Does Gravity Exist or Is It Just a Bend in Space-Time?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AlisonArulia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of gravity, questioning whether it is a fundamental force or a result of the curvature of space-time. Participants explore various analogies and conceptual frameworks, including elastic bands and rubber sheets, to understand gravity's effects on mass and motion. The conversation touches on theoretical implications, interpretations of general relativity, and the challenges of grasping these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that gravity acts like an elastic band, with stronger mass resulting in a stronger pull, while others argue that gravity may not exist as a force but rather as a consequence of space-time curvature.
  • A participant suggests that both views (gravity as a force vs. gravity as curvature) yield similar results in terms of motion, using the snowflake analogy to illustrate this point.
  • Another participant emphasizes that Einstein's theory of relativity describes gravity as the curvature of space-time, where objects follow the shortest path in this curved geometry.
  • There is a discussion about the limitations of analogies, such as the rubber sheet model, and how they may not fully capture the complexities of general relativity.
  • Some participants express confusion about the implications of mass movement and acceleration in relation to gravity, questioning how the Earth and other masses interact in this framework.
  • One participant mentions that not all objects follow straight lines in curved space-time, highlighting the distinction between free-falling objects and others.
  • There are references to the challenges of understanding gravity, with some participants acknowledging the difficulty of the topic and the need for further study.
  • Several participants critique the use of certain analogies, suggesting that they may misrepresent the nature of gravitational interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of gravity, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the conceptual framework of space-time curvature, while others maintain differing perspectives on the existence of gravity as a force.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding arise from the complexity of general relativity and the inadequacy of certain analogies to fully explain gravitational phenomena. Participants highlight the need for a deeper mathematical understanding to grasp these concepts.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the foundational concepts of gravity, general relativity, and the philosophical implications of physical theories in the context of physics and mathematics.

  • #31
No I think you would slow down slightly as you go through the crust and eventually you would burst into flames. No seriously, if you could do this initial innertia and then centifugal force would either try to throw back out the hole you entered, and you would go up and down like a piston in a cylinder, or of if you passed through the core with the inertia you would probably barely make it outside of the boundary of the molten iron core. It is really a question of balance between gravity and centrifugal inertia.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
dylan123 said:
i thought the shell was thin

It is as thick or as thin as you define. If your sphere is 4000 miles in radius, about the size of the Earth it could be a shell of:
- 3900 mile thickness, leaving an interior hollow space a mere 100 miles in radius.
of the Earth
- 1 mile thickness, leaving an interior hollow space 3999 miles in radius.
- 1 inch thickness, leaving an interior hollow space 3999 miles 5279' 11" in radius.

These things don't actually exist, the point of this thread is: what is the gravity at the centre of the Earth? Or, if the Earth were hollow, what would the gravity be like inside? Any question like this can be answered by studying the general principle, which is known as Newton's Shell Theory.
 
  • #33
Guesser7 said:
No I think you would slow down slightly as you go through the crust and eventually you would burst into flames. No seriously, if you could do this initial innertia and then centifugal force would either try to throw back out the hole you entered, and you would go up and down like a piston in a cylinder, or of if you passed through the core with the inertia you would probably barely make it outside of the boundary of the molten iron core. It is really a question of balance between gravity and centrifugal inertia.

Assuming there were nothing blocking your path, you would fall to the centre of the Earth and continue past it, rising right back up to the surface. You would just intersect the surface of the Earth at the peak of your arc before plunging back down again. The time for one complete passage back to your starting point would be about 90 minutes - not coincidentally, that is exactly the same length of time it takes to orbit the planet if you could do it at zero altitiude.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
10K