Gravity is not quite as it seems

[Floydical]

I've wanted to make this thread for a little while, simply because when I first learned this fact, I didn't believe it.

Truth is, the concept of 'gravity' you learn about in school not totally correct. In school, you learn that the mass of a celestial object (like Earth) imparts an attraction force on other, smaller celestial objects. This 'pull' of gravity accounts for how we are standing in place rather than floating off into space, the Earth is so big it hooks us to its surface. This concept is simply not true, its a rushed and simplified way to explain gravity.

Truth is, gravity is not accounted for by object mass, but rather space being displaced by the volume of an object. The quickest and most easy way to describe the relationship between Earth and space is to liken it to a ball in a bathtub. When you submerge a ball underwater, it displaces the water and makes the height of the water in the bathtub rise. Celestial objects like Earth do the same to Space.

This is because space is not simply 'nothing'. Rather, space is comparable to a 3-dimensional fabric. This fabric can be bent, folded, scrunched up and displaced. So for a celestial object to exist in the universe, it must displace its volume worth of space in order to exist. As a result, the space in its direct proximity is scrunched up and folded along the surface, thus causing a force being imparted at its surface.

So don't confuse gravity as a the mass of an object pulling you down. Rather, the great volume of the earth causes a great deal of space to wrinkle at the surface of our atmosphere. This wrinkle in space, since space has an essence and is not nothing, imparts a force down on the Earth thus creating the illusion of gravity. The larger the celestial object, the more space it deforms and thus the more 'gravity' it creates.

The only difference in the bathtub example is if you were to plop a new planet in the universe, it would not raise the overall volume of the universe like submerging a ball in a bathtub will. Rather, in the universe, the distortion of space around an object only occurs in the immediate vicinity, it does not have an effect on all of space. That is why there is a lot of gravity near the surface of a planet, but not out in the middle of space.

I know this is an odd concept and some might simply not believe me, but this is the true facts about gravity and space. The concept you learned in school is most likely an incomplete or false version of reality. Thank you for reading and if this concept intrigues you, please do not fail to comment on it!

 

[Ciao]

what i just read[SUB]and what are you credentials [/SUB]

 

[Floydical]

what i just read[SUB]and what are you credentials [/SUB]

I watched a lot of discovery and science channel stuff

 

[Ciao]

I watched a lot of discovery and science channel stuff

cant hate on a man for learnin'

 

[Multiply]

The real truth is gravity itself might not even exist.

 

[Six Paths]

The space time fabric is something which does not remain ever constant. Einsteins view on gravity is about the best one, because it explains that matter, or energy, the more mass it has, the more it curves space and time inside. This curvature, will also be felt by other objects with mass and they will attract themselves to one another. And BTW, the volume doesn't have to do with the gravitational force, as much as the mass has. Because there are neutron stars, or super massive black holes with the radius and volume waaay smaller than the sun, or even the earth, but their mass is off charts. A black hole with the size of a nickel, is slightly more massive than the earth, despite having one trillionths of it's size.

 

[deadp00l]

How can gravity be real if our mind isn't real

 

[Aim64C]

Yet what imparts this phenomena upon "space?"

What is "space?" What physical particle marks its existence?

The problem with Relativistic models of Gravity is that they are purely mathematical and can be thought of as a "for all intents and purposes" model.

Physics has yet to truthfully define "Space" as a physical entity that -can- be acted upon. In other words, when we say that "space" is acted upon, what we mean to say is that via some phenomena, the procession of light from one unit of time to the other is distorted in accordance with a regular mathematical relationship.

We have no idea what "space" is - or if "space" actually exists. We just know that it takes a certain amount of time for light to pass between object A and object B and use this to assume there to be a physical distance between the two.

For example - Relativity is infinitely divisible in its purely mathematical description. This gives rise to the "mathematical singularity" - an object of infinite density. On the other hand, we can give rise to an infinite degree of temporal shifting by accelerating a massive body. We can pour, effectively, limitless amounts of energy into your space ship. We could collapse the known universe and all of its mass into energy to propel you ever faster (... relative to what... if it's all been collapsed?) and it would be possible for the universe to contain the kinetic energy of an entire universe in a single space ship the size of a car hurtling through the universe.

Even if we simply suggest a single galaxy is collapsed to transfer energy to a single manned space ship - Relativity still allows, mathematically, for all of this to take place. I can crunch the energy of an entire galaxy into a car and blast it at some hapless star in another galaxy. Since the ship can continue to accelerate indefinitely under Relativity, the car continues to gain energy, yet will never be able to achieve the speed of light.

