It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

gravity is not gravity

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
What we commonly call gravity is the attraction of to mass/bodies towards each other.

Einstein on the other hand described gravity as a 4th dimensional warping of space-time.

The two are not the same thing.

The warp works perpendicularly to space-time. The attraction works laterally/parallel to space-time.

These are two perpendicular effects.

I propose that the reason for mass/bodies [which warp space-time] are 'attracted' to one another is actually caused by the surface tension of space-time. The area of curved space is reduced by moving two mass/bodies closer together. Space-time 'seeking' a minimal stretch. It is an indirect result of gravity but the actual movement of mass/bodies towards each other is caused by the tension of space-time.

So strictly speaking there is no attraction between masses, there is only the tensile re-configuration of space to minimize area/volume [time?].

So when you seem pulled down towards the center of the earth it is actually the tension of space-time doing it, between combined warps of space of your atoms and the planet's atoms.

I am thinkin of it like a rubber sheet with heavy marbles/balls on it.
If it were a static system they probably wouldn't move towards one another. But everything in the Universe is vibrating and moving and between those constantly changing micro¯o positions the sheet of tensile [rubber] material tends to shift to/favor a minimal tension configuration(s).

If the above paragraph is true then the movement of bodies together is cumulatively the slight alterations of other forms of movement by the tension of space-time.

This might also fit with why gravity is such a weak force compared to some of the others. [EM, nuclear strong & weak]

Any good rational arguments for or against my supposition? Or other ideas on the subject.
.




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Have you seen the elegant universe? If not you should check it out. It has some wild theories about what gravity is and what it may look like on the sub-sub-atomic range. Basically the postulated that the reason it is so weak is it "floats" off of our Brane before it has a chance to interact with much. So actually the weakness of gravity is an illusion because the full force of gravity never touches us. I just heard there was a discovery the other week that seemed to support M-Theory. It had something to do with Dark Energy, I forget now...



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
sardion2000,
You referring to this:
NYU's Dvali Says Change In Laws Of Gravity, Not 'Dark Energy,' Source Of Cosmic Acceleration


Slank, I'm no scientist, but I think what you have stated in your "supposition" has been reiterated by mulitple scientific findings, scientists, and references?
Gravitation





seekerof



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
sardion2000,
You referring to this:
NYU's Dvali Says Change In Laws Of Gravity, Not 'Dark Energy,' Source Of Cosmic Acceleration

seekerof


Ah Thank you seekerof
Gonna bookmark it for later I love this stuff



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   
You do realize that you've done little more than describe gravity as its generally understood to be right? While leaving out that its propagated by waves and graviton particles?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
There are lots of ideas floating around about Gravity. I believe that once we have a greater understanding of Dark Matter then that will help us with the 'Gravity debate'. Once the Webb Telescope is up hopefully our theories will be solidified.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
.
Nygdan,

You do realize that those are two distinct ideas?
(1) The warping of space and (2) the lateral movement of bodies across space-time?

One is pure geometry. The other is a force or reflective of a force [forces?].

Geometry is not a force. It is a configuration of points in some n-dimensional space.

The geometry doesn't explain the attraction or movement of mass/bodies towards one another.

The warping of space happens in an essentially perpendicular direction to the movement across space.

perhaps the tension of spacetime is synonomous with the 'force' of gravity as opposed to the geometry of gravity.

i've never heard gravity described as two separate things. has anyone else?

If there is no surface tension of spacetime, what would explain the comming together of two mass bodies?
.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   
It still doesn't deal with the problem of gravity at the very small.

www.pbs.org...

Watch this. It may give you some insights as to where the Theoretical work seems to be converging atm.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
You do realize that those are two distinct ideas?
(1) The warping of space and (2) the lateral movement of bodies across space-time?
One is pure geometry. The other is a force or reflective of a force [forces?].

Indeed, and you are basically argueing that

So when you seem pulled down towards the center of the earth it is actually the tension of space-time doing it, between combined warps of space of your atoms and the planet's atoms.

and this is indeed something like the modern understanding of gravity no?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
.
*Trying to both describe and understand*

Mass bodies move about on a rubber sheet [the Universe], but unlike normal rubber this has no friction. In this model the Universe has a stretch-tension quality, but no direct connection to matter. This almost makes it seem like there would be no interaction what-so-ever. But perhaps that is because mass and the Universe cannot exist together. [Two things that can not occupy the same place at the same time] The Universe tries to occupy some average minimal stretch and mass pulls it from that center. The Universe [space-time] works like an equation of minimal surface.

say you have some metal ball [in freefall] which is pulled to the right by some magnet. You have an absolutely frictionless unbreakable silk/rubber sheet between the ball and the magnet. With out touching the ball directly you can manipulate the ball around by poking and changing the shape of the silk sheet. I think that works doesn't it? friction free effects of the sheet on the mass/body?

If it is the stretch-tension of space-time it means it exists with without any mass/bodies.

A rubber bands elastic qualities exist whether it is stretched or not.

The way we speak and think about gravity we imply that mass is necessary for it to exist. That would concur with the 4th dimensional warping of space-time. But space-time surface stretch tension would exist with or without mass.

Perhaps we call the effects of the stretch-tension gravity because we only observe it when a pair of mass bodies make it apparent.

But the surface tension probably has other effects, not in association with mass/bodies.
.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
What we commonly call gravity is the attraction of to mass/bodies towards each other.


that's what gravity is


Originally posted by slank
Einstein on the other hand described gravity as a 4th dimensional warping of space-time.


he didn't "describe" this as gravity. this is how he tried to explain gravity. by stating "gravity is a 4th dimensional warping of space-time", he doesn't rule out the first observation. gravity is the attraction of bodies towards one another. as for a concrete explanation on how it works, there is none. only theories.

[edit on 3/12/2005 by hallucinated]

[edit on 3/12/2005 by hallucinated]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join