What is Gravity? Understanding Its Role in Universe Formation

[kleinma]

Apart from being the weakest force in the known universe... What exactly do we know about what gravity is?

How does gravity make things combined together? How does gravity form planets/stars, etc...

I understand the basic concept of gravity.. but I don't understand why things have it... does everything have gravity? do we have gravity? but we are so tiny that it is unmeasurable? or is it just things like stars, planets, and other giant physical objects?

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by kleinma
Apart from being the weakest force in the known universe... What exactly do we know about what gravity is?

How does gravity make things combined together? How does gravity form planets/stars, etc...

I understand the basic concept of gravity.. but I don't understand why things have it... does everything have gravity? do we have gravity? but we are so tiny that it is unmeasurable? or is it just things like stars, planets, and other giant physical objects?

the most accurate model we have of gravity is General Relativity which says gravity is embodied by the shape of space time----"gravity is geometry".

The main equation is the 1916 so-called Einstein equation which says

curvature = (8pi G/c⁴) energy density

the expressions for the energy density and curvature are complicated but in answer to your question yes, all forms of energy are at least nominally included-----very tiny contributions can be neglected as in all physics. But the mass-energy in matter and the light-energy in light and the so-called dark energy which is inferred but not explained and even heat energy----all these things contribute to curving space-time through the total energy density on the RHS of the equation

and all stuff follows the curvature---even light does not go in straight lines but is bent by the curvature of space. Planets go in their orbits because of the curvature. What feels like the force of your weight is the effect of geometry.

It just happens that this model of gravity (not a force so much as an effect of geometry) works better----gets more accurate answers----than the old Newton force model with its rigid absolute space.

Gravity needs to be analysed as the dynamic changing geometry in which other stuff exists and happens-----the shape of space itself is dynamic and evolving----the stage is a major participant in the play and not just a place where the play is performed.

Better not to think of it as just "one of the forces".

This however does not make it easy to understand! The 1916 "gravity is geometry" model (General Relativity) is the most correct one we have but that does not mean it is as easy as Newton's 1680s model. Unfortunately

 

[kleinma]

interesting... i probably only really understand about 1/8 of what you just said but that is more my fault than yours

i guess gravity just confuses me... as it should.. since the great minds in physics and astronomy can't even completely crack it

 

[I, Brian]

If the questioner is asking what the force carrier is - that is not known. "Gravitons" have been postulated as the field carriers, but this is all very much speculative. Without a link to quantum mechanics, postulation of force carrier characteristics is troublesome at best.

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by I, Brian
If the questioner is asking what the force carrier is - that is not known. "Gravitons" have been postulated as the field carriers, but this is all very much speculative. Without a link to quantum mechanics, postulation of force carrier characteristics is troublesome at best.

so what your saying is we really don't know too much about gravity other than that it exists and what effects we have observed it has on other things

 

[meteor]

It's a question of choice. If you like more Quantum Dynamics gravity is caused by the exchange of a particle (the graviton). If you like more General Relativity, is caused by the curvature of the space
There are other minor theories, like Le Sage theory

 

[Antiproton]

On the contrary. We know a great deal 'about' gravity. We know 'how much' gravity something might posess and how the universe will react to the existence of this gravity. We don't know, specifically, how gravity is 'created'. But this doesn't stop us from using it successfully. For modest uses, Newtonian theory (F=Gm1m2/r^2) will suffice. If you really want to get in the thick of it, you're going to need to learn GR. This, I might add, is not for the weak of heart, and probably a bit dramatic for an intro. Make sure you understand Newton's theory first, before you become obsessed with Einsteins.

 

[macm]

curvature = (8pi G/c4) energy density

The primary problem with the view of gravity by Relativity is that the curvature geometry is static. That is it provides no motive force.

An interstate highway has curves and cars traveling it follow the curves (most of the time) but the curves are not the reason cars run off the road laterally. The curve is merely static geometry. It takes energy to produce acceleration and motion.

Relativity provides no motive source of energy.

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by macm
Relativity provides no motive source of energy.

then why if you drop something it falls, other than the force of gravity pulling it? what does relativity say about that? Isnt gravity creating the acceleration and motion?

