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.

 

What is Gravity?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
This thread is going to be deep and very hard to figure out. But I am asking what is Gravity?

We all have so many definitions, from Newton to Einstein, this question was sparked by a recent issue of a popular magizine that was talking about Gravity and what it actually was.

Some believe our friend Albert Einstein made Gravity more understanable and some believe he made it all confusing, through his theory of relativity.

Gravity as we know is a force, and is not that strong, compared to other forces.

Frictional Force

Gravitational Force

Tensional Force

Electrical Force

Normal Force

Magnetic Force

Air Resistance Force

Applied Force

Spring Force


All we can gather that gravity is a force, one that is somewhat attached to matter.
Is Gravity more than just observable, is it more than we truly think?

We also can gather that gravity is created by a number of things, but what are these things?

What is gravity?




www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
www-library.desy.de...
math.ucr.edu...

[edit on 1-8-2006 by ragster]




posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
ragster:

Very good question.

I could tell you, however I'd then have to shoot you


Seriously though, I have a model as to what gravity is, some proof proving this model and *possibly* how it is generated (from a planet's point of view).

I would seriously LOVE to tell you, however I have not released my paper yet, so I cannot.

I can, however say, that it is something that people think it's not.

Cheers

JS



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Though I was always taught through Physics that the earth's gravitational effect was always around 32.2 Ft.Lb's per.sec/sec.^2, there are variation's in it's fields of compliances. It is not much of a variant fluctuation, but can be measured usually anywhere from.06 to .1 above or below current standards of belief's, so the beat conclusion to come to would be "Unstable contribution's of the Erath's Gravitational application's and source." There seem's to be "Nothing" in that form of constant state, not here or anywhere else as far as we know. But very interesting thread jumpspace....
Here's a website with somewhat of the explanation, (Actually very exact) with a demonstration model of the "How Gravity is achieved" graphic's.

Enjoy...



Impact of mass redistributions on surface, rotation and gravity field of the Earth


Source:
www.dgfi.badw.de...



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Ragster,

This is what Bob Lazar had to say about gravity. I believe it to be true based on a conversation I had with an official at the Naval Obsevatory in Washington, D.C. about 15 years ago.

Gravity is an electromagnetic wave and like any wave has amplitude and frequency.

There are 2 types of gravity, Gravity A which works on an atomic scale and is currently labeled the strong nuclear force, and Gravity B, the gravity that holds us on top of the earth, the earth and all the planets in orbit around the sun and the moon in orbit around the earth.

Gravity is instantaneous and is not, as mainstream science have you believe ‘just a little faster’ than the speed of light. Any gravitation force exerted by the earth will be felt instantaneously anywhere else in the universe.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Does anyone know how it bends space/time ?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I remember when I was a kid once at this astronomy telescope thing, and I asked one of the technicians what caused gravity. He said that the answer was far too complicated to explain in one night, or something like that. I was very disappointed


But really, what IS gravity? It keeps us all alive, and we feel it or it's effects every singe second of our short miserable lives, but does anyone really know conclusively how it is created?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
my personal belief is that it's the 5th dimension...every time i try to explain why, though, my eyes cross.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Close with the 5th - the current belief is that it's the 4th dimension.


Ragster, I'm going to tell you, in brief, what the CURRENT belief about gravity is. As you've seen here, many people are of various beliefs, but the current model is the best we have and explains things the best so far and is actually REALLY good at it to (I believe in the current model, though I believe the model is "incomplete").


The current model states that mass has an imbued property to distort space-time. How it does this? We're not sure, just as we're not sure exactly how electromagnetic forces -really- work (we can tell you what they do, why they do it, and so on, but the deepest question of "how" is infinitely regressable - at what point do you say "it just is"?).

