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

Philosophical view of gravity

  1. Nov 20, 2004 #1
    The following is a theory offering a
    rationalization of the characteristics
    of gravity.

    ‘Nothingness’ can be defined as
    nonexistence which is not entirely true.
    ‘Nothing’ can exist between two points
    of any positive distance apart. The
    distance is measurable which serves to
    prove this line of reasoning.

    Gravity is the reaction of space to the
    existence of matter. If space or ‘nothing’
    is both cohesive and existential, gravity
    can be understood.

    The crux of the theory is that space cannot
    coexist with matter at a coordinate.
    Space must be pushed aside for matter to
    exist. Further, gravity is much like the
    pressure water exerts on an object at a
    certain depth. As water pressure varies with
    depth, so too does gravity vary with the
    volume of space displaced.

    This also explains why the density of an
    object determines the gravitational force
    surrounding it. If one were to place a
    volume of iron in an amount of water, the
    volume of water displaced would be greater
    when compared to that of a sponge of the
    same volume in a like amount of water. This
    analogy illustrates why there is a greater
    gravitational field surrounding relatively
    denser objects.

    Gravity is not a property of matter. Gravity
    is a property of space which also explains
    why this force has an effect beyond the
    dimensions of matter.

    I welcome any comments..
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 20, 2004 #2
    You presented your theory in a very simple way. Actually, that is what many people beleive gravity is. The problem is that many of them are writing some complex explanations, trying to be "high level" scientific. I also beleive that gravity is working in the way you mentioned. And I think the final answer should be very, very simple. Just keep thinking :)
  4. Nov 20, 2004 #3
    gravitation has nothing to do with philosophy, it is a subject od physics, philosophy did already enough caos in the human mind, best wishes, amrit
    see my article

  5. Nov 20, 2004 #4
    The problem I have with "a property of space" is that if space is not "nothing," what is it? I thought the Michelson-Morley experiment was supposed to have proved that space is in fact not an "Ether" that has properties, but rather that it is, in fact, the absence of anything at all. Granted that the model of masses distorting space enables greater understanding, still, what IS space then?

    Not advocating or claiming to have any position here, other than always confused!

    ---- Bill
  6. Nov 20, 2004 #5
    Well, the first thing I want to point out is that the term 'nothing' or 'nonexistentce' are terms that really do not give justice to the observation at hand because the definitions at their principal basis do not make sense. In other words, something always exists; what does not exist is the item in comparison. So, the idea of zero gravity is a false statement because that particular gravity in question always exists, but its force is approaching zero. However, it really is never approaching zero because gravity is a constant force, so the acting gravity on a certain object is changing as the object shifts medians. When that object is at a median it appears to be in limbo; typically described as zero gravity.

    "Gravity is a property of space" is incorrect because gravity is a property of matter as it moves through space. If matter does not move, then there is no gravity and there is no space, thus it can be said that space is expanding and contracting. Space is also matter because just like zero gravity is a false statement so is zero matter. Therefore, gravity is a property of moving matter. Furthermore, the faster matter moves the greater the gravitational force. The greater the gravitational force, the denser the object. The denser the object the more force is needed to break that object's gravitational force, thus more space is displaced because of Newton's law; such as the space displaced between iron and water. On another note, the reason you have positive buoyancy is because there is a balance of gravitational forces with respect to the center of Earth's gravity.

    Preasure is a product of gravity. As matter moves through a median, the acting gravitational force increases or decreases depending on the relative point an object is in space with respect to other objects in space. As this happens, the properties of said matter can change which we can observe by measuring density.

    Take ice for example; ice is formed when you have dense air and water combined by certain acting gravitational forces that balance out, thus creating a denser matter in space known as ice.
  7. Nov 20, 2004 #6
    space is a form of energy, and so must exist.
  8. Nov 21, 2004 #7
    Gravity is in duality with the other forces.There is no seperate gravitational force.Its a force among the other forces itself or In matter-wave dulaity,the wave nature of the other forces.
    The duality is llke this
  9. Nov 21, 2004 #8
    Gimblet's comment is correct

    'Space' is at a temperature of about 3 degrees above absolute zero - which means, basically, compared to absolute zero, space is kind of warm!

