# What is Gravity?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Darkelfv, Dec 15, 2011.

1. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, i am new here.

I am not trying to say anything different from what we currently understand about how gravity works. I just have not been able to get a solid answer to what gravity is, and it seems it is currently debatable and misunderstood.

I actually agree with all of the current known observed actions of gravity, laws of relativity etc.. at least the ones i'm aware of.

However none of what i have read about our current set of laws defining gravity can explain what it is or isn't. Just the effects of.

So is it wrong to say that gravity is the pressure caused by the displacement of space medium compared to the density of mass. And that space medium is a gas or liquid substance that is relatively displaced by the lack of space (mass density) in which it is trying to equalize into.

Here is a simple example that would explain what i'm saying.

1. tank with a fixed amount of gas in it (control base pressure)
2. tank with the same amount of gas but there is also a ball inside (experiment)
3. tank with no gas and a ball inside. (control base ball pressure if any)

so gas has a tendency to want to equalize
so that means the pressure of the tank with the ball in it would be slightly higher then the tank with just the same amount of gas right?
the tank with no gas wouldn't have any pressure change compared to being out of the tank.

Doesn't that mean that because the physical space of the ball is dispersing the gas around it and in effect causing more pressure directly surrounding the ball (as well as the inside surface of the box), weather or not the gas pressure is focused or equalized the overall pressure would be higher right? less physical space would cause compression right?

Wouldn't that explain that gravity is as simple as saying its the displacement of gas? That this space gas is so fine that we can't detect it but we can detect the effect of it. I mean it completely complies with relativity doesn't it?

I would go further to say that that same principle would also explain the acceleration of our expanding universe. This would also explain the relative nature of gravity compared to other solar bodies. Not discounting any thing we have learned so far but explaining it with the simple statement space is a gas. Gas expands and displaces when object enter it causing a compression relative to the energy of the gas trying to equalize upon the object.

Hrmm if that were true, couldn't we calculate the mass or size of space based on the pressure it causes on a object?

I think also what i'm saying is gravity is space, that substance between the 2 objects explained in Newton's law of universal gravitation. I guess i might also be saying its not a attraction but the repulsion of space onto mass because of the want to equalize. However it doesn't change the formula, just explains the missing part that i can't get anyone to clearly explain to me.

One thing different then the ball in the sealed tank experiment that would apply to us is the gas is less dispersed by less dense things, thus the effects of gravity penetrate to our core where the most dense part of the earth is.

Am i missing something here, am i wrong?
If i am wrong please explain to me what gravity is.

3. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,871
Yes it would be wrong to say that.

That also would be incorrect

No it would not. That would explain a bit about pressure but pressure is completely different from gravity.

No, it is not even in the 'ballpark'.

No it would not explain that either.

Possibly if that were true, which it isn't.

If something cannot be explained adequately to you, it is a huge mistake to just make something up as an explanation!

Yes, you are wrong. Gravity is the property of mass to warp space-time, this 'warpage' is observed as an attractive force between masses.

5. ### ULTRARealistically SurrealRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,555
Hmm, gravity is a tricky little bugger to try and put your finger on, i think its almost sticky in some respects, but it seems to me that particles just hate being alone somehow (poor neutrons..they just kinda die of lonliness...) Interconeccectivity between matter and matter...strings?

7. ### markl323Registered Senior Member

Messages:
166
we know that vacuum contains tiny particles coming in and out of existence and the energy of these particles can be measured. although this energy is not the dark energy responsible for the expansion of space. they have calculated the amount of this energy and it is too big of a number compared to dark energy. since then they have attributed the amount of dark energy to the randomness that exists in each universe in the multi-verse theory.

we know that electromagnetic waves can travel in vacuum. but how can there be waves when there is no medium? there wouldn't be waves in a pond without water.

so i think empty space is not actually empty. it is a medium just like liquid water and mass can interact with it, causing it to warp and the resulting force is gravity. mass doesn't warp other medium such as water, however. that's why gravity doesn't increase in water.

thoughts?

8. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
Thanks for the replies, I will please ask you to explain or offer experiments i can use to show me why those are wrong. How can you prove to me that the effects of gravity are through a zero medium of unexplained attraction, is there a experiment? Is there a real explanation of the attraction? Or a simple concept that we observe and can be recreated?

I am trying to understand this not make stuff up. The way they even came up with that math in the first place was by using variable imaginary numbers. There is room for improvement. Especially when the attraction it self is not explained. Or am i wrong, is there a finite experiment that was done?

