Erik Verlinde says no need for Dark Matter and Gravity is emergent

originally posted by: Kashai

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Kashai

Hi there,

Gravitational waves, similarly, are generated by the bulk motion of large masses...

I just don't buy it. It is pretty lame as an explanation...Can you please elaborate on this a little more?

...and how Moon orbits Earth. What keeps it in orbit and why things fall down toward mass at the same acceleration rate since motion of gravity generator can be different, but the speed at which smaller objects fall toward source of gravity is the same regardless of the mass or size of smaller object (feather and a hammer)?


cheers)

Hi,

The mass of a larger object like the moon is in the same situation as the feather but because of its mass, that compensates for why the moon is actually moving away from us.

Once an object gains a certain size it expresses gravity waves though technically all things express gravity waves in relation to its mass.

We actually do that you know because of our mass as well.

few remarks..Lets forget about Moon - Earth example for the sake of making my question a little more concrete.
I am on the Moon surface. I simultaneously drop a weight of 50 kg that you can find in any gym and a bird feather. Both reach surface at the same time. Does not matter from which height. How come? What gravity waves have to do with this?

a reply to: KrzYma

Gravity is definitely a force, just by definition.

what definition would that be?

thanks

a reply to: elysiumfire

Space is not a 'something' of 'nothing', it is the absence of content, and that does not make it a 'something' of no content. Something of nothing is nothing.

Then what are those 'gravity waves' LIGO has detected? What was that?

Dont know about you, but Einstein has predicted it as a must phenomenon, which is convincing enough to me.

3D space (volume), imo, is a sum of individual energy states. For example, if I suggest that when three 'universes', or 2D energy planes (fields) intercept under angle, single mutual volume of space is perhaps formed.))) No, really, think about how the sphere gets its shape..

a reply to: greenreflections


Any object in space-time with a mass of about 300km will become spherical because of Gravity. And yeah because of how gravity functions you are correct a 50kg weight would fall at the same rate as a feather. This is why we consider gravity weak as given certain amounts of mass the reaction is null.


At point would be though that an object the size of say Manhattan, NY. Would effectively in outer space-time would form into a sphere.


As far as how come?


It is an phenomenon inherent to nature which is currently understood in relation to Relativity theory, which has been confirmed in numerous ways.


Beyond that in discussion...

ABSTRACT

We find an exact quantized expression of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equations utilizing spherical Planck units in a generalized holographic approach. We consider vacuum fluctuations within volumes as well as on horizon surfaces, generating a discrete spacetime quantization and a novel quantized approach to gravitation. When applied at the quantum scale, utilizing the charge radius of the proton, we find values for the rest mass of the proton within
of the CODATA value and when the 2010 muonic proton charge radius measurement is utilized we find a deviation of
from the proton rest mass. We identify a fundamental mass ratio between the vacuum oscillations on the surface horizon and the oscillations within the volume of a proton and find a solution for the gravitational coupling constant to the strong interaction. We derive the energy, angular frequency, and period for such a system and determine its gravitational potential considering mass dilation. We find the force range to be closely correlated with the Yukawa potential typically utilized to illustrate the exponential drop-off of the confining force. Zero free parameters or hidden variables are utilized.

resonance.is...

We essentially have a force in nature that is functional only under certain conditions. So while all thing do fall in response to a gravitation field towards it, mass is an issue as to motion.

give it time erik verlinde's theories will fizzle out

a reply to: Hyperboles

According to String theorist Erik Verlinde Gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases. He described it as an emergent phenomenon.
  
Verlinde said in a conference while describing his theory- ""Take a concept like ‘temperature’, for instance. We experience it every day. We can feel temperature. But, if you really think about the microscopic molecules, there’s no notion of temperature there. It’s something that has to do with the property of all molecules together; it’s like the average energy per molecule.

Gravity is similar. It’s something that only appears when you put many things together at a microscopic scale and then you suddenly see that certain equations arise."

www.quora.com...

Verlinde is interesting while String theory is more interesting.


Further reading...

www.nature.com...

a reply to: Kashai

Hi

Any object in space-time with a mass of about 300km will become spherical because of Gravity.

You meant 300 kg, I take it. Asteroids are not spherical, btw. So, it is not 'any object'.

Because of gravity you say? How about water droplet in zero g? It is spherical...

But you missed my point overall. I was trying to dissect 3D dimension lay out and suggest it is formed as a result of multiple 2D planes intersection.

So, how does gravity function? Because you call it a force, but which functional only under certain conditions...You still did not explain how feather and a hammer fall with the same acceleration rate. 'Gravity function' you just brought in, what it might be?

thanks)

a reply to: greenreflections

But you missed my point overall. I was trying to dissect 3D dimension lay out and suggest it is formed as a result of multiple 2D planes intersection.

Not really against that but looking for more evidence.


Gravity is not dysfunctional under certain conditions it is just that things will not enter into orbit under certain conditions.

Gravity is fundamental presenting that just because we cannot measure its effect at certain scales does not mean its effect is not relevant.

It just means we cannot measure that relevance of the phenomenon.

Like the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory how Gravity relates could have potentials beyond any current interpretation.

Gravity allows for the suppression of light but also allows for life. As this is a Science forum and in response to you questions? Gravity allows for the conditions that currently exit in the Universe.


One could consider that nature is organized in a way that makes life plausible from a perspective that relates but beyond what we currently understand.