This is no problem for Relativity, where space/time are infinitely elastic.

The problem is that we have experimentally verified time to be caused by the propagation of quantum states via 'entanglement' (or the collapse of said entanglement). This means QM reigns over such things as Relativity.

Per QM, we would -not- expect infinite 'elastic' behavior of space, time, etc. As you accelerated a massive object, there would be a point where the energy contained within the particle or the fundamental actions of, say, an atom, cause subatomic particles to attempt to violate Planck constants and therefor encounter what is known as a 'barrier.'

In QM, barriers are only partially effective. The wave function of a particle describes a certain amount of energy and any wave with enough energy has a certain probability of producing a particle on the other side of a classic barrier while the rest is reflected.

It would, therefor, be realistic to surmise that attempts to accelerate an object, even linearly, beyond a certain critical Planck-Energy/Planck-Second energy density would result in showers of exotic radiation and a shedding of energy from the system. Since only so much energy can be contained in any given planck-second of space, and the units of space must be in agreement between two relative bodies - the only conclusion is that Relativity is incorrect in its deduction of a non-preferential frame of reference. In order for QM to work, there must be a preferential frame of reference. Since we can generate the same phenomena of relativity by invoking the concept of macro-entanglement (or Quantum Decoherence) - QM resolves every concern regarding a preferential reference frame in Relativity.

Which makes sense - because the Sagnac Effect used for Laser Ring Gyros simply doesn't work under Relativity - so crisis averted.

Curiously, this means that temporal distortions are likely far more muted by increases in velocity than previously calculated (though further analysis of the effect of entanglement upon time needs to be done to fully define this in mathematical terms).

That said - under this type of model, things like "Jump" drives that instantly shift the occupants into a different part of the universe are not capable of violating causality, as QM places fundamental limits upon causality and, in many cases, completely mutes causality. Since many aspects of the world are only determined from the local perspective of the observer through events that trigger a cascade of wave-function collapse (decoherence) - and the fact that information about sufficiently distant locations is fundamentally restricted, there is no ability to violate causality - partially as the travelers can never be certain they are returning to the 'same world' from which they left.

Which gives rise to puzzling scenarios regarding existence where such 'jump' technology permits two individuals to experience entirely different realities regarding the same location after 'jumping' great distances, allowing time to pass, and returning. I expect there to be a 'mathematical description' of the degree to which realities could differ - but the haunting conclusion is that this idea essentially forbids (without first being able to experimentally observe such a phenomena) anyone from ever knowing if they are in a 'different' world. It's just that details about the world you left are lost over time and when you return, any lost details are simply filled in according to probability as needed.

Which makes for some interesting theories regarding the origins of the universe. From a QM standpoint - no physical origin of the universe is necessary - or even sensible to ask. The world you were born into is the world you were born into and the past retroactively fills in while the future unfolds. Which should beg the question of whether or not I am real - or just a phenomena developed from probability within the world you were born into....

Study Quantum Mechanics, and you'll become a philosopher in a hell of a hurry.

Or embrace Copenhagan and just kind of pretend that QM is simply practical math for developing things with no real value as a description of reality.

 

[asad70ful]

ahan ..so what about black holes?? they are not that much big...some blacholes are even smaller than earth, but still it even sucks in lights (so intense)

i would to read your this explanation as well....

 

[ethris]

I've wanted to make this thread for a little while, simply because when I first learned this fact, I didn't believe it.

Truth is, the concept of 'gravity' you learn about in school not totally correct. In school, you learn that the mass of a celestial object (like Earth) imparts an attraction force on other, smaller celestial objects. This 'pull' of gravity accounts for how we are standing in place rather than floating off into space, the Earth is so big it hooks us to its surface. This concept is simply not true, its a rushed and simplified way to explain gravity.

Truth is, gravity is not accounted for by object mass, but rather space being displaced by the volume of an object. The quickest and most easy way to describe the relationship between Earth and space is to liken it to a ball in a bathtub. When you submerge a ball underwater, it displaces the water and makes the height of the water in the bathtub rise. Celestial objects like Earth do the same to Space.

This is because space is not simply 'nothing'. Rather, space is comparable to a 3-dimensional fabric. This fabric can be bent, folded, scrunched up and displaced. So for a celestial object to exist in the universe, it must displace its volume worth of space in order to exist. As a result, the space in its direct proximity is scrunched up and folded along the surface, thus causing a force being imparted at its surface.