Now, all space-time distortions warp our 3-dimensional universe by "lowering" the 4th dimension (the 4th dimension being time, and space-time being kind of a dimension 3.5, inbetween the two). Picture it like the surface of a sheet of rubber. If you have a ball on the sheet, the sheet curves downwards 3-dimensionally. However, if you were 2-dimensional, you would be unable to detect this curve visually. To your 2-d eyes, space would remain flat, but suddenly space is also curved. A straight line no longer goes straight. You would began drawing a straight line, and kept going entirely straight (but only on momentum, no corrective movements), you would find yourself, and your line, curving. Looking back, you'd notice that you curved around the circle where the mass lies (remember, as a 2-d creature, you do not see a sphere, but rather a circle).

In the same way, our 3-dimensional universe is being warped into the 4th dimension. It doesn't matter that we, ourselves, can't (yet) travel 4-dimensionally, because the impingement into the 4-d direction of "down" causes a physical 3-dimensional curve in space and time.

This curve is what we know of as gravity.

It is why even light is affected by gravity. Not because light has mass, because it does not, but rather because the path it travels along is curved, and so it cannot travel perfectly straight.

Think about that, what holds you down isn't a force at all, but rather because your direction, your velocity, changes due to the path itself curving around back to the ground.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
ok, excuse me - but we have three spatial dimensions, 1 time, and you're calling gravity the 4th? 3+1+1=5, homie!



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Not entirely 25 cents


I'm saying we have 3 dimensions of space, and 1 dimension of time - time also being spatial, but a space we have no normal access to.

Space-Time is a kind of dimension 3.5 - it's what happens when you have the two sets of dimensions interacting with each other. A change in the dimension of time creates a change in the dimensions of space.

So, no, gravity's not a dimension, or even a force, but rather an effect - a symptom, rather than the cause.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
hahaha, gravity is a virus that infects the universe, hahahaha



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium

we can tell you what they do, why they do it, and so on, but the deepest question of "how" is infinitely regressable - at what point do you say "it just is"?



I cannot believe person of science would say this. The whole idea behind science is to answer questions. By using that statement above it seems to say that "well we have learned enough".
Yarium I have usually respected your answers and regarded you as a well educated person. This statement is giving me pause and it is an opening for all kinds of arguements about the true nature of science.

The true nature of science= SWAG
SWAG= Scientific Wild A$$ Guess



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
Does anyone know how it bends space/time ?


There is a new theory gaining ground, Hawking also has distanced himself from the Big Bang, which was put forth first as a theological concept.

Dr. Milos Wolfe currently supports a SpaceMotion not SpaceTime structure of 4 dimensions.
And gravity resides in the 4th dimension which is comprised of 3D of Space and 1D of Motion.

What this also means is that Wave / Particle duality will be replaced by a theory of Wave / Wave duality.
In waves intersecting with out waves creating standing waves. (matter)

Go here...

www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com...

However the scientific truth will arrive too late as the mythical Tower of Babel suggests.
Math was the language that the ancients used to build Babel.

namaste

Raphael



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Hooray, first post!

The problem here is that we're not really sure what gravity is, because we haven't a unified model of physics between atomic and cosmic scales. While there are loads of alternative theories (see Brans-Dicke gravitation, Loop Quantum Gravity, MOND, Process Physics, Tensor-Vector-Scalar Gravity and others), the two most well recognised theories are General Relativity and quantum gravity/graviton theory.

General Relativity states that gravity is not actually a force (unlike EM and the weak and striong nuclear forces) but that the existence (or creation) of matter in a particular area causes a curvature of spacetime.

Any object with mass will always follow lines (geodesics) on this spacetime, so if, say, a piece of space around a star is curved toward the star, then any masses around it (like a comet for example) will naturally move towards the star. Note that there isn't really a 'force' acting on the comet - it just moves along a path...

In quantum field theory, the graviton is the mediating particle of the gravitational force. Essentially a particle called a graviton is transmitted (or liekly exchanged) from one massive body to another. This causes the bodies to attract together.

