extrauniversal gravity

[jjuris]

is there any discussions on why gravity, which affects everything is the most weak force that we know of, what is the theory of a gravitational leak. I've heard of this through m theory...maybe there's something new

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i know its a very strange idea, but i was thinking about the source of gravity and i realized that all the matter, and dark matter as well as the variable percent that we cannot detect should be creating a much greater force. I believe there is some research into this.

[Pangloss]

Thanks for the thread.

 

As far as I know it's just another type of "dark" speculation in an early stage of academic development, this one coming primarily from a NASA astrophysicist at Goddard, based on data gathered from the microwave anisotropy probe. There's an article about it at National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081105-dark-flow.html

 

There's also some more generalized information on "dark flow" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

 

But aside from the probe's further refining of the precise time/location of the particle horizon, I don't know that anything can really be definitively stated at this point. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps someone with more expertise here can give us some further insight.

[ajb]

is there any discussions on why gravity, which affects everything is the most weak force that we know of, what is the theory of a gravitational leak. I've heard of this through m theory...maybe there's something new

 

 

What you are referring to forms part of brane-world cosmologies. The idea is the universe is 10 dimensional and that we live on some surface called a brane.

 

Now, string theory tells us that open strings must start and end on a brane. However, closed strings do not and can move about in the "bulk" 10 dimensional space-time.

 

Again from string theory we know that the graviton ("gravity particle") is described by a closed string. Thus is is not restricted to just the brane, as where the other forces are. Thus some of the strength of gravity can "leak" into the bulk. This is then an explanation why gravity is weak as compared to the other forces.

 

I hope that helps, I don't want to be any more technical.

[Megabrain]

Nice question, answer Nobody knows what gravity or magnetism is! we classify them as forces and can predict their behaviour but that's as far as it goes, in fact science is still unsure what a photon is, and most other things you think scientists know are just theories, electrons used to be a little sphere of mass orbiting an atomic nucleus, ie a point charge, know they think it's a 'cloud charge' next year, no doubt it will be discovered that electrons are really shaped like amphibious landing craft.

[ajb]

Nice question, answer Nobody knows what gravity or magnetism is! we classify them as forces and can predict their behaviour but that's as far as it goes, in fact science is still unsure what a photon is, and most other things you think scientists know are just theories, electrons used to be a little sphere of mass orbiting an atomic nucleus, ie a point charge, know they think it's a 'cloud charge' next year, no doubt it will be discovered that electrons are really shaped like amphibious landing craft.

 

 

I am not sure that physics could ever tell you what something is. Indeed, physics does not attempt to answer that question.

 

The best one can do is have mathematical models and then relate them to observations of nature.

[Sisyphus]

What would be an example of a possible answer, outside the realm of science, to the question, "what is gravity?"

[ajb]

What would be an example of a possible answer, outside the realm of science, to the question, "what is gravity?"

 

I'm not sure because "gravity" is synonymous with "gravitational force". Force is a physics notion.

 

Things like Newton's universal law of gravity or even the Einstein field equations give us mathematical constructions in which one can describe the effects of gravity. But does this tell us what gravity actually is? (I am not sure this is even a well posed question.)

 

Question. General relativity states that space-time is a 4d Riemannian manifold, [math](M,g)[/math]. But is that a true description of the actual universe? I mean, is the "space" out there actually a manifold? Or is the manifold a mathematical abstraction that is useful in describing the universe and not actually the universe?

 

This an similar distinctions should be kept in mind when asking what is something.

[Sisyphus]

I, too, am not sure it's a well-posed question. I get annoyed sometimes when people say things like "but you don't know what it actually is" when they haven't considered what they're actually asking. Does what something "actually is" have any meaning separate from an exhaustive description of its behavior? I don't know. The fact that something could be described equally well in more than one way intuitively makes it seem like the answer must be yes, but I'm still not sure, mostly because I don't know of an example of what something "actually is" might be. Forget about proving it - just give any coherent answer to the question, "but what is gravity, really."

[Sirjon]

It seems Science is getting too far. There so many theories about gravity yet most of them are too complicated to comprehend. Remember Ptolemy? He taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe until Copernicus' simple model of the Solar System knocked him down. Let's go back to basics, the very fundamentals of Science and from here, maybe, we could find the right answer to what gravity really is? After all. Einstein could be right - gravity is not a force. Check it out. Thanks.

 

Sir Jon (Author, "No Need to Be Super Genius to Prove Gravity is Not A Force")

http://abnewlog.blogspot.com

[swansont]

It seems Science is getting too far. There so many theories about gravity yet most of them are too complicated to comprehend. Remember Ptolemy? He taught that the Earth was the center of the Universe until Copernicus' simple model of the Solar System knocked him down. Let's go back to basics, the very fundamentals of Science and from here, maybe, we could find the right answer to what gravity really is? After all. Einstein could be right - gravity is not a force. Check it out. Thanks.

 

But this misses the point that Sisyphus made — what gravity is is not the same as how it behaves; science is primarily concerned with the latter. And Einstein has been spectacularly right with relativity.

[Sirjon]

But this misses the point that Sisyphus made — what gravity is is not the same as how it behaves; science is primarily concerned with the latter. And Einstein has been spectacularly right with relativity.

 

You have a point but I could give an answer to that, only if you give attention to the series of blogs I written in that website. Its not yet updated, there are maybe two or three more blogs I am not yet posting, depending on the reactions and appreciations of the readers. But thank you for your response. I do appreciate it.

 

Sir Jon

No Need To Be Super Genius To Prove Gravity is Not A Force

Edited June 6, 2009 by Sirjon