1. I am not a scientist I am a philosopher and as philosophers do I sit and think.
I recently considered space and this consideration of space led me to Gravity.
So I thought about gravity and this is what I have initially concluded.
Space
Space may well be infinite unlike a universe which would appear to have a beginning and end and is therefore finite.
Space is an enigma but here are a few things that it would appear to be not.
Space has existence yet appears to have no substance and therefore would appear to have no discernable mass.
Space is not part of nor does it appear on the table of elements.
Space does not appear to have an electro-magnetic energy signature and therefore has neither frequency nor measurable radiation.
Space itself appears to have zero resistance to motion.
Therefore it is my hypothesis that Space cannot support mass unlike a fluid which allows buoyancy.
Since space may have no substance and therefore has zero resistance and cannot support mass it is possible that all mass is falling within an infinite space at a uniform rate.
Yet because all mass may be falling at a uniform rate within an infinite space you would be unaware of this falling since no visible to the senses reference would be available.
If as I suspect all mass is falling at a uniform rate within an infinite space then to move in a different direction to this fall an expenditure of energy as power whether chemical or otherwise would be required.
That which we call Gravity may well be the evidence of this falling and all of the Newtonian laws of physics and motion may well still apply.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Raziel
Since space may have no substance and therefore has zero resistance and cannot support mass it is possible that all mass is falling within an infinite space at a uniform rate.
Falling implies that something is attracted by a body having a mass that produces gravity. Such an attraction produces an acceleration, i.e. an increase of velocity at a constant rate. That would only be prevented, if there is another force balancing it, e.g. friction (by space itself?). However, if you want to imply that everything is just travelling through space at a constant velocity, that is in principle okay, because no force is needed in a frictionless environment to maintain such a velocity. It can be transformed away mathematically.

There is another problem: Such a constellation would probably contradict the Big Bang theory of an expanding universe, because some force would have caused the acceleration to that velocity in the past, and that force had to be directed in parallel for all particles in the universe. For an expanding universe, it would be very improbable that all trajectories of such a fall stayed parallel for all times. Otherwise, you would not be able to explain that the particles remain at the same distance. However, if you are not assuming the particles staying at constant distances you might want to attribute the observed expansion to the phenomenon you are postulating. But all evidence shows that the expansion rate is not constant. So, this does not work either.

Another point: Why shouldn't it be possible that space produces a friction on everything producing the ominous upper limit of all velocities, i.e. the speed of light?

4. Thank you for your kind reply, you seem most knowledgeable however I suspect you misunderstood my post, but perhaps you can sate a poor old philosophers thirst for knowledge and answer a couple of questions?
How exactly do you believe mass is supported by space and can you prove it?
What in your estimate is gravity exactly and which component of all that is currently known of matter and energy provides us with gravity?

5. Mass is not “supported” by space. The philosophical conjecture of some infinite, non-elemental, perfectly frictionless, empty void doesn’t physically exist. Words are all we have to describe the universe, and “space” is simply a word for the framework within which we do this. Nothing in the universe is as cool as zero degree Kelvin because everything has some energy. Absolute zero is just the starting reference point for the temperature scale. It doesn’t physically exist. Similarly, nowhere in the universe is this space you describe because everywhere you look there is energy or its derivative which affect how mass and gravity behave.

That said, here’s how mass and gravity work in the universe:
(Mass and energy are the same thing according to Albert Einstein.)

6. Originally Posted by Raziel
Thank you for your kind reply, you seem most knowledgeable however I suspect you misunderstood my post, but perhaps you can sate a poor old philosophers thirst for knowledge and answer a couple of questions?
How exactly do you believe mass is supported by space and can you prove it?
What in your estimate is gravity exactly and which component of all that is currently known of matter and energy provides us with gravity?

You need to make a tiny step more, to realise that space is literally nothing. It is only given definition by the energy, mass, gravity etc in it.

For objects to fall, it is because gravity attracts them. In space, a body will remain where it is unless acted on by a force. The universe is full of gravitational objects so everything in space is moving.

We don't really know what gravity is. It is not particles, as in gravitons because it propagates at light speed. It is probably not waves, like EMR, but something else. Gravity might be a 4D component to a 3D object where things fall in an unknown direction (we see this as rotation on large objects in space). I suspect it is the reason we have a light speed limit but that is just an idea.

7. I do not deny you your view of space and all it may contain and I am most interested in how you think and that what I consider to be theory, many consider being irrefutable fact.
However there are many views of how all that is creation can exist and can continue to exist and flexibility of thought is paramount in the true explorer.

You would still appear to be thinking of space as something which is associated with a universe and not as a separate entity.
Before both our universe and our measure of time would have existed space itself would have existed and we cannot assume that ours is the only universe that exists.
Our universe is expanding into what would appear to be unoccupied space.
It may well be that ours is the only matter and energy to have ever encountered these areas of space although I doubt this.
You must be aware that motion is the result of mass or energy changing its relative position in space and that because of a change of relative position time becomes part of any space motion equation.
You must also be aware that Albert was fully cognisant that although space can exist independently of time, time can only exist as a component of space and relative motion within space.
Also Albert’s theory of mass and energy quite clearly states that both mass and energy can only achieve oneness of state when both simultaneously achieve a speed which is equal to light speed squared and in the unlikely event of this ever occurring then and only then will both mass and energy have the same identical characteristics.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement