Thread: Gravity - We know what is is. Do we know why it is?

Watching astronauts suspended in the vacuum of their space orbiter vehicles, I have thought it fascinating to observe released liquid floating around and eventually forming a perfect sphere. I wondered, it must be gravity, similar to planets and stars taking on a spherical shape in the vacuum of space they exist in.

Most everything I read from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to Newton's law of universal gravitation, implies gravity is a force that eminates from an object’s mass and attracks other objects of mass. It pulls. The Sun pulls on the earth, the earth pulls on the moon, the earth pulls on us...

My question, is their any logic to say gravity may be a force generated by combining an object of mass with the Vacuum of space. A force that pushes rather than pulls? A force that pushes us to the ground, a force that pushes the moon toward the earth and that pushes the earth toward the sun.

Something seems to be pushing the liquid into a sphere.

Watching astronauts suspended in the vacuum of their space orbiter vehicles, I have thought it fascinating to observe released liquid floating around and eventually forming a perfect sphere.

A spaceship isn't a vacuum. A vacuum is a container that has had all matter evacuated from it. The ship is filled with air, so the astronauts can breath in it. Of course if it was actually a vacuum they wouldn't be living.

Water forms a sphere in a space ship because it is the shape with the lowest surface area. It has nothing to do with gravity and more to do with intermolecular forces and surface tension.

that's exactly why the earth is round!

Originally Posted by Shaderwolf

that's exactly why the earth is round!

holy cow I think I just had a brain orgasm!

by golly I'm enlightened!

are you a girl or a boy...

Yes, to an extent. Here is the classical argument that Einstein found:

General relativity is Einstein's way of looking at gravity. He created it as there was a disagreement between him and Newton. Newton said that if the sun disappeared, then according to his laws, the first law to be exact (a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will continue in motion, unless an external force acts on it). Back to the sun, if it disappeared then the planets would in effect just go off moving straight away (body in motion will continue to be in motion). BUT, Einstein in special relativity said that nothing can go faster than light and that light travels at a constant speed no matter what velocity (speed) an observer is moving at. Light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach Earth, so if the sun suddenly vanished, we would not speed off away from the sun or rather were it was for another 8 minutes, in effect we'd keep moving around the sun for another 8 minutes before we sped off. Einstein then had to come up with a theory for gravity to explain this.

Einstein realised that objects therfore must interact in a way that cannot exceed light speed. He devised that although the disappearence of the sun in space, still had to wait for time also, this meant that no event could occur in space without time. He then realised that if space is made up of three dimensions (1-forward/backwards, 2-left/right and 3-up/down) then one of time must also exist for gravity to occur, that dimension of time is forwards time -->. He then thought, well they must both be interlinked as one for this to work, he called it spacetime. Realising this, it hit him like a ton of bricks, (and this is where he thought out of the box a lot) gravity cannot be a force as Newton said, as spacetime is dimensions, which is geometry (shapes), he concluded that objects bend something called spacetime when they move and this bending causes gravity, for example Earth makes a hill in spacetime, the moon goes around this hill-like the Earth around the sun.

425CR; There is much about R GR or SR, I find difficult to digest, but one question you possibly can answer; The 'hill' also relates to the Sun. If that hill is instantly removed, why would the earth or anything else have a time delay. I understand energy or light, since thats an entity in itself. IMO; Gravity requires a connected source, which should be lost when removed, with or without relativity.

Nothing can travel faster than light, not even gravity. Thats why quantum physics is trying to use 'gravitons' to make more sense of it, but that throws relativity out of the window. What exactly do you mean?

Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition

Nothing can travel faster than light, not even gravity. Thats why quantum physics is trying to use 'gravitons' to make more sense of it, but that throws relativity out of the window. What exactly do you mean?

Am not questioning speed and I have no point or trying to argue anything.
I find it questionable that in the 'instant loss of the sun' scenario, that gravity would take the 8 minutes to cease, as does energy. That energy will travel forever, yet gravity, in my mind requires a source to effect and once lost never effects anything. As I recall, gravity effect is curved from the source to the object, where as energy is straight and the object runs into that energy. That is for those eight minutes, in this case the earth, will run into that energy where the gravity effect should be lost from the loss of source.

Gravity decreases the furthur away from the source, so the effects of it disappearing would affect it the same way. The gravitational waves take 8 minutes to get to Earth. Is there any way I can explain it better? Because I don't think I've explained it well enough here.

When gravity is looked at from a geometric perspective, it might suggest that the constant real-time "deformation" of space-time having a maximum speed, might imply a direct link between the attributes of the space-time fabric and the speed of a photon through it? In other words, photons might also have a geometric component (if not being entirely so).

so how do we explain gravity growing stronger porportionately to its mass. blackholes are so dense its gravity prevents light from escaping. if its not escaping its moving back from where it originated and as the mass becomes more dense the gravity gets stronger and the light moves back faster and faster.

Einstein in special relativity said that nothing can go faster than light and that light travels at a constant speed no matter what velocity (speed) an observer is moving at.

Actually, Einstein proved newton wrong on a few points. One being Newton's Assumption that gravity is a force. Gravity is not a force generated by matter, it is the result of a curvature of space itself near a massive object. He has also hypothesized that space is also twisted by the rotation of massive objects. It can be inferred that gravity does not exist as a force or otherwise, it is just the result of curved space.

So, in other words, the earth's "gravity" is just related to the amount of curving it does to space, and the thing keeping us on the earth is not the earth's "gravity" but rather space itself.

There was a NASA satellite that was able to prove that a massive object like the earth can curve space itself, and they are working on trying to prove that the rotation of neutron stars can also twist space as well as curving it.

Say you place a bowling ball on a trampoline. Then, you shoot a marble across the outer edge of the trampoline. The marble is 'drawn' to the bowling ball, not by energy, but by the shape the bowling ball made the trampoline into.

The reason gravity's definition as a force stays to haunt us, and the reason why dark matter and dark energy theories have reared their ugly heads, is because of einstein's fear that no one would listen to him if he went around saying outright that gravity didn't exist. Instead he chose a much more subtle way to say it, knowing the more observant people would be able to read between the lines.

