[MigL]

I must have missed the revolution in Physics since I was under the impression that we had a concrete answer to "what is gravity ?"
Gravity is nothing more than the intrinsic curvature of space-time in response to a presence of mass/energy. The mass/energy then follows this intrinsic curvature in its motion along lines called geodesics, unless of course another force is acting on that mass/energy.

Anything else implies action at a distance, which I and a lot of others are unconfortable with, and is also the case with Newton's gravity, and though Newton's gravity is fairly accurate ( it put people on the moon, did it not ? ), he never could explain what it was. We had to wait for Einstein's GR for an answer.

[nicolai]

in my opinion gravity is the resultant of forces upon objects on earth due to the spinning...
but the angular momentum of earth remains constant and so we have objects`s weight...
counter reaction of objects to this spinning is the friction...
by extrapolation came G,who is an imitation of g and is calculated by g...
so G formula and value are very doubtful...
you big dusty savants look like in the moliere plays,a bunch of doctors disputing at a sick man`s head...

[swansont]

nicolai, on 4 April 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

in my opinion gravity is the resultant of forces upon objects on earth due to the spinning...

No. The spinning actually results in the net force on you being smaller, depending on your latitude, but it is not the source of the gravitational force.

[Gravity Guy]

Hi
Not sure if this is still on.
If I would say that I'm working on Origin of Gravity, probably I will be penalised.
I would like to say that Origin of Gravity, Energy and Mass are the most important part of our understanding of physics and our universe. I agree with p-cunfused that pure hard physics should be applied here. But look, how one could be so sure what he/she is talking about. If you (who claim that you are the most educated here) think as you were thought in school what is right and what is wrong, please give some freedom to all others. Looks like even most educated or experianced physicist can not be 100% right. If you are, than please tell us the origin of Gravity so others wont be confused.
With all respect to everybody who is using this forum.

[pmb]

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

If I would say that I'm working on Origin of Gravity, probably I will be penalised.

If so I myself would stick up for you since this seems to be about a searc of knowledge, not a new theory about gravity.

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

I would like to say that Origin of Gravity,..

There is now known mechanism of gravity. Same with EM either. There is deeper and more precise knowledge of EM too but no known mechanics of it.

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Energy and Mass are the most important part of our understanding of physics and our universe.

Not to my knowledge. Please provide your reasoning which led to your conclusion here.

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

I agree with p-cunfused...

Please define tem p-cunfused.

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

But look, how one could be so sure what he/she is talking about.

Experience with the theory and the relevant experiments. Anynbody who believes that they know everything 100% is ignorant!

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

If you (who claim that you are the most educated here) ...

I find that comment offensive. Therefore this is where I end my part in this thread.

[swansont]

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

please tell us the origin of Gravity

For Newtonian gravity, the origin is mass (add momentum/energy if you go to relativity). Is that what you meant to ask?

[rwjefferson]

the answer to life, the universe and everything

Gravity is the aether wind. To measure the drag and direction of the aether wind, stand on a scale and look up.

given
Gravity is a state of force. Force is inertial pressure differential. Space consists of weakly interactive massive quantum particles. Weakly interactive means they are not easy to measure. Massive means they are subject to gravity.

before you unleash the hounds of dogma
Name one observation of gravity or van der vvaal's or casimere or weak or any other force that is not consistent with inertial pressure differential.

in the spirit of peace
ron

[zapatos]

MigL, on 27 March 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

I must have missed the revolution in Physics since I was under the impression that we had a concrete answer to "what is gravity ?"
Gravity is nothing more than the intrinsic curvature of space-time in response to a presence of mass/energy. The mass/energy then follows this intrinsic curvature in its motion along lines called geodesics, unless of course another force is acting on that mass/energy.

Anything else implies action at a distance, which I and a lot of others are unconfortable with, and is also the case with Newton's gravity, and though Newton's gravity is fairly accurate ( it put people on the moon, did it not ? ), he never could explain what it was. We had to wait for Einstein's GR for an answer.

I was under the impression that what you describe as a concrete answer to "what is gravity", is nothing more than a model that describes how objects behave in gravity's presence.

Is it possible to measure the curvature of space-time, or are we simply measuring/predicting/describing how an object behaves when it is a given distance from a mass?

If a better theory comes along that does not include space-time, I would assume that we would no longer talk in terms of space-time, but in the terms described in the new model.

As far as 'action at a distance', what else would you call the actions of space-time being curved at a distance 'x' from an object as that object moves through space?

[elfmotat]

zapatos, on 21 May 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

I was under the impression that what you describe as a concrete answer to "what is gravity", is nothing more than a model that describes how objects behave in gravity's presence.

No objections here.

zapatos, on 21 May 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Is it possible to measure the curvature of space-time, or are we simply measuring/predicting/describing how an object behaves when it is a given distance from a mass?

It's certainly possibly to measure the components of the Riemann curvature tensor.

zapatos, on 21 May 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

If a better theory comes along that does not include space-time, I would assume that we would no longer talk in terms of space-time, but in the terms described in the new model.