So don't confuse gravity as a the mass of an object pulling you down. Rather, the great volume of the earth causes a great deal of space to wrinkle at the surface of our atmosphere. This wrinkle in space, since space has an essence and is not nothing, imparts a force down on the Earth thus creating the illusion of gravity. The larger the celestial object, the more space it deforms and thus the more 'gravity' it creates.

The only difference in the bathtub example is if you were to plop a new planet in the universe, it would not raise the overall volume of the universe like submerging a ball in a bathtub will. Rather, in the universe, the distortion of space around an object only occurs in the immediate vicinity, it does not have an effect on all of space. That is why there is a lot of gravity near the surface of a planet, but not out in the middle of space.

I know this is an odd concept and some might simply not believe me, but this is the true facts about gravity and space. The concept you learned in school is most likely an incomplete or false version of reality. Thank you for reading and if this concept intrigues you, please do not fail to comment on it!

Its always good to want to share knowledge, thankyou for the post.

 

[Yata Mirror]

Aim64C took this very seriously..

OT: The elementary idea of gravity being a force dependent on your mass is derived from the Newtonian laws I think( second law iirc)

Einstein relativistic models don't make it that simple..
but well Newton's work seem to be approximations for Einstein's for low speed..

 

[Excālibur1]

If it is true as you said it, wouldn't that question this formula itself?

W = mg

 

[NineSNS]

OP and other contributors: Thanks for the posts :flowers

Of course, theories need to be over-simplified for mass consumption, but simple itself is a relative term.

<phones pharmacy to get ADD meds refilled>

 

[Floydical]

The space time fabric is something which does not remain ever constant. Einsteins view on gravity is about the best one, because it explains that matter, or energy, the more mass it has, the more it curves space and time inside. This curvature, will also be felt by other objects with mass and they will attract themselves to one another. And BTW, the volume doesn't have to do with the gravitational force, as much as the mass has. Because there are neutron stars, or super massive black holes with the radius and volume waaay smaller than the sun, or even the earth, but their mass is off charts. A black hole with the size of a nickel, is slightly more massive than the earth, despite having one trillionths of it's size.

ahan ..so what about black holes?? they are not that much big...some blacholes are even smaller than earth, but still it even sucks in lights (so intense)

i would to read your this explanation as well....

Ahh okay, I didn't even think this topic would be brought up.

The explanation of celestial object volume distorting space and creating gravity is proven by Einstein's, and other scientists', experiments with sunlight passing over the surface of the earth. Light can actually bend around the planet, directly implying it follows the bent space around the planet itself. So without a doubt, the space pushing on Earth is causing Earth's gravity. The same can be said of any planet.

Black holes are in a different league themselves. They were the aftermath of giant stars collapsing and the temperatures experienced in and around a black hole are unbelievably extreme. Not only that, but the black hole itself clearly has an affect on the space around it. Basically what I'm getting at is they are very hard to understand and it would be difficult to make a theory on their behavior. In a lot of ways, they break the rules we know. With that said, I can only relate it to my 'bent space' example by inferring the extreme level of mass within the black hole simply distorts the space around it. That distorted space could directly be causing the intense gravity experienced by the black hole.

Other than that, I don't have an explanation for black holes. However, scientists like Einstein proved the bending and distortion of space, so its undoubtedly the cause of gravity experienced on Earth on a daily basis.

As for Aim's response, maybe I can read that after work haha.

 

[Aim64C]

Ahh okay, I didn't even think this topic would be brought up.

The explanation of celestial object volume distorting space and creating gravity is proven by Einstein's, and other scientists', experiments with sunlight passing over the surface of the earth. Light can actually bend around the planet, directly implying it follows the bent space around the planet itself. So without a doubt, the space pushing on Earth is causing Earth's gravity. The same can be said of any planet.

This is merely an inference as to the cause of the phenomena.

Tiny ponies could just like atoms and push photons around with mathematical, religious zeal. Since we have no means of actually measuring space outside of the propagation of light, anything that influences the propagation of light would logically appear to influence the structure of space.

I propose a hastily crafted alternate. We know that space is not 'empty' and consists of self-annihilating particle/anti-particle pairs that spontaneously arise. This is what produces the Casimir Effect, and it has been theorized that energy-to-matter conversion could be accomplished through the use of specially tuned laser interference patterns that trap these particles as they spontaneously arise and prevent them from annihilating with their anti-particle pair (of course, this results in equal amounts of particles and antiparticles... unless some further factors of the phenomena are discovered and can be manipulated to bias the phenomena in favor of matter).