    The explanation for this is leftover energy dispersed and present from the time of the big bang.

    So, space is full of energy (to a degree anyway), matter is really just energy too (molecules made of atoms made of quarks made of energy), and gravity is the relationship of the forces of that energy (its not an entity in itself, energy and matter are prerequisites- what appadura was saying).

    I dont believe that a 'graviton' is neccessary to exist, because that reduces gravity from a relationship to a physical state. We all know that electrostatic forces, attract, and repel. Do you know, gravity attracts, and scientists are trying to find some kind of 'repulsive matter' to explain the possibility of an expanding universe. Wierd huh.

    The problem with gravity is that its kind of closely associated with time (well, it creates it after all haha) Time = change, change = acceleration. Gravity = acceleration. Gravity = time.

    Space is therefore not really a 'space', its just, very very empty compared to matter. Brings up that age old question of what is space in then blah blah blah wheels within wheels ill think up some witty word trap to get out of that another time. There is no reason for us to believe that space is not finite or proportionately large to the existance of matter (created as matter expands outwards in the universe).

    To me Gravity is kind of an all immersive sea of energy and power that binds more complex forms of energy (matter) together.

    I suppose a lot of problems were created in our heads when we let gravity become this fixed idea (associated with matter not energy, - which is ridiculous). The search for the answer to this is probably the holy grail of science (and therefore probably beyond my internet ramblings).

    Why is it that there is so much co incidence between small ideas (atomic structure) and large ideas (solar systems, galaxies and possibly the greater universe) - and why is there so much information and occurence that seems to have no where to fit into this (seems...).

    Time will tell. So, gravity will tell... I mean... You know what I mean. Relatively speaking. :P

    More threads like this please! Great topic.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2004
  10. Nov 21, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Ahhh, c'mon. Everything has to do with philosophy. Or better put: philosophy has to do with everything. You can't latch onto something and be all posessive that "it's a subject of physics." Knowledge is increased by overlap of different subjects. Hey, nuclear fission was discovered by chemists!
  11. Nov 21, 2004 #10
    I don't know if this comment was in response to mine or in general. If it is to my comment, I never said space didn't exist.

    could you elaborate on that a bit?

    It seems you're claiming space is a constant ~3 degrees above absolute zero, and I'd have to say that is a bit conclusive too soon because there is so much matter influencing the energy in a given space, so a set temperture is improbable.

    Yeah, I can see how one could claim that explanation, however if space is in a constant flux then that energy is not stagnet, rather it's replaced and/or absorbed (maybe even stimulated) as energy moves through medians such as space in its many forms.

    Gravity is one form of many magnetic fields in sequence. In other words, gravity is a magnetic field created by smaller magnetic fields in sequence. The stronger the magnetic field, the stronger the energy it can disperse when broken. This is the principal to atomic explosions, and why they're so powerful.

    Well, the problem with that is that one is claiming gravity to be a magnet instead of a magnetic field. The reason the universe expands and contrasts is because of the principals of momentum. You're driving down a street pretty fast in a car and you take a sudden left turn. Your body goes the initial direction while the car begins to turn. Well, think of Earth as the car and the magnetic field as a passanger sitting on the hood of a car. The Earth is shooting around the Sun, but the gravitational pull from the Sun doesn't allow it to leave orbit, but what shoots off is the magnetic field; better said is that the magnetic field expands. Now, this isn't an exact explanation, but it gets the idea across, Anyhow, so space is filled with energy from magnetic fields of moving objects. A photon passes through this field, and if you pictured a web of strings and in layers and then shot a bullet passing through it, you split the strings in that trajectory sending waves in all directions. The split ends act similar to fiber optics.

  12. Nov 21, 2004 #11
    Duality of Gravitational Field

    Gravitational Relativity by Ronald A. Bracale

    Gravitational Relativity 01: Negative Gravitation.

