What Is Gravity?

[Mutex]

But you have to remember there is no unified field theory, gravity is the energy-mass of all the forces not just the electromagnetic, general relativity does not take in account the SNF and WNF, that is why in (http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36350-reconstructing-the-energy-stress-tensor/) thread the SNF and WNF were added to the Energy Density of T₀₀, which was just the electromagnetic energy density in its original form, these other posts on the forum are not just arbitrary. In reality general relativity is off by a degree because it does not take in account these other forces that have energy-mass into the curvature of gravity, which is probably why it fails so dramatically on the Quantum level when the other forces start to become a "Big Thing". You must remember during Einstein's time Quantum Mechanics was just theory which Einstein thought were wrong or didn't exist yet as pillars of physics, so he didn't incorporate them into his general relativity. Though, Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to incorporate them and failed, he was working on a theory of quantum gravity without any success. I wish I had access to his notes during that time of his life it would make unification much easier I believe.

 

Thank for reading my post and your reply:

 

"Gravity works 'through' the electromagnetic force, it is not itself an electromagnetic force."

 

As usual I have not worded it well, 'through' is not the correct word here, What I was trying to convey is that whatever it is that keeps matter stable and as matter with mass (being E, M, S, w) are the forces that allow gravity to have an effect.

 

That is long as the 'stuff' requires a length of space to exist in (in our Universe, matter with mass), then gravity (the gradient of the fundamental length of space) will operate on that body.

 

So lets say you have a completely homogeneous object, just a solid block of stuff, where you cannot reduce it down to protons and electrons and such you with no known internal forces. Just a block of stuff. (even something like a macro electron).. 

 

If that is in a gradient of space length then 'up' would be towards a shorter length and 'down' would be towards a longer length, that gradient acts as if it is a force.

 

That is as the parts of the  object is in shorter space it is 'squeezed' (it's in shorter space), relative to the parts (below) that are in longer space in the longer space the object is stretched (as if it is being pushed from above and pulled from below).

 

 

But you have to remember there is no unified field theory, gravity is the energy-mass of all the forces not just the electromagnetic, general relativity does not take in account the SNF and WNF,

 

We know that all the 4 forces are unified, they are interact and relate to each other, however, I think all the forces are still unique and separate in their own rights, there is no one overall 'The force' that E,M,S,w are derived from.

 

Even with the E and M forces, sure we have a good understanding from Maxwell's equations how the EM forces combine and work as light, but that does not mean there is a unified EM force, the E force is distinct and separate from the magnetic force, they operate on the electron differently, but are distinct, separate and stand alone forces in their own right. (even if we do understand how they are interrelated). 

 

 

gravity is the energy-mass of all the forces not just the electromagnetic, general relativity does not take in account the SNF and WNF, 

 

That's the question, what IS gravity, 'classical' relativity' (XYZt) or classical mechanics (Newtonian gravity) does not really explain for describe what gravity IS, Newtonian gravity describes what it does (by measurement/observation) but not really HOW it does it.

 

Relativity goes some way to refute the notion that gravity is some interaction between masses (Newtonian gravity), by explaining that it is mass that changes space in some way, and it is this property of space that influences other masses that share that space.

 

So I think for an overall understanding of HOW gravity works you do not need to consider the details of the fundamental forces that make matter work, exist and occupy an amount (length of space).

 

But sure, there IS a mass/energy relationship in matter as the forces are shared between particles requiring less energy and requiring less space length (by having less mass. It's the fundamental of what matter wants to do, it wants to least amount of energy and be in the longest space as possible.

 

 

 

In reality general relativity is off by a degree because it does not take in account these other forces that have energy-mass into the curvature of gravity, which is probably why it fails so dramatically on the Quantum level when the other forces start to become a "Big Thing". You must remember during Einstein's time Quantum Mechanics was just theory which Einstein thought were wrong or didn't exist yet as pillars of physics, so he didn't incorporate them into his general relativity. Though, Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to incorporate them and failed, he was working on a theory of quantum gravity without any success. I wish I had access to his notes during that time of his life it would make unification much easier I believe.