Macroscopically, I don't think we'll get anything better than metric theories of gravity (though this is just my opinion of course). At large scales, we'll probably always work with a theory that relates curvature to stress-energy in some form.

Quantum gravity will almost certainly describe gravity in terms of spin-2 gauge bosons (gravitons).

zapatos, on 21 May 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

As far as 'action at a distance', what else would you call the actions of space-time being curved at a distance 'x' from an object as that object moves through space?

You describe its motion as a result of the local geometry of spacetime. There are, though, well observed instances of non-locality in QM.

rwjefferson, on 21 May 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

the answer to life, the universe and everything

Gravity is the aether wind. To measure the drag and direction of the aether wind, stand on a scale and look up.

given
Gravity is a state of force. Force is inertial pressure differential. Space consists of weakly interactive massive quantum particles. Weakly interactive means they are not easy to measure. Massive means they are subject to gravity.

before you unleash the hounds of dogma
Name one observation of gravity or van der vvaal's or casimere or weak or any other force that is not consistent with inertial pressure differential.

in the spirit of peace
ron

Speculations abound. Some comments on your ill-defined theory:

-Gravitons are massless
-Weakly interacting means that the particles only interact through the weak force + gravity. It doesn't mean they're hard to measure.
-Massive does not mean subject to gravity. Massless particles (e.g. photons) also interact gravitationally.

This post has been edited by elfmotat: 22 May 2012 - 03:48 AM

[StringJunky]

swansont, on 4 April 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

No. The spinning actually results in the net force on you being smaller, depending on your latitude, but it is not the source of the gravitational force.

Interesting. What would the percentage increase be on an Earthbound object's weight if the Earth wasn't spinning?

This post has been edited by StringJunky: 22 May 2012 - 03:52 AM

[zapatos]

elfmotat, on 22 May 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

You describe its motion as a result of the local geometry of spacetime. There are, though, well observed instances of non-locality in QM.

What I meant to say was that as an object moves through space, it seems as if it is constantly changing the curvature of space-time around it. For example, the curvature of space-time midway between two stars is relatively small as compared to the curvature close to a large body. If a rogue planet was travelling between the stars, the closer it got to the midpoint, the more space-time would curve there. Meaning that any small bit of debris at the midpoint would be affected by the rogue planet while the rogue planet was still some distance away.

That is what I meant when I said that the curvature of space-time is still "action at a distance".

Thanks for the other feedback. I need to do a bit of reading to make sure I understand what you are saying.

[elfmotat]

StringJunky, on 22 May 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

Interesting. What would the percentage increase be on an Earthbound object's weight if the Earth wasn't spinning?

The radial acceleration due to rotation is ω²R. At the equator, this is (7.2921150 * 10^-5 rad/s)²(6,378137.0 m) = 0.033916 m/s². Compared to the gravitational acceleration of 9.79 m/s² at the equator, it is almost entirely negligible. The difference is about what you would get from moving from one of the poles (g=9.83 m/s²) to the equator (g=9.79 m/s²).

This post has been edited by elfmotat: 22 May 2012 - 04:16 AM

[StringJunky]

elfmotat, on 22 May 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

The force due to rotation is ω²R. At the equator, this is (7.2921150 * 10^-5 rad/s)²(6,378137.0 m) = 0.033916 m/s². Compared to the gravitational acceleration of 9.79 m/s² at the equator, it is almost entirely negligible.

Thanks...it's just of academic note then.

[CaptainPanic]

Gravity Guy, on 21 May 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

If you (who claim that you are the most educated here) think as you were thought in school what is right and what is wrong, please give some freedom to all others. Looks like even most educated or experianced physicist can not be 100% right.

Everybody is free to post anything they want. There is no policy to shut up anyone here.

The stuff we all learned in school is not 100% right. In fact, the more you learn about physics, the more you will realize just how little we know.

However, you should accept that any new theory will be tested. And in science, we test things by attacking it... We will try to punch a hole in it, and if we fail to punch a hole in a new theory, then it might be something.

[swansont]

StringJunky, on 22 May 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Thanks...it's just of academic note then.

Back when people were first going to define the meter, an idea was floated to tie length and time together via a pendulum, such that a 1-meter pendulum had a period of exactly 2 seconds, by definition. The variability in g quashed that idea. But , so it turns out that the approximation is good to better than 1%

[michel123456]

swansont, on 22 May 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Back when people were first going to define the meter, an idea was floated to tie length and time together via a pendulum, such that a 1-meter pendulum had a period of exactly 2 seconds, by definition. The variability in g quashed that idea. But , so it turns out that the approximation is good to better than 1%

I learned something today, thanks.


But
Where else in physics or geometry do we encounter Pi squared?

[pmb]

michel123456, on 22 May 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

<br />I learned something today, thanks.<br /><br /><br />But<br />Where else in physics or geometry do we encounter Pi squared?<br />

<br /><br /><br />There are so many places that I've lost track. Many many places in math that's for sure.