    Euclidean or Newtonian space-time exists only in the mind as an abstraction of the universe, an idealized form. Its description does not exist in the real universe. The fact that humans imagined this description is due to the fact that its logical deductions are good approximations for our senses to analyze the terrestrial environment that we evolved within. Most physical systems in the human realm are adequately described by the logic of the Euclidean-Newtonian description: thus, this description tricks us into missing the obvious and believing the description's illusions.
    Matter-Energy curves space and Einstein explained a few external facets of the curvature, such as gravity, red shift, and the curvature of light by mass. Why not look for a theory to describe space within objects? Let us conceive an experimental circular chamber, for a thought experiment, and let us place it at the heart of the sun.
    All mass will be outward from our point of view and since mass is all around us, in our chamber, it will pull us outward (negative Gravitation, quintessence or Dark Energy). Gravitational relativity asserts that this is a valid and real viewpoint. This is a negative gravitational field that would pull outward on our entire vessel. There must also be strings of the negative field connecting the experimental chamber in the sun's center to all heavenly bodies that surround it.

    Gravitational Relativity 02: Positive and Negative.

    The old question comes to mind: "Is space positively or negatively curved?" The new answer must be: it is simultaneously positive and negative at all points in space. Gravitational relativity asserts that dual fields interact in such a manner, that they appear as a single force or effect, gravity. Our thought experiment chamber sits upon a curvature node, where the positive and negative fields meet and interact in symmetry. The center of each stellar reference frame is a point where two great forces meet and balance each other. This begins a new conception of the nature of space-time.
    As we approach the center of a macroscopic object, gravity does not approach zero: its resultant toward the center approaches zero, replaced by vectors in all directions pulling outward. The real effect of gravity on our chamber at the center of a star would be pulling outward in all directions, due to the mass that surrounds it.

    Gravitational Relativity 03: Dark Matter.

    The Dark Matter is the missing portion of what is, from the total mass equation for the universe. It is not likely that much of the missing matter will be found in macroscopic objects, such as astronomical objects, because their gravitation fields influence the known stars and gases, and these radiate at spectrum we can observe. A few percent may be found as brown dwarfs, dark galaxies, dim matter and such, but not a significant amount. It is impossible that it would be found in neutrinos or other high energy particles: the quantity of the nearly weightless particles, that would be required to amount to two-thirds of what is, would sizzle the known universe, regardless of how weakly they interacted.
    The Dark Matter must be intimately related to the existing known universe. Gravitation is the resultant sum of the two curvatures of space, the positive and negative. In our part of space, a planetary surface, the positive slightly outweighs the negative: the geometry curving spherically toward the body as the effect of gravity. We can now conceive of a balance between two great forces, the positive and negative dynamic curvature fields, with a slight residual positive curvature known as gravity around mass boundaries.
    Dark Matter is the total of the two curvatures, as opposed to their resultant which we call gravity. Dark matter is the sum of the dual spatial curvature fields, not apparent within all visible matter since the two great forces are in balance. This explains the realm from which virtual particles appear and disappear, since two thirds of what is, is locked in the two curvature fields right under our noses.
  13. Nov 21, 2004 #12
    could you elaborate on that a bit?

    Before talking about gravity ,first i want to tell something.Its about the mind.
    Indian knowledge about our mind is in the following way.
    Our mind is made of three parts and its further divided in to five and this five again divided into twelve.
    There are four types of thoughts are arising from our mind and this thoughts are making the space.
    Now coming to science,
    The atom made up of three and its further divided into five and its made up of 12 components.Its having four forces (weak force 2,strong force &electromagnetic force)without gravitational force.
  14. Nov 21, 2004 #13
    Philosophy must always precede theory. Then alone theory will stand for physical objects. Space distortion leads to gravity. Oranges cannot produce mangoes. So space and gravity must be same. Einstein"s general theory gives it beautifully. But what is space? Is it a set of coordinates? Can mathematical description and live things be equated? A living theory for LIVE things can emerge only through philosophy.
  15. Nov 22, 2004 #14
    "It seems you're claiming space is a constant ~3 degrees above absolute zero" - tigron X

    "'Space' is at a temperature of ABOUT 3 degrees above absolute zero " - Me.

