What is Gravity?

What are you up to these days?

May be the mystery can be solved using Einstein famous equation

Absolute Energy could be either + or negative as you see.

The mystery of gravity must be there somewhere.

Yes I like your analysis GA.

Colossians 1:17

Acts 17:28

Zappa 2:47

The fact that all electrons are the same doesn't mean they have to communicate with each other. Their properties are determined by the physical laws of the universe when they were created out of energy shortly after the big bang. (Two newspapers may be the same bought in different cities, but they were created the same and don't have to communicate.)

Mass creates a hole in the fabric of space/time creating suction into the vacuous dimension that exists parallel to this one...the holes are so small that nothing but dark matter can fit through them...and it's dark matter rushing towards these holes that create the force of gravity....

Yes you have got me thinking, what is dark matter, and how does it fit into the picture with regard to gravity? So this is what I have come up with.

If mass is slowly being reduced at the centre of accumulated mass, what is it, and how and why, does it vacate the area? So, if the amount of mass is extremely small, so small as to fit the description of dark matter as you have pointed out. The result then is that it has to feed on mass to regain equilibrium, but as it's in an environment that created it, it has to go hungry? Therefore it is attracted to some point in space displaying what one might describe as anti gravity behaviour as it vacates? moving out into space until it reaches some point of equilibrium in space where it starts to feed resulting in it being a gravitational source. Note this behaviour will make it a very difficult thing to find?

Just one extra controversial point, as dark matter moves back into equilibrium it regains it mass, becoming hydrogen? Raising the possibility of the Steady State theory.

John: 11, 35.

What is Gravity? According to Einstein, bent spacetime.

"Matter tells spacetime how to bend. Spacetime tells matter how to move."

Many a good comments on this question years ago. Lots of fun then!

Not so sure about what all of the Biblical references are about, (not going to look them up!) but if we don't understand it now, I'm pretty sure there won't be a plausible explanation in a 700+ year old text.

Science is where the real answers will be found. Science does not partake in theories that have no proofs or repeatable results in experimentation. And, theology hardly ever repeats anything successful that has theories and proofs. I call it fairy tales for adults.

Science also tolerates make believe, where Theology tolerates nothing. Give me a break with the nonsense!

Here is the thing. Gravity seems to be a nuclear force. Not that we really know what to do with that....but that seems to be where it all comes from.

We know that photons are also related to and affected by gravity but we still don't have all of the answers.

We know how to create energy from mass (splitting the atom), and we now know how to create mass from energy (recent capability). The real question is if we could do both back and forth inside some yet to be created device, would it generate gravity waves? I think it might.

If we could create artificial gravity, we could probably exceed the speed of light. We might also be able to generate worm holes in space, but they might be limited to the area around the space ship. Warping the space-time fabric would also imply creation of gravity in the duration. I'm not so sure that the first creator of a gravity machine wouldn't be squashed by it the moment he turned it on. Could be dangerous!

Lastly, the natural state of matter (mass) is always the lowest energy state. Excite some matter to a higher energy level and it is likely to throw out photons (visible and invisible IR) in order to get back down to the lower energy state. That is how fluorescent lamps work with mercury.

What seems to really be weird is that Gravity is supposedly instantaneous where light has a fixed speed? I guess we will have to wait until equipment is produced (if possible) so we can test that theory! I think there must be a speed limit for gravity as well as light. Makes it tough when you can't generate it.

Gravity is limited to the speed of light. It is not instantaneous. Gravity waves move at the speed of light, no faster.

Gravity waves are generated by moving a large mass around. Gravity waves are very weak and the intensity drops off as the fourth power of distance (quadripole radiation). Although gravity waves have not been directly detected, they have been detected indirectly by the energy loss in binary pulsar systems, in which one of the pair is a rotating neutron star.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_pulsar

Even detecting gravitational waves is impossible now. Actually measuring the speed of propagation, once they are detected, I suspect, would be an order of magnitude harder. Gravitational waves are derived from the formulas of general relativity (which are beyond me), and I'm pretty sure that the speed of propagation is part of the derivation just like the speed of light comes out of Maxwell's equations.

"What are gravitational waves?

Gravity, according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, is how mass deforms the shape of space: near any massive body, the fabric of space becomes curved. But this curving does not always stay near the massive body. In particular, Einstein realized that the deformation can propagate throughout the Universe, just as seismic waves propagate in Earth's crust. Unlike seismic waves, however, gravitational waves can travel in empty space - and they do so at the speed of light."

http://www.nature.com/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-gravitational-waves-1.14886

Glad to hear that gravity waves are limited to the speed of light. It just didn't sound right when I heard that gravity was instantaneous. Still, I think we need another dimension just to describe it properly.

