Gravity

[Franco]

What is gravity? Most would say it is a force. I'm not a scientist,physicist or anything like that just a normal person with lots of questions to ask and this is one that I ask a lot.

Gravity is the after affect that mass has on the fabric of space-time. This is what I think gravity is.

The universe is on a 2 dimensional plane so mass creates gravity that then creates the 3Rd and 4th dimension space-time. So if there is mo mass is there no space-time? It's just a question I'm asking hope you all understand what I mean because I can't fully explain. It can be hard to put in writimg what your thinking so please tell me where I might be going wrong with my idea's and thanks to all that reply

[StringJunky]

Mass causes spacetime to curve, so if there is no mass, spacetime (which is a geometric description of space) would be described as flat.

[Strange]

What is gravity? Most would say it is a force.

 

It can be treated as a force in many cases. But in some cases that is not accurate.

 

Gravity is the after affect that mass has on the fabric of space-time. This is what I think gravity is.

 

Yes, gravity is how we perceive the curvature of space-time.

 

The universe is on a 2 dimensional plane so mass creates gravity that then creates the 3Rd and 4th dimension space-time.

 

The space-time four dimensional and gravity is caused by the curvature of that.

 

So if there is mo mass is there no space-time?

 

Space-time can exist independently of mass.

[Keiran O'Connor]

Curvature of space-time, what's the fabric of space-time ?

[Phi for All]

Curvature of space-time, what's the fabric of space-time ?

 

As StringJunky mentioned, spacetime is a geometric description of space. 4-dimensional, with axes for length x, width y, and height z, and time t, that you can use to plot the point of any event. Meet me at 48.8582 degrees N, 2.2945 degrees E, 315 meters elevation, tomorrow at 09:00 local time.

 

There is no fabric.

[imatfaal]

 

As StringJunky mentioned, spacetime is a geometric description of space. 4-dimensional, with axes for length x, width y, and height z, and time t, that you can use to plot the point of any event. Meet me at 48.8582 degrees N, 2.2945 degrees E, 315 meters elevation, tomorrow at 09:00 local time.

 

There is no fabric.

 

 

So I got up early cycled to St Pancras International Station, Eurostar to Paris, cab from Gare du Nord to the Eiffel Tower, climbed 1700 steps and a lift up the final section - and one question sprang to mind - WHERE THE F@~K is PHI?

[Phi for All]

So I got up early cycled to St Pancras International Station, Eurostar to Paris, cab from Gare du Nord to the Eiffel Tower, climbed 1700 steps and a lift up the final section - and one question sprang to mind - WHERE THE F@~K is PHI?

 

That was me waving from a cafe on Rue Saint-Dominique. You forgot to calculate the relativistic effects of French coffee.

[Keiran O'Connor]

So people shouldn't really use words like curve or tear in space-time as it's not tangible.

[Strange]

So people shouldn't really use words like curve or tear in space-time as it's not tangible.

 

Curve is ok, because it is all about changes to the geometry of space-time. But tear doesn't make much sense.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Strange

[StringJunky]

So people shouldn't really use words like curve or tear in space-time as it's not tangible.

'Curvature of spacetime' is really the geometric representation of the energy-density distribution of gravity around and between massive bodies.

[Phi for All]

So people shouldn't really use words like curve or tear in space-time as it's not tangible.

 

"Tearing the fabric of space-time" is a favored fiction image. It implies there is something on the other side of the "tear", but as far as we can tell, the universe is all there is. There's no "outside the universe" for the tear to lead to.

 

The image has been around since Pandora. The "tears" usually let something bad in, like an intruder, rather than letting something good out, like a hole in your pocket. But none of it is applicable or accurate in reality, even though many ancients looked at the heavens as a tapestry they thought you could poke through.

[DimaMazin]

Gravity is a moving energy which slows down tick of clocks and increases quantity of space in space.

[StringJunky]

Gravity is a moving energy which slows down tick of clocks and increases quantity of space in space.

I thought that was dark energy?

Edited March 9, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Gravity is a moving energy which slows down tick of clocks and increases quantity of space in space.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Let's keep the speculation out of this thread, please.