How do we know for sure that the attraction is not the cause of another energy present? I don't understand why people accept a attraction that has not been properly explained or defined. (again point me in the right direction please, is there already a understanding of this attraction and why that i'm missing?)

How does the ideal of a equalized pressure not explain the very same thing that newton observed effects of. How can newtons current attraction can explain the universe expansion? That would mean we would be coming together and getting smaller not bigger? Or it would mean the expansion is not accelerating but slowing down which by current standards it is expanding at a accelerated rate. If the attraction exists, and there is no medium in space that is bouncing off itself to cause expansion, what explains it then?

I do not see how pressure is different then gravity. If you have a universal equality of pressure wouldn't that be the definition of gravity. If space is a energy volume it would have a equal amount of push on anything displacing it, right? Or are you saying my ball experiment is wrong too?

I use the word gas or liquid lightly mind you, i use it to explain the dynamics of how a medium acts. Obviously i think its just a energy volume that has tension like a compressible or even non compressible energy acts, oil, water, gas, liquid dynamics. I don't see it as nothing and i can't grasp this concept of attraction with our a physical reason.

Pressure (the symbol: P) is the force per unit area applied in a direction perpendicular to the surface of an object.

If the pressure is caused by a volume of energy that is finer then most of the mater in the earth the surface would not be our crust, but a point when the density actually caused displacement. Like near our molten core where most of the gravity is coming from. Why is that any different? A surface of a screen isn't going to resist air or dust, but it will resist larger objects. So the surface is relative to the density of said energy.

How is spacetime warp any different then the displacement of a energy body?
More importantly how can there be any warp if there is not any energy present? Some would have to exist to be warp right?

I mean doesn't that just state what i was saying to begin with?
mass and density warp space causing gravity?

So far i just don't grasp this unknown attraction factor. For example a non spinning asteroid flies by a planet body. We both agree that it will curve and change its trajectory based on the effect of the planet body being there.

Your saying its because Attraction. (which is what?)

I'm saying its because of a pressure bubble that causes warp in the space where the density of space has been displaced causing waves and ripples around a object. As the astroid flies into this thicker displaced space it catches part of the curveture of the bubble and has a tendancy to want to flow more in a curve, path of least resistance. (inside the bubble would be a equal amount of force directed toward the center of mass/density based on displacement)

You can do a experiment where you put a large ball in the water, then use a paperboat to go past the ball, the boat will get caught in the ripples and not go in a straight line curving toward the ripple of tension. How is this concept any different in the universe level.

Like a sail in the wind, where wind is thicker then air it causes resistance, if the resistance is curved it will tend to follow the curve instead of go straight through it.

Side note* I understand why the quantum level would be different because at some point the small particles are going to be smaller the the surface tension of other mater, thus they are going to act differently then if they were in a more dense energy environment. Sand falling through a screen for example. Also light changes on a smaller scale,

red gold dust anyone.

The spin of the bodies adds more shape and energy to these already displaced bits of space, causing orbits. Curved bits of different densities of space.

How is that not the same thing, just attraction explained?

I am not trying to prove myself right either, but i'm unwilling to accept unknowns as anything other then unknown, and so the logical conclusions based on my current set of knowledge lead me to here. Please enlighten me, i am trying to understand this not make it up.

9. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
Thanks for replying, you bring up points that are the same line of thinking. I am glad i'm not the only one who is either missing some major factor or maybe we are on to something.

I also don't believe in a true vacuum as you stated we have energy coming in and out through the space we can't fill. I mean it almost makes sense that that energy we see coming in and out is a form of space.

10. ### DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
19,252
How does an "equalised pressure" account for circular/ elliptical orbits?
How does this "pressure" not cause drag on orbiting objects? Where does the energy come from to maintain orbital velocity?
Why do orbiting objects not experience a greater "pressure" (and thus higher gravity) on the leading "face"?

11. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
*placeholder

Awesome questions, I am going to get back to you on these as i need to take some time and research. However just quickly my first thought is movement would not effect this space medium on the level that the displacement itself does. Or at least not to a increment that can be currently measured as the amount of material needed to have a stable universal pressure equal to the force of recorded gravity would have to be massive. I would also note the sun rotates in a odd wobble producing orbital waves based on all of the different rotations combined. Energy wave ripples come and go with the addition of other wave forms. So the waves produced by the odd spin could be the cause of our particular orbits. Odd shaped non centered mass will wobble and that explains the elliptical paths, i think.

if we can't even detect space as a medium, how would be be able to detect trace amounts of drag.
However i don't see a earth in a liquid orbit around the sun causing drag, i see the orbit caused by the rotation of the sun in a liquid type. Thus its causing a space to swirl and we are caught in that swirl. The front and the back are already moving at the same speed, thus no drag.