 

I don't accept at all that the universe is quantum mechanical in nature, QM is not doing so well, we've had it a very long time and it really have failed to produce results.

 

If it far easier to list what QM can't do than to list it's achievements. That is in stark contrast to Relativity, that although I think the geometrical treatment of relativity is messy and incomplete I think the fundamental principles and established axioms are spot on.

 

Time is shorter with altitude, Time is longer with gravity, space has a fundamental property of length that is influence by 'gravity' we can measure that change in gravity waves at LIGO, the speed of light is constant. The length of time and the length of space are variable. 

 

IF relativity tells us that, as we measure that, it is true. 

 

Quantum Mechanics does not do any of that, it does not even really have an underlying theory or model, just some vague claim that everything is 'fields' or 'waves' or 'probabilities', No, the process of doing quantum mechanics is the essentially guess the equations. 

 

It's got a lot of problems, for 40 plus years it's been trying to model the proton, QM cannot crack the proton. 

 

The difference in the length of space change from mass is minute, the slop of the line is almost zero, it's almost (but not) flat. 

 

For example, you can good that the earth's center is 2.5 years younger than the surface, over 4.5billion years. That does not mean the surface formed and then 2.5 years later the centre formed.

 

It means that the length of the second is longer at the center of the earth relative to the surface of the earth. The slop of the 'curve' (straight line) has a gradient of 2.5 in 4.5billion.

 

The speed of light is still the same at the center and the surface: so the length of space at the center of the earth is very, very slightly longer.

4.6 billion golf balls on the surface of the earth would take a larger volume at the center of the earth, it would have the volume of 4.6 billion + 2.5.

 

That is a very small amount (way less that thermal expansion for example), but it is a gradient, and it fits because if you are to compare the 'strength' of gravity in relation to the 'strength' of the EM forces, the EM forces are something like 10³⁴ times larger.

 

So quantum mechanics does not really deal with numbers that small, if you have a 2.5 change over 4.5 billion over the radius of the earth, you are not going to be able to deal with the length of space between a proton and an electron..

 

So I'm with Einstein, I don't care so much for quantum mechanics, for me it does not hold promise and it fails to increase understanding of nature, I think a lot of it is sorry to say "mathterbation" at this point.. (we'll see, but so far not impressed). 

 

As for the big bang, we've just got to be honest, we have to admit we have no idea, I am far from convinced a big bang even happened as claimed (that's another debate I want). for me the evidence does not support that conclusion.. 

 

Same applies to black holes, we know next to nothing about black holes except that are massive.... and dark (no visible light), that's about it. We simply cannot speculate that somehow based on what little we know (and much we assume) that General relativity in any way fails. 

Just as there is no indication at all that relativity in any way fails at the quantum level.

 

So there is no real evidence at all that relativity is wrong or breaks down at any scale either the very big or the very small, or the very in between.

 

 

You must remember during Einstein's time Quantum Mechanics was just theory which Einstein thought were wrong or didn't exist yet as pillars of physics, so he didn't incorporate them into his general relativity. Though, Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to incorporate them and failed, he was working on a theory of quantum gravity without any success. I wish I had access to his notes during that time of his life it would make unification much easier I believe.

 

In my Navy days are a technician/engineer we used to say "If it ain't broke don't fix it", that is if something is working don't fool with it, especially if you just want to complex it up for no good reason. 

 

Perhaps relativity is how nature works, it appears to be the case, it explains what we observe (especially if you consider space as a length and not a geometry), Trying to justify a working  model into something 'quantum' is just 'busy work', unless you can find an actual flow in the theory, supported by observation. 

 

That flaw has never been found or observed, I don't think a theory for quantum gravity will ever be found, because that is not how gravity works, 'quantum' is not how the universe works.. (in my very humble opinion anyway). 

 

Anyway, thanks, I'll stop now I realised that I'm rambling. 

[Dubbelosix]

I would like to include a reference of your own mutex concerning the wave function, do I have permission?

[Mutex]

I would like to include a reference of your own mutex concerning the wave function, do I have permission?

