All other forces, special cases of gravity?

[Electric]

All other forces, special cases of gravity.

 

How can we prove?

 

Black holes. Here are the best proof!

Gravitation can compress and break up the matter at the subatomic particles.

It is obvious that gravity is the main form of interaction in the universe.

There is a formula:

E = mc ^ 2.

(F = G * m1*m2/r^2 - Newton's gravitational formula.)

Gravitational waves have a speed of light "c".

You can ask two questions.

What exactly interacts force of gravity?

With a mass or energy?

 

Known effect of micro lenses, when a black hole deflect the rays of light.

Light rays consist of photons. Photons have no mass. However, the photons have only energy.

So gravity affects not only the mass but also on energy.

So gravity is the main force in the universe and all other forces, special cases of gravity.

[ajb]

I do not understand your claim that the other forces are a special cases of gravity.

 

It is known that energy-momentum acts as the source for gravity.

 

Look up Kaluza–Klein theories. The idea here is extend space-time and then consider the higher dimensional gravity as containing 4-d gravity and Yang-mills theories. There are problems both classically and quantum mechanically in these theories.

 

The closest modern equivalent maybe string theory where gauge theories naturally arise in terms of strings connecting coincident branes. So very geometric in flavour.

[Electric]

I do not understand your claim that the other forces are a special cases of gravity.

 

It is known that energy-momentum acts as the source for gravity.

 

Gravitation (F = G * m1 * m2 / D ^ 2) this is the main force.

And the electric force F = kQq / D ^ 2 - is a consequence of gravity.

 

Look at the picture.

Electric power assists gravity in this case.

[insane_alien]

just because gravity and electromagnetism follow an inverse square law doesn't make them the same thing.

 

the inverse square part is due to the 3-D nature of space. specifically the surface area of a sphere.

[Electric]

just because gravity and electromagnetism follow an inverse square law doesn't make them the same thing.

I do not say that electromagnetism is equal to gravity.

I contend that electromagnetism is called(is result) gravity.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No Direct Interaction between Gravitation and Electromagnetism.

 

Strong Astrophysical Evidence reveals a direct interaction between Gravitation and Electromagnetism does not take place.

 

http://www.pr-inside.com/strong-astrophysical-evidence-reveals-a-r967196.htm(Full text)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

The electric field causes an magnetic field.

Perhaps the gravitational field causes a electric field?

Look at the picture.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The gravitational field affects the electron, as it has mass.

This effect causes the electric field (like a field of gravity) around the electron.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Electric
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

All other forces, special cases of gravity.

 

How can we prove?

Seeing as it was conclusively proven your claim is wrong, I, too, wonder how.

Black holes. Here are the best proof!

Gravitation can compress and break up the matter at the subatomic particles.

It is obvious that gravity is the main form of interaction in the universe.

There is a formula:

E = mc ^ 2.

(F = G * m1*m2/r^2 - Newton's gravitational formula.)

Gravitational waves have a speed of light "c".

Not quite. Gravitational waves can't surpass 'c'. They can travel slower.

 

You can ask two questions.

What exactly interacts force of gravity?

With a mass or energy?

What do you mean by the second question? We know what interacts with gravity, do you mean to ask 'what interacts with a mass or energy'?

 

Known effect of micro lenses, when a black hole deflect the rays of light.

Light rays consist of photons. Photons have no mass. However, the photons have only energy.

So gravity affects not only the mass but also on energy.

Seeing as "mass" is the energy content of an object, sure.

So gravity is the main force in the universe and all other forces, special cases of gravity.

Logic does not follow. The fact that gravity interacts with energy doesn't make it the only force. We're seeing other forces like electromagnetism for example, that interacts with energy and electrical charges in a COMPLETELY different way that gravity does.

 

The fact that I can apply direct force on a rock to move it just like I can apply direct force on a starship and move it (in the shape of thrust) doesn't mean that thrust is the MAIN FORCE that all others come out of. You have different forces and different effects. That much is not just 'hypothesized', it's absolutely proven.

 

Your statement makes no sense, and the logic that follows doesn't make any sense either.

 

The electric field causes an magnetic field.

