Gravity is a force, right? Well does a "force" have a physical appearance?

Hi JimmyJames,

In classical Newtonian mechanics, gravity - along with electromagnetism and a bunch of other effects - is described as a force. You can not physically touch "a force", but only see the consequences of it (i.e. acceleration). Just ask any physicist, (s)he will have trouble explainging you what a force exactly is ;).

Newton used the concept of "forces" to identify the mechanism that is responsible for changing the acceleration of an object. The concept was introduced because of the inability (at that time) to correctly describe what was going on. In modern physics, the concept of "force" is no longer used; modern theories prefer to use the potential (energy) derived from a force, since that is a lot easier to work with.

Bye!

Crisp

A force is a push or a pull, I know that much. But what I really want to know is if a force has any atomic apperence, for example gravity may make the eletrons of an atom move faster or somthing like that. Because then you could alter an object to resist gravity there for you would float in the air. I really don't know what I am talking about, but I would appreciate some input.

Gravity is a force and a force is a conscious energy in action. ;)

Sometimes unconscious ...

I think I see what you are getting at.........i.e. if gravity had a particle attached to the force a Graviton that relays the message to another particle to tell it to behave in a certain way i.e. to fall down ...maybe I’m just babbling but I don’t think they have found any gravitons yet as they are (theoretically) extremely weakly interacting.
:)

Hi Jimmy James,


A force is a push or a pull, I know that much. But what I really want to know is if a force has any atomic apperence, for example gravity may make the eletrons of an atom move faster or somthing like that. Because then you could alter an object to resist gravity there for you would float in the air. I really don't know what I am talking about, but I would appreciate some input.

I am not entirely sure on what you mean, but gravity works on atomic scales aswell. The effect it would have is to make the electron move closer to the nucleus, and eventually let it crash into the nucleus.

Now appearantly/luckily this doesn't seem to happen. Why ? Well, we probably need a good quantum theory of gravity before we can answer that. Physics doesn't have all the answers yet ;).

Bye!

Crisp

Oh, never unconscious. Unconsciousness is always an illusion. Everything is always conscious all the time, and beyond time. :p

As interesting a discussion as this topic, unconsciousness, might become, I do think it would be the wrong forum to pursue it in.

Take care.

Why is that????

okay so if I understand you correctly then gravity effectes an object by forcing the eletrons of an atom closer to it's nucleus therefore effecting its motion, or making it move. In our case it would fall downward.

I think it would be more appropriate in the Philosophy/General Philosophy section where there's already a thread relating to self-awareness.

Philosophy can be applied to any subject, and should not be stuffed in just one small category. And anyway....I donīt like rules... :D

Your choice, my dear.

This is not the appropriate place to carry out this discussion, besides there are many other people who are interested in this subject who might have an interesting input on the subject, thats the whole point of differnent subjects for each forum. Plus it kinda makes me mad because I have posted a question and you are interfearing with my post by dragging it of the original subject. Please do not take this offencive.
Bye.

Hi Jimmy James,


okay so if I understand you correctly then gravity effectes an object by forcing the eletrons of an atom closer to it's nucleus therefore effecting its motion, or making it move. In our case it would fall downward.

Ehrr... no. Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear on this the previous post, and above all, I was wrong :).

If you would picture a nucleus and an electron (for example, a hydrogen atom) with no other matter near it, then from a classical point of view you could expect that gravity would bring the two closer. I forgot to mention that from a classical point of view, you can explain why this doesn't happen (otherwise all electrons would crash into the nucleus). You can describe the Coulombforce and gravity as a central force, meaning that the electron circles the nucleus in a circular orbit, with the force always perpendicular to the electron's orbit. This would keep the electron in a perfect orbit, just as a satellite orbits earth. Note that gravity is about 10^40 times weaker on an atom scale than the Coulombforce, so gravitational effects are negligible here.

On earth it works a bit differently. Both the electron and nucleus are attracted to earth, but since an electron is 2000 times lighter than a proton, you can say that it is only the nucleus being drawn to earth, with the electron dragging behind it.