Originally Posted by jackson33

425CR; There is much about R GR or SR, I find difficult to digest, but one question you possibly can answer; The 'hill' also relates to the Sun. If that hill is instantly removed, why would the earth or anything else have a time delay. I understand energy or light, since thats an entity in itself. IMO; Gravity requires a connected source, which should be lost when removed, with or without relativity.

Light-speed is the universal speed limit. Nothing travels faster than it, not even gravity. If the sun dissipears, then there will be no more light emmited from the sun. The gravitational field the sun has created that holds the earth will dissapear as soon as the darkness reaches earth, because gravity moves close to or at the speed of light, but never faster.

Ray; I am NOT questioning the speed of gravity, only that gravity to be effective, the source must exist. The source of energy another thing all together, since the effects are from that energy, not the source. To over state this hypothetical scenario; If the Milky way were to instantly 'be gone', we would not know it for a very long time however IMO we should instantly, well be on our own for direction as a solar system.

Originally Posted by Raymond K

Originally Posted by jackson33

425CR; There is much about R GR or SR, I find difficult to digest, but one question you possibly can answer; The 'hill' also relates to the Sun. If that hill is instantly removed, why would the earth or anything else have a time delay. I understand energy or light, since thats an entity in itself. IMO; Gravity requires a connected source, which should be lost when removed, with or without relativity.

Light-speed is the universal speed limit. Nothing travels faster than it, not even gravity. If the sun dissipears, then there will be no more light emmited from the sun. The gravitational field the sun has created that holds the earth will dissapear as soon as the darkness reaches earth, because gravity moves close to or at the speed of light, but never faster.

Actually there is no such thing as a gravitational field, like i said earlier gravity is not a force energy or particle. The effect we call gravity is actually caused by the curvature of space around massive objects. Light is also traveling through space and is affected by its curvature just as we are.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Ray; I am NOT questioning the speed of gravity, only that gravity to be effective, the source must exist. The source of energy another thing all together, since the effects are from that energy, not the source. To over state this hypothetical scenario; If the Milky way were to instantly 'be gone', we would not know it for a very long time however IMO we should instantly, well be on our own for direction as a solar system.

The best way to explain it so far, is that space is a 'fabric' that is changed with the presence of massive objects. Gravity is not a force, particle, wave, or energy. I would rather say that the effect formerly known as gravity is just a result of the shape of space.

Now, the quickness in which space changes its shape during instantaneous removal of a massive object is something that probably will not be calculated for a while, but it probably changes shape slower than the speed of light, yet will be fully changed by the time the light that had been emitted from the removed massive object stops arriving at further points of observation.

See what I mean?

Originally Posted by jackson33

Ray; I am NOT questioning the speed of gravity, only that gravity to be effective, the source must exist. The source of energy another thing all together, since the effects are from that energy, not the source. To over state this hypothetical scenario; If the Milky way were to instantly 'be gone', we would not know it for a very long time however IMO we should instantly, well be on our own for direction as a solar system.

We would be gone with the milky way, we are a part of the milky way.
I still don't really get what your asking, sorry.

If there was no source what else would curve spacetime?
Youtube has some interesting viedos on spacetime and einstein's special relativity.
Here are some links if you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAqSCuHA0j8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoLvO...eature=related

Originally Posted by ajg624

Watching astronauts suspended in the vacuum of their space orbiter vehicles, I have thought it fascinating to observe released liquid floating around and eventually forming a perfect sphere. I wondered, it must be gravity, similar to planets and stars taking on a spherical shape in the vacuum of space they exist in.

Most everything I read from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to Newton's law of universal gravitation, implies gravity is a force that eminates from an object’s mass and attracks other objects of mass. It pulls. The Sun pulls on the earth, the earth pulls on the moon, the earth pulls on us...

My question, is their any logic to say gravity may be a force generated by combining an object of mass with the Vacuum of space. A force that pushes rather than pulls? A force that pushes us to the ground, a force that pushes the moon toward the earth and that pushes the earth toward the sun.

Something seems to be pushing the liquid into a sphere.

I gave a solution to the cause of gravity on the website below:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...unified+theory

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by ajg624

Watching astronauts suspended in the vacuum of their space orbiter vehicles, I have thought it fascinating to observe released liquid floating around and eventually forming a perfect sphere. I wondered, it must be gravity, similar to planets and stars taking on a spherical shape in the vacuum of space they exist in.

Most everything I read from Einstein’s theory of General Relativity to Newton's law of universal gravitation, implies gravity is a force that eminates from an object’s mass and attracks other objects of mass. It pulls. The Sun pulls on the earth, the earth pulls on the moon, the earth pulls on us...

My question, is their any logic to say gravity may be a force generated by combining an object of mass with the Vacuum of space. A force that pushes rather than pulls? A force that pushes us to the ground, a force that pushes the moon toward the earth and that pushes the earth toward the sun.

Something seems to be pushing the liquid into a sphere.

I gave a solution to the cause of gravity on the website below:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...unified+theory

Cosmo

It is not gravity causing water to form the sphere, rather it is the cohesive properties of water making the sphere. The reason a planet forms a sphere is that as dust clouds around a newly formed star colide, they forme larger objects. As these larger objects continue to "pick up" the dust, they become heavier. Once they are massive enough to curve space itself, the matter on the planet follows the curve of space caused by its own massiveness. This is what makes planets semi-spherical, and asteroids non-symmetrical. The sphere of water is formed by different processes than the "spheres" of planets.

ajg...,

I don't necessarily subscribe to mass attraction as the cause of gravity. Yes, in fact applying gravity as a pushing force that is generated by intersections of gravitons flowing toward "zero point energy," (Harold mentioned that elsewhere...) clears up a number of problems. There is an Oort sphere surrounding every star system. Can these overlap? Nature doesn't seem to allow that, so what takes place in, e.g., the space between our Oort sphere and that of Rigel Kent?

The force x mass equations all work the same regardless of how we think gravity works.

As gravity converges upon itself, massive particles acrete, then massive bodies. The question I've pondered is "If gravity is an inbound force that flows toward the zero point energy in an atom, per se, what happens at the absolute center?" It seems as though the gravitons would cease to exist, but that would violate the second law. Perhaps gravity is a force that is bidirectional and flows as waves, like Einstein predicted, followed up by Kip Thorne with his LIGO project.