Perhaps the gravitational field causes a electric field?

That would create a visible and noticeable effect that we would observe. No such effect is seen in all the experiments done with gravity and its fluxuations on the surface of the Earth and on the various objects we sent away from Earth (and to "lagrange points" and other locations).

 

The gravitational field affects the electron, as it has mass.

This effect causes the electric field (like a field of gravity) around the electron.

Not in the same way as a gravitational field affects mass. In a different way. Hence different force. Maybe you should go over some E&M as well as gravity.

 

The *easiest* and most notable difference is that in E&M, same charge objects *repel* one another, while in gravitational force, all masses (and in that sense 'energy content') attracts one another.

 

~moo

Edited January 16, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Electric]

This topic(All other forces, special cases of gravity?) can be moved to the section of speculation.

 

"Not quite. Gravitational waves can't surpass 'c'. They can travel slower."

 

What are the speed of gravitational waves?

 

"What do you mean by the second question? We know what interacts with gravity, do you mean to ask 'what interacts with a mass or energy'? "

 

I ask "Gravitational fields interacts with the (clean) energy?".

 

"Logic does not follow. The fact that gravity interacts with energy doesn't make it the only force. We're seeing other forces like electromagnetism for example, that interacts with energy and electrical charges in a COMPLETELY different way that gravity does."

"Your statement makes no sense, and the logic that follows doesn't make any sense either."

 

I wrote a rather dream about gravity. I agree, not a lot of logic in my text.

 

 

"The fact that I can apply direct force on a rock to move it just like I can apply direct force on a starship and move it (in the shape of thrust) doesn't mean that thrust is the MAIN FORCE that all others come out of. You have different forces and different effects. That much is not just 'hypothesized', it's absolutely proven."

 

"Big Bang" cause of the universe. How could be other forces except gravity at the beginning of "Big Bang"?

[toastywombel]

This topic(All other forces, special cases of gravity?) can be moved to the section of speculation.

 

"Not quite. Gravitational waves can't surpass 'c'. They can travel slower."

 

What are the speed of gravitational waves?

 

"What do you mean by the second question? We know what interacts with gravity, do you mean to ask 'what interacts with a mass or energy'? "

 

I ask "Gravitational fields interacts with the (clean) energy?".

 

"Logic does not follow. The fact that gravity interacts with energy doesn't make it the only force. We're seeing other forces like electromagnetism for example, that interacts with energy and electrical charges in a COMPLETELY different way that gravity does."

"Your statement makes no sense, and the logic that follows doesn't make any sense either."

 

I wrote a rather dream about gravity. I agree, not a lot of logic in my text.

 

 

"The fact that I can apply direct force on a rock to move it just like I can apply direct force on a starship and move it (in the shape of thrust) doesn't mean that thrust is the MAIN FORCE that all others come out of. You have different forces and different effects. That much is not just 'hypothesized', it's absolutely proven."

 

"Big Bang" cause of the universe. How could be other forces except gravity at the beginning of "Big Bang"?

 

The speed of small amplitude gravitational waves according to wikipedia are exactly the speed of light. Here

 

"Speed: This is the speed at which a point on the wave (for example, a point of maximum stretch or squeeze) travels. For gravitational waves with small amplitudes, this is equal to the speed of light, c."

 

Furthermore, the Big Bang is not the cause of our universe necessarily. The Big Bang is more of a moment in time in which right before all matter was at one (theoretical point). Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist, has often said the universal forces the moment before the big bang were combined into a super-force.

 

Finally, when you said asked how could there be other forces at the beginning of the big bang?

 

Well atoms formed around three seconds after the big bang, that is the nuclear forces. Also once atoms formed they began exchanging electrons, that is the electric forces right there.

So as far as three seconds after the big bang, the fundamental forces existed.

 

Finally, the force that caused the big bang is what caused the stretching of space time. I think that would be a force one might consider existed as long as gravity, and therefore existed at the beginning of the Big Bang.

 

Links you might find help-full:

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

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/forces.html&br=gr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force#Fundamental_models

<--This is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_%28linguistics%29

Edited January 16, 2010 by toastywombel

[mooeypoo]

Actually, not only should it move, it just did move. Speculations forum isn't "limbo", it's the rightful place of speculative hypotheses that aren't mainstream science.