Thinking about the detection problem, a lot of conventional approaches have been taken and so far, nothing seems to have worked. Considering the vast distances in space, a wave hitting the earth at the speed of light would nearly hit all points at the same time as it passed through. The guys working at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory have been trying to detect this for a long time, without success. They are only using two dimensions and the detection direction may be in the wrong plane. The same mistake can occur in electromagnetic detection if conditions are right.

I suppose trying to measure microwave energy with an ohm meter is nearly impossible without something to convert the absorbed microwave energy to DC. So, until then it remains unmeasurable. The same thing is true if you are trying to measure AC voltage with a DC voltmeter. You get an answer of 0V unless you convert the test signal to DC and then measure it, and calculate a root-mean-square value for it.

Then there is the natural frequency to consider as well as bandwidth, etc. So, yeah, we all have a ways to go.

How can you measure a weaker force? At our current technolgy, we can't.

"I'm pretty sure there won't be a plausible explanation in a 700+ year old text"

700 + year old text? Try something in the order of 2 or 3 times that old!

How come no-one has mentioned GAVITONS as the means by which gravity is transmitted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Looks like they might be a little difficult to detect:

"Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector. The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole."

Now,now,children!

Isn't mass simply the bending of space (and time) ?

One of the last podcasts I listened to was talking about the number of dimensions at nuclear level being much higher. The bending between these dimensions could account for particle interaction by warping of these dimensions at high frequencies.

The detection of any of these interactions is challenging to say the least.

Gravity isn't hard to understand in warped 2 dimensions (warped plane with one out of plane force). So in 3 dimensions, we just have to imagine a fourth geometrical dimension that is "leaking" from the nuclear level and can only be sensed by ourselves when many of these effects (mass) group together.

To be honest, although that sounds implausible, it is just fun to think about it :-)

Have you access to Netflix? There is an in depth discussion of this on a documentary called the "Physics of Light".

Catch: 22

...or is it 42

How in post #1, Einstein's theory of relativity can be rated OT on fundamentals of gravity is even a bigger mystery.

But as Legolaz post says, the answer could be in the formula. I think it is because in my simple view where gravity can be as easy to visualise as a force acting on a mass causing it to move in one direction - but much less easy to see when the force acts in all directions at once on a stationary object - you feel the force but go nowhere.

I think this can be explained by a change in the rate at which time passes.

E = MC^2. Hidden in C is D/t (distance/time) when squared, gives E = MD²/t²

But D/t² is acceleration (and is constant because C is constant) and with the mass gives a force felt as gravity.

The difference here is that 'length' of D changes to compensate the change in t, but we cannot tell because we do not know how to measure it - or rather the means of measurement we use also change by the same proportion.

ie, the tape measure we use will always read a 'mile' - and the clock will always read a 'second' - we will never know. The electrons will always be the same size.

But at quantum level the time change manifests itself as gravity - and further, if gravity affects time - then the explanation of distance/size/red-shift as we know it could be revisited.

You need about a hundred years in a Faraday cage, and then another hundred in some other kind of cage.

Sending something via Bluetooth, here, is just a theory!

Indeed. The shouting is one indicator.

...it could be 'magnetism' - but there are many things not affected by magnetism - whereas they are all affected by gravity.

Also magnetic things can repel. I have not ever come across any form of gravitational force that pushes things apart.

I am not saying you are wrong in your theories - but perhaps not 100% right. it is just that there are anomalies that I can't understand

PS: You say you are new to CR4 in #27, and therefore might not know that uppercase typing is considered to be SHOUTING and somewhat frowned up.

In regards to spooky action at a distance:

Before the singularity went "Bang" every thing was in the same "place"; time did not exist yet.

Neither did a "place",because place,and space, and time requires a point of reference.

Time and space cannot exist in a universe composed of only one particle.

Time really does not exist,only the changing relationship between particles.

Everything in the universe was a single "thing".

It still is.

All of the particles in the universe still "remember" this close relationship,and to the

particles,time and space are just an anthropological illusion.

That which affects one,affects all, at some level.

All particles are entangled.

The mate for all particles may be separated by great distances,and not detectable

from our position in "space" and "time".

Any object in motion changes the whole definition of the universe

instantaneously,without regard to C,but we cannot see this because we are limited by

the speed of information to C.

C is not the speed limit of the universe,it is merely the speed limit of our observations of the universe.

A snail got mugged by two slugs.

Investigators asked the snail what happened.

He replied:
"I don't know,it all happened so fast."

