Skins

strange said this when I made the above description. Back to I bought up an alternative to the warping of space-time and that is that space was being absorbed by (or flows into) matter and it was that that causes the effect of the space-time distortion rather than gravity. I can't see how general relativity or anything else would change as a result of this description but that is again probably because my understanding is limited. At the end of the day whether it was gravity or the absorption of space that caused the warping of space-time I can't see how that would affect anything else differently. Space in our universe is very interesting in itself and I know that no one has a good understanding of what space actually is. I have seen it suggested that it could be made up of strings (in string theory) and given String theory suggests numerous dimensions and the properties of these are not understood then perhaps space exists in one of these dimensions in a way that looks different to what we see. Space stretches, contorts and expands, it acts as a medium for magnetism light and most likely gravity and this does not sound like nothing. Space must be something and not nothing as it has properties. Given string theory suggests that the laws of physics came about shortly after the big bang and other multiverses may have other laws then if this is true it would suggest that space must obey our laws of nature. That leads me to another question the universe is expanding into what, is it space; another type of space or something else? If it is and there are other multiverses with different laws then what are the laws of the space our space/universe is expanding (displacing is an alternative word) into. Will this space if that's what it is, have laws. This leads me to believe more that our space is something, it obeys our laws of physics and has properties, many of which we don't understand. Is it a dimension as presented by string theory? Now you're not going to like this but I think yes (I know - no evidence) and seeing it looks like nothing if you were to give it a dimension then what about dimension zero? I know we see it as part of our four dimensional space-time. It is probably only for my thoughts on space have I suggested the possibility of the flow of space as an alternative to gravity. Space is not nothing because it has properties. I don't think I will be alive when someone can put a bit of space in a bottle and tell me they know all about it and how it works. I know I'm not an academic in this area and I hope I'm not upsetting anyone with my thoughts but what I like about science is that we know so little and it leaves lots to ponder and dream about so please don't be too hard on me let me dream a bit. Thx for your patience so far.

Forget about the box.... or do you guys like to debate for the sake of debating. Debate is a better word than argue.

Phi for all. I am willing to learn and I read a range of articles over the net, many of them go over my head. I can tell you guys work in this academic area and are extremely intelligent and I could read all I like I am not going to have the understanding most of you have but.... I presented an alternative and most likely far fetched hypothesis to gravity but only Imatfaal made a suggestion as to why this is not possible but I don't necessarily agree (and that might be because I don't have a good enough understanding of this phenomena). I would suggest that if two objects were close to each other both causing an overlapping distortion in space time then energy would be lost. The earths rotational spin has been slowing for thousands of years and that is thought to be due to the gravitational effect of the moon. What if it was due to the energy required to distort space-time or a frictional coefficient due to the distortion of space-time between the two. I still in no way would contend that my hypothesis is correct but to completely discount it, an argument should not be contestable. So I would suggest that if from the model I presented a ball would not roll down a hill because of gravity but because as space flows into matter then time-space is warped and the ball would be following the contours of space-time which should converge toward the centre of the earth. And as it has been put forward there is plenty of inferred evidence of gravity waves but none have been measured yet and so any inferred evidence may be explained in other terms. I think I am in a great position because I have no credibility to lose in making perhaps outlandish hypothesis', I don't think many of you can do that because you have too much credibility to put on the line. String theory was well maligned when it was first presented and while there is no primary evidence of it, it is well accepted now. My head will start hurting soon but the conversation has been good.

You guys are funny. I suggest an alternative theory on gravity and get a couple of comments then I mention thinking outside the box and all of a sudden the philosophers in you can't resist the topic. This is as much a philosophers forum as it is a science forum. I've learnt about Betteridge's Law and not to mention the term thinking outside the box. That's enough of a start. Thx

Thx. I'm happy with a question on the title, and thx for the kind words. I would like to think a few people that visit this site think outside the box. I'm certainly one of them. I have got a question. Is there any evidence the Higgs Boson actually mediates gravity or is it still conjecture. I know when they discovered it, it was declared the god particle that was the solution for gravity but is that concrete.

You're right I did. And if I did know Betteridge's law then it may have been a Freudian slip but I didn't and thx for enlightening me. I feel a bit like I am just climbing out of the primordial soup compared with the understanding you guys have got. But thx for persevering with me in what is likely to be infrequent input. This was a good program and it was enough to get me thinking and until gravity waves are confirmed nothing is set in stone so posing alternative lines of thought is still an option on gravity. Based on Betteridge's law I should have put a question mark at the end of the topic heading.