    Lol, that is so wrong of you Tigron X :P Only teasing, Good reply, what i mean in relation to your last comment about 'magnet' versus magnetic field.

    Gravity- Magnetic field

    Energy - Magnet

    Gravity is the name for a product, its not a seperate entity - it RELIES on OTHER THINGS, it CANNOT precede them. Although it will affect other magnets, it is a field, just another force, not associated with any single particle or energy but rather by the combination of all particles and energies interacting with one another (not a magnet, but a field).

    About the 3 degrees above absolute zero - You are absolutely right to say that is an outrageous proposal (because of course the temparature varies in places, probably hugely as well- like try three metres away from the sun, i bet space is a bit warmer there!) - However I was merely re-enforcing the idea that space is really a form of energy too (it has temperature), or is certainly a carrier for energy.

    P.S Two of the things you wrote were very well expressed and i Agree with them

    1) "however if space is in a constant flux then that energy is not stagnet, rather it's replaced and/or absorbed (maybe even stimulated) as energy moves through medians such as space in its many forms.”

    2) "Gravity is one form of many magnetic fields in sequence. In other words, gravity is a magnetic field created by smaller magnetic fields in sequence. The stronger the magnetic field, the stronger the energy it can disperse when broken. This is the principal to atomic explosions, and why they're so powerful.”

    One last thing, does anybody know of any reliable source of information about the confirmation of black space?
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2004
  16. Nov 24, 2004 #15
    This is a very interesting conversation.

    Underwater Freestyle wrote:
    How about homogeneity? Everything is just "another version" of everything else. "B" is another version of "A". The Andromeda galaxy is another version of our Milky Way, our Sun is another version of any star, Uranus is another version of Jupiter (this isn't a fat joke), and You are another version of Me.

    Perhaps the problem with "gravity" is that we always seem to come up with "approximate" definitions requiring conceptual adjustment to fit our observations. We just don't understand what gravity really is... and this is compounded by the fact that we don't understand what WE are. After all, everything we "know" is derived symbolically through language or math. Our human civilization has ALWAYS struggled with the definition or meaning of "being human". We constantly fall into semantic traps resulting in functional maladaptation. When this happens, we utter in frustration the symbols of malcontent: #*%$!!!

    I think gravity is a problem of definition because our minds are a problem of definition. I work with audio a lot, and I know that if I want a good, "accurate" recording I need to record at a high sampling rate. A low sampling rate tends to distort the sound frequencies for reason that you guys can probably figure out. So, all this makes me wonder if our cognitive minds have an analogous sampling rate? I would bet that they do, but I'm curious to know how they'd distort our perceptions of reality.

    So, back to homogeneity. All mammals are generated by DNA. What defines a "dog" from a "human"? A "human" from a "plant"? A "plant" from a "rock"? An atomic nucleus from a solar system? What defines a "quark" from a "universe"? What is perception? What is mind?

    I just finished an anthropology paper on the consumption of psycho active substances by early humans before the dawn of civilization. I can only speculate on the significance of this behavior and its impact on human evolution, but we humans got REALLY creative within a relatively short time span. It's amazing the things we've invented: economies, religions, art, mythologies, science... all facets of culture exist because we BELIEVE them into existence, but history proves that we often believe absolutely in incomplete "truths"... like "gravity".

    Sorry for the philosophical excursion, but I think we really do need a better understanding of what "mind" is before we can fully understand semantic inventions like "gravity".

    Any ideas?
  17. Nov 25, 2004 #16
    Could anybody say please, in amongst your gravity considerations, whether in theory, a horizontal gravitomagnetic field, produced by a rotating mass, would be influenced by a vertical magnetic field.
  18. Nov 29, 2004 #17
    Speaking about gravity, check an unrestricted three-body interactive gravitational model at:


    You can enter any values of masses and initial conditions for the three bodies and simulate their orbits.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads for Philosophical view gravity Date
Is it true? Jul 20, 2016
Most predominant philosophical attitude toward mathematics Dec 22, 2014
A philosopher's view Apr 18, 2004
Philosophical view of time Oct 29, 2003