 

[John MacNeil]

When you speculate that gravity is a weak force in the universe, you are indicating that you are not thinking logically about the subject and are merely conforming to commercial views which are intended to make you into mindless consumers and sycophants. The fact that all celestial bodies are possessors of gravity should indicate to you that gravity is THE underlying force in the universe and is therefore the strongest force in the universe, and not the weakest.

 

[I, Brian]

On the contrary. We know a great deal 'about' gravity.

Actually, that's a terrible simplification. We "know" a great deal about the "what" of gravity when dealing with our own immediate scale of reference. But the Theory of Gravity fails to apply at the more extremes of scales - such as the quantum and (galactic) macro scales - which are precisely where the major issues in physics actually are. There is also the great problem of not even being able to address the "why" of gravity.

Sure, anyone here could spiel off about how much we "know" - but that would be ignorant of various highly significant outstanding issues. Without a generally accepted mechanism addressing the force carrier issue, and with the whole debacle over "dark matter" and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to claimed "dark energy", you can be absolutely sure that the Theory of Gravity is due for a significant overhaul, perhaps akin to the world-changing way in which Einstein did so with Newton.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
When you speculate that gravity is a weak force in the universe, you are indicating that you are not thinking logically about the subject and are merely conforming to commercial views which are intended to make you into mindless consumers and sycophants. The fact that all celestial bodies are possessors of gravity should indicate to you that gravity is THE underlying force in the universe and is therefore the strongest force in the universe, and not the weakest.

That's a rather glib interpretation don't you think? Gravity IS the weakest of the fundamental forces when compared the range verses strengh argument. All atoms demonstrate the strong nuclear force so I can very well say that the strong nuclear force is THE underlying force of the universe because without it we wouldn't have stable nuclei for gravity to influence. If anyone is showing ignorance it's you.

And how does physics make you a mindless consumer? Think before you type.

 

[Antiproton]

Originally posted by I, Brian
Actually, that's a terrible simplification. We "know" a great deal about the "what" of gravity when dealing with our own immediate scale of reference. But the Theory of Gravity fails to apply at the more extremes of scales - such as the quantum and (galactic) macro scales - which are precisely where the major issues in physics actually are. There is also the great problem of not even being able to address the "why" of gravity.

Sure, anyone here could spiel off about how much we "know" - but that would be ignorant of various highly significant outstanding issues. Without a generally accepted mechanism addressing the force carrier issue, and with the whole debacle over "dark matter" and the accelerated expansion of the universe due to claimed "dark energy", you can be absolutely sure that the Theory of Gravity is due for a significant overhaul, perhaps akin to the world-changing way in which Einstein did so with Newton.

I would argue differently. GR is a theory that will probably tell the tests of time. Probably, I'm biased in my appreciation for GR, but I would be willing to bet that QM is what gets the overhaul. More to the point, while GR does fail at the quantum level (though here again, I would argue it works perfectly well in the macro universe) QM also fails at the macro scale.
But I digress. Clearly the individual who was posing the question initally is not as versed as some others on this board. My reply was merely an attempt to elucidate our understanding of the phenomenon of Gravity. I was not attempting to make bold, sweeping assesments of our scientifically pure understanding

 

[John MacNeil]

An atom exhibiting a strong nuclear force is a localized phenomena, while gravity extends throughout large segments of space and affects large physical bodies by making them conform to movement patterns dictated by the gravity. The relevance there should be obvious to anyone who likes to think.

No one suggested that physics turns people into mindless consumers. It was stated that the commercial view would have people achieve that exalted state. When you consider the countless books published about cartoon physics theories, you then get the notion of how much money is on the fringe of science. But the real money, the billions of dollar, comes from the taxpayers funding projects that are proclaimed to find the age of the universe and the beginning of time and other such nonsense.

It's easy to see how the gullible people in society follow dolefully behind anyone who proffers a big lie. When they are told something that is so outrageous that they have no idea if it is true or not, they waive judgement on it and accept it without thinking deeply on the subject. That success of propaganda has recently been displayed before the world in Iraq, where the U.S. intentionally scared the populace so they could go in and steal the Iraqi oil. That same tactic of using the "Big Lie" has been applied to physics theory in the cases of the big bang, black holes, infinite density, string theory and other such nonsense that no person on this planet understands or has any chance of proving. While at the same time the commercial science community rejects all legitimate theory that casts doubt on their cartoon theories, such as Halton Arp's description of non-recession velocity as an explanation for redshift.