Actually the program I watched was "through the wormhole Series 5 episode 7 Is gravity an illusion". It is on youtube. I thought it was a good program if anyone was interested. I have tried to provide a link but wasn't able to.

Thanks Strange for the informative reply. I had a read and it was probably non technical enough I could handle it. It is good to see I am not the only one that has thought along this line, and for it to be a Nobel prize winner doesn't make me feel too bad. I was hoping this idea was completely original and while it seems similar I don't think Gullstrand's explanation was one to explain an alternative to gravity, he certainly does argue that space falls into a black hole rather than the notion that space is distorted as a result of the mass of the black hole. MigL I don't think my idea has a dependence on the size of the plug or hole. I do think the size of the plug would be dependent on mass-energy. The more mass-energy the object then the faster is would drain space around it and so the more space time would be distorted around it. No different than current models. By distorting space as the space drains into the matter then other objects within the vicinity would be drawn towards it as a result of the distortion, like water flowing down an incline.

I watched a science documentary that suggested that "gravity may be an illusion" and argued a case that entropy could be a possible cause of what we consider is gravity and effect of gravity could be a cause rather than a fundamental law as suggested by Newton. In the argument are some good cases were put forward such as LIGO has been looking for a gravity wave for ten years and has not found one (apparently it has discovered the chirping of crickets). It made me think. Let's suggest there is no such thing as gravity. Now consider that space has many of the properties of liquid. It transmits waves, light etc. It is expanding and hence flexible and according to Einstein space - time can be stretched and I believe this. Now instead of considering that matter is attracted to matter what if matter acted more like a plug hole and the fabric of space - time was more like water. When you pull the plug out of a basin the still water flows into the hole causing a distortion in the water, the edge of the whirl pool is very much like the event horizon on a black hole. Now what it matter acted very much like that with space. Instead of a plug hole in the basin consider a cricket ball or just a spherical shape that space flows into from all three (or four if you include time) dimensions. But the ball never fills and space continually flows into it. This would still create the time-space curvature around an object as predicted by Einstein. This space-time curvature is always curved towards the matter but from all dimensions. While I am suggesting this I am thinking of a large object such as the earth. Consider what effect this would have on the moon. It would still circle in the curvature of space without the need for gravity. This would not violate any laws such as F=G m1.m2 d2 It may be that the constant in this formula is relative to the curve of space. Since gravity waves have still not ever been measured there is no concrete evidence that gravity actually exists and it may be an effect from another action occurring. I don't think this idea is so outlandish. I think Einstein's theory of relativity would also hold true. So that moving through space would also cause a displacement of time. Does the apple fall because of gravity or does it fall because there is a curvature of space possibly caused by space flowing into matter. (perhaps space can flow into matter and end up in another dimension or disappear, I don't know where is goes but I am sure there are a lot of people that would suggest there was nothing there to start with so nothing is disappearing) What do others think??

I don't want to present a new theory but something to think about. Within our universe we have a lot of space and it interacts with matter and fields and generally obeys the laws of physics or at least doesn't stop them. Gravity passes through it as does magnetic and electromagnetic waves. When discussing string theory I see that Michio Kaku suggests that there may be eleven dimensions. These dimensions have membranes or branes I think was a term he used. I believe he suggested that the universe may be the surrounded by a membrane and considered it the 11th dimension. Also string theory suggests the possibility of multiverses and that they may not have the same laws of physics as our own universe. Space from our universe is expanding-into (I like the word displacing better) the void (space) outside our universe. Now considering string theory and multiverses that may have different laws of physics then the space within our universe complies with the laws of physics but would the space outside our universe which we are displacing have to comply.... Maybe not. If is doesn't have to comply with the laws of physics wouldn't that open up some interesting possibilities. i.e. maybe it wouldn't allow gravity to propagate through it. Now I know there is no way of achieving the following but what if you could overlap two force fields (I know this is science fiction) over each other lets say under say a flying saucer then expand one field out in a curve so it leaves a void between the two fields so nothing is allowed to enter. Would the void/space inside this envelope be governed by the laws of physics in our universe or is there a chance that the void in this field could be outside our laws of physics and prevent gravity and/or other fields. Sorry there must be plenty of weird suggestions put of this site but.... about 40 years ago when I was about 12 I saw a flying saucer go over my house it was about 20-25 metres wide and only about 50 metres above the house moving slowly then took off into the horizon with incredible speed and I have always wondered how is flew (and I am assuming it blocks gravity or something similar). We will have this technology one day.... and I think it is closer than people think. Bring on the answers Hadron.

