Gravity never zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dywyddyr said:
Ho hum...
Until after the BB gravity as force didn't exist, therefore it couldn't apply.
Click to expand...
So the whole argument was to establish the timing of this.
How soon after? Was it before or after sub atomic particles or particles formed.
For the longer delay of Gravity allows for the longer unhindered expansion.
And/or if gravity appeared early why did it expand at all!:confused:
 
Dywyddyr said:
Read the thread!
Asked in post #91, answered in post #92.
[from @#92]
"Er, good question. "I dunno" is the short answer. Possibly, since inflation was supposed at one stage to be exponential, then it's as simple as "gravity couldn't "keep up" with the expansion"."
Click to expand...
So you don't know and then speculate about something you don't know about. Very good!:D
 
Dywyddyr said:
What exactly is your point here?
I was asked something off-topic. I gave a possibility...
Click to expand...
When others do this you give them negativity. You know the terms you use.
It makes me laugh a little for you are right when you make your little interjections, and I'm just showing you what it is like. When you actually tried to discuss your knowledge of science, even you had to admit you don't know it all.
 
Robittybob1 said:
When others do this you give them negativity.
Click to expand...
Try again.
I phrased it as a possibility, after admitting I didn't know. When I give "negativity" it's because the posts I reply to are NOT so phrased.

When you actually tried to discuss your knowledge of science, even you had to admit you don't know it all.
Click to expand...
And another error. I've never claimed to know it all...
 
Dywyddyr said:
Try again.
I phrased it as a possibility, after admitting I didn't know. When I give "negativity" it's because the posts I reply to are NOT so phrased.


And another error. I've never claimed to know it all...
Click to expand...
You are back to your old self. How about discussing science? :D
 
OnlyMe said:
I'll say it in another way. The equation, $$E = mc^2$$, does not demonstrate or prove that energy generates a gravitational field, in the abscence of mass/matter.
Click to expand...
Have you thought about what kind of field is generated when a volume of empty space is accelerated?

What could cause such a thing? What could accelerate "empty" space? Is the question even meaningful?
 
arfa brane said:
Have you thought about what kind of field is generated when a volume of empty space is accelerated?

What could cause such a thing? What could accelerate "empty" space? Is the question even meaningful?
Click to expand...
But it is not empty is it. BB was dense hot energy, that's not empty is it! So is it a type of "pressure" that expands it?
 
arfa brane said:
Have you thought about what kind of field is generated when a volume of empty space is accelerated?

What could cause such a thing? What could accelerate "empty" space? Is the question even meaningful?
Click to expand...

The equivalence principle, is just a bit more limiting than you suggest. Though it is arrived at through acceleration, it is the inertial resistance to the acceleration.., the constantly changing state of motion, which is equivalent to the force experienced as gravity. It really reduces to similarities between inertia and gravitation. Einstein never cracked that nut, though he spent a great deal of time trying.

Getting any deeper into what the implications of the dynamics of space may represent, within what appears to be implied in your above post(s), begins to venture into some shaky ground.

I believe that it ultimately turns toward some attempt to better define the mechanism of inertia. There are at least a few papers available, focused on attempts to address inertia as emergent from QM. I have seen none as yet that presents a compelling argument. Though I find the idea that the dynamical Casimir effect might be somehow involved, intriguing.

I don't know where else to take this discussion. Any which way you turn it becomes a tangled web.
 
Last edited:
OnlyMe said:
What is empty space? How can you accelerate it? Accelerate it relative to what?
Click to expand...
Well, you may be aware of the equivalence principle that says gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. But usually this is explained in terms of an object (a particle) that accelerates through space. So what's the difference between an object with mass that's accelerated (by a force), and a volume of space? How would a volume of space be accelerated?

This question is one that Einstein considered: he discusses it in one or other of his books about relativity.
 
arfa brane said:
Well, you may be aware of the equivalence principle that says gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. But usually this is explained in terms of an object (a particle) that accelerates through space. So what's the difference between an object with mass that's accelerated (by a force), and a volume of space? How would a volume of space be accelerated?

This question is one that Einstein considered: he discusses it in one or other of his books about relativity.
Click to expand...

The equivalence principle, is just a bit more limiting than you suggest. Though it is arrived at thorugh acceleration, it is the inertial resistance to the acceleration.., the constantly changing state of motion, which is equivalent to the force experienced as gravity. It really reduces to similarities between inertia and gravitation. Einstein never cracked that nut, though he spent a great deal of time trying.

Getting any deeper into what the implications of the dynamics of space may represent, within what appears to be implied in your above post(s), begins to venture into some shaky ground.

