Origin of Gravity

Originally posted by black beetle
BTW, if your answer to the above is simply "because" and nothing else, just "because", then congrats FF, way to go!

For, if this "because" of yours exists, then at the same time there is not "because" in a known existent and at the same time non-existent condition; and for sure the invisible Cat smiles big time😵

No no, "because" and "because" only is not enough to be an answer.

When I was new to science people took things for granted. Like "Iron is magnetic, aluminum is not, why?" The answer "Because that's the way it is' is fairly a 'because'-answer to me. "Why cannot we know all the decimals in the pi number?" or "Why are planets in closed orbits?" or "Why is background radiation so smooth?" or "Why are quarks always in threes?" and so on and I was never satisfied with the "Because it is!" answer.

No, not at all. Now I know more than ever, and I know for sure that there are answers to every question in science. Some of which we know, others of which we don't know - yet. Bet there are always answers, other than "Because it is!".

So wen we come to the ultimate question - "What was before the beginning of the Universe?" - a "There is no answer to that question!" answer doesn't satisfy me. There is always an answer! Will there be an answer in the future? Yes, I'm sure of it. Will I ever know the answer? Now I'm not so sure of it. But if we progress in science at the same pace as today, then some day, in this decennium, in this century, in this millennia, or further in the future, we will know the answer.

Until then we have to speculate. And my speculation is that we have to take a Supraverse into account.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In my view of the universe and its mysteries there is always a 'because'. Or perhaps I should call it all the "Supraverse".

There is no beginning in Supraverse. Perhaps in our universe but in a larger (temporal and spacial) perspective, a supraversal perspective, every 'why' has its 'because'.

Do I have any scientific reason to make this claim? No, I have not.

Turtles all the way down! 😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No no, "because" and "because" only is not enough to be an answer.

When I was new to science people took things for granted. Like "Iron is magnetic, aluminum is not, why?" The answer "Because that's the way it is' is fairly a 'because'-answer to me. "Why cannot we know all the decimals in the pi number?" or "Why are planets in closed orbits?" or "Why i ...[text shortened]... my speculation is that we have to take a Supraverse into account.

OK then, obviously we may agree that for the time being there is not "because". You scientists you will try to find the answers, whilst this miserable atheist will sharpen his philosophy with spiritualism; you see, our only goal will be the western shore😵

Originally posted by Palynka
Turtles all the way down! 😵

I love turtles. I use park my VW with my alarms flashing in the middle of our lane whilst my beautiful Maria stops the traffic 50 meters behind the car whenever we see a turtle trying to cross the road; and these creatures are trying constantly every time to frighten me hissing loudly and twisting and turning their head and legs. I love them😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, according to our experience. But why?

Is there particles with mass, lacking gravity? Is it impossible? If so, according to what law?

Yes, it´s impossible. In the Einstein Field equations the thing that couples to the gravitational field is the energy momentum stress tensor. Since a particle with a rest mass has an energy associated with it it will generate a gravitational field. The effect of a gravitational field on an object does not depend on the particle´s mass, it´s world-line is a geodesic. The deflection of light from distant stars passing the sun is one of the tests of general relativity. Essentially within the theory of general relativity there is no way for a physical object not to gravitate without leaving the universe - which as far as we can tell isn´t possible,

We do not expect general relativity to be rigorously correct at scales approaching the Plank mass, but it is difficult to imagine a theory where particles (or strings or whatever) with a charge do not always interact with the field the charge is coupled to.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, it´s impossible. In the Einstein Field equations the thing that couples to the gravitational field is the energy momentum stress tensor. Since a particle with a rest mass has an energy associated with it it will generate a gravitational field. The effect of a gravitational field on an object does not depend on the particle´s mass, it´s world-line ...[text shortened]... rings or whatever) with a charge do not always interact with the field the charge is coupled to.

The energy momentum stress tensor was known to Einstein's ancestors as "Rasith Ha Gilgalim"
😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
In my view of the universe and its mysteries there is always a 'because'. Or perhaps I should call it all the "Supraverse".

There is no beginning in Supraverse. Perhaps in our universe but in a larger (temporal and spacial) perspective, a supraversal perspective, every 'why' has its 'because'.

Do I have any scientific reason to make this claim? No, I have not.

So let's try to sort it out regarding the nature of gravity, Fabian.

As a matter of fact it seems to me that the standard procedure for deriving the Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic coupling, yields a 1/r attractive potential between coherently coupled oscillating dipoles. Under these conditions gravitation is an emergent phenomenon that is induced by the coherent Zitterbewegung of charges and its coupling to that of distant matter through the dilated and red-shifted components of their radiative field. This way we are coming even closer towards the strong and weak equivalence principles, as all mass-energy, inertia and gravity are fundamentally in proportion to the Zitterbewegung of both local and distant charges and dipoles. At close range the omitted Lorentz force is felt, which definitely requires going to two or three spatial dimensions. Also, mind you, the magnetic field is genuinely confined in the near field in its accepted sense and cannot affect the tunneling photons that are relevant on cosmological scales.

In my opinion the electrokinetic interaction dominates in the long range and therefore this simple model, known to Einstein’s ancestors as “Rasith Ha Gilgalim”, can be considered allright. If we were to assign each 1/rN force to gravitons propagating in the bulk of an N+1-dimensional space including our 3-brane, I feel absolutely free to assure you that the standard Van der Waals force could be seen as arising from a space-time of nine dimensions!

On the other hand, am I close to your Supraverse view or have I to try harder?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
So let's try to sort it out regarding the nature of gravity, Fabian.

As a matter of fact it seems to me that the standard procedure for deriving the Van der Waals forces, along with an electrokinetic coupling, yields a 1/r attractive potential between coherently coupled oscillating dipoles. Under these conditions gravitation is an emergent phenomenon ...[text shortened]... mensions!

On the other hand, am I close to your Supraverse view or have I to try harder?
😵

Well, I have no idea.

I have no definite knowledge of the Supraverse in which our Universe resides. I don't know about the number of dimensions of the Supraverse, neither spatial nor temproal nor any other class of dimensions hidden from us in our Universe.

We can only, hitherto, observe our universe, or theorize, the time from (but not including), t=0. Before this point in 'time' and beyond our science as we know it now is not sufficient.

The future will tell if man is capable to reveil the mysteries beyond our Universe. Perhaps we are, perhaps not. Not that our intellectual capabilities are limted (as far as I know) but the financial fundings of doing observational or experimental research in this area.

The physics of Galiley was extended by Newton, which in turn was extended by Einstein, will in the next turn be extended by future scientists that will uncover that the physics of this Universe is not applicable in a Suprauniversal level. Who am I to speculate?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, I have no idea.

I have no definite knowledge of the Supraverse in which our Universe resides. I don't know about the number of dimensions of the Supraverse, neither spatial nor temproal nor any other class of dimensions hidden from us in our Universe.

We can only, hitherto, observe our universe, or theorize, the time from (but not including), ...[text shortened]... physics of this Universe is not applicable in a Suprauniversal level. Who am I to speculate?

Then, where from these ideas of Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc, and I include all the scientific ideas, were lifted out?

What was the agent that enabled the Human to give this exact shape to the figures of her/ his primarly abstract ideas?
What was there, in the very beginning, the very first tool of this kind of process of his thoughts? Science or Philosophy? The result of the decision of the Human to work hard and in many levels based on the figure of her/ his abstract ideas, or her/ his abstract idea that his awarenes can be used in order to enable her/ him make her/ his life easier?

Originally posted by black beetle
Then, where from these ideas of Galileo, Newton, Einstein etc, and I include all the scientific ideas, were lifted out?

What was the agent that enabled the Human to give this exact shape to the figures of her/ his primarly abstract ideas?
What was there, in the very beginning, the very first tool of this kind of process of his thoughts? Science or P ...[text shortened]... stract idea that his awarenes can be used in order to enable her/ him make her/ his life easier?