The caveat of Gravity Probe B is still awated...

Dr. C.

Originally Posted by DrCWho

agj...,

I don't necessarily subscribe to mass attraction as the cause of gravity. Yes, in fact applying gravity as a pushing force that is generated by intersections of gravitons flowing toward "zero point energy," (Harold mentioned that elsewhere...) clears up a number of problems. There is an Oort sphere surrounding every star system. Can these overlap? Nature doesn't seem to allow that, so what takes place in, e.g., the space between our Oort sphere and that of Rigel Kent?

The force x mass equations all work the same regardless of how we think gravity works.

As gravity converges upon itself, massive particles acrete, then massive bodies. The question I've pondered is "If gravity is an inbound force that flows toward the zero point energy in an atom, per se, what happens at the absolute center? It seems as though the gravitons would cease to exist, but that would violate the second law. Perhaps gravity is a force that is bidirectional and flows as waves, like Einstein predicted, followed up by Kip Thorne with his LIGO project.

The caveat of Gravity Probe B is still awated...

Dr. C.

I have seen no difinitive proof of the existence of gravitons. Most google searches don't seem to have useful subject matter on the proven existence of gravitons. Perhaps you can give some insight on this matter. I still stand by my earlier assertions on gravity being a result of curved space, not a cause of it.

Wikipedia says this:

Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of the quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other forces of nature with similar particles: electromagnetism with the photon, the strong interaction with the gluons, and the weak interaction with the W and Z bosons. In this framework, the gravitational interaction is mediated by gravitons, instead of being described in terms of curved spacetime as in general relativity. In the classical limit, both approaches give identical results, including Newton's law of gravitation.

Now, if like Einstein has said in his theory of general relativity, that what we call gravity is really the effect of the curvature of space around a massive object, then the reason we have never detected a graviton is quite simple, they simply do not exist!

Originally Posted by SuperNatendo

It is not gravity causing water to form the sphere, rather it is the cohesive properties of water making the sphere. The reason a planet forms a sphere is that as dust clouds around a newly formed star colide, they forme larger objects. As these larger objects continue to "pick up" the dust, they become heavier. Once they are massive enough to curve space itself, the matter on the planet follows the curve of space caused by its own massiveness. This is what makes planets semi-spherical, and asteroids non-symmetrical. The sphere of water is formed by different processes than the "spheres" of planets.

Then why do 'not' the clouds in the sky condense into rain?

It takes 'agitation' to cause them to clump into rain.

Are you aware of the Cavendish and Boys experiments? These experiments are the ones that have created the Gravitational Constant.

Gravity is real.

Cosmo

Gravity - We know what is is. Do we know why it is?

Why?

Well it's obviously so we all don't go floating off in space!

Or how about gravity is the invisible pins God uses to secure us to his pin-ball?

Or as most of life seems to be geared to reproduction, gravity provides a means for two things to be able to come together in order to procreate?

Actually it's so that when i'm bouncing on my trampoline, i can keep bouncing!

Boing, boing, boing

In response to Cosmo:

Yes, but the water droplets within the clouds are spherical themselves, even the raindrops are slightly spherical. Water has two aspects, cohesiveness and adhesiveness. We know it is adhesive because it can stick to a glass even when the glass is flipped over, it is cohesive because it stickes to itself.

The sphere on the space station is formed because they took great pains at making sure all the conditions were right for the cohesiveness to form a sphere, if someone hits it with an object it will break apart into many different spheres, it may even merge a few of thosoe spheres together, but not because of some outside 'force' it is just the cohesiveness of water. If there was too much "wind" in the space station, the water would be a conglomeration of shapes instead of forming spheres.

The Water is in too small an amount to actually curve the space around it, so there are no orbiting effects, no attraction of other forms of matter, the only attraction to the object is caused by the water's cohesivenes.

This can be proved experimentally:

If you made another sphere of oil, and tried to combine the two spheres, then they should, if the theory of general relativity is correct, repell off of each other if they collide at a slow enough speed, and break each other apart and stay seperated if they went too fast. This is because water and oil do not mix.

Here is the importance of such an observation:

This would prove the spheres were not attracted to each other by any outside force ie: Gravity.

This would prove it is the properties of the liquids and not some force of attraction of matter causing the sphere. The sphere is caused only by a property of the liquids, not a proof that they were attracting all matter unto themselves.

If Gravity was making the sphere, the oil would simply surround the sphere of water, making a film of oil over the water. You would see this if the general theory of relativity was wrong about gravity. According to general relativity, the only time this would be the result, would be once the sphere of water was massive enough to actually curve space, causing the oil to 'fall' to the surface of the planet.

I think that this experiment would be an excellent thing to see!

SuperNatendo

actually caused by the curvature of space around massive objects

A couple of novice questions.

Since massive objects cause the curvature of space would it be safe to say that all matter, massive or minuscule would cause space to curve only at a different rate? Some detectable, some undetectable.

If I understand this correctly, the earth causes the curvature of space and in turn the curvature of space causes the earth's gravity? It's almost like asking what came first? Chicken or the egg? Someone untrained in science would logically deduce the earth's gravity is inherent to its large mass existence in space and the curvature in space is the effect of this force called gravity.

As for your experiment, are you saying to place a large mass of water and an equally large mass of oil into space. If they layer together into a sphere it is the result of gravity and if they do not layer together and form separate spheres, this can only be attributed to their own physical properties and not gravity?

Actually I am not really saying gravity comes from curved space, and curved space comes from gravity, that would be a pardoxical chicken vs egg theory. I'm saying gravity, as currently defined, does not exist.

The effect we call gravity is simply a result of space curving in on massive objects.

As Far as I know, it takes a certain amount of Massiveness to begin to curve space, I am not sure if space curves if the object is below a certain amount of mass. Just as a marble on a trampoline is not heavy enough to combat the tension of the fabric enough to cause any sort of curvature. Although this is not a perfect analogy since the curvature of space caused by earth is what is causing the marble both to appear to have weight and as a result stay rested upon the fabric, this would not be occuring in space. Also, this would be happening multi-dimensionally on all points of the sphere, not just on one as is the case with the marble and trampoline.