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by kleinma I understand the basic concept of gravity.. but I don't understand why things have it... does everything have gravity? do we have gravity? but we are so tiny that it is unmeasurable? or is it just things like stars, planets, and other giant physical objects? [/B]

WHY things have gravity is a question I cannot answer, but then there are few 'why' questions we CAN answer (Why do we exist? Why did the Big Bang happen? Why did life originate on the Earth?)

Your second question, 'does everything have gravity?', is much easier to answer. Yes, everything has gravity, or, to be more precise, all matter and energy has gravity exactly proportional to its mass. That means that elementary particles (of which everything is made up of) have gravity. As humans consist of elementary particles, they naturally have gravity. Light is energy, so it also has gravity, it's just pretty much immeasurable.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
No one suggested that physics turns people into mindless consumers. It was stated that the commercial view would have people achieve that exalted state. When you consider the countless books published about cartoon physics theories, you then get the notion of how much money is on the fringe of science. But the real money, the billions of dollar, comes from the taxpayers funding projects that are proclaimed to find the age of the universe and the beginning of time and other such nonsense.

Wow, you stupped pretty low just to throw that Iraq comment in there didn't you. Ok, now on to Arp's 'physics'. True is, I don't buy it. Why? Well I can't find any basis for the apparent inherent redshift he so dearly hangs on to. He fails to realize that inflation is equal in all directions everywhere that's why astrophysicists get similar reading in different parts from the sky. Thirdly his reasoning for black holes makes no sense. Not everything goes IN. If you heat material to extremely high temperatures as is in the accretion disk around a black hole it gives off X-rays. The magnetic fields created are going to push that gas up into jets. That's materal NOT hitting the event horizon yet and still has a chance. All I see him doing is making assumptions without any math to back it up. And learning a bit of the physics of these things myself, I'll stick to the math behind it.

 

[Antiproton]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
That success of propaganda has recently been displayed before the world in Iraq, where the U.S. intentionally scared the populace so they could go in and steal the Iraqi oil. That same tactic of using the "Big Lie" has been applied to physics theory in the cases of the big bang, black holes, infinite density, string theory and other such nonsense that no person on this planet understands or has any chance of proving.

I'm reminded of Contact. You know the scene, where Dr. Drumland shuts down SETI because it has no practical value to the taxpayers.

You've made HUGE, SWEEPING denials of some of physics most contemporary, promising, and above all respected theories since the turn of the last century. And perhaps I'm the only one, but I don't see a reason why. There is no evidence to suggest that Black Hole theory is wrong, and a plethora working in its favor. We've shown Universal evolution from up to millionths of a second after the Big Bang. We are on the verge of cracking the mysteries of the universe, and you're comparing it to a Nationwide conspiracy to get Iraqi oil. There aren't conspiracies of propaganda in physics. There are people who are a touch misinformed, like perhaps the poor soul who started this off and got more than he bargained for . But this is no reason to make ad hominem attacks just for the hell of it.

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Antiproton
I'm reminded of Contact. You know the scene, where Dr. Drumland shuts down SETI because it has no practical value to the taxpayers.

You've made HUGE, SWEEPING denials of some of physics most contemporary, promising, and above all respected theories since the turn of the last century. And perhaps I'm the only one, but I don't see a reason why. There is no evidence to suggest that Black Hole theory is wrong, and a plethora working in its favor. We've shown Universal evolution from up to millionths of a second after the Big Bang. We are on the verge of cracking the mysteries of the universe, and you're comparing it to a Nationwide conspiracy to get Iraqi oil. There aren't conspiracies of propaganda in physics. There are people who are a touch misinformed, like perhaps the poor soul who started this off and got more than he bargained for . But this is no reason to make ad hominem attacks just for the hell of it.

lol... i just was curious about gravity... lol for some reason all the threads i start in this forum break out into harsh word battles...

anyways.. i was just thinking about gravity one day so i figured i would as why things fall towards the center of our earth.. but things don't fall to the center of me.. know what I am sayin...

but i did get some good explinations of things

 

[selfAdjoint]

Let's start all over again.

Kleinma, you wonder why things fall toward the center of the Earth, do you understand why, say, satellites like the international space station don't (seem to) fall? Let's build up a descriptive view of your idea of gravity before we get back to discussing current physical theories about gravity.