 

This thread is far from mainstream science. Perhaps if the original poster manages to prove his point the thread will earn its rightful place in a mainstream science forum.

 

That said, the discussion can - and should - continue. The fact this is a speculation doesn't mean it's not worthy of debate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Not quite. Gravitational waves can't surpass 'c'. They can travel slower."

 

What are the speed of gravitational waves?

Seeing as we can't yet detect them, we don't know, but the hypothesis is that they are like light waves. Light waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, but they *can* slow down in other media or when their wavelengths change.

 

And since you're the one making the claim, you should be telling us what your hypothesis states regarding this issue - with evidence.

 

"What do you mean by the second question? We know what interacts with gravity, do you mean to ask 'what interacts with a mass or energy'? "

 

I ask "Gravitational fields interacts with the (clean) energy?".

What's clean energy?

 

Electric, if we're to have a scientific discussion, you should start using proper definitions so we can understand what you mean. I am not trying to be a pain, I'm trying to make sure I understand your claim; there's not much meaning to "clean energy" in physics unless you speak of renewable energy like windmills.

 

And you need to provide proof that gravitational fields interact with energy. For that matter, just like there are different types of forces, there *ARE* different types of energy. It might be true that gravitational fields interact with the energy of a photon, but that doesn't mean gravitational fields interact with all forms of energy.

 

"Logic does not follow. The fact that gravity interacts with energy doesn't make it the only force. We're seeing other forces like electromagnetism for example, that interacts with energy and electrical charges in a COMPLETELY different way that gravity does."

"Your statement makes no sense, and the logic that follows doesn't make any sense either."

 

I wrote a rather dream about gravity. I agree, not a lot of logic in my text.

Then why would we accept your theory/idea/dream on the expense of existing theories that do have quite a large amount of evidence on their side?

 

"The fact that I can apply direct force on a rock to move it just like I can apply direct force on a starship and move it (in the shape of thrust) doesn't mean that thrust is the MAIN FORCE that all others come out of. You have different forces and different effects. That much is not just 'hypothesized', it's absolutely proven."

 

"Big Bang" cause of the universe. How could be other forces except gravity at the beginning of "Big Bang"?

Mix of subjects here. The origin of the universe is a different issue from the way it behaves. But regardless, there could be other forces because we detect other forces. Perhaps it would be time for you to actually learn some basic physics. While we are here to debate, we're not quite here to teach you everything we know of physics - you're mixing subjects and make claims that are just simply wrong. There is absolute proof for electromagnetism, and electromagnetism is proven to act differently to gravity.. hence, electromagnetism cannot be a subsidiary of gravity.

 

For that matter, if electromagnetic force stemmed out of gravity, it should've been DIRECTLY related to it. But in reality we see that this isn't true.

 

A massive object made of metal will have the exact same gravitational field as a massive object made of ice cream that is of the same mass.

 

However, two objects from different materials would create absolutely different electromagnetic fields (depending on the type of matter as well as their size). If electromagnetism was a subsidiary of gravity, you would get the same changes in the same objects -- an object with bigger gravitational field would result in larger electromagnetic field and vise versa. That's *not* what is happening in reality.

 

 

It's nice to have ideas, but if they do not follow the evidence, they're not science.

 

~moo

Edited January 16, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[ajb]

I'll say it again, have a look at Kaluza–Klein theories. This is the closest thing I know of electromagnetism being a form of gravity. (Though we do have things like the AdS-CFT correspondence and the KLT relations.)

 

Otherwise, it looks like you spotted the fact that both the electromagnetic and gravitational force have the same spacial dependence. This is Gauss' law, which as insane_alien has stated depends on the number of space dimensions.

[mv]

This article may help: http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

 

also

 

an useful discovery about Gravity is presented here:

http://allempl.xtreemhost.com/

[mooeypoo]

This article may help: http://searchwarp.com/swa562857-One-Way-To-Explain-The-Universe.htm

 

also

 

an useful discovery about Gravity is presented here:

http://allempl.xtreemhost.com/

While your links seem useful, please try to participate in the debate other than planting links to the same article over and over again. In most cases this can be seen as spam. It would be much better if you participate in the debates and stop injecting the same link over and over in multiple threads.

