Significance of Gravitational force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature and significance of gravitational force, particularly how it can act at a distance without physical contact between bodies. Participants explore various theoretical frameworks, including Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, while seeking clarity on the underlying mechanisms of gravitational interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how a body can exert gravitational force without contact, seeking an explanation of its mechanism and significance.
  • Another participant suggests that in Newtonian physics, gravitational force operates similarly to electric charge interactions through a field, while in Einsteinian physics, it is described as the geometry of space-time.
  • Some participants express confusion over the explanations provided, asking for simpler clarifications.
  • There is a viewpoint that physics focuses on "how" rather than "why," suggesting that deeper explanations may not necessarily provide reasons but rather describe fundamental processes.
  • One participant mentions Faraday's concept of a field to visualize "action at a distance."
  • Several participants engage in a debate about the nature of scientific proof versus facts, with differing opinions on whether science is based on proofs or empirical facts.
  • There is a discussion about the validity of scientific theories and their reliance on empirical evidence, with references to the accuracy of classical physics and general relativity in explaining gravitational interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of scientific proof and the explanation of gravitational force. There is no consensus on the underlying mechanisms or the philosophical implications of gravity, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the mechanisms behind gravitational force and the assumptions underlying scientific theories. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainty and exploration of these concepts.

paras02
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Hello friends !
I got confused in the point that how can a body exert a gravitational force on other body without coming in its physical contact ? Also please explain its mechanism or significance of gravitational force ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hello paras02! welcome to pf! :smile:

in Newtonian physics: same way an electric charge can exert a force on another charge without contact … by a field

in einsteinian physics: there is no force, there is only the "warped" geometry of space-time :wink:
 
Sorry I am unable to understand the answer given by you. Kindly clarify the question in more simple words.
 
paras02 said:
Sorry I am unable to understand the answer given by you. Kindly clarify the question in more simple words.

The simplest answer is "we don't know." We don't know why. What physicists have are equations that enables them/us to predict what matter will do.
 
you may be corect but I am still not satisfied
 
Last edited:
OK, so you're not satisfied. Sorry about that.
 
Physics is not about "why", it describes "how". Sometimes, the level of "how" is so deep that it looks like a reason, but it is just a more fundamental description how.
"Why" is something for philosophy.
 
Faraday pictured a way how to visualise 'action at a distance' by using the idea of a 'field'.
 
sorry ! but science is based on proofs not on facts
 
  • #10
paras02 said:
[..] how can a body exert a gravitational force on other body without coming in its physical contact ? Also please explain its mechanism or significance of gravitational force ?
tiny-tim said:
[..] in Newtonian physics: same way an electric charge can exert a force on another charge without contact … by a field

in einsteinian physics: there is no force, there is only the "warped" geometry of space-time :wink:
That is in fact Einsteinian mathematics. Just as in Newtonian physics, in Einsteinian physics the effect is described with a gravitational field. That implies that something physical exists in vacuum that mediates the effect. However, we still don't know much about its "mechanism" (perhaps something for the Quantum forum?).

As this is the classical forum, do you want to know "classical" explanations such as by Newton?
 
  • #11
paras02 said:
sorry ! but science is based on proofs not on facts

No, the only proofs that exist are mathematical proofs. I like wikipedia's definition of a fact:

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Science is based on empirical evidence being gathered and explained using models, which are themselves based on scientific theories. A scientific theory is:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

For example we explain gravity in classical physics as a force, where the magnitude of the force is based on a mathematical formula. This has been verified as being accurate to a very high degree, and only General Relativity is able to predict things more accurately, which is why it is now considered the modern theory of gravity. The fact that gravity acts at a distance, while surprising to many, is nothing special. ALL forces act through a distance. Nothing ever actually "touches" anything else the way you imagine it when you get down to the very small scale of atoms and molecules. Atoms and molecules themselves are not even solid objects. (In the normal everyday sense of "solid" that most people think of)
 
  • #12
paras02 said:
sorry ! but science is based on proofs not on facts

Science is based on facts. Mathematical relations that have been proved under certain assumptions may be used. But scientists can't prove that those assumptions are correct.

So natural science can never really prove anything. It's pragmatic: things are used because they work, or not used because they don't work.
 
  • #13
Drakkith said:
No, the only proofs that exist are mathematical proofs. I like wikipedia's definition of a fact:

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

Science is based on empirical evidence being gathered and explained using models, which are themselves based on scientific theories. A scientific theory is:

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

For example we explain gravity in classical physics as a force, where the magnitude of the force is based on a mathematical formula. This has been verified as being accurate to a very high degree, and only General Relativity is able to predict things more accurately, which is why it is now considered the modern theory of gravity. The fact that gravity acts at a distance, while surprising to many, is nothing special. ALL forces act through a distance. Nothing ever actually "touches" anything else the way you imagine it when you get down to the very small scale of atoms and molecules. Atoms and molecules themselves are not even solid objects. (In the normal everyday sense of "solid" that most people think of)

i agree
 
  • #14
Thank you guys
 

Similar threads

High School Does gravitational force act on system or its components?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Explanation for Galaxy Rotation Curves
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad A "continous" gravitational field formula r=0 to infinity
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
Undergrad Quasi-local mass as a measure of the gravitational energy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School What is the distinction between the Weak and Strong Equivalence Principles?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School How quickly does the Earth feel the effects of a halved Sun's mass?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
High School How fast are gravitational forces transmitted?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
High School Why does a Wormhole not look like an hourglass?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Do Gravitational Forces Increase for Objects Moving at Light Speed?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Graduate Is Fatio–Le Sage's theory of gravitation an entropic gravity?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K