Objects take up space

[Tres Juicy]

Hi all,

 

Just an idea...

 

Thinking about gravity not as a force but as an effect of motion.

 

Here's my tentative veiw:

 

Objects take up the space in which they exist, what if they also "remove" that space?

 

The effect we see as gravity is actually the space around the object pouring into the vacuum created by the object removing/displacing the space (matter destroys space)

 

Of course, space is expanding so the anihilated space is not missed

[michel123456]

Something like the Archimedes principle?

[JustinW]

I thought a vacuum was created by taking matter out of space. Not space out of space, or space into matter.

[Tres Juicy]

I thought a vacuum was created by taking matter out of space. Not space out of space, or space into matter.

 

Sorry I rushed this post a bit....

 

 

I should have said "Anti-Vacuum" or something

 

Almost the opposite of the Archimedes principle

Edited December 23, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[derek w]

first you need to prove that there is such a thing as a solid object.I have seen nothing in particle physics that suggests the existence of solid objects.

[michel123456]

Almost the opposite of the Archimedes principle

 

How would that explain the attractive feature of gravity between two bodies?

[Tres Juicy]

Derek w - I never said *solid* object, I said matter.

 

Michel123456 - because the space between them is destroyed. Removing the space brings the objects together

 

This effect is more pronounced closer to the object

 

Similar to pulling the plug in the bath

Edited December 23, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[JustinW]

I should have said "Anti-Vacuum" or something

I think that's funny. Everything that can't be fully explained has to have anti in front of it. Antivacuum, antigravity, etc... Edited December 23, 2011 by JustinW

[Tres Juicy]

Not really, there are plenty of good reasons to use the prefix anti...

 

Anyway, rather than thinking gravity causes space to bend, you could say the bending of space causes gravity

[Tres Juicy]

This would explain why we can't find a force carrier partice for gravity (graviton), because gravity itself is a fictitious force caused by the motion of space

 

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

[keep_talking]

Not really, there are plenty of good reasons to use the prefix anti...

 

Anyway, rather than thinking gravity causes space to bend, you could say the bending of space causes gravity

 

 

 

If space bending causes gravity, would there not be an overwhelming amount of gravity in the universe? Is space not being "bent" around itself to comprise the edge of the universe?

 

The only place I can think of that has an overwhelming amount of gravity would be a "black hole" If that was the case, would our entire universe not be comprised of one massive black hole?

 

How do you account for the existance of light from very distant galaxies? Gravity has the ability to distort light remember?

 

its much more plausible that gravity causes space to bend around it. Gravity is after all, in theory, the most powerful force we know of in existence.

[Tres Juicy]

If space bending causes gravity, would there not be an overwhelming amount of gravity in the universe? Is space not being "bent" around itself to comprise the edge of the universe?

 

The only place I can think of that has an overwhelming amount of gravity would be a "black hole" If that was the case, would our entire universe not be comprised of one massive black hole?

 

How do you account for the existance of light from very distant galaxies? Gravity has the ability to distort light remember?

 

its much more plausible that gravity causes space to bend around it. Gravity is after all, in theory, the most powerful force we know of in existence.

 

If space bending causes gravity, would there not be an overwhelming amount of gravity in the universe? Is space not being "bent" around itself to comprise the edge of the universe?

 

I'm not sure about how the edge of the universe works, is anyone?

 

The only place I can think of that has an overwhelming amount of gravity would be a "black hole" If that was the case, would our entire universe not be comprised of one massive black hole?

Why would there have to be "an overwhelming amount of gravity"?

 

How do you account for the existance of light from very distant galaxies? Gravity has the ability to distort light remember?

 

I'm not suggesting that gravity acts any differently than has previously been observed, I'm merely suggesting a different cause. Gravity is is gravity - how does it normally explain this?

 

its much more plausible that gravity causes space to bend around it. Gravity is after all, in theory, the most powerful force we know of in existence.

The bending of space is caused by matter, a piece of matter (like the earth for instance) removes/destroys the space where it resides, the surrounding space rushes in to fill the void (and is also destroyed) - so gravitational effects are localised to matter. Gravity is a result of matter.