Does Gravity Work "On It's Own"?

[Neil_Anthony]

I know that the behavior of ‘gravity’ is consistent with a ‘force’ between sub-atomic particles that ‘causes’ them to tend to pull towards one another.

But, I believe that God actually moves each and every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment and the larger objects they make up, and that accounts for ‘gravity’. I think we can give it a name ‘gravity’ because God is very consistent and always moves things according to the rules of nature that He defined.

Is this a heresy? Can it be proven wrong? Is it illogical somehow?

 

[wasmit]

no it can’t be proven wrong.

Yes, it is illogical, because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. It is a baseless claim. Your claim is as strong as mine, below:

“There is a force that attracts every particle in the universe, because every particle is attached to every other particle by giant invisible rubber bands. The Asgard from Stargate put the rubber bands there.”

 

[liquidpele]

Forces are actually subatomic particles according to quantum mechanics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

 

[catholicknight]

The latest scientific understanding of gravity is that it is not a “force” at all, but rather a phenomenon created by the warping of space and time around physical matter.

The idea here is that space-time is like a grid laid out over the universe. When an object travels through the grid (whether it be matter or energy) it follows the lines of the grid in a perfectly straight manner. That is until the lines start to bend. The bending of those lines is caused by the presence of matter on the grid, like a bowling ball on a flat hammock stretched out between two trees. The lines of the grid, just like the strings on the hammock, bend around the presence of this object and toward it, causing any object (or energy) that passes nearby to follow the lines as they bend until they bump into the object.

This all comes from the general theory of relatively, and has been proven by multiple experiments. Gravity is not a “force” at all, because the effects of gravity travel faster than the speed of light, and no “force” can travel faster than the speed of light. Space warping is the only explanation that makes sense for the time being, and it helps to explain the phenomenon surrounding black holes. Think of space-time as this pristine object (like a grid) spanning the universe, until it is irritated (or bent out of shape) by the presence of matter.

How this relates to God’s dealing in the whole process? You’re guess is as good as mine. I have no idea, except I know he created it.

 

[Oscarthecat]

I know that the behavior of ‘gravity’ is consistent with a ‘force’ between sub-atomic particles that ‘causes’ them to tend to pull towards one another.

But, I believe that God actually moves each and every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment and the larger objects they make up, and that accounts for ‘gravity’. I think we can give it a name ‘gravity’ because God is very consistent and always moves things according to the rules of nature that He defined.

Is this a heresy? Can it be proven wrong? Is it illogical somehow?

Aside from theological issues with that theory, I’d like to know what you’re definition of a “moment” is? Think about it this way… a computer chip operates cycle by cycle- particular operations are conducted in the course of a cycle, which only takes nanoseconds, then (to be very non-technical) the chip “rests,” and then begins a new cycle of operations. We don’t notice these cycles while using a computer because they happen so fast.

Your theory would depend on whether the universe operates according to this same principle- which would, of course, alter our understanding of how time operates, because time would no longer be a continuous progression of events, but rather a series of finite events happening one after the other so fast that we don’t notice them.

That would also mean that there is “time” in the space between one “moment” and the next.

Another thing to consider is how your theory would necessarily violate free will- but someone else can tackle that.

 

[JimG]

The latest scientific understanding of gravity is that it is not a “force” at all, but rather a phenomenon created by the warping of space and time around physical matter.

Yes, gravity appears to be simply an aspect and a result of the curvature of space because of the presence of matter (or energy).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The idea here is that space-time is like a grid laid out over the universe. When an object travels through the grid (whether it be matter or energy) it follows the lines of the grid in a perfectly straight manner. That is until the lines start to bend. The bending of those lines is caused by the presence of matter on the grid, like a bowling ball on a flat hammock stretched out between two trees. The lines of the grid, just like the strings on the hammock, bend around the presence of this object and toward it, causing any object (or energy) that passes nearby to follow the lines as they bend until they bump into the object.

So if I throw a ball, and instead of continuing straight, it goes down and hits the ground, thats because the grid actually curves down there, and that was a straight line?

What if I just let the ball go and don’t throw it at all. Shouldn’t it stay still, why does it follow a grid line if there’s no force pulling it?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Aside from theological issues with that theory, I’d like to know what you’re definition of a “moment” is? Think about it this way… a computer chip operates cycle by cycle- particular operations are conducted in the course of a cycle, which only takes nanoseconds, then (to be very non-technical) the chip “rests,” and then begins a new cycle of operations. We don’t notice these cycles while using a computer because they happen so fast.

Your theory would depend on whether the universe operates according to this same principle- which would, of course, alter our understanding of how time operates, because time would no longer be a continuous progression of events, but rather a series of finite events happening one after the other so fast that we don’t notice them.

That would also mean that there is “time” in the space between one “moment” and the next.

I’m not sure whether there are a finite or infinite number of moments or instants… does it change the answer to my original question if its one or the other?