[Keiran O'Connor]

I fail to understand the speculation problem ??

 

Are modern textbooks super accurate ??

 

Am sure the Guys who thought the world was flat thought they where spot on.

 

Nothing smaller than a atom - subatomic particles

Nothing smaller than subatomic particles - quarks

 

So on so forth.

 

Seems really uneducated and deluded to think that a logical theory can't be true.

 

Last post on here I hope I have touched your life's in some way with my 4 posts, peace out my cronies.

[Phi for All]

I fail to understand the speculation problem ??

 

We have a Speculations section. You aren't the only person reading this thread, and many of those are students looking for the best, mainstream answers so they can pass school. They aren't looking for guesses, so we keep mainstream mainstream.

 

Now you don't fail, hopefully, and neither do the students.

[Vickyvicks]

I believe that Gravity is the reactive force exerted by space on everything else that occupies it's place.

 

Just like how water in a tank reacts to a ball placed in that water.

[imatfaal]

I believe that Gravity is the reactive force exerted by space on everything else that occupies it's place.

 

Just like how water in a tank reacts to a ball placed in that water.

 

Surely by that idea gravity would be related to volume rather than mass? And as it is related to mass not volume then your idea is in problems

[Vickyvicks]

Yes.. It is related to volume. But not considering as a collective volume of an object's atoms because most of the atomic volume consists of space itself. That will be a big wrong.

 

Break the object into smallest possible elementary particles and sum up volumes of individual particles. The total Volume you get by doing this is directly proportional to the force exerted by space trying to occupy this Volume.

 

 

If space is a fabric like cloth, then mass will have effect on it.

 

But space is a medium like water or air. Mass of object is not going to affect air or water except that the object just sinks to bottom.

But volume will affect it. Volume will change the pressures and forces of air/water/SPACE

 

The only difference is... We have to consider only elementary particular volume when we deal with space. Not atomic volume.

 

When we go such deep in to particles like quarks or something more smaller, volume will be almost equal to mass.

As both deal with amount of matter contained in the particle.

 

Sorry if I don't make sense.. May be I couldn't explain it proper.

[Strange]

Yes.. It is related to volume. But not considering as a collective volume of an object's atoms because most of the atomic volume consists of space itself. That will be a big wrong.

 

Break the object into smallest possible elementary particles and sum up volumes of individual particles. The total Volume you get by doing this is directly proportional to the force exerted by space trying to occupy this Volume.

 

 

If space is a fabric like cloth, then mass will have effect on it.

 

But space is a medium like water or air. Mass of object is not going to affect air or water except that the object just sinks to bottom.

But volume will affect it. Volume will change the pressures and forces of air/water/SPACE

 

The only difference is... We have to consider only elementary particular volume when we deal with space. Not atomic volume.

 

When we go such deep in to particles like quarks or something more smaller, volume will be almost equal to mass.

As both deal with amount of matter contained in the particle.

 

Sorry if I don't make sense.. May be I couldn't explain it proper.

 

Please show how you would calculate the altitude of a geostationary satellite using this model.

[Vickyvicks]

That's so classical to measure with my theory.

 

Mass is really great alternative unit to Measure gravity and measure altitude of satellite. But it can't explain what is gravity and why gravity exists. It says that gravity makes two particles attract. But why?

 

And this attraction is just one effect of gravity but not what gravity is.

 

Where as volume says that space doesn't want foreign object to occupy it's place and hence space tries to reclaim it's place through a force which is called gravity. And when the object is removed, the sudden movement by space trying to occupy the volume will cause ripples in space which is called ripples of gravity.

 

 

Mass also cannot explain gravitational ripples in space coz mass only considers object itself. So, how does gravity exist in the form of ripples when there is no mass at that place?

 

Whereas the view from volume can explain that ripples in space.

[Strange]

So what evidence do you have for your idea?

 

How would we test it to see if it is correct?

Mass also cannot explain gravitational ripples in space

 

Actually, experiments have just confirmed that the current theory is correct about this.

 

Can you show your calculations for the merger of two black holes?