It's important to note that this is a Newtonian picture of an atom, and that it doesn't really work (you really should use quantummechanics for atom-scale systems, but as I mentioned before, we're still lacking a good quantumtheory of gravitation).

Bye!

Crisp

Just wanna to say that the gravity exerted by an object will have impact on all objects within our universe. The gravitational field it created will extend outwards contineously and reducing its intensity as the distance gets furthur away, but it will always be there, pulling others towards it, even though its effect is insignificant.

Gravity is only zero at infinity, thus everything in this universe is affected by gravity. We can think that we are at the bottom of a potential well, and to get out of it, we need infinate amount of energy as to go past infinity, thus everything will always go towards the centre of gravity as it rolls down the hills of this potential well towards the centre.

<<...Both the electron and nucleus are attracted to earth, but since an electron is 2000 times lighter than a proton, you can say that it is only the nucleus being drawn to earth, with the electron dragging behind it...>>

Or you can say that the acceleration of gravity is independent of mass, or that the curvature of spacetime tells all masses to move similarly.

;)

quote Bebelina

Gravity is a force and a force is a conscious energy in action.

I think that is an acceptable response to the topic

quote Chagur

I think it would be more appropriate in the Philosophy/General Philosophy section where there's already a thread relating to self-awareness

quote Bebelina

Philosophy can be applied to any subject, and should not be stuffed in just one small category.

I agree with that totally, science is nothing without the idea, and ideas are philosophy.

quote JimmyJames

This is not the appropriate place to carry out this discussion, besides there are many other people who are interested in this subject who might have an interesting input on the subject, thats the whole point of differnent subjects for each forum. Plus it kinda makes me mad because I have posted a question and you are interfearing with my post by dragging it of the original subject. Please do not take this offencive.

Bebelina merely pointed out a belief that may be relevant to your topic if you open your mind...

I don't understand why it would make you mad because if it was left at her original post, and not responded to, it would not have gone any further, however, if someone had a post that could further her original input to this thread, then it would have had real meaning and maybe you could have learned something from it...

who are you mad at?

For supporting me against the materialists. ;)

Reign_of_Error,

<<...I think that is an acceptable response to the topic ...>>

I see you come by your handle honestly.

Bebelina,

<<...Thanks Reign! For supporting me against the materialists...>>

Anti-Darwinists are easily indentified by their crutches.

Mr. G, well arenīt you just a grumpy one! :p

Bebelina,

<<...grumpy...>>

You are trying to equate skeptical criticality with emotionalism.

Another mistake in reasoning on your part.

To your credit, I imagine you will eventually catch on.

;)

Well gee, Mr. G...:rolleyes:

Now where was that sceptical criticality of yours again? Was it the crutches?

The only crutches that exist are those in your mind. I was just thanking a friend for his support in a humorous way.

Anti Darwinist? :confused: Expalin yourself!

And why should I, a total stranger to you, assume any responsibility or obligation for counteracting your inability to comprehend if you cannot do it on your own?

Another crutch the universe owes you because of your need?

;)

In this forum?

1.) To be rationally informative and demonstrative.

2.) To hoist irrationality on its own petard.

3. To have fun/be entertained.

.5 To learn.

Got me curious ... What's #4?

4.) Embarrass idiots to see if they notice.

;)

That was a ".5", not a "5." ;)

Just covering the bases.

:p

When is a topic of course? What defines the boundaries of acceptable discussion?

Maybe there should be an appropriate -ism at the ending of each topic header so each demographic member knows whether he/she/it is invited to participate.

Mr. G, you seem to assume that "irrationalists" havenīt been at the level of cognitive perception that you accept as reality.
Using the attitude of a condenscending authority just serves as enforcing the computing of your junior cirquits.
I do think you are the one that needs catching up.
Yees, even in a Darwinian sense :D

JimmyJames,

I believe that gravitational fields are composed of matter that contains more energy than space but less energy than solid matter. When two gravitational particles meet, they tend to form one particle, thereby collapsing space. This effect is known as gravity. So in other words, gravitational fields do not have enough energy to be physical. And when they do have enough energy to be physical, they are no longer called gravitational fields; the are called matter.

Tom