The graviton was postulated because of the success of the standard model in modelling the other three fundamental forces using particle interactions (EM = photons, weak nuclear = W and Z bosons and strong nuclear = gluons). Though graviton theory produces good results in the classical limit (i.e. at regular everyday scales and energies) it goes all screwy at very small distances (lots of infinities and other difficulties in the equations). String and Superstring theory's treatment of the graviton are much better but as yet have not been reconciled with the well-verified predictions of general relativity.

There are plenty of other theories, but this is an overview of our understanding at the moment...

Angel42

* Incidentally - I don't believe either theory, because Randell Mills' CQM predicts gravity in a much more elegant form than any of those I've mentioned above, but hey, that's my two cents.

** Let's make it 4 cents - Bob Lazar hasn't got the faintest idea of how to make up a self consistent shaggy dog story - the strong nuclear force, or 'Gravity A' as Bob puts it, has been experimentally observed to be mediated by gluons, which are bound, like any other particle, by the fundamental 'top speed' of c, the speed of light... By that token, how can gravity be an instantaneous force?



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Gravity is the rate at which the attraction of A and B modes in atoms are pulled together. Just like a magnet.

A Planets specific "gravitational pull" it determined by the total mass and composition of its core.

For Example lets say Earth with a high density iron core has an (A) + Mode Value of 10. The core is pumping out (A) + Mode gravitons into all the surrounding atmosphere.

Then all atoms from the center of the earth to the space at the fringe of the atmosphere will all be set to (A) + Mode with an attraction factor of 10.

And draw in the (A) + Mode gravitons and return them back to the core at the rate of the "pull" in this case an arbitrary value of 10.

This is the "Strong" force

(A) + means that positive force is applied in the A mode of the Atom.


This is the "Weak" force

(B) - gravitons then exhibit no force, due to the planet core mode.


This links each atom together much like the flow of electrons, but in this case instead of electrons it is (gravitons in the A mode) Since all atoms are acted on equally your body, materials, things in the air anything with atoms in it are all attracted equally to the center of the planet with the same equal rate of attraction. But there is not a loss of (gravitons) only the alignment and the intensity of the alignment. A and B (gravitons) are interchanged only between the next closest atom but always at the same rate creating a cycle.

a> a> a> a> a> a> a> a> a> (earth)


Magnetic force, uses "gravitons" Magnetic force is only different in gravitational force in that magnetic force may be affected by electrical input. Since gravitational force is a mechanic of the whole planet system then you must have a much larger electrical force input to effect the gravitational force. ie you would need a power source such as the sun to input an electrical signal with enough magnitude to influence the direction or mode of the planets gravitational force. Where as a magnet is much smaller material object which still relies on mass, density, composition to determine its total "magnetic or gravitational" potential.

It is possible that when a "pole shift" occures what is really happening is A and B + modes are switching. There is no net affect felt by atoms within reach of the planets core just instead of A being strong force, now B is the Strong force. Since gravitational force is independant of "electrons" there is no affect of electrical systems.

However naturally occuring magnetic material in the earths surface could become more or less energized depending on their original mode orientation. But this would only affect magnetic material. This is why lay lines etc would change as the pole shift occures and someplaces would lose energy and others would gain energy.

ie naturally occuring (B) + mode material when the planet is (A) + Mode would attract normal (A) + mode material at the rate which the (B) + mode material is energized. However if the planet switched to (B) + Mode then it "would" repell (A) + mode material, BUT due to the switch most normal materials would become aligned with the planet center and would then be (B) + mode as well. Which then would mean both would be attracted at the equally rate, therfore the magnetic effect of the original material would be negated. Only when you encountered then naturally occuring (A) + mode material would then you see the magnetic attraction. But to the outside observer the (A) + mode material would then look like the "magnet".

A naturally occuring or "hard, permenant" magnet forms under conditions that we can not yet fully explain. Other materials may be energized by coming into contact with a permenant magnet and an electrical input of sufficient energy to momentarily switch phasing of the + - mode of the material thereby making it into a magnet like object similar to the permenant magnet "parent". But it is possibly to discharge the phasing and return the object to its original state by either coming into contact with the opposite energy charged permenant magnet or by again inputing a sufficient electrical input to momentarily switch the phasing.