Strange I can see you are switched on and for me this is just an interest so there is lots I don't understand but a fair bit I have looked into and I know a there are lot of assumptions yet to be proven. You may suggest that expanding space is just an analogy and consider the space between points of matter is expanding but in string theory space may be made up of strings that have an intrinsic energy much like a rubber band wanting to expand. I would suggest no one is sure what space is least of all you or me..... but we can guess until we know for sure. For me I think of space as being associated with a dimension. We live in a four dimensional universe space - time, but what is say that space is not made up of strings, it certainly has plenty of properties but does not have matter and hence does not produce gravity. And I didn't realise energy can behave identically the same with regards to gravity. I had a bit of a look around and found explanations that photons could produce gravity but.... Heat is another form of energy and I have found nothing that would suggest that heat could create gravity..... Now to contradict myself. I know sensible heat is the vibration of atoms but in the void of space we don't have atoms so the only way we could have heat in space is radiation which is part of the electromagnetic spectrum so now we are back to energy does produce gravity because the electromagnetic spectrum is a form of light. Anyone else around who can expand on this and if matter is converted into energy will it produce the same gravitational effect that would have been produced by the matter that was converted? I find this stuff interesting and have joined to make hair-brained suggestions (then again many popular theories now were most certainly not accepted readily at first - like string theory) and learn interesting facts that I will never put into practice.

On the I doubt it. If space is expanding then is has a property of a substance or element. (I would suggest that the space within our universe should be considered a substance as it must abide by the basic laws of physics as we currently know them. It conducts light, magnetism, gravity etc, and the edge of our universe is considered a membrane by many. (but not proven) The space outside our universe may not abide by these laws, but that is leading to another theory I have.) Considering dimensions in string theory it is not likely that all those dimensions will contain tangible elements with atoms etc. but if they have strings of energy then they could be considered and element? If mass could be responsible for repulsion of space then as the universe gets older and mass decreases (as it is converted to energy) it may reach a point where the mass acting on space, in the form of repulsion has less effect then the gravitational effect of the mass acting on other objects with mass. This may not happen until a large amount of the mass is converted to energy E=mc2. Scientists are not sure if the acceleration of the universe will continue to increase, but I am presenting a theory or idea whereby I see a possibility that gravity could react with space differently than is does with matter and cause repulsion of space while there is still an attraction of matter.

I liked the term repulsive gravity that might be a better term. With that said it may be a repulsive gravity from matter that is actually acting on space. No doubt space is a substance and has properties and may even be one of the further dimensions described in string theory. As strange suggested gravity has a square law and I would assume a repulsive gravity may have a similar effect. But as the universe expanses then the volume of the universe expands and so the interaction between a repulsive gravity and space would increase conforming with the fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Now consider that as the universe get older then more matter is being converted to energy and the mass of the universe is hence decreasing. If my wild assumption had some substance then all the while the volume of space would continue to increase but.... Eventually it may reach a tipping point where as the mass of the universe decreases enough and the total interaction causing expansion may start to reduce and the universe could start to slow and then collapse. I am sure this is one notion no one wants to let go of (everyone always thought the universe would stop expanding and most likely collapse). I find it hard to believe the lights just go out as the universe expands forever. This theory would also satisfy that "at some point expansions started accelerating", this may have happened when the volume of the universe increased to a tipping point that the interaction between a repulsive gravity and space reached a point causing this acceleration and while it looks like a runaway effect it may reverse with matter reducing in the future.

I was asked a question, "Is the universe expanding". I went on to explain that the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. To use an analogy I described the expansion as accelerating similar to the follow. Imagine you are in the stratosphere and affected by gravity and so falling back to earth (disregard an atmosphere that would cause resistance). At this distance from the earth the gravity will be less than 9.8m/sec2 but as you fall the gravity will increase towards this and you will fall faster and faster as the effect of gravity increases. Now look at that in reverse and the universe is expanding but at an accelerated rate that is increasing. The exact opposite to the effect of gravity or like gravity in reverse. Then a wild thought came to me. The effect of gravity on an object with mass is similar but opposite to the expansion of the universe. Let's suggest that gravity does not just pass through space but interacts with it causing a type of anti-gravitational effect. So gravity from objects with mass interact with space causing space to have an inverse relationship to the effect of gravity. So gravity actually causes space to expand and the more space that then exists the more interaction we have resulting in an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. But wait there's more........... Is it possible that is the explanation for the existence of Dark Energy and if so then the so called Dark Energy in the universe is increasing also.