Metaphysics - Gravity

[edwardsuk]

This has been placed in philosophy, it is a metaphysical idea. 

Metaphysics is a generic pointer which could assist in the development of new physics and science, I have spent many year studying cosmology from the life cycle of stars, to the evolution of planetary systems. I have a clear conceptual understanding of relativity, time dilation and other matters.

This idea may have already been debunked, but it is in my opinion it is important to publish it because it might develop a new line of thinking.

The idea is simple and I hope I can explain it clearly in the next few paragraphs.

Gravity is the enigma, which could be considered the final puzzle of modern physics, not to say that this would be the end, but maybe the start of the next generation of physics, but until gravity can be integrated in the quantum realm, it seems we can't develop a theory of everything.

We currently turn to mass and dark matter to explain the gravitational effect in the universe, my thought was very simple mass may not have anything to do with it, it might be purely down to space, space is responsible for the gravitational effect rather than matter. We might need to stop looking at matter as the source of gravity and turn out attention to space instead.

The universe is expanding at ever accelerating rates as space expands there is less matter to bind it, it could very well be the lack of space where matter resides where gravity is greatest.

That's it! it is only a passing thought, but I feel that there may be some merit in the idea.

 

 

 

 

[koti]

14 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

....I have a clear conceptual understanding of relativity, time dilation and other matters.

...This idea may have already been debunked, but it is in my opinion it is important to publish it because it might develop a new line of thinking.

...space is responsible for the gravitational effect rather than matter. We might need to stop looking at matter as the source of gravity and turn out attention to space instead.

 

You say you have an understanding of relativity yet you seem to imply that not mass/energy but space causes itself to 'curve'
Which is ridiculous.

[studiot]

24 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

This has been placed in philosophy, it is a metaphysical idea. 

 

We currently turn to mass and dark matter to explain the gravitational effect in the universe, my thought was very simple mass may not have anything to do with it, it might be purely down to space, space is responsible for the gravitational effect rather than matter. We might need to stop looking at matter as the source of gravity and turn out attention to space instead.

The universe is expanding at ever accelerating rates as space expands there is less matter to bind it, it could very well be the lack of space where matter resides where gravity is greatest.

That's it! it is only a passing thought, but I feel that there may be some merit in the idea.

 

Physics, metaphysics or philosophy a good plan would be to test your idea.

That is the way Science goes about its business.

So to test,

Take some space filled with matter, measure the gravity in that space.

Remove some or all the matter

Remeasure the gravity again.

See if there is any difference.

 

Now various scientists since Cavendish first did this have made successively finer measurements and no one has ever detected the effect you describe.

 

How say you now?

 

[edwardsuk]

No - You misunderstand, it's down to my brief and poor explanation, which is easily misinterpreted; mass causes space to curve, I'm not suggesting that mass does not cause the curvature of space. but this is the effect we see in the orbits of planets following the curvature of space to form their orbit. What science is trying to understand is what is gravity, rather than just understanding the observed effect of gravity, is it due to a particle such as a graviton, and if it is a graviton where would that particle live, I'm suggesting that gravity is not derived from matter, it is derived from space.

I think this idea came to mind because of an article in the new scientist, I remember reading it back in October.

It was titled Einstein killed the aether. Now the idea is back to save relativity

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432543-300-einstein-killed-the-aether-now-the-idea-is-back-to-save-relativity/

[koti]

38 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

... I'm suggesting that gravity is not derived from matter, it is derived from space.

Could you elaborate on this? This sounds very misplaced.
 

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

No - You misunderstand, it's down to my brief and poor explanation, which is easily misinterpreted; mass causes space to curve, I'm not suggesting that mass does not cause the curvature of space. but this is the effect we see in the orbits of planets following the curvature of space to form their orbit. What science is trying to understand is what is gravity, rather than just understanding the observed effect of gravity, is it due to a particle such as a graviton, and if it is a graviton where would that particle live, I'm suggesting that gravity is not derived from matter, it is derived from space.

So, current theory says that energy (including mass) causes the curvature of spacetime (not just space). And one way we perceive that is as the force we call gravity. Note that Is important to remember it is spacetime that is curved, not just space, as gravity is mainly due to the curving of the time dimension.

So I can't really see that you are saying anything new. Can you expand on what is different in your idea?

42 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

I think this idea came to mind because of an article in the new scientist, I remember reading it back in October.

It was titled Einstein killed the aether. Now the idea is back to save relativity

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432543-300-einstein-killed-the-aether-now-the-idea-is-back-to-save-relativity/

I can't read the article because it is behind a paywall. But I would warn you that New Scientist is the Daily Mail of science magazines. They love a shocking headline. Most of their "Einstein/Darwin/everything is wrong" stories end with "Or maybe not."

 

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

No - You misunderstand, it's down to my brief and poor explanation, which is easily misinterpreted; mass causes space to curve, I'm not suggesting that mass does not cause the curvature of space. but this is the effect we see in the orbits of planets following the curvature of space to form their orbit.

This is how general relativity is presented.

47 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

What science is trying to understand is what is gravity, rather than just understanding the observed effect of gravity, is it due to a particle such as a graviton, and if it is a graviton where would that particle live, 

That’s the understanding of gravity if we had a quantum theory.

[Strange]

51 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

is it due to a particle such as a graviton, and if it is a graviton where would that particle live

What does "where would that particle live" mean? Particles don't live anywhere. Also, if gravitons exist then gravity would be mediated by virtual gravitons, which are not really particles at all, just a mathematical concept.