Anti Gravity devices designed to work in a (A) + mode planet when the poles switch would then have to be re-designed to work in a (B) + mode planet. Their anti gravity capability would no longer work since it would be counter acting the wrong strong force



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I'm interested to know where that theory comes from robertfenix (always on the lookout for alternatives to the crap they teach us as 'science') - what exactly are A and B modes of atoms, and what constitutes (and how do you measure/calculate) the 'mode value'? Also, I was pretty sure that magnetism occurs as a result of the relativistic correction of an atoms electric field under a special relativistic treatment of Maxwell's equations - I've done the maths and it works out...

Angel 42



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I think matter itself creates Gravity. The more matter you have the more powerfull gravity is. At least that is what I observe. Once mater particles become attracted to each other by means other than gravity such as magnitism their collective begins to create a new force we see as gravity.

So, to start gravity several gas particles collect to each other and create graivty so now you have two forces pulling other material inward the original force (magnitism, elctro magnitism, positive and negative etc..) once combined they create gravity which now continues to pull more and more particles in making gravity more and more powerfull.

If you believe this, then now you no longer need to know what gravity is, rather you need to know what space is. Because the weight created by the gravity causes space to bend and warp and to collect and strengthen.

You would also need to figure out what created the orignal matter in the universe and I personal believe all that gas was create by naturaly occuring quantum energies.

Bascially Space is a naturaly occuring very weak energy field in the nothingness that interacted with itself (postive and negative energy) and created matter (gas). This gas gathered together and created gravity then you got suns>Planets>Black holes>Galaxies>Observable universe. This all resulted in a net increase in that natural weak energy field (Space, nothingness) making it stronger all the time by the tubulence created by gravity.

This weak energy field also is causing what appears to be an expansion of the unvierse. Its not really expanding but the gravity of the galaxies black holes are pulling at each other and causing motion in different and sometimes the same direction through the universe.

The movement of the galaxies through the universe are caused by the massive tug that black holes and collective weight of galaxies pull on that natural weak energy field that it moves the black holes through space. This action also pulls and strenghtens (by collection) this natural energy field (though still very weak by measurable standards). Its not really dark energy its just that we cannot measure it yet except possibly very near black holes or perhaps by observing black holes.

I believe that the natural creation of gas (matter) is retarded once a stong gravity fields is created and that is why we do not see gas being produced around us from nothingness. I do believe though that once you are far enough from gravity that we would discover that space itself is creating the matter.

This weak energy that created everything just simply exists and their is no other expanation needed. If you could travel back in time to before the first matter existed you would see nothing at all and unless we can figure out how to measure such a weak energy force you would wonder if this energy even existed. In fact your mere being there could cause the first matter to be created by the turbulence the gravity of your body creates in the natural weak energy (space).

Perhaps someday we travel back and time and cause the existance of the matter universe......

It just was. That is the answer to it all. Kinda like static electricity...no one big bang but the big bangs created by supper massive suns definately stir things up and contibute to the turbulence in the universe.



[edit on 2-8-2006 by Xeven]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultralo1

Originally posted by Yarium

we can tell you what they do, why they do it, and so on, but the deepest question of "how" is infinitely regressable - at what point do you say "it just is"?



I cannot believe person of science would say this. The whole idea behind science is to answer questions. By using that statement above it seems to say that "well we have learned enough".
Yarium I have usually respected your answers and regarded you as a well educated person. This statement is giving me pause and it is an opening for all kinds of arguements about the true nature of science.

The true nature of science= SWAG
SWAG= Scientific Wild A$$ Guess


Haha ultra, I think you missed the point of that statement - my fault on that, I didn't really explain myself as best I should have.

