bundil

How far back from death, though? A "vegetable" state (brain-dead or comatose) would be possible for most of the deceased, but resuscitating the brain has long been a field of consideration for a while. Unfortunately, most of the conversations tends towards either a limitation of ethics, especially regarding religion, or a limitation of biology, in that we are still not entirely certain how to restart a brain that has stopped function entirely. So, assuming these were both overcome, the most reasonable answer might be undoing softer forms of suicide, lethal overdosing of most any substance, drowning, and the like. Unfortunately, many of these still involve damage to the brain, which would undeniably persist through the reviving (resurrecting?) process and, most likely, result in immediate death again. In short, "would" seems too difficult of a question to answer without a "how" to temper its capability.

As Strange said, this seems more like a hypothesis, but there's no given background for it, so to answer your poll directly, the information given is not a valid theory (in the scientific sense of the word). Do you have anything more in-depth on this? Maybe a publication or a proposal that it's based on?

I've always felt that one is a bit of a double-edged sword. After all, if it turns out you really don't know what you're on about, but you brought up Dunning-Kruger... Well, I'll certainly give it a read, but I can't promise solid comprehension of post-graduate topics when (as stated before) I don't have the pre-graduate background. Thanks again, though!

I will read it, thanks! Yes, though I more meant appropriate it for a new definition that does not necessitate the presence of matter. It's not like words get new literal definitions as common use demands or anything. I dunno, maybe I just prefer a warmer word than "void".

Okay, so the same thing that determines ions is what generates a magnetic field, regardless if it's due to a ferromagnetic substance or an electromagnet (such as what's used at scrapyards)? That's... interesting, but I'm not sure what to do with the info. Maybe it'll come up in a year when I'm staring at my ceiling again? Okay, so friction is limited extremely to only appearing in opposition to an applied force, and is... just is? Is this the real energy tax? I guess I'm asking a bunk question if it's "how does this field exist and exert itself", huh? Ah, so it's the wrong tree to bark up. Makes sense. That page makes me wish I had taken more math in college. Yeesh. That in mind, you say the interior of the shell would have a net gravitational acceleration of zero, but would the spin of the planet not still apply an inertial force? I would think that the planet spins fast enough, but I've been wrong before. Oh, in that case don't feel too bad! Any advice on papers or publications to read on that subject? Something something, 'the arrogance of man'? S-something someth-thing, a-arrogance of man?? More seriously, I can understand the sentiment of excitement but it seems to be very much the unknown and I would predict propulsion induced by electromagnetic systems long before a grasp of gravity. That was informative! I find it a bit difficult imagining three-dimensional space like what we live in as a flat plane but then they had the guy standing in the cube grid and it got way easier. Makes me wish we could still use the term aether instead of "void" or "vacuum of space".

That is my understanding of it. Something likely to be repeated quite a bit: sorry for poor wording. So acceleration due to gravity (and the extent of its effective reach before being relegated to "negligible") in the presence of a consistent mass will only change due to distance from the whole object, rather than with density? (I'd also hope significantly that the Sun doesn't turn into a black hole. Isn't it pretty far below the minimum mass anyways?) You are correct, I mean more that I don't understand how gravity applies a force in much the same way as friction, but only with proximity? Maybe an example of my confusion is that, say, wind is a property of atmospheric pressure and gasses moving, but everything from the density of the air to the gaseous molecules themselves have energy differences and, typically, confer energy in some way or another when interacting with other objects, say, a kite. Gravity, however, doesn't seem to use particles, certainly not the way wind or light does, while it must constantly be worked against. Getting out of your chair is an exhibition of force applied against gravity. It doesn't seem sensible that there is nothing about gravity which demonstrates the need to expend energy against even just to walk across the street, though that's obviously less energy needed than to, say, do a pull-up, or freeclimb a cliff face. How about this: when I lift a rock from the ground and hold it in front of me, I expended energy of my own to counteract gravity, and so long as I hold the stone it has potential energy because of gravity. What's the difference in the rock's potential energy from on the ground to where I'm holding it? Nature could open up a sinkhole right under that rock and drop it another six hundred feet, or it could sit by a riverbed until erosion turns it to sand. Does it not still have potential energy due to gravity, which is acting on it at all times? I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your distinction between matter and mass in this. Is mass not a property? Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the relationship between matter and mass? I'm fairly certain it's negligible until you get to very large quantities of coffee, and even Starbucks won't make that much for one order. I am sure I don't understand, can you restate or clarify these? My intent was "electromagnetic and electrical energy (light, & energy transferred along power lines, e.g.)". Most of my knowledge is too general to be useful. Back to the "too general for use" bit, I was trying to describe gravity as sharing properties with magnetic fields and with electric fields. It's not the deepest observation, I know, but nature likes its patterns and it seems... relevant? Okay, here's that bit from before with the mass/density relationship to gravity, and I probably made a mess of that statement so I'll try again: Our understanding of Earth's gravity is at its surface, and has an acceleration effect of 9.8m/s2. If all the Earth's mass were condensed into a ball the size of, say, the outer and inner core, acceleration due to gravity would still be 9.8m/s2 at the distance from the center that the surface was prior to that. So, would the acceleration due to gravity not increase were you to measure from the new surface of the condensed planet, which has a considerably higher density and the same mass? Increasing density while maintaining mass necessitates reducing the volume, and therefore the radius, right? Similarly, if we had that hollow shell planet where all of the mass of the Earth became focused at the crust, what would gravity be like inside that shell? Would you be pulled/flung into the "ceiling" by gravity/inertia (the planet is still rotating in this hypothetical), or would you be drawn towards the center void, which is still the "center" of the planet's mass (in a sphereically symmetrical object as described)? Sorry if this is kind of a wandering question I'm in the dark with a box of matches. I think it's the contemporary view? I would actually ask how, but that's close enough for a question without an answer (yet) that I'll concede it's the limit of the conversation. As for the analogy, I guess the need the would be a cause for why warping spacetime doesn't seem to affect magnetic fields? Or... how does a magnetic field ignore spacetime? I feel like I'm closer to the right question I don't understand what you are saying, though I suppose the bit above regarding potential energy will leak into this topic as well so I'll let you decide if you want to merge them. Thanks a ton, Strange, seriously. Not a tonne, though. I see. I'll read into electric fields more, then. D'you think that's because we feel like humanity has grasped electricity as a tool, as rudimentary as it may end up being in the grand scheme of things we don't know, while gravity remains squarely in the realm of "we know what it does, but not enough about how to affect change"?

Where can I read more on/who is preeminent in the particular field of study? I know magnetism is/was considered to be caused at the quantum level but all I can find about the guys is kind of rough to understand. Okay, so that's not really clear to me, though as I said my understanding is gravity associated with mass. If it's a property of spacetime, why does it need mass/energy to... be, I guess? How does it confer energy, though? Or I suppose the better way to put that is where is the energy with which gravity acts coming from? Without an opposing force, gravity accelerates infinitely to the limit of its center. We rely on the ground to counteract it, and our physiology has evolved directly in relation to it, because it is infinitely relentless. So, how? What is the active source of gravity? Is that a question still being figured out/mulled over? ...Am I even asking the right question?