Some models suggest that the rate at which this occurs is relative to the amount of nearby entanglement - IE - the interchange of quantum state information. Systems with a greater amount of entanglement (such as a planet) would, therefor, produce greater amounts of particle/anti-particle pairs than, for example, the galactic void. (Though this could be inverted - models exist for either scenario) - this also produces a greater number of wave-function collapses of photons traveling through the region, which would generate a greater probability of producing the particle nearer the entangled system. Photons then interact with this spray of particle/antiparticle self-annihilation and are statistically weighted to favor an appearance nearer a larger entangled system.

This generates a curvature of what would have been a linear path. The same can be said of anything with a particle-wave duality - which includes all matter.

Thus, Gravity is an entropic and emergent property of QM as opposed to force that acts upon or distorts space.

It can still be thought of this way for the sake of convenience and simplicity for most intents and purposes - since the net effect is an apparent distortion of space - but when you want to get into the extremes of natural phenomena or engineering, looking at gravity as a force that disturbs the 'fabric of space' simply falls apart.

Black holes are in a different league themselves. They were the aftermath of giant stars collapsing and the temperatures experienced in and around a black hole are unbelievably extreme. Not only that, but the black hole itself clearly has an affect on the space around it. Basically what I'm getting at is they are very hard to understand and it would be difficult to make a theory on their behavior. In a lot of ways, they break the rules we know. With that said, I can only relate it to my 'bent space' example by inferring the extreme level of mass within the black hole simply distorts the space around it. That distorted space could directly be causing the intense gravity experienced by the black hole.

Case in point... Black Holes.

Within Relativity, Black holes don't have a "size." They can't have a size. They are what are known as "mathematical singularities" - meaning they are infinitely small - which means they are infinitely dense.

Obviously, this poses problems for a universe where things have a sort of granularity to them. At a certain energy, water molecules become a gas. Evaporation is the result of 'phonons' (units of energy within a material) compounding to give a water molecule the energy necessary to become a gas despite the average energy of water molecules being below that of the transition energy. We live in a universe with defined quantities where information is exchanged in defined and constrained units.

Black holes have what is known as an event horizon within their Relativistic description. One never reaches a black hole. Once you get close enough, it simply appears to never get any closer, and the world outside fades.

We do, however, know this to be an incorrect description. Hawking Radiation has been detected, and we know that the mass of a black hole is gradually reduced by anti-particles falling into its event horizon because of its influence on the spontaneous particle/antiparticle divide (one particle gets drawn in while the other ends up being flung away).

This means that the relativistic description of black holes is inadequate - as the singularity envisioned by Einstein should never truly receive matter from the outside world.

What is curious is that, to my knowledge, the Event Horizon of black holes is consistent to a collapse of the mass into a sort of Planck-Density arrangement. The Event Horizon of a black hole does not appear to be any smaller than what Planck Density would restrict the mass in question to. Which means Black Holes do not appear to violate QM. The mass contained in the space is not any larger than what Planck units suggest it should be limited to.

Although this would have to be more accurately measured and observed... since we have never directly observed an event horizon, before.

The point is that when you think of Black Holes as being: "Planck Matter" - a form of mass so dense that it literally exists at the extremes of what Planck Density allows - which is very similar to how Bose envisioned Black Holes (a sort of super-massive boson matter) - virtually all of the alleged problems with them just go away and they work just fine within the universe.

Other than that, I don't have an explanation for black holes. However, scientists like Einstein proved the bending and distortion of space, so its undoubtedly the cause of gravity experienced on Earth on a daily basis.

Well, the bending/distortion of light.

Although I suppose glass could be considered a distortion of space, as well.

As for Aim's response, maybe I can read that after work haha.

I'm being really bad and not including much in the way of links - which is really what I should do for a lot of this... Especially when I start mentioning things that most people are not familiar with much at all without taking a considerable level of Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, or Astronomy.

If you have any questions as to what in the hell I'm talking about, let me know.

 

[Lance171]

If it is true as you said it, wouldn't that question this formula itself?

W = mg

attention NB this guy is a huge troll

 

[Reborn]

attention NB this guy is a huge troll

If he is, there's a report button to let mods know so we can take care of it. Use that instead of going around being unnecessarily conspicuous otherwise you just come off as a troll yourself. There's an art to discretion...

 

[Ansatsuken]

My head explode.

 

[Floydical]

If it is true as you said it, wouldn't that question this formula itself?