The reason our galaxy and solar system are more or less flat is due to the center of each having an object that must be rotating, thereby twisting space as well as curving it and as a result causing any objects orbiting the central object to follow more or less a similar plane. An example of this effect are the rings around Uranus. In the solar system's case this rotating center is the sun, and in the galaxy's case what is theorized to be a super-massive black hole.

In other words, this experiment may be flawed if in fact space does curve around all objects of mass no matter how massive the object. If that is the case this experiment would not be able to either prove or disprove gravity.

As for the experiment, I am saying that the spheres must not be massive. At that point, the spheres might actually be enough to curve space, which would then be adding to the effect of cohesiveness allowing the spheres to form.

In this experiment, one would be trying to make the sphere of oil cover the sphere of water, also one would have to show that the water was stationary inside the oil, the oil always being the same thickness around the sphere of water, thereby proving a gravitational pull between the water and the oil.

If it does not, it would prove that the only thing making a sphere of water was the cohesive property of water, not gravity.

Also, one might want to try and see what happens when one tries to place a film of water around a sphere of oil, so as to make sure it was still not just a property of the liquids causing the effect.

The effect we call gravity is simply a result of space curving in on massive objects.

OK-I understand water drops are too small to demonstrate the effect of gravity, however, after seeing water droplets group together, I speculated gravity was caused by an outside force as opposed to an internal force. Now I understand the water sphere does not prove it but it planted the thought in my mind.

If I understand your explanation, the effect of gravity is indeed caused by an external force... external to our earth... sort of a push effect and not a pull. On the other hand, electromagnetic force has the opposit effect.

Originally Posted by ajg624

The effect we call gravity is simply a result of space curving in on massive objects.

If I understand your explanation, the effect of gravity is indeed caused by an external force... external to our earth... sort of a push effect and not a pull. On the other hand, electromagnetic force has the opposit effect.

Not an external "force" Only space itself. Im saying that space, or otherwise, the Universe, is an object itself that is "warped" by the formation of mass inside of it. It is neither a push, nor a pull.

Natendo

If gravity does not exist, then what is causing the Earth to move around the Sun and all the other bodies around each other?

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by SuperNatendo

It is not gravity causing water to form the sphere, rather it is the cohesive properties of water making the sphere. The reason a planet forms a sphere is that as dust clouds around a newly formed star colide, they forme larger objects. As these larger objects continue to "pick up" the dust, they become heavier. Once they are massive enough to curve space itself, the matter on the planet follows the curve of space caused by its own massiveness. This is what makes planets semi-spherical, and asteroids non-symmetrical. The sphere of water is formed by different processes than the "spheres" of planets.

Then why do 'not' the clouds in the sky condense into rain?

It takes 'agitation' to cause them to clump into rain.

Are you aware of the Cavendish and Boys experiments? These experiments are the ones that have created the Gravitational Constant.

Gravity is real.

Cosmo

I belive clouds form by water vapor rising to an altitude in which is cold enough to allow the water vapor to condense into water droplets. This does not happen without a condensation nuclei though, it first starts with a small amount of water condensing onto a piece of dust or other condensation nuclei, then other water vapor condenses onto that. I don't think gravity causes clouds.

But in a space-sized case im sure that the water would lay into the spactime fabric, but I can't think of any planet that is entirely made up of liquid.

Yeah it makes my boobs and bum sag!

Damn gravity!!!!!

I'm gonna spend more time standing on my head!

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Natendo

If gravity does not exist, then what is causing the Earth to move around the Sun and all the other bodies around each other?

Cosmo

The effect we know as gravity exists, but not by some external "force"

The effects we call gravity are actually caused by a curvature of the fabric of space-time.

Gravity exists only as a description of an effect, not as any particle, wave or force.

The curvature of space-time is what is causing the planets to orbit the sun

Here is an example for you. To simulate gravity on a spaceship, you would use the properties of centrifical force. There is no force other than centrifical force keeping you on the "floor" of the spaceship. On the ship, gravity does not exist other than as a description of the effect on the crewmates. While the Crewmates may mistakenly say something like "we have gravity" rather than "we have centrifical force". The same would be true for Planetary gravity, although it is not centrifical force keeping you on the planet, but rather a curvature of space time. We mistakenly credit gravity when in actuallity we should say space-time is curved around the planet to keep objects on the surface.

I'm not sure of any other word in the English language that would be similar to the word gravity in the respect that gravity is an experience that seems like it is a force rather than a description of an experience that is caused by something different.

Forgetting some issues, are we? Hmmm?

A comparison of gravity being an influx of particles could be made in the difference of the atmosphere to the oceans. Bodies, living or dead, tend to be buoyant in water. Not so in the atmosphere. Why? Gravity doesn't hold us down in a fluid more viscous than air. If gravity pulled us down, weak, infinitely ranged as it is, it should do so in water as well. Dense matter is more predominantly affected by gravity outside a vacuum.

Gravitons are not yet detected because the smaller the particle the higher energy is the "womb" from which it was born, yet the larger particle has greater mass, so greater energy. If we combine two quarks or two leptons, they lose some energy in becoming the larger particle. These exchange particles go somewhere. Where is that though?

The whereabouts will likely be found when we have some powerful memory/counting brain amongst us that would be the particle physicists' equivalent of the astronomer. Counting particles that small will be like counting stars.

Dr. CWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Forgetting some issues, are we? Hmmm?

A comparison of gravity being an influx of particles could be made in the difference of the atmosphere to the oceans. Bodies, living or dead, tend to be buoyant in water. Not so in the atmosphere. Why? Gravity doesn't hold us down in a fluid more viscous than air. If gravity pulled us down, weak, infinitely ranged as it is, it should do so in water as well. Dense matter is more predominantly affected by gravity outside a vacuum.

Gravitons are not yet detected because the smaller the particle the higher energy is the "womb" from which it was born, yet the larger particle has greater mass, so greater energy. If we combine two quarks or two leptons, they lose some energy in becoming the larger particle. These exchange particles go somewhere. Where is that though?

The whereabouts will likely be found when we have some powerful memory/counting brain amongst us that would be the particle physicists' equivalent of the astronomer. Counting particles that small will be like counting stars.