 

[Oscarthecat]

I’m not sure whether there are a finite or infinite number of moments or instants… does it change the answer to my original question if its one or the other?

I think it speaks more to the “can it be proven wrong” and “is it illogical” questions more than the “heresy” question-

As far as the “heresy” question, I don’t see how your position could be considered heretical in this day and age, as it doesn’t really have anything to do with what God has revealed about Himself or our salvation.

You could, I suppose, use it as a basis to argue against free will, but it would be a very weak argument.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

no it can’t be proven wrong.

Yes, it is illogical, because there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. It is a baseless claim. Your claim is as strong as mine, below:

“There is a force that attracts every particle in the universe, because every particle is attached to every other particle by giant invisible rubber bands. The Asgard from Stargate put the rubber bands there.”

I meant the question within the framework of Catholicism, or at least theism

But, you can prove easily that there aren’t rubber bands between particles… those bands would have mass and would be detectable.

 

[JimG]

So if I throw a ball, and instead of continuing straight, it goes down and hits the ground, thats because the grid actually curves down there, and that was a straight line?

What if I just let the ball go and don’t throw it at all. Shouldn’t it stay still, why does it follow a grid line if there’s no force pulling it?

You and the ball are embedded in the gravity well of curved space created by the earth’s mass. The ball will follow the line of least resistance down that gravity well. If you throw the ball perpendicular to the grid of the gravity well, it has both forward and downard force acting on it. Throw it hard enough, say at 22,500 mph, and it will keep moving perpendicular to the gravity well and just keep orbiting the earth. Of course, it’s still falling downward as well, but the surface of the earth (because it’s curved) keeps dropping away from it.

 

[PatThompson]

I believe that God actually moves each and every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment and the larger objects they make up, and that accounts for ‘gravity’.

In many ways you have provided an excellent definition of what most people have meant for tens of thousands of years when they say “god” ( or “gods” ).

(The following is all generalization, but I’m sure if you did the research, or if someone more learned than I happens past this thread, there are specific examples of each of the following.)

WHY does the sun come up every morning and set every night? A god carries it on his back/a dragon flies across the sky then returns to her lair.

WHY do the crops grow well some years, and worse in other years? In good years, we’ve all done what god or gods wanted us to do. In bad years, we had impure thoughts and we are being punished.

…fast forward through many such questions and eventual scientific answers…

WHY is their AIDS?..

We find it terrible to not understand something that is important to us. (Why do you think many children blame themselves when their parents are breaking up? If it is THEIR fault they can understand.)

So you’re following on in an age old tradition believing that G-d is actively making the force of gravity work. And you may not realize it, but you’re also lending credence to the age-old Atheist argument about people using religion as a crutch to avoid learning about, and dealing with, reality.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

In many ways you have provided an excellent definition of what most people have meant for tens of thousands of years when they say “god” ( or “gods” ).

(The following is all generalization, but I’m sure if you did the research, or if someone more learned than I happens past this thread, there are specific examples of each of the following.)

WHY does the sun come up every morning and set every night? A god carries it on his back/a dragon flies across the sky then returns to her lair.

WHY do the crops grow well some years, and worse in other years? In good years, we’ve all done what god or gods wanted us to do. In bad years, we had impure thoughts and we are being punished.

…fast forward through many such questions and eventual scientific answers…

WHY is their AIDS?..

We find it terrible to not understand something that is important to us. (Why do you think many children blame themselves when their parents are breaking up? If it is THEIR fault they can understand.)

So you’re following on in an age old tradition believing that G-d is actively making the force of gravity work. And you may not realize it, but you’re also lending credence to the age-old Atheist argument about people using religion as a crutch to avoid learning about, and dealing with, reality.

Thank you for your insight into my question.

The “normal” explanation is that God created sub-atomic particles that behave according to the laws of physics, and God “holds those particles in existence” and has complete knowledge of the properties of each particle at each instant.

My question arises because I don’t understand how that differs from God actually moving the particles around Himself. If God holds each particle in existence, then God must hold them in existence in a certain location, and that location must be calculated by God based on the forces and other physical laws… I don’t see how there is a difference between God moving the particles Himself, and the more typical way of explaining how it works.

 

[wxboss]

While not a scientific response, I’ll chime in anyways. Personally, I believe gravity to be the absence of levity. It’s a ‘seriousness’ (or oppressive force) that draws attention to itself and away from other more important things.

Newton was supposedly stirred and given to thought by an apple falling on his head. Conversely, the Catholic Church was stirred and given to thought by those who did not posses apples or any other kind of sustenance.

Science is invaluable, and it has taught us many things. However, it is not a means to an end - it only plays a part that contributes to an end that is ultimately beneficial to us all if applied properly and humanely. Science can’t be a god in order to be beneficial, it has to be a servant.

The real problem is when issues become more important than the issue itself. Let’s not fail to see the forest for the trees.