 

If you are asking my permission?, you can do what you like, and in a many worlds universe you probably have 

[Dubbelosix]

If you are asking my permission?, you can do what you like, and in a many worlds universe you probably have

:) thank you it is just your statements on probabilities, you seem to have a clarity on it that was well worded.

Edited January 29, 2020 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

When I talk about anything understand that my understanding is built atop mountains of observational evidence and self-developed highly topologically accurate higher dimensional math hacks and effiecient enough such that I can do 4 dimensional topologies by hand on graphing paper.

Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible ****... me.I understand it..better than most.

A simple explanation is that; instead of one of four forces, it is the causal eventuality of fluid dynamics giving rise to the quantum interactions, itself being far more fundamental than any of them.

A far more perplexing question than what gravity is, is what space is. The answer I have derived over the years is that space is far more fundamental than gravity itself, of course giving rise to it. Asking what space is, is equivalent to asking what weaves the fabric of existence into being. And that is geometric principles, such as adding infinite corners to a square, becoming a hexagon, and ultimately a perfect circle. We carry these to their higher dimensional counterparts and we get what I have found, operations like spin or rotation are factors of time, which is what you get when you start changing the space past the third dimension, you can make it go up, down, forward, diagonal, and everything inbetween but spin and rotation are one of the final operations of the dimension of time. When a body spins it flattens, a sphere becomes a disc, when it rotates and spins that disc is flattened upward along a polarity.. into a cylinder - the universe we live in is cylindrical!

A test cylinder containing the reality fluid. As this fluid expanded from a perfect sphere condensation occured slowing the expansion until it stopped due to this condensation, sort of hitting a wall, and flowed back to the center until it became perfectly spherical again, we see this as the cosmic microwave background, at perfectly spherical heavier particles accelerated into photons, very bright event and it's still occurring the particles that make us just haven't settled back into their point of origin yet.

Entanglement is the result of the fact that what happens on one side also happens on the other because both sides shared identical causal conditions to get where they are. It's not really real, but it is.

Also, in ADS evaporation and creation are interchangeable just like beginning and end, this is why photons do not experience the passage of time and are ageless.

 

A nemesis? That is the work of jealous people who will not come together to find the truth in a matter. To me, I have no enemies, they just will not be eating at my table.

[isaac]

All bodies fall at the same "speed" - due to the interaction of the gravitational field of one mass with the gravitational field of another mass. Each mass makes a proportional contribution to the interaction of the two masses - GRAVITATION IS THE DRIVING FORCE OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY! It is a reaction force that enables the existence of potential energy of each mass and is a consequence of the Law of conservation of mass and energy. Inertia and gravity can never be nullified or caused by some force of action (acceleration) as Einstein wrongly claimed. Gravity and inertia are intense properties of mass, which always exist (all bodies fall at the same speed!).

This is claimed by the author of the paper, which can be found on the Internet (https://austav.eu/gravitation.pdf) and seems to be quite right. Therefore, please, whoever is interested, read this and discuss it.

 

 

[hazelm]

 

All bodies fall at the same "speed" - due to the interaction of the gravitational field of one mass with the gravitational field of another mass. Each mass makes a proportional contribution to the interaction of the two masses - GRAVITATION IS THE DRIVING FORCE OF CONSERVATION OF MATTER AND ENERGY! It is a reaction force that enables the existence of potential energy of each mass and is a consequence of the Law of conservation of mass and energy. Inertia and gravity can never be nullified or caused by some force of action (acceleration) as Einstein wrongly claimed. Gravity and inertia are intense properties of mass, which always exist (all bodies fall at the same speed!).

This is claimed by the author of the paper, which can be found on the Internet (https://austav.eu/gravitation.pdf) and seems to be quite right. Therefore, please, whoever is interested, read this and discuss it.

 

 

Thank you.  I will read the link but, as for discussing it,  maybe you have  said it all and well.   I'll first have to absorb it.  I understand what you are saying happens but it seems to have two separate bodies (mass) interacting in a way to balance a force --- It's over my head.  I shall try to return.

Edited March 1, 2020 by hazelm