[edwardsuk]

I don't want this idea to become a theory, because if it was a theory I would write a paper and publish it.

It is only written to suggest that we currently look at matter to explain all the fundamental forces, and we also look to matter in the hope of finding a fundamental particle which will allow us to explain gravity, all I'm suggesting is it might not be there, it might be space which gravity is derived from.  The universe is expanding as it expands there is less matter binding it, but within galaxies, where there is less space they don't expand at the same rate, things stick together. I don't want to go any further with this because it is just an idea, and I don't want to make any attempt to prove it. It's a metaphysical idea for people to ponder and nothing more, please don't think of this as my decisive theory of everything.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

I don't want this idea to become a theory, because if it was a theory I would write a paper and publish it.

It is only written to suggest that we currently look at matter to explain all the fundamental forces, and we also look to matter in the hope of finding a fundamental particle which will allow us to explain gravity, all I'm suggesting is it might not be there, it might be space which gravity is derived from.  The universe is expanding as it expands there is less matter binding it, but within galaxies, where there is less space they don't expand at the same rate, things stick together. I don't want to go any further with this because it is just an idea, and I don't want to make any attempt to prove it. It's a metaphysical idea for people to ponder and nothing more, please don't think of this as my decisive theory of everything.

 

 

I offered you some help and asked you a polite question.

Was there some reason you did not answer, whilst responding to others  ?

[Ghideon]

3 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

it might be space which gravity is derived from

 Ok.

3 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

It's a metaphysical idea for people to ponder and nothing more

Here is some layman pondering: If gravity is derived from space as you propose how come empty space has virtually no gravity and gravity is strongest where there is virtually no space (centre of a black hole) ?

 

[edwardsuk]

And gravity is weakest between galaxies that redshift moving away from each other faster, also think about what you said space has no gravity, 

Ghideon.url

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by edwardsuk
error

[Strange]

30 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

I don't want this idea to become a theory, because if it was a theory I would write a paper and publish it.

It is only written to suggest that we currently look at matter to explain all the fundamental forces, and we also look to matter in the hope of finding a fundamental particle which will allow us to explain gravity, all I'm suggesting is it might not be there, it might be space which gravity is derived from.  The universe is expanding as it expands there is less matter binding it, but within galaxies, where there is less space they don't expand at the same rate, things stick together. I don't want to go any further with this because it is just an idea, and I don't want to make any attempt to prove it. It's a metaphysical idea for people to ponder and nothing more, please don't think of this as my decisive theory of everything.

So you don't want to discuss this idea at all?

Not even to clarify how it differs from the current standard physics?

Why would you expect anyone to consider a vague idea that you are not willing to discuss or explain?

Given your reluctance to engage in discussion, I will request this thread is closed.

[studiot]

Quote

J C Maxwell, Matter and Motion

This is the most remarkable fact about the attraction of gravitation, that at the same distance it acts equally on equal masses of substances of all kinds.

 

[edwardsuk]

I thought I posted this as a metaphysical idea, under philosophy not under physics. It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and it's a simple hypothesis gravity may not be a force of mass, it could be a force due to space, we ignore space because we consider it as nothing, but all I'm attempting to point of is space maybe something. That's as far as I can take it, I have access the New Scientist publication, but I can't post it because of copyright. I would love to give you a theory of everything this evening, but it was never intended to be that. 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

I thought I posted this as a metaphysical idea, under philosophy not under physics. It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and it's a simple hypothesis gravity may not be a force of mass, it could be a force due to space, we ignore space because we consider it as nothing, but all I'm attempting to point of is space maybe something.

Can you clarify how this idea is different from the current best explanation that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime.

Just repeating "gravity is due to space" is not helpful. It is prima facie wrong, so you need to explain what you mean by this.

Posting this in Philosophy doesn't relieve you of the burden to explain what you mean. If anything, Philosophy requires a higher level of explanation than science (which can get away with just saying "the data matches the predictions").

And, no, science does not "ignore space". That is just nonsense.

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, edwardsuk said:

I thought I posted this as a metaphysical idea, under philosophy not under physics. It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and it's a simple hypothesis gravity may not be a force of mass, it could be a force due to space, we ignore space because we consider it as nothing, but all I'm attempting to point of is space maybe something. That's as far as I can take it, I have access the New Scientist publication, but I can't post it because of copyright. I would love to give you a theory of everything this evening, but it was never intended to be that. 

It seems to correlate really, really well with mass, though.

GR is often summarized as mass tells space how to curve, and space tells mass how to move. It sounds like you want to just say “space tells mass how to move”

I’m not seeing how that’s metaphysics

 

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, edwardsuk said:

I thought I posted this as a metaphysical idea, under philosophy not under physics. It is not a theory, it is a hypothesis and it's a simple hypothesis gravity may not be a force of mass, it could be a force due to space, we ignore space because we consider it as nothing, but all I'm attempting to point of is space maybe something.

!

Moderator Note

Discussion is different from blog posting. These aren't comments, they're replies to the opening post. You need to be ready to defend any claims you make rigorously, or at least acknowledge the feedback you're getting from the replies. 

It's not a discussion when you post along the lines of "This idea may be true, but I can't really support it beyond my suspicions, so I'm just throwing it out there." It's too frustrating for the membership, who only want to help good ideas evolve. 

When you're ready to discuss this, send me a PM and I'll open it again, but I want to close it for now.