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Let's start all over again.

Kleinma, you wonder why things fall toward the center of the Earth, do you understand why, say, satellites like the international space station don't (seem to) fall? Let's build up a descriptive view of your idea of gravity before we get back to discussing current physical theories about gravity.

umm well hmm...

well i guess i would say that satellites are outside of Earth gravitational pull where they can stay in space... but aren't they slowly falling? or is that just some satellites.. i think i read about that before... but i know they are still in Earth's gravity somewhat or they would not orbit right??

 

[Antiproton]

Interestingly, things do 'fall' towards you. If we put you in deep space, with a tennis ball, eventually the tennisball would come in contact with you (eventually). But while you reside on Earth, it's gravitational field is so much more dramatic than your own, that falling objects are pulled towards it with many many times more force. Isn't Physics great?

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Antiproton
Interestingly, things do 'fall' towards you. If we put you in deep space, with a tennis ball, eventually the tennisball would come in contact with you (eventually). But while you reside on Earth, it's gravitational field is so much more dramatic than your own, that falling objects are pulled towards it with many many times more force. Isn't Physics great?

so objects will be pulled towards any other object that has a greater force of gravity... but ultimatly the strongest force of gravity wins?? something like that?? but multiple forces can play a role right?? like how water in the oceans remains on the earth, but the tides are influenced by the moon's gravity??

 

[Antiproton]

I just did a quick calculation to demonstrate my point. Let's say in deep deep space, we left you alone with a 4 kg bowling ball. Let's say your mass is 75 kg and you start out 2 m away.

F= G*m1*m2/r^2, so The force of attraction between you and the bowling ball is 5.004 x 10^-9 N or 5 nanoNewtons.

if you instead separate the Earth and the same bowling ball by two meters you get 4.003 x 10 ^14 N. A pretty stark difference, even for such a silly example.

 

[kleinma]

when you say deep space you mean with no other force of gravity or anything thing else interfering right?

 

[Tail]

well i guess i would say that satellites are outside of Earth gravitational pull where they can stay in space... but aren't they slowly falling? or is that just some satellites.. i think i read about that before... but i know they are still in Earth's gravity somewhat or they would not orbit right?? [/B]

I think they're 'falling' around the Earth. They 'think' they're moving straight forward, but the space is distorted so they move around the Earth, just like Moon. But don't take my word for it, I'm just guessing...

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by kleinma
so objects will be pulled towards any other object that has a greater force of gravity... but ultimatly the strongest force of gravity wins??

It would be so if not for the expanding of the universe, I think...

 

[Tail]

Originally posted by kleinma
when you say deep space you mean with no other force of gravity or anything thing else interfering right?

I don't think there are places with no gravity at all, but the other objects might be too far away to interfere. Like, the Sun gravity is far greater than the Earth's, but the Moon still stays with the Earth...

 

[I, Brian]

Actually, gravity is not strongest at the center of a body, but actually on the surface.

So things do not "fall" to the center of the Earth - they fall to the surface.

 

[kleinma]

so if there was a hole that lead to the center of the Earth you would not fall in it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is a famous thought experiment. Imagine a hole through the Earth from pole to pole to avoid affects of Earth's spin. And imagine it is evacuated to avoid effects of air resistance.

Then if you fell into it at one pole here is what would happen. You would accelerate constantly as you fell until you reach the center. At this point you are moving very fast and will streak past the center. On the other side you are rising against gravity so you will decelerate at precisely the same rate as you accelerated before.

This will bring you to the surface at the other pole with no upward velocity. So you will fall back and the whole thing will happen again in reverse. And so on.

This is actually nothing but a degenerate cas of an orbit! You will have become a kind of satellite.

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This is a famous thought experiment. Imagine a hole through the Earth from pole to pole to avoid affects of Earth's spin. And imagine it is evacuated to avoid effects of air resistance.

Then if you fell into it at one pole here is what would happen. You would accelerate constantly as you fell until you reach the center. At this point you are moving very fast and will streak past the center. On the other side you are rising against gravity so you will decelerate at precisely the same rate as you accelerated before.

This will bring you to the surface at the other pole with no upward velocity. So you will fall back and the whole thing will happen again in reverse. And so on.

