i need someone to bounce ideas.

[Timothy Langley]

i need to bounce ideas off of some people, like what gravity actually is, and if we are inside an equivalent of a black hole within a black hole. no proof, just rudimentary logical hypothesis

[swansont]

If you have questions, post them. If you have a proposal of some sort, it should go in speculations, and you should be prepared to defend it

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Timothy Langley said:

i need to bounce ideas off of some people, like what gravity actually is

We have two theories of gravity already. What is wrong with those?

Also, the question of "what it actually is" sounds more like a philosophical question, than a physics one. Science builds models based on what we can measure. That is not necessarily "reality" (whatever that is).

2 hours ago, Timothy Langley said:

if we are inside an equivalent of a black hole within a black hole

There are lots of reasons to think we are not in a black hole. One I really like is that the singularity in a black hole is in the future (once you pass the event horizon, the radial direction becomes time, rather than space) while in the universe the singularity is in the past. (Note that in both cases, the singularity does not represent anything physical.)

2 hours ago, Timothy Langley said:

just rudimentary logical hypothesis

I wonder what you mean by "logical"? Too many people use it to mean "it makes sense to me" (which any idea you invent will do, because you have invented it based on your own level of understanding).

[Timothy Langley]

Alright I'm new to this forum and would love to learn more, to answer the question if its philosophical to ask what gravity actually is. I meant what causes gravitational pull.

Secondly, what I meant us living inside of a black hole. The only logical thing that would cause a big bang is a singularity, and since in theoretics black holes have a singularity since the amount of matter being sucked in is in relation to matter opting from high pressure to low pressure (seen in nature countless times) because black holes are initially negative space caused by the star dispersing the rest of its matter leaving a void of low pressure waves. 

Thirdly. I defend your definition of logical. It's a sound definition, because in this case it works. And cant fault you on that. I created these ideas based on the knowledge I've acquired from small sources of science. 

Lastly. Thank you for the quick response. And the kindness. I'm not afraid to be wrong. I'm just new. 

34 minutes ago, Strange said:

We have two theories of gravity already. What is wrong with those?

Also, the question of "what it actually is" sounds more like a philosophical question, than a physics one. Science builds models based on what we can measure. That is not necessarily "reality" (whatever that is).

There are lots of reasons to think we are not in a black hole. One I really like is that the singularity in a black hole is in the future (once you pass the event horizon, the radial direction becomes time, rather than space) while in the universe the singularity is in the past. (Note that in both cases, the singularity does not represent anything physical.)

I wonder what you mean by "logical"? Too many people use it to mean "it makes sense to me" (which any idea you invent will do, because you have invented it based on your own level of understanding).

 

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you have questions, post them. If you have a proposal of some sort, it should go in speculations, and you should be prepared to defend it

I'm gauging my audience right now. Thank you for the input. I'll be sure to go to speculations when I have enough information to go on with my hypothesis.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Timothy Langley said:

Alright I'm new to this forum and would love to learn more, to answer the question if its philosophical to ask what gravity actually is. I meant what causes gravitational pull.

We have two explanations of gravitational pull.

One is Newton's model that masses create a force between one another (why? because that is what mass does). The equations he came up with to describe that are still valid in most circumstances.

Secondly, we have Einsteins model of curved spacetime. The "pull" then is just an effect of use "moving" along the time dimension in this curved space time. As a rough analogy, imagine two people on the surface of the earth, separated by a few miles and both walking northwards at a steady pace. (In this analogy, lines of longitude are the time dimension and "north" means the future) As they proceed, they will get closer together as they approach the North Pole. There is no force pushing them together, it is just the effects of geometry.

9 minutes ago, Timothy Langley said:

Secondly, what I meant us living inside of a black hole. The only logical thing that would cause a big bang is a singularity, and since in theoretics black holes have a singularity

It seems simple to say "they both have a singularity" but these are very different (as I say, one is on the future and the other is in the past).

10 minutes ago, Timothy Langley said:

since the amount of matter being sucked in is in relation to matter opting from high pressure to low pressure (seen in nature countless times) because black holes are initially negative space caused by the star dispersing the rest of its matter leaving a void of low pressure waves. 

I'm not quite sure what that means. Any difference in pressure is caused by gravity. The reason stuff falls into a black hole is exactly the same reason it falls to the ground: gravity. Nothing to do with low pressure.

11 minutes ago, Timothy Langley said:

Thirdly. I defend your definition of logical.

The definition I gave is one that people often use and it is totally incorrect!

12 minutes ago, Timothy Langley said:

I'm not afraid to be wrong.

Good! We are all wrong some of the time! Someone described science as the process of being constructively wrong (or something like that).

[Mordred]

Probably the most accurate way to think of gravity is the effect of spacetime curvature. You can have mass with a uniform distribution that has mass but generates no gravity. However once mass becomes denser in a region compared to the surrounding regions you get the spacetime curvature terms it is the effect upon spacetime paths that we see as gravity. 

On the pressure descriptives this isn't the best approach, pressure is a specific term meaning the amount of force per unit volume. This under GR and gauge theories to the amount of force applied in a coordinate direction in a given interval.

 On living in a BH, well this theory has been proposed in so many formats I lost count, the problem with this is that it is nearly impossible to have a homogeneous and isotropic (uniform mean average) mass distribution that we measure and observe with high confidence in our universe. Some models take extreme measures to make a BH based model work. The more plausible manner typically involves time dilation to account for the homogenous and isotropic distribution when a BH based model will have a preferred direction and location which is inhomogeneous and anistropic. ( preferred location and direction)

Edited February 2, 2019 by Mordred