Gravity suggests that energy/mass could be limited but alternately it could imply that reality as we are understanding it relates to some kind of innate spectral effect

This could imply Multiverse theory as how mass is processed inherently in nature and in the context of some kind of inherent Prism in nature.

a reply to: greenreflections

"How about water droplet in zero g? It is spherical..."

how about a low density object reacting akin to high density objects in no different a way than feathers and a 50kg weights?

a reply to: Kashai


Life exist that cannot move and in example would be the Sponge. Its existence as a life form is dependent upon the environment. its structure the result of life bending to such conditions that allow for life in that respect.

People often think of sponges as plants, rather than being animals.  This misconception is due to some of the characteristics of the Porifera (Dawkins 2004).  Like plants they do not move, i.e., they are sessile.   They stay put in one place stuck to the bottom of the water- either salt or fresh.  Also, they don't have muscles.  Like plants they move at the cellular level (Dawkins 2004).

tolweb.org...

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: KrzYma

Gravity is definitely a force, just by definition.

what definition would that be?

thanks

In physics, a force is any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the motion of an object.[1] In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate.

There is one force that brings apples down to earth and we call it Gravity.
What is happening between apple and earth is all just theories.

a reply to: Kashai

Gravity is not dysfunctional under certain conditions it is just that things will not enter into orbit under certain conditions.

Yeah, satellite has to be within gravity affected area. I understand that. To get into orbit it also has to have besides proximity, an appropriate velocity, I think.

Gravity is fundamental presenting that just because we cannot measure its effect at certain scales does not mean its effect is not relevant.

IMO, gravity effect mechanism is not of the same nature as the nature of binding between particles. It is geometrical. It is not an extension of same forces that bind matter together..I mean, it could be, but I dont see how. When it comes to matter, QM is the king. Effect of gravity in Moon experiment is not related to mass and is an effect of distortion of space-time, I think.
Any matter is inertial mass and is a source of affecting space in, and around, the spot of its presence (spatial occupation).

how about a low density object reacting akin to high density objects in no different a way than feathers and a 50kg weights?

Ok. For both objects (bird feather and the hammer) to enter same orbit, same velocity would require. I might be wrong thought.

Apollo 15 mission showed us an amazing experiment hard to believe when you see it. Wonder what physics rule can govern such a truly stunning witness account? To me it says that gravity is actually an 'effect of gravity' where space metric change associated with spatial coordinates is 'deforming' physical object according to altered 3D volume space geometry.

I will try to elaborate on this later, hopefully)) Cheers)

a reply to: greenreflections

I will try to elaborate on this later, hopefully)) Cheers)

'stretching' but not 'construction'

Objects in space-time the size of Texas do not stretch they compress into a Sphere.

Its not irrelevant and in condition are planets that allow for life given the right conditions. When it comes to matter, why it results in life is very relevant. As far as QM it could very well have something to do with it.

In that sense it is not irrelevant.


See even in a case where our Island Universe were to be a random event; the fact there is life could relate to function in so far as its structure.

a reply to: KrzYma

There is one force that brings apples down to earth and we call it Gravity.

Yes. How does this work though? How does apple is brought down to earth? Got to be mechanism behind it... You cannot just give it a name of 'force' and think you have everything figured out.


)

a reply to: greenreflections


Apples fall to the ground because it has less gravity than the ground.

I have not said we have it all figured out and actually what we know of gravity is called a theory.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: greenreflections


Apples fall to the ground because it has less gravity than the ground.

What would happen if two objects have equal mass? I think they will still orbit each other, given relative velocity is appropriate? Orbit is looked at as derived from observation facts, but not what is causing it.

Space metric is altered forcing physical object to change its initial shape. Space inside gravity affected area has space occupied by the physical object stretched un proportionally, making physical body to assume new geometry with its center of balance (center of equilibrium) moved toward source of gravity. That is if I assume that an object has fixed dimensional coordinates in spatial terms and has its initial state geometrical form.
))) just a theory


cheers)

a reply to: greenreflections


Finding two objects with the same mass would be tricky in nature. But yeah the mass

alters space-time so the spherical shape of the mass conforms to an element inherent to the fabric.


Its like some kind of symbiosis but don't worry I am not going all religious on you

The relevant factors in black holes in consideration.

At fringe there is the idea that mass is able to generate sinusoidal waves in space-time.

In that sense a Black hole would be like hitting a key in a Piano that due to the Vibrations would cause the corresponding string to break.

a reply to: Kashai



At this point I am open to all sorts of theories (as long as they are reasonable withing physics or logic realms). Most ineresting to me is to think of this:

But yeah the mass alters space-time so the spherical shape of the mass conforms to an element inherent to the fabric.

Yeah, that's right. I agree with you that massive bodies tend to assume spherical shape because there is mass to an object. There is another aspect tho. I don't even speculate why mass is causing space fabric to stretch around it. I may only look at it from my lay tower as gravity, hypothetically, is being a geometrical in nature. Not a force at all, in my humble opinion. As in, forces that are giving physical object a round shape, are well described in Standard Model and overall also responsible for the satellite to start accelerating toward the Moon.

Standard Model forces are what maintain stable states of matter (physical body composure). ''Stable state' can also be described from geometrical point of view, where geometrical composure also represents sort of 'stable state' that expresses itself in a way of 'geometrical form'. If I am to stretch rubber sheet, it will resist in attempt to assume original stable state. But instead of doing it stretching with my hands, imagine space where rubber sheet is stretched because spatial coordinates of it assumed new set of coordinates, changing the shape of available space.

My punch line is this:
Sure, physical body will find equilibrium quickly if space volume deforms. The trick is that gravity is gradient. As soon as new 'stable state' is attained, geometry of space will also change a tad. And with each attempt to reach new equilibrium object will enter run away process, viewed as gravitational acceleration by observer.


cheers)