I believe that it ultimately turns toward some attempt to better define the mechanism of inertia. There are at least a few papers available, focused on attempts to address inertia as emergent from QM. I have seen none as yet that presents a compelling arguement. Though I find the idea that the dynamical casimir effect might be somehow involved, intriguing.

I don't know where else to take this discussion. Any which way you turn it becomes a tangled web.
 
OnlyMe said:
The equivalence principle, is just a bit more limiting than you suggest. Though it is arrived at thorugh acceleration, it is the inertial resistance to the acceleration.., the constantly changing state of motion, which is equivalent to the force experienced as gravity. It really reduces to similarities between inertia and gravitation. Einstein never cracked that nut, though he spent a great deal of time trying.

Getting any deeper into what the implications of the dynamics of space may represent, within what appears to be implied in your above post(s), begins to venture into some shaky ground.

I believe that it ultimately turns toward some attempt to better define the mechanism of inertia. There are at least a few papers available, focused on attempts to address inertia as emergent from QM. I have seen none as yet that presents a compelling arguement. Though I find the idea that the dynamical casimir effect might be somehow involved, intriguing.

I don't know where else to take this discussion. Any which way you turn it becomes a tangled web.
Click to expand...
Just say what you think. It doesn't really seem to be a definite answer. Any discussion is better than none.
Since it was mentioned Einstein had some ideas about space, but reading his works on it I would say a modern explanation is probably better.
Relativity http://www.bartleby.com/173/
 
Ivan said:
Hi I make this short,

Is it true that gravity always exists and It never goes to zero no matter the distance?
Would not the universe in a "endless" time period, draw it self together again? Make a cycle.. of expansion(big bang) and black holes


note
And even if there is no friction in space would not the universe be able to decelerate and contract itself since the little force never stop to exist, but the speed and the centrifugal force can stop. Sorry for my bad English


Best regards / Ivan Loguin
Click to expand...

I thought gravity doesn't work on atomic level and below?
 
Gravage said:
I thought gravity doesn't work on atomic level and below?
Click to expand...
The whole universe has become dependent on the gravitational attraction between hydrogen atoms, so gravity must work at the atomic scale. Previously we worked out that if protons were more than 88 mm apart maybe the universe would have remained just a ball of hydrogen never to form into anything else. Dihydrogen (H2) molecules would have a better chance as the gravitational range having twice the mass.
I will be keeping an eye on that number to see if it does hold (density) for the situation of the nebula as they are about to form into protostars. :)
 
James R said:
Yes. The strength of the gravitational attraction between two masses is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them. Therefore, since no two masses can be an infinite distance apart, the force of gravity is never zero.
Click to expand...
Yes, but doesn't that require that spacetime can bend at a very fine resolution? There could be a threshold for how little spacetime can bend where the bending stops since the bending is "swallowed" by the resolution, or is spacetime infinitely defined?
 
Cyperium said:
Yes, but doesn't that require that spacetime can bend at a very fine resolution? There could be a threshold for how little spacetime can bend where the bending stops since the bending is "swallowed" by the resolution, or is spacetime infinitely defined?
Click to expand...
That is what we tried to calculate in the Two Neutron Universe. With the help of AlphaNumeric the distance that two neutrons needed to separate before there was an acceleration of less than one Planck Distance / second /second was 88 mm.
Yet if the whole of the Universe's matter was put into two equal Black Holes they would need to be tens of millions times billions of light years apart to have effectively no attraction between them.
So I still think if the Universe was just a diffuse cloud of Hydrogen atoms (H2) more than 150 mm apart they would just bounce off each other and the Universal internal gas pressure would just have kept them apart, no matter how large the nebula was, and we would have never existed.
 
Cyperium said:
Yes, but doesn't that require that spacetime can bend at a very fine resolution? There could be a threshold for how little spacetime can bend where the bending stops since the bending is "swallowed" by the resolution, or is spacetime infinitely defined?
Click to expand...

I think curvature of spacetime depends upon mass or its momentum .
 
hansda said:
I think curvature of spacetime depends upon mass or its momentum .
Click to expand...
Show me the formula. Show me the money.
Show me your hand.
So if a mass bends spacetime does it take effort to do this? If yes: Does the energy expended on bending the spacetime allow for recovery?
Or does it just happen? No effort required.
Is it bent as in "just as if it was curved"? :)
 
Robittybob1 said:
Show me the formula. Show me the money.
Show me your hand.
So if a mass bends spacetime does it take effort to do this? If yes: Does the energy expended on bending the spacetime allow for recovery?
Or does it just happen? No effort required.
Is it bent as in "just as if it was curved"? :)
Click to expand...

Einstein already explained curvature of spacetime .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top