W = mg

No, because I didn't deny the existence of the force you call 'gravity', only questioned how it works exactly. Its obvious the force exists, hence why that formula works, but not the way most people think it does. As I stated, its the force of space pushing down on you that accounts for that force, so yes it does exist and equations like that are still valid.

Spoiler

This is merely an inference as to the cause of the phenomena.

Tiny ponies could just like atoms and push photons around with mathematical, religious zeal. Since we have no means of actually measuring space outside of the propagation of light, anything that influences the propagation of light would logically appear to influence the structure of space.

I propose a hastily crafted alternate. We know that space is not 'empty' and consists of self-annihilating particle/anti-particle pairs that spontaneously arise. This is what produces the Casimir Effect, and it has been theorized that energy-to-matter conversion could be accomplished through the use of specially tuned laser interference patterns that trap these particles as they spontaneously arise and prevent them from annihilating with their anti-particle pair (of course, this results in equal amounts of particles and antiparticles... unless some further factors of the phenomena are discovered and can be manipulated to bias the phenomena in favor of matter).

Some models suggest that the rate at which this occurs is relative to the amount of nearby entanglement - IE - the interchange of quantum state information. Systems with a greater amount of entanglement (such as a planet) would, therefor, produce greater amounts of particle/anti-particle pairs than, for example, the galactic void. (Though this could be inverted - models exist for either scenario) - this also produces a greater number of wave-function collapses of photons traveling through the region, which would generate a greater probability of producing the particle nearer the entangled system. Photons then interact with this spray of particle/antiparticle self-annihilation and are statistically weighted to favor an appearance nearer a larger entangled system.

This generates a curvature of what would have been a linear path. The same can be said of anything with a particle-wave duality - which includes all matter.

Thus, Gravity is an entropic and emergent property of QM as opposed to force that acts upon or distorts space.

It can still be thought of this way for the sake of convenience and simplicity for most intents and purposes - since the net effect is an apparent distortion of space - but when you want to get into the extremes of natural phenomena or engineering, looking at gravity as a force that disturbs the 'fabric of space' simply falls apart.



Case in point... Black Holes.

Within Relativity, Black holes don't have a "size." They can't have a size. They are what are known as "mathematical singularities" - meaning they are infinitely small - which means they are infinitely dense.

Obviously, this poses problems for a universe where things have a sort of granularity to them. At a certain energy, water molecules become a gas. Evaporation is the result of 'phonons' (units of energy within a material) compounding to give a water molecule the energy necessary to become a gas despite the average energy of water molecules being below that of the transition energy. We live in a universe with defined quantities where information is exchanged in defined and constrained units.

Black holes have what is known as an event horizon within their Relativistic description. One never reaches a black hole. Once you get close enough, it simply appears to never get any closer, and the world outside fades.

We do, however, know this to be an incorrect description. Hawking Radiation has been detected, and we know that the mass of a black hole is gradually reduced by anti-particles falling into its event horizon because of its influence on the spontaneous particle/antiparticle divide (one particle gets drawn in while the other ends up being flung away).

This means that the relativistic description of black holes is inadequate - as the singularity envisioned by Einstein should never truly receive matter from the outside world.

What is curious is that, to my knowledge, the Event Horizon of black holes is consistent to a collapse of the mass into a sort of Planck-Density arrangement. The Event Horizon of a black hole does not appear to be any smaller than what Planck Density would restrict the mass in question to. Which means Black Holes do not appear to violate QM. The mass contained in the space is not any larger than what Planck units suggest it should be limited to.

Although this would have to be more accurately measured and observed... since we have never directly observed an event horizon, before.

The point is that when you think of Black Holes as being: "Planck Matter" - a form of mass so dense that it literally exists at the extremes of what Planck Density allows - which is very similar to how Bose envisioned Black Holes (a sort of super-massive boson matter) - virtually all of the alleged problems with them just go away and they work just fine within the universe.



Well, the bending/distortion of light.

Although I suppose glass could be considered a distortion of space, as well.



I'm being really bad and not including much in the way of links - which is really what I should do for a lot of this... Especially when I start mentioning things that most people are not familiar with much at all without taking a considerable level of Chemistry, Physics, Electronics, or Astronomy.

If you have any questions as to what in the hell I'm talking about, let me know.

Unfortunately, when I took the time to read this, I didn't understand 95% of it. If you can explain the black hole part a little simpler I'd appreciate it. The 'gravitational' pull a black hole imparts does seem to defy this logic of space pushing down causing gravity, but perhaps its a special case.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Actually surprised with myself that I understood this