Great answer!! You summed up my thoughts (minus the magnetism) quite well!! Someone said that they were having trouble seeing the gravity have a negative side like diamagnetism. Yet most of us see one of the only visible forms of diamagnetism. Diamagnetics are weak on comparison with all other magnetic forces. Molecular or Atomic at the level, most times it will take a real BIG BANG AND AN ELECTRON MICROSCOPE. I have been slightly harassed by Tornado however all of those particles together are not spinning back to earth, they are very loud and powerfully accepting new groups of people all just trying to learn. I find it very interesting that man sees Atoms as a proton with electron moons. Molecules have the same art work then (No particular order) families, cities and towns, if you buildit centrally and make it nice the people will come to visit, Airports with a hub, (No the Aircraft arent magnetically bound to the hub lol!) and so many more examples of magnetics and how mankind views the invisible forces of magnetics. Throw it into outerspace and the planets have moons all spinning around the sun which is sending waves of all forms of mass that change constantly. So many different particles formed into many different substances and mankind subconsciously represents them with identicle drawings. Yet if you ask the same man which is which one!...Then the question is really asked and people bouch all over the place with he said she stuff. I think that if you dont allow your mind to be held down by gravity that most of us would be truely amazed at what you can do with FRESH THOUGHTS!, and a well rested low stress sharp mind "Sans Gravity!"...Thanks Again Hitech redneck for a great answer. Have a nice rest of the day!....Paul

So Paul, are you saying that gravity is just the elusive monopole of magnetic force? If they were related, wouldn't they both have to be present all of the time? Our moon has gravity but no magnetic field (as far as I have heard). Magnetism requires motion unless it has been been recorded in a solid such as iron.

Not trying to pick a fight here, just throwing out some food for thought.

Opinions are a dime a dozen. Facts are where we try to operate. A theory becomes a fact when proofs are found. Got any proofs?

Fascinating.

"...C is not the speed limit of the universe, it is merely the speed limit of our observations of the universe..."

It helps me to look at C, not as a speed limit (or is it velocity) but as a constant, a fixed ratio of D/T. ie, distance over time.

All observed measurements as we know them (particularly distance) by assuming time increments being the same throughout the universe might be restricting our progress.

The maths is beyond me but things like the red-shift to explain an expanding universe might equally be explained by a static universe with time shrinking over a distance - and black holes might be grey (or what colour?).

While I have nothing based on formal training to contribute to this discussion, I will say that...

I have always looked upon the effect of "gravity" that we see in the physical world as being the direct result of the bending of space time and how all matter must exists on the plane of space time.

I think that perhaps a curved path in space time exists between every single particle of matter (perhaps all the way down to the Plank Length) to every other particle of matter.

Gravity can then perhaps be seen as being nothing more complex than mass "rolling" down the curve of space time towards the particle of mass that is at the other end of the steepest curve.

We must also remember that as a particle is rolling towards the point in space time that is at the other end of the steepest curve... the particle at the far end of the curve is also rolling towards that other particle.

The interesting thing comes when you give some though to the fact that everytime a piece of matter is shifted on the plane of space time, the relationships between all other particles change to suit the redistributed positions of the matter along the plane of space time.

I also think that... gravity "propagates" immediately, the word propagate is not appropriate as it means that the effect moves towards something. I do not think that is the case. The curve in space time between particles of matter is immediate and does not propagate towards anything. We may observe it as propagating, but that may be because of other physical constraints of reality.

Interesting discussion...

The editor is toasted... the above was entered with proper parragraphs and it will not let me fix it.

But I was able to fix the formatting just before my edit limit timed out.

Gravity=what helps me find the floor after indulging in a little too much of my favorite distilled beverage (after all I really don't know which way is up at those times), Thanks gravity I'll never have to worry about waking up on the ceiling.

What is gravity?

OK, here's my 2 cents worth...

Mass, whatever it is (a condensed form of energy) bends the fabric of space-time around it, somehow. Perhaps a small part of this energy "leaks out" into the surroundings. There is energy stored in this external field (the gravitational field) just as there is energy stored in a magnetic field around a magnet or a current carrying coil of wire. But here the analogy ends. They are not the same, and they don't behave the same way. Gravity is due to mass and affects all matter equally, magnetism is due to the motion of electric charge. A closer analogy to gravity is the stress energy stored in a flexible object like a spring.

The sum of the energy of the gravity fields of two bodies when they are separated is greater than the combined field's energy when they are close together, so there is an attractive force related to the change in energy with distance. When you walk up a hill, energy from your muscles is stored in the combined gravity field of you and the earth, increasing its strength very slightly. When you walk back down, that energy is returned.

The problem I have is understanding what this attractive force is. Why are things attracted towards each other and what is it that pulls them together - and having met, what then keeps them apart until the mass becomes enough to disappear into a black hole

I know it is called gravity and it is something we all are ware of, but your explanation to help visualise what gravity is uses an example of uphill/downhill which requires gravity to make it work.