What I said was in the form of a statement, but should have been in the form of an open-ended question, one that has no answer. I was commenting on how we can do an infinite number of regressions and still we will never find the proverbial "just because" - because the "just because" does not exist. Personally, I believe that eventually we will find that we travel full circle - that every dimension rolls, eventually, into the one preceeding it - and every answer will come in the form of answering the next question.

To quote a game (Alpha Centauri):

"The substructure of the universe regresses infinitely towards smaller and smaller components. Behind atoms we find electrons, and behind electrons - quarks. Each layer unravelled reveals new secrets - but also, new mysteries."
-Acamadecian Provost Zahovr; For I Have Tasted the Fruit


That's what I was getting at...



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel42
Hooray, first post!

The problem here is that we're not really sure what gravity is, because we haven't a unified model of physics between atomic and cosmic scales. While there are loads of alternative theories (see Brans-Dicke gravitation, Loop Quantum Gravity, MOND, Process Physics, Tensor-Vector-Scalar Gravity and others), the two most well recognised theories are General Relativity and quantum gravity/graviton theory.[quote\

A very elegant summary. There's a number of alternative theories in science (which is why the astronomer couldn't answer it directly) and while the General relativity and the quantum gravity theories have a lot of support, there's not been a useful way to experess them.


General Relativity states that gravity is not actually a force (unlike EM and the weak and striong nuclear forces) but that the existence (or creation) of matter in a particular area causes a curvature of spacetime.


BTW, this is the explaination most often given, folks. This is Einstein's work (others also worked on it, but his name is most strongly linked with this concept.)


Any object with mass will always follow lines (geodesics) on this spacetime, so if, say, a piece of space around a star is curved toward the star, then any masses around it (like a comet for example) will naturally move towards the star. Note that there isn't really a 'force' acting on the comet - it just moves along a path...

Exactly. In addition to causing things to fall together, it also causes space to warp.


In quantum field theory, the graviton is the mediating particle of the gravitational force. Essentially a particle called a graviton is transmitted (or liekly exchanged) from one massive body to another. This causes the bodies to attract together.


As is said, it's a theory. Nobody ever smashed a graviton out of an atom (though we have found many subatomic particles.


The graviton was postulated because of the success of the standard model in modelling the other three fundamental forces using particle interactions (EM = photons, weak nuclear = W and Z bosons and strong nuclear = gluons). Though graviton theory produces good results in the classical limit (i.e. at regular everyday scales and energies) it goes all screwy at very small distances (lots of infinities and other difficulties in the equations). String and Superstring theory's treatment of the graviton are much better but as yet have not been reconciled with the well-verified predictions of general relativity.


In other words, things seem to change at the subatomic level. One of the new "best idea" models is string theory, but there's some flaws with this concept.


** Let's make it 4 cents - Bob Lazar hasn't got the faintest idea of how to make up a self consistent shaggy dog story - the strong nuclear force, or 'Gravity A' as Bob puts it, has been experimentally observed to be mediated by gluons, which are bound, like any other particle, by the fundamental 'top speed' of c, the speed of light... By that token, how can gravity be an instantaneous force?


Let's not forget that his magic aliens told him that element 115 was an element that had antigravity properties. When element 115 WAS created in the lab (in fact, in labs worldwide) it turned out to have NO antigravity properties at all.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel42
what exactly are A and B modes of atoms, and what constitutes (and how do you measure/calculate) the 'mode value'?


Since every force must have an opposite force then there must be two modes for Gravitons an A and a B for lack of a better term.

Similar to North and South poled magnetics, where you can have either a dipole magnet or a mono pole only exhibiting North or South polarity.

Since the more mass the more Graviton potential, higher mass (usually) means higher specific "gravity" the mode value is a another term for "gravitational force" as we understand it. On earth 14lbs per sq inch I think or something like that.

Since graviton potential is not only determined by mass but by density and material a planet having higher specific mass may not have the same proportional gravitational forces as we would expect compared to earth, since the core material may have different properties or make up.

All Atoms have an A and B graviton potential, the core alignment determines which of these is used as "gravitational force".




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join