Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity and anti-energy related?

  1. Mar 24, 2003 #1
    I had a thought about a year ago when the theory of anti-energy became public.
    It was about how gravity works. It went like this.

    Gravity cannot have a pull, it is impossible to describe a pull of a force, even with the dictionaries of a thousand languages. So, maybey it is not a pull, but a push in the 4th spacial dimension conflicting with spacetime. Could gravity decrease the density of spacetime to create a diffusive effect?
    And where does the spacetime fabric go?
    Does it eventually come back into normal 3-dimensional existence to create a warp effect we call a Warp Well?
    Is this the effect of Anti-energy that pushes our galaxies farther and farther apart at faster and faster rates?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 24, 2003 #2
    Wouldn't gravity increase the density of space time, like a black hole for example?
  4. Mar 24, 2003 #3
    It would increase the density of the gravity well, feeding upon itself (but decrease the density when it pulls the matter in from the rest of the universe). And I suppose electromagnetism too has negative energy then? Since it can pull stuff as well?
  5. Mar 26, 2003 #4
  6. Apr 2, 2003 #5
    Don't quite follow the topic so far, but I like the idea that gravity is a form of "anti-energy". You see, theres energy, right , which tends to throw everything apart, and trys to make the universe as uniform as possible. By contrast, gravity tend to clump matter together into organised chunks, and makes the universe less uniform.
    With all this talk that there should be zero energy overall in the universe, implying there should be loads of "anti-energy" to counter all the "postive energy" in the foprm of matter, maybe the idea that the 'anti energy' is in the form of anti-matter is wrong. Perhaps gravity is "anti-energy" and should be considered to be the oposite of entrophy. In fact, we could assert that gravity is THE definitive natural reaction by the universe to counteract entrophy. This would explain why that measure of the expanding universe is so near the threshold of contracting and flying off for ever ( if you assume that recent 'universe is acelarating' result is wrong)
  7. Apr 2, 2003 #6
    First, gravity is a property in and of itself. It is the interaction of gravity and space fabric that i am theorizing.
    Second, Gravity has to have much more mass-energy force than space time, therefore it can only act in places of low gravity density.
    Like between galaxies, where the density of gravity becomes less than the density of the warp field created by the anti-energy.
  8. Apr 2, 2003 #7
    Positive and negative is only relevant in the initial cause. I am talking about the effect.

    The Initial Cause
    Gravity is very weak, but it shows great power over long distances.
    Space fabric is so weak it is almost non existent.
    Therefore Gravity overides spacefabric. Ultimately pushing it out of this plane of existence.
    The Effect
    after the cause the fabric has to go somewhere.
    It gets filtered back into this plane of existence by finding places of low gravity density. Much like electricity does, finding the least resistive way to the ground.

    But if you substitute the theory the result is not wrong.
  9. Apr 2, 2003 #8
    The gravitational field is a form of binding energy. This binding energy is negative for normal matter. Actually, in general relativity, the sum of the energy due to mass and the energy due to gravitation is exactly zero. I believe some inflationary theories are based on this.
  10. Apr 2, 2003 #9
    Avemt1, this may belong in the Theory Developement Forum.

    Einstein firmly believed that all of the things that we call "forces" are actually just curvatures of spacetime. In this way, your on the same page with Relativity. However, GR states (as you probably know) that gravity is a curvature of the three "common" spacial dimensions ("Common spacial dimensions" meaning the three dimensions that we are used to).
  11. Apr 4, 2003 #10
    It actually is in the theory development forum now. I just never saw it until after I posted this.
  12. Apr 7, 2003 #11
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook