# I need help understanding something.

## Recommended Posts

Alright, for starter i’m just a guy who is curious about some aspects of science. I completely agree with the way scientist describe gravity but I’d like to build some familiarity with terms used and names of scientist and names of theories to correct or add to my understanding of gravity. I’ll explain my level of how I visualize it even though it doesn’t completely consider every. This is just how i visualize it to understand the actual theory.

Ok so to begin the way I imagine gravity working vs the way its described to me. The way I imagine gravity working is sort of like oil and water in the sense that matter and space aren’t the same thing you can’t mix them together and get something in between, Without an emulsifier at least.  So I imagine the earth and the sun being suspended in water rather than space. and the matter is oil. alright so in this scenario I cut the earth in half. 2 thing are apparent. the surface area increases but the volume of water being displaced does not. Which means now that they(as 2 separate parts of a whole) have more surface area but the same mass. So the most efficient way they want to exist in space is to have the the least amount of surface area but the greatest mass. So basically I don’t find gravitons feasible because all it really takes for 2 objects to get pushed together is for it to be more efficient to have the same  the same amount of mass with the least amount of surface area.

also isn’t it possible that the big bang was rather a diffusion of particles in a high concentration and time is like the reverse of a emulsifier as in when all the highly concentrated particles in the vastness of space had the highest concentration gradient because space has negative density the gradient cause a super fast explosive diffusion upon the introduction of time. But then as the heavy particles began to lose energy and mass and became smaller the particles. so basically space has no mass no density no energy but mass as it loses energy it begins to settle.

if you understand where i’m going or know what I might be thinking incorrectly to see it that way feel free to let me know or share resources which will help me get a better understanding.

Thanks for reading all comment are appreciated.

btw negative comments or calling me dumb wont bother me as i’m here to increase my understanding so feel free to say what you like no matter how harsh because i’m here to learn and appreciate it regardless of form.

##### Share on other sites

How does your perspective consider orbits?

##### Share on other sites

You are free to make up any analogy you wish to help you understand gravity. Keep in mind though that an analogy is not the thing it is being compared to and will by definition be lacking.

For that matter, General Relativity also is not a description of what gravity "really is", but is simply a model describing how gravity works.

Your description of the BB as a diffusion of particles however is inaccurate in the early moments of the BB.

'Time' being described as a 'reverse emulsifier' seems problematic. Time might be better thought of as a measurement, just as length is a measurement.

Edited by zapatos
##### Share on other sites

Is reverse emulsifier a poetic name for increasing entropy, in context of time here?

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account