Dr. CWho

But how could one prove or disprove what Einstein said about gravity being only an effect of the curving of space-time? I understand the whole concept of densities, but isn't it also true that, while we are more buoyant than the water, the only reason we stay floating on the surface is because of the effect of 'gravity' "holding" us down to the surface of it even though we are less dense? Without the effect of "gravity", we could simply float away from the surface of the water as long as we could overcome the adhesiveness of the water we were floating in. That is why in my experiments oil should be used since it removes the ability of water to adhere to it.

Wouldn't the same be true in the experiments I formulated above? With the exception being IF the spheres in my experiment are too small to curve the space around them, there is nothing holding the oil down to the surface of the sphere of water! Whereas if they both are "attracting" each other, producing gravitons, the oil WOULD be held down to the surface.

Again, it would be nice if we were able to see if there was a point at which an object is too small to bend space-time for this experiment, because without knowing that, the only way to prove beyond doubt that Einstein was right would be if there was no attraction between the oil and water at all. If there was an attraction we would still need to find out if even small amounts of matter can bend space-time before coming to a definitive close on the subject.

Originally Posted by Raymond K

But in a space-sized case im sure that the water would lay into the spactime fabric, but I can't think of any planet that is entirely made up of liquid.

Well, I cannot buy your CoS as a substitute for gravity because this just complicates the simple explanation for gravity.

Did you ever hear of Occams Razor? He said the 'simplest solution is probably the correct solution. I agree with him.

Cosmo

Without the effect of "gravity", we could simply float away from the surface of the water as long as we could overcome the adhesiveness of the water we were floating in.

Without gravity there would be no surface to float away from.

SNat,
I agree we currently have no method to prove any of these speculations. We can conjecture comparisons all day long, but until we actually have a device that does more than generate Z and W particles at 100eV, we won't know whether gravitons exist. I subscribe to the theory that they do because, like tachyons, their existence clears up many problems. It takes gravity to acrete a planetoid or a star, not the celestial body to create gravity.

It all involves what I call semi-singular linking. This takes us back to wormholes again and yes, they would wind like a bowl of spaghetti, but only because they are near infinitely linked together to form the frames of time. Gravity is the result of many big bangs occurring every one of our seconds, only to our perception it seems a perpetual blur. Gravity, as a wave, would likely be a boson that would not interact in a recombinant manner, but with perfect elasticity, thus it would be traveling through us at near lightspeed, rebounding off every internal particle.

I did some experiments with red phosphorus back in 1989 that tended to couple gravity with the Van der Waals forces. It left me with more questions than answers. One question that arose was whether gravity pushes or pulls. That is what I'm pondering in this discussion.

In response To Cosmo and Ajg624

This has become a great discussion, thank you and everyone else for your input.

I would just like to point out that the spherical shape of a planet sized sphere of water would in part be caused by the effect of gravity. On that scale, the planet of water is curving space-time. On a smaller scale it is only the cohesive properties of water causing it to form a sphere. The curvature of space caused by massive objects helps the matter which make up the whole of the object to continuosly form a semi-spherical object.

Take our planet for example, it is not perfectly spherical, but over-all it is a sphere. This is because even though mountains form on the planet, as they erode, the rocks fall back to the surface thanks to the curvature of space-time.

As for making things more complex? I don't think so! With our current understanding of gravity we are forced to claim the universe is 99% "Dark Matter", which makes things alot more complicated than a revision to our mathematics to update our understanding of what gravity really is. Also, just because it appears to us as though it is more complex doesn't mean it is wrong. People once believed in spontanious generation because at the time it was easier to explain life that way, but we know now that was wrong. Nowadays, a theory of spontanious generation would be considered much more complex than the fact that maggots hatch from eggs that are too small for us to see by the naked eye. At the moment it may seem more complex, but in the future we may look back and say "Why the hell did we think it was any different?"

Also, Ajg624, in the small scale experiment there WOULD be a surface of water that was caused only by cohesiveness, not by gravity.

Also, Ajg624, in the small scale experiment there WOULD be a surface of water that was caused only by cohesiveness, not by gravity.

Oh Ok, when you made the statement...

I understand the whole concept of densities, but isn't it also true that, while we are more buoyant than the water, the only reason we stay floating on the surface is because of the effect of 'gravity' "holding" us down to the surface of it even though we are less dense? Without the effect of "gravity", we could simply float away from the surface of the water as long as we could overcome the adhesiveness of the water we were floating in.

I thought you meant it on this larger scale.

Originally Posted by ajg624

Also, Ajg624, in the small scale experiment there WOULD be a surface of water that was caused only by cohesiveness, not by gravity.

Oh Ok, when you made the statement...

I understand the whole concept of densities, but isn't it also true that, while we are more buoyant than the water, the only reason we stay floating on the surface is because of the effect of 'gravity' "holding" us down to the surface of it even though we are less dense? Without the effect of "gravity", we could simply float away from the surface of the water as long as we could overcome the adhesiveness of the water we were floating in.

I thought you meant it on this larger scale.

Right, In what you are quoting I was just pointing out that the effect of gravity ie. the curving of space-time, WAS indeed the effect that was holding us to the surface, since we are more boyuant we do not sink. Same with oil in water, oil floats because it is less dense. But my experiment would see if the sphere of water they made on the space station was really being helped by gravity, not just the cohesiveness of water. If gravity was helping the sphere form, then the oil should stay "floating" on it all around the sphere. I am saying this is may not be what is going to happen because the sphere of water may be much too small to be curving the fabric of space-time so there might not be an effect of gravity.

All this would prove there was no 'force' attracting matter to other matter, which would mean gravitons do not exist and would mean gravity is only an effect caused by space-time curves around large bodies of matter.

Unless both einstein and newton are wrong and gravitons somehow individually increase in the energy they produce the more gravitons are closer to each other, but I think this would be a breaking of the law E=MC^2.

It is kind of a one-sided experiment in that one result proves einstein, the other result solves nothing.

It would appear gravity has two distinctions. Objects that create gravity like our earth and objects that our affected by gravity like us living on earth.

