineffective since they rely on gravity itself. The idea presented suggests that gravity may not bend space but could instead be the result of waves in spacetime that influence matter. This perspective posits that orbits might be illusions created by these fluctuations. Participants acknowledge the complexity of gravity's three-dimensional nature and emphasize the lack of mathematical support for personal theories. The conversation highlights the challenge of explaining gravity without oversimplified models while adhering to forum rules regarding personal theories.
cookertron
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I was just watching a television program about gravity today and it got me wondering what gravity was exactly.

Most analogies used to describe gravity are of a heavy ball on a bed sheet. The ball creates a depression in the sheet and objects placed on the sheet will fall in towards the ball.
My problem with that idea is that it uses gravity itself for the demonstration and so is relatively pointless. Not only that but gravity appears not to be two dimensional like the bed sheet.

My idea (at least I think it's my idea) is, what if gravity doesn't bend space like the weight on the sheet but instead matter is herded together by waves in space time.

The effect of orbit is merely an illusion created by fluctuations in the waves. While that might be a coincidence too great it does leave thought for the source of the waves.

Your thought's will be well received :)
 
Space news on Phys.org
There is no math to support your guess. Not to sound rude, but I could just as easily say, "Maybe matter is just really friendly".

You are right, gravity is not two dimensional like the bed sheet, and physicists understand this, but it is more difficult to try to explain that model as if there were an infinite number of bed sheets in all orientations around the object. The "gravity well" isn't in a particular orientation, it is a three dimensional distortion of space
 
Travis_King said:
There is no math to support your guess. Not to sound rude, but I could just as easily say, "Maybe matter is just really friendly".

I know, what if I drew a diagram lol.

I don't think I'd ever be able to calculate the maths for my theory however put me in closed room with a typewriter to bash for long enough and I might come up with something.
 
Please reread the PF rules on personal theories.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top