Do you know the answer to you question? I don't... Please enlighten me.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you know the answer to you question? I don't... Please enlighten me.

Oh it seems to me that at first the Human came face to face with the Problem

In order to solve it s/he soon realised that brutal force alone is not the right way

The main asset of each creature is the development and the exploitation to the hilt of the abilities of its nature

The nature of the Human is related solely with the evaluation of her/ his mind

The main asset of the Human mind is its ability to conceive abstract ideas and to give figure to them by means of the notions of its thoughts

Therefore the Human understood that s/he had to avoid disorientation, confusion, laxity of discipline, indolence and inner decomposition in order to use her/ his mind properly

As a result it seems to me that the Human was forced by the Problem itself and by her/ his nature to use her/ his Mind properly, and s/he did it through Philosophy. Science followed almost asap -at first thanks solely to the trial and error procedure, and since this very first interaction these two tools -Science and Philosophy- became necessary for our evolution. Mind you, in my opinion the byproduct of ignorance is “religion”!

Well, spiritualism is the tool that has to do with constant awareness and metaphysics, whilst Philosophy has to do with Science and awareness and metaphysics. I think that Science can occur solely through the evaluation of the mind along with scientific methods, finds and evidence. Therefore, in my opinion the scientist cannot go far if s/he is a bad philosopher -and the good philosopher is always aware of the value of spiritualism.

But this is solely my personal philosophy😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I've read that the origin of gravity has yet to be discovered, but I'm not so sure. Does anybody know where gravity comes from?


GRAVITATION, n. The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportion to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tenden ...[text shortened]... of of B, makes B the proof of A. Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914), 'The Devil's Dictionary', 1911

The general theory of relativity posits that gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects. So, you can think of the gravitational field of a large mass like a planet or a star as a depression or extrusion in the otherwise flat fabric of space-time. Thus, gravity is more an effect of geometry rather than the projection of a force similar to magnetism.

see http://www.answers.com/topic/gravity

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh it seems to me that at first the Human came face to face with the Problem

In order to solve it s/he soon realised that brutal force alone is not the right way

The main asset of each creature is the development and the exploitation to the hilt of the abilities of its nature

The nature of the Human is related solely with the evaluation of her/ ...[text shortened]... her is always aware of the value of spiritualism.

But this is solely my personal philosophy😵

I was taught philosophy by a logician. He threw me out of his metaphysics exam for cheating: he accused me of looking into the soul of the girl beside me.

Originally posted by Scriabin
The general theory of relativity posits that gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects. So, you can think of the gravitational field of a large mass like a planet or a star as a depression or extrusion in the otherwise flat fabric of space-time. Thus, gravity is more an effect of geometry rather than the projection of a force similar to magnetism.

see http://www.answers.com/topic/gravity

Does the curvature of spacetime somehow cause Velocity ?

Does it cause energy to be exerted on the object with lesser mass ?

The diagrams I have repeatedly seen to demonstrate the curvature of spacetime around mass seem to still depend upon a concept of gravity. The orbiting object dips down into the indentation of the graph supposedly drawn to assist us to understand the curvature of spacetime.

I don't get how the motion or velocity of the smaller object is initiated by the curvature of spacetime.

If you have any additional insight to make it clear to a layman, try again please.

Originally posted by Scriabin
The general theory of relativity posits that gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which governs the motion of inertial objects. So, you can think of the gravitational field of a large mass like a planet or a star as a depression or extrusion in the otherwise flat fabric of space-time. Thus, gravity is more an effect of geometry rather than the projection of a force similar to magnetism.

see http://www.answers.com/topic/gravity

Are you saying that magnetic waves travel through space to exert their enfluence on an object? If they do then they must travel at the speed of light.

But gravity is not a wave like magnetism - traveling out to grab an object. That was made clear to me I think.

The geomotry explanation is therefore closer to what I have heard.

But it is an abstraction very difficult to understand - the curvature of spacetime.