Mix oil and water on earth and the oil rises to the top but mix it in space and i dont think it would rise to the top or to the outside. assume the misture becomes a sphere, the oil and water should seperate but i dont see any consistant pattern of seperation.

With this being said, if the mass of the oil/water is large enough to curve space and create a gravity is the water/oil mixture affected by the gravity of the object which is itself or is it exempt because it is the object causing the gravitation or space curvature?

Originally Posted by SuperNatendo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Natendo

If gravity does not exist, then what is causing the Earth to move around the Sun and all the other bodies around each other?

Cosmo

The effect we know as gravity exists, but not by some external "force"

The effects we call gravity are actually caused by a curvature of the fabric of space-time.

Gravity exists only as a description of an effect, not as any particle, wave or force.

The curvature of space-time is what is causing the planets to orbit the sun

Here is an example for you. To simulate gravity on a spaceship, you would use the properties of centrifical force. There is no force other than centrifical force keeping you on the "floor" of the spaceship. On the ship, gravity does not exist other than as a description of the effect on the crewmates. While the Crewmates may mistakenly say something like "we have gravity" rather than "we have centrifical force". The same would be true for Planetary gravity, although it is not centrifical force keeping you on the planet, but rather a curvature of space time. We mistakenly credit gravity when in actuallity we should say space-time is curved around the planet to keep objects on the surface.

I'm not sure of any other word in the English language that would be similar to the word gravity in the respect that gravity is an experience that seems like it is a force rather than a description of an experience that is caused by something different.

If you insist that the curvature of space is responsible for the orbital movements of the planets, then what is the driving force for these motions? Your CoS or spacetime?

Cosmo

in the small scale experiment there WOULD be a surface of water that was caused only by cohesiveness, not by gravity.

I disagree. Without gravity there could be no particles from which the cohesive nature could evolve. Regardless of whether gravity pushes or pulls, it affects the formation of preons, quarks, leptons and all else. Without an infinitely ranged gravitational field the universe would be an absolutely uniform mass of equally sized particles no larger than a Planck length.
We must overcome gravity as a ratio to the Omega factor; the end result. This means, as I've been explaining in the "New Kid on the Block" thread, that conservation of energy means a tighter curvature requires more energy. As two quarks form a boson, they each lose some energy in forming the larger particle.
This is one reason I currently subscribe to gravity as a pushing force. Like a helicopter beats the air into submission, as pilots will tell you, the gravitons would beat the elementary particles into submission. Gravity must be present or the water molecule can't be.

DrCWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

in the small scale experiment there WOULD be a surface of water that was caused only by cohesiveness, not by gravity.

I disagree. Without gravity there could be no particles from which the cohesive nature could evolve. Regardless of whether gravity pushes or pulls, it affects the formation of preons, quarks, leptons and all else. Without an infinitely ranged gravitational field the universe would be an absolutely uniform mass of equally sized particles no larger than a Planck length.
We must overcome gravity as a ratio to the Omega factor; the end result. This means, as I've been explaining in the "New Kid on the Block" thread, that conservation of energy means a tighter curvature requires more energy. As two quarks form a boson, they each lose some energy in forming the larger particle.
This is one reason I currently subscribe to gravity as a pushing force. Like a helicopter beats the air into submission, as pilots will tell you, the gravitons would beat the elementary particles into submission. Gravity must be present or the water molecule can't be.

DrCWho

Cohesiveness among particles of like matter has nothing to do with gravity. Water is cohesive because of it's hydrogen bonds. Gravity is not involved in such bonds.
The water is formed by 2 hydrogen atoms bonding with 2 oxygen atoms. This occurs because of electrons, not gravity.

Originally Posted by ajg624

It would appear gravity has two distinctions. Objects that create gravity like our earth and objects that our affected by gravity like us living on earth.

Mix oil and water on earth and the oil rises to the top but mix it in space and i dont think it would rise to the top or to the outside. assume the misture becomes a sphere, the oil and water should seperate but i dont see any consistant pattern of seperation.

With this being said, if the mass of the oil/water is large enough to curve space and create a gravity is the water/oil mixture affected by the gravity of the object which is itself or is it exempt because it is the object causing the gravitation or space curvature?

The mass is curving space, therefore, it is affected by the curvature of space as well as causing it. This is why large planets made up of many elements are spherical instead of irregular; like asteroids.

Cosmo: Curvature of space, the shape of space-time, are what causes the planets to orbit the sun. They are one in the same its just that space-time is not always curved

http://library.thinkquest.org/27585/frameset_intro.html

the experiment is moot as water cannot exist in space tempertures

Originally Posted by ajg624

the experiment is moot as water cannot exist in space tempertures

The experiment would be in a controlled environment on the space station, allowing the water to stay liquid.

Originally Posted by Selene

http://library.thinkquest.org/27585/frameset_intro.html

Very Good website for showing how gravity defined as a force works, but by changing the definition from "force" to an affect of the curvature of space time solves alot more problems without causing a conflict with what we have observed with the universe. I'm not saying the idea of gravity as a force was necessarily bad for its time, but with newer observations we need to update our own understandings.

The experiment would be in a controlled environment on the space station, allowing the water to stay liquid.

Then could never be a large enough mass to curve space-time.

like I said, the water would not have to be massive to see if there is a force attracting the oil to the water. It would only have to be massive for the curving of space time to make it appear as though some force was causing the oil to fall toward the surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S..._curvature.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

Cohesiveness among particles of like matter has nothing to do with gravity. Water is cohesive because of it's hydrogen bonds. Gravity is not involved in such bonds.

Ever heard of the Van derWaals forces? They are sometimes referred to as "steric" forces. These are generally associated with the weak forces that tend to bind molecules together rather than the gluons that bind the elementay particles together. Without the steric forces, the bonds would not exist, save for the strong force and matter would collapse upon itself.

DrCWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Cohesiveness among particles of like matter has nothing to do with gravity. Water is cohesive because of it's hydrogen bonds. Gravity is not involved in such bonds.

Ever heard of the Van derWaals forces? They are sometimes referred to as "steric" forces. These are generally associated with the weak forces that tend to bind molecules together rather than the gluons that bind the elementay particles together. Without the steric forces, the bonds would not exist, save for the strong force and matter would collapse upon itself.