This is actually nothing but a degenerate cas of an orbit! You will have become a kind of satellite.

but then the gravity is still at the center no? the only reason you would shoot past the center and to the other side is because of the speed you built up traveling to the center..

 

[Antiproton]

I, Brian! We meet again! Here again, you are a bit hasty. In you're analysis, would it not be true then that people on the other side of the Earth would fall towards OUR surface? Gravity is directed towards the center of the earth, and that's the direction in which objects fall. Granted, the further you go, the less mass there is, but if there was a hole towards the core, you would not hover over its entrance.

And that gedanken experiment is one of my favorites. I remember solving that problem on an exam once, with the twist that we had to show at what initial speed the person achieved SHM, or something like that.

 

[kleinma]

Originally posted by Antiproton
I, Brian! We meet again! Here again, you are a bit hasty. In you're analysis, would it not be true then that people on the other side of the Earth would fall towards OUR surface? Gravity is directed towards the center of the earth, and that's the direction in which objects fall. Granted, the further you go, the less mass there is, but if there was a hole towards the core, you would not hover over its entrance.

And that gedanken experiment is one of my favorites. I remember solving that problem on an exam once, with the twist that we had to show at what initial speed the person achieved SHM, or something like that.

ok cool... so i am correct then... isn't the gravity in the center of the Earth (and other objects in space) the real reason why they are spherical in shape? because all points are being pulled to a center

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
This is a famous thought experiment. Imagine a hole through the Earth from pole to pole to avoid affects of Earth's spin. And imagine it is evacuated to avoid effects of air resistance.

Then if you fell into it at one pole here is what would happen. You would accelerate constantly as you fell until you reach the center. At this point you are moving very fast and will streak past the center. On the other side you are rising against gravity so you will decelerate at precisely the same rate as you accelerated before.

This will bring you to the surface at the other pole with no upward velocity. So you will fall back and the whole thing will happen again in reverse. And so on.

This is actually nothing but a degenerate cas of an orbit! You will have become a kind of satellite.

Aside from the fact that this is a purely hypothetical experiment (we could never make such a hole deep down there, cause the interior of Earth is fluid) your description has one flaw. As you fall near the center, the force of gravity will decrease. That is because all the matter at a sphere above you at equal distance to the center of gravity, will have a neutralized gravity pull. It ios as if you were atracted only by the sphere defined by the center of gravity and radius = distance towards the center.
In theory (if Earth would have a constant density everywhere) gravity force would drop linearly, but as the matter deeper down has more pressure on it from above, it is denser and heavier deeper down, so in the beginning the gravity would fall less slow as linearly, and later on faster as you would near the center.

 

[macm]

Gravity

klienma,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by macm
Relativity provides no motive source of energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



then why if you drop something it falls, other than the force of gravity pulling it? what does relativity say about that? Isnt gravity creating the acceleration and motion?


__________________



Sorry I missed your reply back on page (1).

As I stated Relativity claims curved space causes gravity but fails to describe how curved space creates any force. The stretched rubber gravity well analogy makes it clear. If you took a curved funnel shaped object into space either so remote in deep space that any other objects gravity are ineffective or put it into orbit for zero gravity and then place a BB on the rim of the curved funnel, the BB doesn't roll into the funnel because of the curve. It requires a force underneath the funnel (gravity) for the funnel to function.

The curve doesn't create gravity in of or by itself. There is no motive force provided by the curvature of space to move objects. that requires energy. Gravity is a phenomena of energy transfer not curved space.

 

[Andre]

That is because all the matter at a sphere above you at equal distance to the center of gravity, will have a neutralized gravity pull. It is as if you were atracted only by the sphere defined by the center of gravity and radius = distance towards the center.
In theory (if Earth would have a constant density everywhere) gravity force would drop linearly, but as the matter deeper down has more pressure on it from above, it is denser and heavier deeper down, so in the beginning the gravity would fall less slow as linearly, and later on faster as you would near the center

Exactly, this would give a complicated movement indeed. However if in the gedanken experiment you would allow for a Earth with uniform mass, the force on the body would be proportional to the distance to the centre. Sounds familiar? It is exactly the same as a mass and spring system. It would oscilate with a sine type movement. If there is no drag, you would oscilate in the hole from the entry on the one end to the exit on the other end indefinitely and it would take exactly the same oscillation time as a hypothetical satelite that would orbit Earth at ground level.