Look at a asteroid the drag is obvious so its because of the spin that causes the liquid space to move in a outward vortex. We are trapped in a peak or valley of the orbital wave from the sun sort of speak. Our own bubble fits nicely into this and follows the path of least resistance. kinda like a air bubble floating on the curve of a swirl of water.

That is my "Not thought out quick answer" i will come back with more time and clean this up, or correct it when i have thought about it more. Done a bit of research on the current understanding of those questions. How they apply to my understanding or maybe they will break it

12. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304

That's not the way science works. You are the one who must supply evidence, in the form of observations, experiments, and predictions, that the ideas you are proposing have merit. You can't throw shit at the wall and say 'here are my ideas, disprove them'.

13. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
I have clearly stated that this is not my theory but my current understanding .

and I've asked many times how and why I'm wrong .
instead of wasting space and telling me that I am wrong and no it can't work then please explain to me how it really does work .

1 simple question what is the cause of the attraction in newtons universal law of gravity.

please somebody answer that instead of telling me that I'm wrong , I came here to learn not to try to prove anything , yet I'm not getting any answers just flack for my current understanding of how I think things work .

Cheers.

14. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
The cause of the attraction is not addressed by newton. Newton's laws describe the behavior, not the cause of the behavior.

For the cause of gravitational attraction you need to go to General Relativity.

15. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
From wiki
'General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916.[1] It is the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.'

Questions about general relativity mentioned in this post.

"How is spacetime warp any different then the displacement of a energy body?
More importantly how can there be any warp if there is not any energy present? Some would have to exist to be warp right?

I mean doesn't that just state what i was saying to begin with?
mass and density warp space causing gravity?"

Wouldn't the warp itself prove there is a medium in space and that it follows rules of energy. not some magical attraction that goes against all basic physics of energy bouncing off each other. Is there a way to show attraction exist or a experiment i could do so my brain can wrap around this strange concept.

I mean your literally saying because it exists it is trying to get closer to everything else that exists. When you observe any type of energy, it has a tendency to just want to equalize through the path of least resistance. Stable vibrations are from matter bouncing back and forth between itself. If you release the barriers of pressure, energy expands because the walls containing them get removed. This is also why heat effects energy. heating or cooling something down will slow or speed up the energy.

This magical non explained attraction still eludes me, however if you present the same math and same logic to a system that is in a fluid that has tension everything clicks and makes sense. No magic.

So i obviously am missing something here and i will ask agian, please help me understand. how is this attraction possible, how can i see it and do a test to make it real.

The scientific method is one that can be reproduced. We see liquid mechanics and dynamics and they work and it makes sense, we can reproduce it. I haven't seen anyone produce or reduce gravity. Only using force and spin to counteract it. That would suggest its not fully understood. Well i sure as hell don't get it lol otherwise i wouldn't be asking a thousand questions.

16. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
Why not just go back to the Origin's answer (bottom of post #2)?

You will of course be stymied and mystified by what it means to bend spacetime by the mere presence of mass. Don't let that deter you.

Go with what Origin said. Move forward from there, not back, and you'll be on the right track.

17. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
You posted while I was composing mine, rendering it obsolete. OK so you recognize spacetime warp.

You are tending to draw parallels that are not going to help. Buoyancy has to do with relative densities. Fluid and gas mechanics are dealing with interactions at the molecular level, mostly collisions. Both of these generally involve gravity anyway, but normally just the Newtonian form.

Analogies usually break down anyway. I would suggest that you might step back and look at your question objectively. Start with the part that's bothering you: a force arises from warped spacetime. Now set that aside, and ask yourself: how does force of any kind rise out of physical reality? A generalized force is the product of mass and the second derivative of space, with respect to time. Why doesn't that concept bother you any more than the concept that warped spacetime induced gravitation?

This is bordering on epistemology. But really, why does one concept seem more incomprehensible than another?

I would offer that it's only because warped spacetime is not a common real world observation.

As far as whether the concept may be flawed, as if it can't be tested, have you followed the long running gravity probe experiment?

Just because it takes time to develop the technology to refine the accuracy of a measurement, does not mean the premise is flawed. If that were true, Newton would not have had the patience to dwell on the work of his predecessors and refine it into one of the most phenominal contributions to science - no, not gravity - calculus!