DrCWho

Still, Van derWaals forces are not explained by nor do they explain a "force" of gravity

It could be possible that some form of particle, which we may detect and call 'gravitons' are indeed responsible for the affects of mass on space-time, but I doubt even if these particles existed and were responsible for curving space-time that they would be responsible for "attracting" two bodies of mass directly, for example, I doubt there really is a force that is attracting two un-compatible chemicals such as oil and water. A large enough body of water may produce a particle that curves space-time, which in turn causes oil to "fall" to the surface, but I doubt it would be creating a force between water and oil.

However, I think mass itself is a sufficient medium for curving space-time, and mass is itself responsible for the curving of space time and needs no particles or force such as gravitons to acheive this.

Please allow me at this point to introduce a little thought experiment of mine (as prompted by Dr CWho)I have been entertaining on THIS site, as well as on thescienceforum.

Here is the premise of it:
Lets for the moment say that space itself is infinite and all matter was created in a small area as a result of spontaneous vacuum polarization. Also assume that all matter are nothing more than folded up space and the spontaneous annihilation of matter according to their respective half lives are in fact the folded space unfolding in an instant, sending the most basic ripples possible (photons) in all directions, according to the as yet unknown propagating attributes (viscosity variables) of space. The expansion of space might be a result of the slow unfolding of all matter. So in thermodynamic terms, matter was created from nothing, but eventually it will revert to a neutral matter free state, effectively cancelling out the imbalance?

To illustrate the folding of space as in the case of matter, imagine an infinite volume of very soft and elastic rubber. Now imagine tweezers that does not interact with the rubber, except for the tip. Now close the tweezers, gripping, say, a Planck length size of space. Twist it around in all directions making a few revolutions in every direction. Now imagine how the rubber would stretch around the spot where the particle has been created. Imagine the colour changing according to the tension in that part of the rubber. Release the tweezers and the new particle stays there. Making another particle right next to it would put further tension in the rubber, increasing the circumference of the colour change (gravity) as well as the degree of colour change close to the two particles. To illustrate some idea of other forces, let’s think of space as long piece of, say, steel cable .When a fast up and down movement is made, a transverse, two-dimensional wave is created that travels along the length of the wire. This illustrates the movement of standard particles like protons through space. If you tap the cable with a hammer, a sound is created whose speed is limited by the material properties of the cable. This longitudinal wave travels at a much faster (and maximum) rate than the transverse wave of normal matter and illustrates a photon. The speed of the matter-wave would be susceptible to the speed of the up-and-down movement (resultant force) and would increasingly be negatively affected by the elastic rebound pressure and internal friction. This illustrates the speed of light limit.

Kalaster:

How would you account for the increased velocity expansion of the universe? More specifically the distant galaxies we detect are receding at a velocity proportional to their distance.

Inasmuch as galaxies are really not moving away through space, they are moving away with space, as space itself expands, their is some merit to give to the proposition of "unfloding/folding" space. However, we already understand space itself is expanding but do not understand the method used to accomplish this.

Once we grasp it, distant space travel may become a reality.

1How would you account for the increased velocity expansion of the universe?
2More specifically the distant galaxies we detect are receding at a velocity proportional to their distance.

3Inasmuch as galaxies are really not moving away through space, they are moving away with space, as space itself expands

1If particles are getting smaller as a result of the uncurling, that would add to the rate of expansion observed. So in actual fact, the universe could be at least a bit older than thought and it might not be accelerating (maybe even slowing down, depending on the rate of shrinkage), as the observed acceleration would be an optical illusion.
2This mind experiment also works under the assumption that (as observed I think) matter is relatively evenly spread throughout the universe, so the expansion should be about equal everywhere, making galaxies recede faster the farther they are out from us.

3Yes, in this model the net result would be exactly that. Only it is the particles uncurling that is creating the extra space observed.

KALSTER,

the Steady State universe theory, which stated that the universe was infinite, has been disproven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the big bang theory. Stephen Hawking said that the fact that microwave radiation had been found, and that it was thought to be left over from the big bang, was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory."

Your whole theory falls apart from the beginning

but I doubt even if these particles existed and were responsible for curving space-time that they would be responsible for "attracting" two bodies of mass directly, for example, I doubt there really is a force that is attracting two un-compatible chemicals such as oil and water.

For one I'm postulating the gravitons are an inbound stream that beats matter into submission from the outside in and also from the inside out. This is like a stack of window screens stacked close to each other, bound around the edges with duct tape (the handyman's secret weapon :wink: ) then the mass is laid on its side and bound to a Radio Flyer wagon. Taking the garden hose and spraying it full blast through one end of the screens to the other will put the wagon in motion (depending on what is present to impede rolling friction.) If gravity is an inbound stream of perticles it will do the same and would also cause two massive spheres to move together when suspended in equilibrium because the outer flow is unimpeded by the collisions with the massive matter as it flows through it, so traveling at higher velocity and higher volume. This takes us back to the fish floating to the top vs people not floating to the top of the atmosphere. Like any other fluid, gravity would take the path of least resistance, but with the crowding outside of dense mass, some would be forced to penetrate the mass.

Next question. What do you think about UFO's? Are they real? I've never seen one, but I've seen photos, flicks and heard from those who say they have seen them. If they are real, meaning what is documented as hovering saucer shaped vehicles, how do they defeat gravity? A gravity shield against a force that attracts, makes no sense. Deflecting a stream of incoming particles does.

Selene,
I tried the link. Could you lead us to the precise webpage containing an opinion on frames, if that is what you were trying to show us? (Merci beau coup :-D )

Dr. CWho

Originally Posted by DrCWho

Next question. What do you think about UFO's? Are they real? I've never seen one, but I've seen photos, flicks and heard from those who say they have seen them. If they are real, meaning what is documented as hovering saucer shaped vehicles, how do they defeat gravity? A gravity shield against a force that attracts, makes no sense. Deflecting a stream of incoming particles does.

Selene,
I tried the link. Could you lead us to the precise webpage containing an opinion on frames, if that is what you were trying to show us? (Merci beau coup :-D )

Dr. CWho

Okay, please don't hijack this thread with your psuedoscience.

