Scientist believes gravity doesn't exist OR so a few have suggested...

But what if it’s all an illusion, a sort of cosmic frill, or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality?

So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe the behavior of heat and gases.

ARTICLE LINK BELOW:

www.nytimes.com...

Albert Einstein also didn't believe in gravity. Did you know that?

Even if it's an illusion, is it not, for all intents and purposes, still "gravity"?

i haven't read an article that blew my mind quite like that one in some time. i am, in no way, able to comprehend the bulk of it, but it's absolutely fascinating nevertheless. thanks!

I also think its possible that what we think is 'gravity' is the side affect of something else.

I dont know enough about it all...but the gravity thing never has resonated with me.

Suck It Newton!!, and your apple too!

Gravity is just a word. To really experience you have to fall out of a tree.

Hi, science fans.

What about: Gravity is a **flow**.

Read 'The divine cosmos", David Wilcock.
(No religion here).

The "flow" is not a bad idea. B-)

Blue skies.

Hmmm... I'm going to have to take a look at his actual paper, as he says 'read my words instead of focusing on the equations'.

But I agree that gravity is an effect, not a cause.

Whoever can elaborate the most eloquently and simply what the cause is will get the nobel prize.

I think it could be space-time itself, and probably has to do with black holes like is suggested in the article.

How does entropy work in the context of Zero Point Energy, or the Vacuum Density?

That is the next question to ponder in line with this article.

I'm off to read the paper and will be back for sure.

Thanks for posting, OP.

S&F

Perhaps gravity should not be thought of as a force but an area of greater density of space time. Light and time may flow at a constant rate per given quantity of space time density. At greater densities, light and time will still take the same amount of time relative to us to cross the same quantity of space time. However because there is an area of concentrated space time, light and time will take longer to cross this concentrated area from our perspective.

I'm not completely sure what the scientist is talking about as far as gravity not really existing but simply being the product of disorder of the universe concentrating in certain areas. It sounds like the idea is unproven and never will be. I suppose in a holographic universe where we could be thought of as a computer program, the idea of objects having gravity would simply be the result of the program creating order. Everything floating away into space would end life as we know it. In this respect gravity may simply be the product of creating order to make this holographic universe run with us living in it. Without things staying put on planets and planets staying put around stars and not flying off into a cold dark space, life would cease as we know it. In this respect, what we call gravity would simply be a program code that requires objects of mass to attract other objects of mass. Now if we could only find out how to rewrite the program for our universe at least temporarily we could travel vast distances in a flash.

reply to post by C-JEAN


I am familiar with Wilcock's physics and would be very interested to see precisely what you are referring to.

Perhaps you could link to a more specific portion of his work, as there is a lot of material to go through...

Please and Thanks.

stupid scientist’s. they can not find out how some thing works. so they say it does not work! does not exist. why can they not just say that they dont know how it works or what it is.

nobody must mock my ignorance.

was the article inferring that gravity could be looked at as the trend towards order (i.e., straight hair vs. frazzled, curly hair)? but then it says "the force we call gravity is simply a byproduct of nature’s propensity to maximize disorder." why would gravity be considered a mechanism of disorderliness?

Please direct your comments to this ongoing Thread

A Scientist Takes On Gravity - posted on Tue Jul 13 2010 @ 06:20 PM


- closed -