What Makes Gravity Seem So Weak Compared to Other Forces?

[jeff_kosela]

So I have come to a conclusion regarding the weakness of gravity, but i myself am uneducated when it comes to the theory of relativity, so I will just go ahead and state 1 example and my suspected reason gravity is so weak. We know that a 1cm spherical magnet can break the force of gravity when a paperclip is lifted from the ground via a magnet. I also know gravity is directly tied in with matter, more matter will affect matter itself, so if there was a constant force measurability I.E. power amongst a force- How much "gravity (or matter currently spread out)" is needed to combat any other of the 4 forces at comparison. That is the question, now I'm thinking it would be an argument between superconductivity conditions of electrical magnetism, or with the nuclear forces how much gravity is needed to actually affect a nuclear property.

 

[James Leighe]

What?

 

[Lok]

Nothing new and many amiss.

 

[Artlav]

Why should gravity not be weak?
Is that even a correct question - why is it weaker than others?
Since no one have a clear idea what gravity is, why assume it's unnormal that it's as strong as it is?

 

[jeff_kosela]

Artlav you have arisen a good point, no one knows what gravity is and you have helped me understand something very important, matter itself, in the form of an atom(s) actually creates energy by pulling in smaller objects. this means gravity being expressed as I was thinking - a measurable form of energy, is distinctly different from a measurable form of of energy contained in matter- ie strong or weak nuclear, or electromagnetism, now what I was trying to get at in my first post, are these all relate-able? would the force of gravity made up of all the atoms (before they were spread out) in the universe contain enough force to be equal to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Thinking this last statement is true is what got me on here in the first place, it really intrigued me.

 

[James Leighe]

matter itself, in the form of an atom(s) actually creates energy by pulling in smaller objects.

Energy, unlike mass, is conserved; You cannot create or destroy energy. Also, if you have two masses far apart, they have more energy than when you bring them closer together (potential energy).

are these all relate-able

That's the hope of physics ATM.

would the force of gravity made up of all the atoms (before they were spread out) in the universe contain enough force to be equal to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces

Depends if super-symmetry holds. Otherwise no, and even if super-symmetry holds... it's broken... so no.

 

[Lok]

Artlav you have arisen a good point, no one knows what gravity is and you have helped me understand something very important, matter itself, in the form of an atom(s) actually creates energy by pulling in smaller objects. this means gravity being expressed as I was thinking - a measurable form of energy, is distinctly different from a measurable form of of energy contained in matter- ie strong or weak nuclear, or electromagnetism, now what I was trying to get at in my first post, are these all relate-able? would the force of gravity made up of all the atoms (before they were spread out) in the universe contain enough force to be equal to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. Thinking this last statement is true is what got me on here in the first place, it really intrigued me.

Creating energy, wow. Really, finally someone broke the law of conservation of energy.

Honestly the energy was there all along. It's just the form that changes.

 

[The legend]

As much as I know about gravity, it is a long range, extremely weak force(compared to others).

Since according Newton,s universal law of gravitation gravitational force
F=Gm₁m₂/R²

It looses its strength totally even in short distances.
(though there are black holes which possesses great gravitational energy... but in daily day life gravity isn't that strong!)

 

[heatwaveqc]

if you look at the question in natural units, rather than SI, it's nature changes from "why is gravity weak" to "why is the mass of a proton so small compared to it's charge?" If you compare gravity to, for example, radiative energy or steller wind, it's comparable... both vary with the square of distance for a given receptor... though for the others, it's surface area rather than mass that changes. So, perhaps mass should be thought of as the "surface area" of an object from a different n-dimensional angle... then the question would disappear all together.