[mv]

Yes, I made public my opinion, including this subject, on January 04, 2010 in the article mentioned above:

 

Quotation:

 

<<<The photons, resulted after Big Bang, each of them having a kind of "graviton" with it (in other words, the smallest gravity unit being associated with a photon), have started to join each other, when they were "close enough" to each other, so that the smallest elementary particle is the one formed by joining two photons, which were "close enough" to "connect" each other.

 

Next, this first elementary particle, was coming in contact with other photon and formed the second type of elementary particle, also two first elementary particles joined together have formed the third type of elementary particle and so on ... in time ... all the today's known elementary particles have been formed.

 

Therefore, by forming the particles of matter as mentioned above, the resultant of the joined "smallest gravity units", around each particle, have generated the gravity as we know it today (more elementary particles are in a celestial body, bigger/stronger gravity field is around it).

 

As a conclusion, all forces known in our Universe (including all forms of matter manifestations) are results of these elementary particles behavior/interactions, function of their type (how many photons are containing) and their position in space (how close they are one from each other), having their initial moving, given by the Big Bang, influenced (changed) continuously. >>>

[swansont]

mv, please keep the discussion on-topic, and refrain from introducing other alternative theories. They can, and must, be discussed in their own thread.

[mv]

mv, please keep the discussion on-topic, and refrain from introducing other alternative theories. They can, and must, be discussed in their own thread.

 

The above quotation from my article should be on-topic because it is suggesting that all other forces can be considered "special cases of gravity" combined with the initial moving from Bing Bang, while my logical reasoning starts only with photons and the smallest gravity unit associated with each of them, finally all known matter and forces being obtained.

Edited January 22, 2010 by mv

[mooeypoo]

The above quotation from my article should be on-topic because it is suggesting that all other forces can be considered "special cases of gravity", while my logical reasoning starts only with photons and the smallest gravity unit associated with each of them, finally all known matter and forces being obtained.

It's not on topic because the current thread speaks of a COMPLETELY different theory, and you have a thread all to yourself discussing your theory.

 

Stop mass-posting your theory everywhere, you were asked to stop three times already.

 

Please stick to your thread. While we welcome you to the forum and would love to discuss your theory, a formal request from a moderator is not up for debate. Stick to your own thread and please feel free to go over our rules.

 

 

Welcome to ScienceForums!

 

~moo

[mv]

I am presenting my opinion about this thread named "All other forces, special cases of gravity?".

Therefore, in my opinion, all known forces are resulted from the initial moving of the particles given by the Big Bang, influenced continuously by the gravity sticking together smaller elementary particles into bigger elementary particles ..., all of them behaving function of how many photons are containing and how close they are one from each other, like my article is mentioning.

 

Please excuse me if my answer could be considered a debate with a formal request from a moderator. I have all respect for all people present on this science forum.

Edited January 22, 2010 by mv

[mooeypoo]

I am presenting my opinion about this thread named "All other forces, special cases of gravity?".

Therefore, in my opinion, all known forces are resulted from the initial moving of the particles given by the Big Bang, influenced continuously be the gravity sticking together smaller elementary particles into bigger elementary particles ..., all of them behaving function of how many photons are containing and how close they are one from each other, like my article is mentioning.

 

Please excuse me if my answers could be considered a debate with a formal request from a moderator. I have all respect for all people present on this science forum.

If it wasn't clear, we're not debating the rules with you, we are giving you the benefit of the doubt before we delete any more post you put up to you speculative theory other than in your own thread.

 

Your theory is speculative in the sense that it is not mainstream science; as a result, it has its own thread debating the efficacy of the evidence oyu are suggesting. When and if it becomes mainstream science, it might be more valid as an answer to questions and debates about mainstream science, or as answers to other speculative theories.

 

You have an option to put up your evidence. In your own thread. Please take it.

 

Read our rules, participate in a proper debate, and stop arguing a pointless argument.

 

~moo