This seemed like the best place to put something as vague as the question I have, though I will try to make it as clear as possible with my relatively limited knowledge. As far as I'm aware, it's mostly lower-level info, but if a source is needed I will find one. Also I hope this doesn't leave a bad impression as a first post As an author, I tend to spend a lot of time thinking, and occasionally odd propositions are distilled from a few dots being drawn quite by accident. It's hard to detail exactly what basis I have for this, but I will try to encompass those points as briefly as I can, as I understand them. If they are wrong or flawed, please tell me, I haven't looked in a physics book since IPC in 2013. My question is this: What causes gravity? My information (epistemology prevents me from confirming any of this is knowledge until verified by a reliable source, but it is as reliable as I can manage) follows. To whit(ish): Gravity is considered a property of matter, directly correlated with mass, with a limited range (in that it has that inverse square relationship with distance). Gravity is a force, acting constantly on all things across the universe, but again only intensely and, for the most part, noticeably, near bodies of great mass. Planets, stars, black holes, even dense planetoids and moons, with greater gravitational force from higher mass bodies. Gravity from a small, dense object is much more noticeable than gravity from a large, spread-out(?) objects. This is because the bodies upon which the gravity is acting are relatively closer or further away (respective to size) to all of the matter which makes up the object in question. This is also related to the inverse square law of distance, though on a much more local scale than, say, a solar system. As a force, gravity is constantly conferring energy to every object in range, directing it towards the source of that gravity and its center of mass. Gravitational potential energy is evidence of this, letting us sleep in one spot without drifting off the planet's surface, or pour a cup of coffee rather than needing a sealed bag to contain the bubble of hot bean juice. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed (f...first law of thermodynamics?), only transferred or converted from one form to another. Matter can be conferred energy to such a point that it becomes energy, to our understanding, in much the same way energy can compound to become matter (see: stars). Energy has mass, enough that a hot cup of coffee is measurably heavier (in Earth-normal gravity) than the same cup after it's cooled to room temperature. It's incredibly less than that of matter, but why else would it be affected by gravity, or display the properties of particles? Magnetic fields are not, certainly not directly, altered, augmented, or diminished by gravity, which means they are fundamentally different from electromagnetic radiation and, frankly, much more similar to a gravitational pull. Magnetic fields have a direction, which gives the polarization and, of course, the 'north' and 'south' poles of a magnet. However, when acting upon an object that is magnetic but does not possess its own magnetic field, the object is always attracted to the magnet, regardless of polarization. Magnetic fields confer kinetic energy to objects that are magnetized to them, or to themselves in the case of fridge letters and the like, to allow this attraction to result in contact. This is again irrespective of gravity, though obviously a gravitational field strong enough to overcome the magnetic attraction would counteract it. Magnetic fields also work over a limited range, similar to gravity but (as far as I can find) not per the inverse square law as light and gravity. I don't know if there's an inverse cube law but it sounds right (mathematically speaking, since magnets have two points of force, as opposed to gravity and light which can and typically have a single source for a given instance). Energy, electrical and electromagnetic, are affected by magnetic fields and gravity both. It takes considerably more effort to produce a gravitational field as strong as a magnetic one, but it does occur enough that we have math to figure out where behind a gravity field a star's light is coming from. Gravity seems caught between the likes of energy (monopolar, inverse square law) and magnetic fields (relentless attraction/conferring of energy to all things subject and proximal to the field, caused by the arrangement of matter rather than the release of energy). The Earth's outer core is the source of the geomagnetic field, and the center of the inner core is the centerpoint of gravity on this planet. For answers: Before pointing at mass or quantity of mass, which I already listed above, consider that magnetic fields are caused by an alignment of ions either by nature or by force, and electromagnetic energy is expelled by either a conversion from another energy type (electrical, frictional, etc.) or from a reaction (sun, campfires, etc.) Here's the messy bit, please bear with me: It seems to me that studying gravity alone is like studying magnetic fields but not magnets. I am not certain where to start to find evidence to support this, but I would hypothesize that gravity is not only a property of matter, and that it is instead caused by some interaction in the same way that magnetic fields, light, radiation, and even the wind is caused by an interaction. Gravity is a universal force, of course, but that it shares properties with energy and with magnetism leads me to believe (or, at least, to want belief) that it is related to the actual shift between matter and energy. Rather, an interaction similar to what creates the geomagnetic field (geodynamo?) causing gravity, as opposed to it being locally correlated with mass. Another way to look at my question, I suppose, would be this: bonds between atoms, the ionic/covalent(?) sort (chemistry was not my strong suit, sorry) are a property of matter, but they are caused by interactions between atoms, I think the sharing of electrons or... however the other kind works? Regardless, this fundamental property of matter (bonding) is what allows the most basic structures (molecules) to form. Gravity is what allows an atmosphere and an ocean and a species to cling to the surface of a rock spinning like a madman's top as it orbits an honestly pretty small star. So, to reiterate and (finally, and sorry if there are loose statements) end this tirade: What causes gravity?

Hi I'm bundil. University student in the middle of moving states for that higher degree (in English, I'm boring). That's about it, I guess.