I am not picking holes in you post, buy I am left with a problem I had as a kid when first learning the earth was round in infants school and asking why people living underneath in Australia did not drop off.

Calling it gravity satisfied the curiosity, but never explained what it actually was.

I might be able to understand modern explanations if it enabled us to 'make' gravity - or perhaps more useful - 'make' anti-gravity - or negative mass....

Einstein once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the happiest thought of his life was when he realized that acceleration and gravity were indistinguishable. Playing catch with another person on a rotating carousel is a good example. The ball appears to curve, even though in reality it is moving straight. The straight line between you and the other person has become bent by the acceleration. Note that you have to consider space and time or space-time. Light between you and the other person follows a different path through space-time than the ball because it is travelling much faster, although it does curve very slightly.

So if gravity is equivalent to acceleration and acceleration warps space-time, then gravity somehow warps spacetime. Somehow, mass causes the space-time around it to become warped, and objects moving through this gravitation field are really moving in a straight line or geodesic. The path appears curved only because the space-time is curved. (It's the same reason that flights from New York to London travel north over the atlantic because of the curvature of the earth. It's still the shortest distance.)

If an object is moving through space in a straight line and you wish to divert it, you need to apply a force. If an object is falling through a gravitational field, following a geodesic curve and you divert it (stop it from falling), you apply a force, which we know of as the weight of the object.

OK, that's 4 cents worth. It's a nice picture that I like. There are still unknowns. Who knows where energy is stored when you lift a heavy object or accelerate an object. My mental picture is that somehow, space-time is elastic, and the energy is stored in bending space-time, just like energy is stored in a magnetic field when you pull two magnet's apart.

As far as controlling gravity, the closest we can come is to use an accelerated reference frame such as a centrifuge or to fly an airplane in a parabolic trajectory to experience weightlessness for a short time. There's no evidence that I know of that it even can be controlled.

Thanks Rixter.

As you say, Einstein made a link between gravity and acceleration. Maybe my earlier comment #37 looking at C as a fixed ratio between distance and time is a thought in the right direction where warped space is caused by time (increments) changing creating something equivalent to acceleration that we feel as gravity.

Light waves pass through a gravitational field and experience the change in 'time' by going 'slower', thus the edge a beam of light nearest the gravity source will go slower the the outer edge thus causing it to bend towards the gravity source.

And since the universe contains all the mass it will bend light to an extent where I imagine the use of an 'infinite telescope' will enable you to see the back of your neck - albeit you might have aged a bit before you see your younger self.....

But none of this explains what this attractive force actually is. Anymore than stress/strain explains why atoms/molecules of iron stick together to make steel rods. Or more mysteriously why the broken ends of the rod do not unite with the same 'stickiness' when placed back together again - unless welded.

Fortunately, progress of mankind does not require me to know.

A speed boat can create a wave in water,and the wave travels a a much slower rate than the boat.

The speed limit of observation in our universe is C.

We cannot see the boat that caused the wave.

Likewise with Gravity.

We see the effects,but not the cause.

Spacetime penetrates and passes through every spec of matter in the universe,and it is bent by matter because of the different densities of matter versus empty space,like a light ray being bent when it enters water.

Spacetime also slows down as it passes through matter,and bends.

This can be seen with clocks compared within and outside of gravitational fields.

Electron tunneling can happen faster than C because in certain materials space time is less "dense" or "Stretched out" ;The "mile markers" are further apart.

Well,at least that is the way I see it.

The electron tunneling (or similarly, Cerenkov radiation) may be faster than c_m (in medium), but not faster than c (in vacuum).

Good point! Your response made me think about another question regarding the speed of light.

If you are standing on the beach and the waves are coming in, in their usual fashion, at their ordinary speed, it is possible to observe the arrival of that wave in such a way that it defies ordinary wave speed. That is to say that you look parallel to the beach, (perpendicular to the edge of the wave) you will observe that it does not all arrive at the same time. It was a favorite game trying not to be caught in the water as the wave crashed upon the sand. But to do that, one would watch that leading edge approach the sand, and the speed at which it moved across the sand could be very fast depending on how perpendicular the wave front was to the beach.

Now, consider that light waves behave pretty much the same way as ocean waves. Does that mean that the speed at which the light wave traverses a non perpendicular surface has to obey the speed limit? Pretty weird to think about. I'm not sure about what effects that would have on our ability to observe it, but if you are well read on the breaking of the sound barrier, you would see a lot of parallel misconceptions.

Here is a link that I found interesting:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/antigravity/

I think gravity is space time accelerating in all directions,and matter is "stuck" in a "net"

of space time,causing the space time "grid" to warp.

If you put the rubber sheet analogy in zero gravity,then accelerate the sheet at a

constant rate of 1G,the result will be the same as gravity.