 

[subtillioN]

Gravity is a refraction type event

gravity is a refraction of intrinsic wave energies of the atom in response to a permeating "quantum vacuum" density gradient known as a gravitational field.

 

[Antiproton]

Originally posted by subtillioN
gravity is a refraction of intrinsic wave energies of the atom in response to a permeating "quantum vacuum" density gradient known as a gravitational field.

It sounds like you're asserting some kind of QM/GR gap bridging. What is this quantum vacuum, and how does matter wave refraction create the gravitational field?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Antiproton
It sounds like you're asserting some kind of QM/GR gap bridging. What is this quantum vacuum, and how does matter wave refraction create the gravitational field?

My comment is a vast simplification of the mechanism of gravity from a new unified field theory called Sorce Theory. It is more of a deeper level substrate reconstruction than a "gap bridging", but it does accomplish the same function and much more. I will skim across the details of the theory in a second, but first a little background. [More information can be found at this link as well: www.anpheon.org ]

--------

“What is this quantum vacuum”?—

The new conception of the "quantum vacuum" is that it is mathematically equivalent to a zero-energy superfluid. Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet”.

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model. This is the collection of 3He atoms condensed into the liquid state like water. But as distinct from water, the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms. Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature.”

Sorce Theory asserts that this "quantum Vacuum" is a real material fluid which is continuous, compressible and fluid-dynamic. The theory demonstrates how all the dynamics of a basic level superfluid such as, quantized meta-stable vortices, solitons, breathers, transverse wave propagation and harmonic resonances, frictionless rotation and translation of embedded particles and objects (dynamics indistinguishable from that of the observed vacuum)-- can form the quantized shell structure of the atom, the structure of the solar-system, the mechanisms of chemical-molecular bonds, all the forces of nature and the dynamics of physical reality. All the forces become understandable as a product of a single continuous fluid-dynamic pressure in dynamic configurations of harmonically equilibrated wave systems in various forms of interaction with each other.



Ok to answer your questions...

“how does matter wave refraction create the gravitational field?”

The “matter-wave” refractions of the atom do not create the g-field. They are a response to it—-a force. They are a refractive response to the permeating density gradient (a gravitational field) in the zero-energy superfluid which is oxymoronically called the “quantum vacuum”. This density gradient permeates the intrinsic harmonically equilibrated wave-systems of the atoms and skews the internal paths of the wave-systems toward the increasing density of the gradient. The atom equilibrates in the direction of the refraction of its internal wave systems. This is called the force of gravity.

I hope this cursory explanation helps.


subtillioN

 

[Ace-of-Spades]

Man, that's just too far fetched for me!
Why do people have to take something
so real and tangible such as physics
and turn it all into a bunch of
mathematical equations that describes
only God knows what.

It seems to me that these new theories
in modern physics only create more
questions and less answers!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Ace-of-Spades
Man, that's just too far fetched for me!
Why do people have to take something
so real and tangible such as physics
and turn it all into a bunch of
mathematical equations that describes
only God knows what.

It is an entirely alternate paradigm. Naturaly it is going to sound "far-fetched" when you don't know the theory.

It seems to me that these new theories
in modern physics only create more
questions and less answers!

Yes to learn a new theory one must ask many questions.

[zz)]

 

[Moha]

To be honest that theory seems very flawed.

kleinma, the forces of gravity add together, and atoms, as well as other things, exert a gravitational pull.

Person who said gravity was linear - a close enough equation for gravity is (Gm1m2)/r^2, which is most definitely not linear.

Just realized how old this forum is... too bad.

photons - I do not believe that this is fact, but I do believe it is controversial.

As far as mindlessly taking things as fact, I think that is happening too much now days. It's not just that we may not have the correct understanding of certain aspects of our universe, it's that much of what is printed and taught are approximations, such as the pendulum equation, or Newton's theory on gravity. Also, is it not possible that gravity may just be a byproduct? **or going out of my education range could it be sort of a pull by the atoms to create magnetic and electric fields and still keep the conservation of energy valid?**

**I am unsure of the ways conservation of energy works under this condition, so this is most likely totally wrong.

 

[SpaceTiger]

This thread has long since died and most of its contributors are no longer posting here. Please don't attempt to continue discussions from three and a half years ago.