This is a serious discussion about gravity, we don't need some kook coming in here talking about how "gravitons have to exist because that's how the UFO's do it, by deflecting the stream of gravtions"

You sir are full of balogna.

I am discounting everything you have said because of this. You want to believe in a way to travel to distant stars by deflecting gravity so much that you discount the truth when it is staring you in the face. You are not helping the scientific community with your garbage spouting. You are hurting mankind with your ridiculous beliefs.

So far, curvature of space has been proven by observation, gravitons have not. But you are so sure that they have to exist because otherwise flying saucers won't work! You can theorize all you want to but you have to make sure your theories are at least slightly based on observation!

You represent the type of people that tick me off so much. Why does it anger me so much? Because, you refuse to base your theories off of pure facts and observations. You have your beliefs, and will hold to them no matter what and mislead people in the process just to give yourself some sick sense of satisfaction.

Go read a sci-fi novel and fantasize about having sex with some humanoid allien princess, but keep your garbage off of this forum!

DrCWho: What do you think about UFO's? Are they real?

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.
- Albert Einstein

Originally Posted by SuperNatendo

KALSTER,

the Steady State universe theory, which stated that the universe was infinite, has been disproven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the big bang theory. Stephen Hawking said that the fact that microwave radiation had been found, and that it was thought to be left over from the big bang, was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory."

Your whole theory falls apart from the beginning

Look man, I am not calling this a theory. It does not qualify as such. It is merely a mind experiment. I am taking the premise as I posted and trying to see how I could explain observation with that premise. I know full well about the CMBR providing yet further evidence of the big bang, along with the observation of expanding space. But if you could find an explanation that would account for both, would that not at least be worth considering? Again, I agree with the big bang theory and Einstein's view of gravity. This is just a mind experiment. :wink:

If you had read the link I provided, you would have seen that I did consider the CMBR. There is a fairly uniform distribution of particles in inter-stellar and inter-galactic space. My little hypothesis suggests that particles that are relatively isolated, as these particles are (mostly hydrogen), would more readily annihilate into photons. This works from an idea that all fundamental particles annihilate into photons of equal energy. The half lives of fundamental particles are in general very large, but that would be under the conditions that most of them are found, i.e. bound in stars and planets etc. My hypothesis suggests conditions that might affect the half lives of particles directly. Peace

okay then, what is the difference between a theory and a mind experiment?

A proper theory needs corroborating mathematics or at least should provide mathematics that can make precise enough predictions for possible verification through experiment. I have no delusions about my mind experiment. It probably would not arouse a lot of interest in a serious theoretical physicist, except maybe being able to provide some motivation for further investigation (with some serious maths). I believe that some of the processes it describes might be able to be tested with mathematics, but alas, I lack the knowhow to do so on my own. It still has to stand up to superficial analysis before being able to warrant further investigation and that is where it is at the moment.

A proper theory needs corroborating mathematics or at least should provide mathematics that can make precise enough predictions for possible verification through experiment.

Kalaster,

Consider this:

We know through accelerator data that gravity is associated with the weak force. We also know that it has, or would comparatively have, infinite range. (I'll shatter that theory eventually in this.) To have infinite range it must also have infinite velocity. To have infinite velocity it must have infinitesimal mass, but cannot have zero mass, or it would comprise of only space; an absolute vacuum per se. Otherwise it violates the energy-mass equivocation.

Dr. CWho

To have infinite velocity it must have infinitesimal mass

Infinite velocity? You are talking about gravitons, right? They can't have infinite velocity (speed of light limit). The only candidate for that are tachyons, which have not been shown to exist, nor even need exist.

but cannot have zero mass, or it would comprise of only space

What is wrong with that?

Originally Posted by nintendo

If you insist that the curvature of space is responsible for the orbital movements of the planets, then what is the driving force for these motions? Your CoS or spacetime?

You did not answer this question?

Cosmo

Originally Posted by SuperNatendo

For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the big bang theory. Stephen Hawking said that the fact that microwave radiation had been found, and that it was thought to be left over from the big bang, was "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory."

Your whole theory falls apart from the beginning

I am promoting my version of the SSU.
It complies with all the Laws of Physics, experiments and observations .

The CMBR can be easily explained by the Thermal Equalibrium concept according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that says 'heat can only flow from hot to cold'.
When this heat is than equalized, there will be NO more flow.
So this CMBR temperature has a difference of ONLY 7/100,000K.
With this tiny fraction of difference, I consider that to be just about equalized.

The SSU also complies with the Laws of Conservation, the Michelson Morley experiment and the Arp Redshift Anomalies.

There was a space temperature already discovered in 1940 by an Australian astronomer (McKellar) that detected a molecule in interstellar space with a temperature of 2.3K.

This actual discovery preceded the Gamow et al prediction by a decade and it also provided a much closer temperature that those predicted by the Gamow group.

Need I say More?

Cosmo

They can't have infinite velocity (speed of light limit). The only candidate for that are tachyons, which have not been shown to exist, nor even need exist.

The need for tachyons to exist certainly clears up inconsistencies of this nature. Any particle having infinite range, i.e. the field extends to infinity, must have infinite velocity of itself or by its field components. Lightspeed is only a factor of infinity, as are all other finite quantities. In essence infinity is a prime factor of all finite numbers, in that all numbers, rational and irrational, can be divided by infinity, however they equate to the same quantity of 1/infinity, or infinitesimality. Photon decay is possible outside the universe's radius that suits them best.

The SM (standard model) includes a static universe, in that it does not revolve around some metagalactic supercenter. From our position we could not tell one way or the other except that convoluted expansion or contraction would show up in the position of galaxies. Within the radius that photons exist, we are moving with the same mean velocity as the other galaxies and with photons themselves. Anything outside a radius traveling less than c squared would be undetectable to any probe composed within the lightspeed radius. The SM is simply itching to be disproven. Gravity has this infinite range problem that confounds unification with the current SM and GUT (Grand Unification Theory.) What I just postulated about its need to have infinite velocity x infinitesimal mass, creates a velocit cone that renders the energy mass equivocation closer to zero, thus a prime factor of a far larger limit; the gravity speed limit.

Dr. CWho