How Gravity Works

[trevorjohnson32]

new video explains how gravity works

 

[exchemist]

new video explains how gravity works

 

Spelling gravity correctly would be a start. 

[CraigD]

Spelling gravity correctly would be a start.

That, at least, we can fix :)

 

new video explains how gravity works

Since it has no sound, the sketch doesn’t change, and the text that scrolls across it is small, I think you’d do better with simple text rather than video.

 

Here’s what you wrote, formatted and punctuation corrected slightly:

• A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time
• Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in
• The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark
• A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet
• When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge
• This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field
• The quark is continuously pulled in as the lavers of space time are denser the closer to the planet

The most obvious problem I can see with your claims, Trevor, is that you’ve failed to include anything except quarks being subject to the force of gravity, but it’s been clearly shown that other particles, such as photons, are also subject to it.

 

Charged particles, such as quarks and electrons, are also predicted by all widely known theories of gravity to be subject to it, but this is difficult to show with simple experiments, because the force between charged particles is so much stronger than that of gravity.

 

Here’s a learning opportunity: you mention that a planet has an “astronomical number of quarks”. Consider the planet Earth, which has a well-experimentally measured mass, and the up and down quark, which are the quarks contained in the protons and neutrons making up ordinary matter. What do calculate, approximately, the number of quarks contained in the Earth to be :QuestionM

 

(Sources: Wikipedia articles Standard Model, Fundamental interaction)

[trevorjohnson32]

That, at least, we can fix :)

 

Since it has no sound, the sketch doesn’t change, and the text that scrolls across it is small, I think you’d do better with simple text rather than video.

 

Here’s what you wrote, formatted and punctuation corrected slightly:

• A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time
• Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in
• The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark
• A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet
• When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge
• This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field
• The quark is continuously pulled in as the lavers of space time are denser the closer to the planet

The most obvious problem I can see with your claims, Trevor, is that you’ve failed to include anything except quarks being subject to the force of gravity, but it’s been clearly shown that other particles, such as photons, are also subject to it.

 

Charged particles, such as quarks and electrons, are also predicted by all widely known theories of gravity to be subject to it, but this is difficult to show with simple experiments, because the force between charged particles is so much stronger than that of gravity.

 

Here’s a learning opportunity: you mention that a planet has an “astronomical number of quarks”. Consider the planet Earth, which has a well-experimentally measured mass, and the up and down quark, which are the quarks contained in the protons and neutrons making up ordinary matter. What do calculate, approximately, the number of quarks contained in the Earth to be :QuestionM

 

(Sources: Wikipedia articles Standard Model, Fundamental interaction)

 

 

 

 

I don't even believe quarks exist anymore and mean to replace the term quarks with neutrons or protons. Evidence they don't exist lies in the neutron star and black holes. You couldn't take any more space out of a neutron star for quarks to exist in or else it would spin faster then the speed of light. what do you think?

[Vmedvil]

There are strong gravity theories, but as you said, it would need to involve more than just a concept of the quark interaction.

 

You can't just replace gravity with the strong force in that sense either, unless you know what kind of theory you are dealing with specifically. There is certainly some indication from strong theory that there are similarities between it and gravity.

 

I agree with Dubbelosix, that is way to general lacks exacting details. Not that I disagree with any of your statements. 

 

• A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time
• Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in
• The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark
• A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet
• When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge
• This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field
• The quark is continuously pulled in as the layers of space time are denser the closer to the planet

 

These statements would be the equivalent of me saying that in special relativity "Quarks get smaller as velocity increases" add that one. Yes, that is true but that doesn't explain the fine details.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Little Bang]

There are strong gravity theories, but as you said, it would need to involve more than just a concept of the quark interaction.

 

You can't just replace gravity with the strong force in that sense either, unless you know what kind of theory you are dealing with specifically. There is certainly some indication from strong theory that there are similarities between it and gravity.

 

I don't want to know how gravity works but why gravity works,

[Vmedvil]

I don't want to know how gravity works but why gravity works,

 

Curvature of time and space is the "why" answer. It seems Energy-Mass does this to space and time due to a interaction between it and them.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Little Bang]

You must think you have answered my question but obviously you have not. Why does the curvature of space and time create gravity?

[Vmedvil]

You must think you have answered my question but obviously you have not. Why does the curvature of space and time create gravity?

 

It generates a force upon other objects with Energy-Mass, the gravitational force, just as charge fields generate a Force on charged objects as the "electromagnetic" or Lorrentz Force. Objects with "Color Charge" do the same thing generating the Strong Nuclear Force on other objects with "Color Charge" Interaction that are within a Quantum Chromodynamic Field or  "Gluon Field". 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Little Bang]

If I ask you how to make CO2 you would say it is a clear odorless gas?

It generates a force upon other objects with Energy-Mass, the gravitational force, just as charge fields generate a Force on charged objects as the "electromagnetic" or Lorrentz Force. Objects with "Color Charge" do the same thing generating the Strong Nuclear Force on other objects with "Color Charge" Interaction that are within a Quantum Chromodynamic Field or  "Gluon Field". 