Good luck, welcome to SciForums and keep digging!

18. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14

Because the motion of mass is a physical thing moving through a measurable space, it does not explain the warp that is present. If i throw a ball into the pond the mass of the object causes a wave and ripples to the water (transference of energy). That is explained by 2 masses interacting. So how can a warp exist with out our mass interacting with another energy?

Going to check this out next!

I don't really think the premise is flawed, all of what i'm saying is just trying to grasp what the substance is that we are warping. It doesn't make sense to me that it is nothing. However it does make sense to me that it is a fluid like energy and the displacement of this fluid with mass and density causes the warp. Which would have the same math behind it, just also real physical things that are causing it. Even in a free fall type of universe I can't see motion of mass causing warp if there is not any energy present for the moving mass to displace.

Thus i get back to the point where space is not a true vacuum, and its not a attraction based on mass but the displacement of mass in a medium that causes space-time warp. I kinda thought after reading more about newton and general relativity that that is what they were saying too. So i guess i'm confused as to why i'm wrong.

All of this is also based on the premise that a wave created by mass moving through space over time would not be carried through a true vacuum (zero energy space). Nothing to interact with thus the wave would fail to be carried. Maybe this is the fundamental problem with my thinking.

Thank you so much. I will, and sorry to anyone that misunderstands me, i'm really not trying to step on toes or come up with something new i just trying to fully understand this concept. I was born curious and keep asking those questions that make people go what, why would you even care lol.

Honestly most of the time i can't see much of a difference in what i'm saying and what i'm reading about these laws and theories. Honestly the 2nd post where orgin says no to all those statements made me think i was misunderstanding physics and the laws of the universe.

Saying the warp of space time is nothing like the displacement of energy is beyond me. again how can you have warp with out displacement of energy.

if it was the sheer amount of energy given off from matter that still would mean displacement, otherwise all of the energy would simply shoot off and never stop.

I guess the only way i could think of a way it would be possible is if the energy given off from mass changed after it reached a certain distance away from the center. Why that energy would stop and create a bubble around mass in a zero energy vacuum again just blows my mind though.

I mean we all agree the path of least resistance right. No resistance means no slowing down and no coming back lol.

The way orgin said no to most of my questions is making it sound like that there is a void in space and the sheer existence of matter moving creates a warp. That just blows my mind, and does not follow anything based on the reality that i live in. haha obviously why i'm still asking questions huh!!

19. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
If your ball was made to expand in proportion to the height it is lifted up in the box. Then the gas pressure inside ball would be less than the air pressure on the outside of the ball (inside the box)
So if the ball falls it will shrink. But think of it like this, the air pressure difference makes the ball shrink, so the ball needs to fall.
That's gravity!

20. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,871
This idea of gravity as pressure has already been completely shown to be absurd in a thread started by MPC77. Your ideas are amazingly close to his.

Check his posts and you will be able to see that the whole concept is just poorly thought out pseudo science, it will save you alot of time.

21. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
Pressure is fine, its displacement I can't get. It has to be a pressure but more like a flow pressure. I can work everything out from that. I don't actually know how to work with displacement.. it's too stationary for me to think about. I get an image of the Earth sitting in a pond, and it doesn't do anything. Earth in a whirlpool matches better.

22. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
1. pressure is a measure of force and we have a constant measure of gravity. Thus the effect of gravity is a form of universal pressure towards the center of our mass or the surface of the pressure.

2. the agreed warp is what causes this pressure, the curve of space-time allows things to fall more freely to the earth and the path of least resistance is created to form gravity (laws of relativity)

So that means gravity is not pressure but the cause of it.

Even when i describe the system being in a liquid space i'm am still using the recorded effects of newton and Einstein in to account. Nothing changes it just explains the reason for warp to exist.

I am saying for matter to move and cause warp it has to be transferring the energy of its path into something that is dispersed to cause the warp in the first place. Thus space has to be some form of a medium, and because it is expanding and liquid like when it spins (like from the sun, or the black holes) it causes things near it to spin in orbits.

So i was wrong to call gravity pressure as gravity is more of the relation of the warp and not the force caused by the warp, but it would be correct to say the effect of gravity can be measured as a pressure.

23. ### DarkelfvRegistered Member

Messages:
14
So my current understanding now is
Gravity is the measure of the amount of warpage that is around mass-energy with momentum.

I would also say that gravity is the measure of the displacement of the medium that exists in space by mass density. Like a object displacing a gas.

I would also say these 2 statements are exactly the same.