[Vmedvil]

Well, obviously my explanation was not simple enough,  actually, as explained by many posts and papers in physics those "Fields" Store energy-mass thus create gravity, I answered your question long ago. Energy-Mass Generates Gravity which is the curvature or 'k" value of time-space.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Vmedvil

[exchemist]

Well, obviously my explanation was not simple enough,  actually, as explained by many posts and papers in physics those "Fields" Store energy-mass thus create gravity, I answered your question long ago. Energy-Mass Generates Gravity which is the curvature or 'k" value of time-space.

You miss Little Bang's point, I think. It is really about the philosophy of science, it seems to me.

 

All your descriptions are of the way gravitation is modelled, not of any underlying reason for the model.

 

This is not a criticism, seeing as all science can do is to make predictive models of how the physical world works, based on observation.

 

Deeper questions of "why?" can only be answered by science in terms of a deeper layer of modelling, from which the model in question can be derived. (Examples would be the way that bulk thermodynamic quantities can be derived from the statistical behaviour of quantum entities in statistical thermodynamics, or the theory of chemical bonding is derived from quantum mechanics applied to the electrons in molecules.)  

 

With gravitation, as modelled in General Relativity, there is no such deeper layer of modelling. It is just how nature appears to behave, based on the empirical observations that (a) the speed of light is found to be independent of the relative motion of source and receiver, and that (b ) inertial and gravitational mass are found to be identical.

 

In other words, it is just how nature behaves.

 

In science, there is always a point at which observations run out and do not permit a deeper layer of modelling to be constructed. To go further is an exercise in metaphysical speculation, rather than science.

Edited February 20, 2018 by exchemist

[Vmedvil]

You miss Little Bang's point, I think. It is really about the philosophy of science, it seems to me.

 

All your descriptions are of the way gravitation is modelled, not of any underlying reason for the model.

 

This is not a criticism, seeing as all science can do is to make predictive models of how the physical world works, based on observation.

 

Deeper questions of "why?" can only be answered by science in terms of a deeper layer of modelling, from which the model in question can be derived. (Examples would be the way that bulk thermodynamic quantities can be derived from the statistical behaviour of quantum entities in statistical thermodynamics, or the theory of chemical bonding is derived from quantum mechanics applied to the electrons in molecules.)  

 

With gravitation, as modelled in General Relativity, there is no such deeper layer of modelling. It is just how nature appears to behave, based on the empirical observations that (a) the speed of light is found to be independent of the relative motion of source and receiver, and that (b ) inertial and gravitational mass are found to be identical.

 

In other words, it is just how nature behaves.

 

In science, there is always a point at which observations run out and do not permit a deeper layer of modelling to be constructed. To go further is an exercise in metaphysical speculation, rathe

 

Sorry, Yes, let me explain the problem with Gravity and the other forces being merged is not that we do not know how it works, it is the models that are the standardized version of them that don't work together or basically the "Math" of them, not the concepts themselves as you saw before Exchemist posted, I explained the laws of nature verbally as one unified field theory as I always do, but the math on such things is much harder to get to all work perfectly together being the models themselves, the problem not the understanding part of nature but just the models that predict it. All of the thousands of different models used are just different math attempts in the hope they will not have errors in their predictive power.

 

 

Dubbelosix, Myself, and thousands of others I have met, and Even Polymath are all trying different math ways to get this to work, different methods and theorems to get this to work, none wrong or right just different models of the same thing's math as we know all the properties of the universe but there are always problems like what Einstein faces in the picture how does "6-3 = 6" ??????.  It doesn't , that means this model is broken at that point not that the universe is broken at that point. The Challenge can you construct a model that takes in account all the variables and doesn't give nonsense predictions at any point that perfectly match nature?

 

Physics is not currently at the state of us ever really finding anything "New" but rather trying to explain the same stuff repeatedly in different forms trying to get all the parts we know the results of to work together as a "Perfect" Unified Field with all the Universe's complexity because the Universe does not have in holes in it, thus our models must not either if correct and also explain every aspect of nature exactly, if correct as the Universe is just one object not a bunch of parts like it is now in our equations.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Little Bang]

It would help if we could take gravity out of the equation because it may be a function of another property of the Universe?

[MikeBrace]

It would help if we could take gravity out of the equation because it may be a function of another property of the Universe?

 

You've hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

And if we did take gravity out of the equation, would any of these responses in this thread make sense or be still be accurate? Would any of the other threads discussing the physics of the universe be valid then, or would they all be regulated to the long list of other historic, long-since disproven theories?

 

Lastly, (since we still have to explain gravitational force) if we clearly explain it as a function of another known, proven property(s) of the universe, could we take it out without prejudice and re-write everything? Would you believe it?

 

Let's all answer these questions truthfully first before we start discussing your intuitively obvious solution to sooooo many of modern physics' problems.