 

[wasmit]

no it can’t be proven wrong.

Good point. I made a typo in my original post. Instead of “giant invisible rubber bands” I should have said “giant undetectable rubber bands”

So, my explaination still holds!

 

[Oscarthecat]

The real problem is when issues become more important than the issue itself. Let’s not fail to see the forest for the trees.

"
Shouldn’t you have said “Let’s not fail to see the forest for the nanoparticles?” :hey_bud:

 

[antonabe]

There is one spot in the World in Ayr ,Scotland which is different in terms of the gravitational force if you can call it a force.If you ascend the hill at this spot in a car on neutral gear you ascend and continue to go up while the obvious expectation is that you would go down in the reverse direction.As a matter of interest can some one explain this?

 

[Oscarthecat]

There is one spot in the World in Ayr ,Scotland which is different in terms of the gravitational force if you can call it a force.If you ascend the hill at this spot in a car on neutral gear you ascend and continue to go up while the obvious expectation is that you would go down in the reverse direction.As a matter of interest can some one explain this?

That’s a pretty well documented optical illusion-

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Brae

 

[cassini]

I know that the behavior of ‘gravity’ is consistent with a ‘force’ between sub-atomic particles that ‘causes’ them to tend to pull towards one another.

But, I believe that God actually moves each and every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment and the larger objects they make up, and that accounts for ‘gravity’. I think we can give it a name ‘gravity’ because God is very consistent and always moves things according to the rules of nature that He defined.

Is this a heresy? Can it be proven wrong? Is it illogical somehow?

Neil, you have asked a profound question. First of all whereas we all know the effects of gravity ON cosmic bodies, its cause is completely unknown and all the answers you get on this thread are useless theories. Your own theory above was Newton’s theory, others offer Einstein’s theory, and the real up-to-date-theory is the quantum one.

Do you know these theories were invented and accepted as true to support a formal heresy, that the sun is fixed and the earth moves, to make the Catholic Church look fallible and to remove gravity from God’s causality .

Now to your theory that ‘God moves each and every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment and the larger objects they make up, and that accounts for ‘gravity’.’
This is indeed a wonderful CATHOLIC theory. It was Galileo and Isaac Newton who began to consider motion without any (name removed by moderator)ut by God. Newton invented his particle theory to get matter to move ITSELF, without any need for god. You get Newton’s ‘scientific’ theory and add God again. But whereas your faith is 100% you mix it with heresy and that doesn’t work either.

You know the Fathers believed the Angels move the sun, moon and stars. They also were aware that apples fall to the ground but attributed this to God operating the ‘effect’. Ask anybody what causes an apple to fall to ground they will say ‘gravity’. Ask them what gravity is they will say the apple is attracted to earth. Ask them why the apple was not pushed to earth by that same gravity and they will look at you strangely. Whereas a pushing effect could be the cause, the world was been TAUGHT to believe in a universal attracting force to get the earth moving. When scientific experiments showed the earth does not move in 1887 Einstein had to invent a new theory of gravity. But Newton’s theory was the one that both Church and State accepted as proof that Galileo was right. Why then is this fraud not revisited? Because both Church and State are now going along with the fraud for different reasons, but both eliminate God from motion.

I hope you understans what I say.

By the way I believe gravity is an electromagnetic effect.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil, you have asked a profound question. First of all whereas we all know the effects of gravity ON cosmic bodies, its cause is completely unknown and all the answers you get on this thread are useless theories. Your own theory above was Newton’s theory, others offer Einstein’s theory, and the real up-to-date-theory is the quantum one.

Do you know these theories were invented and accepted as true to support a formal heresy, that the sun is fixed and the earth moves, to make the Catholic Church look fallible and to remove gravity from God’s causality .

Now to your theory that ‘God moves each and every sub-atomic particle from moment to moment and the larger objects they make up, and that accounts for ‘gravity’.’
This is indeed a wonderful CATHOLIC theory. It was Galileo and Isaac Newton who began to consider motion without any (name removed by moderator)ut by God. Newton invented his particle theory to get matter to move ITSELF, without any need for god. You get Newton’s ‘scientific’ theory and add God again. But whereas your faith is 100% you mix it with heresy and that doesn’t work either.

You know the Fathers believed the Angels move the sun, moon and stars. They also were aware that apples fall to the ground but attributed this to God operating the ‘effect’. Ask anybody what causes an apple to fall to ground they will say ‘gravity’. Ask them what gravity is they will say the apple is attracted to earth. Ask them why the apple was not pushed to earth by that same gravity and they will look at you strangely. Whereas a pushing effect could be the cause, the world was been TAUGHT to believe in a universal attracting force to get the earth moving. When scientific experiments showed the earth does not move in 1887 Einstein had to invent a new theory of gravity. But Newton’s theory was the one that both Church and State accepted as proof that Galileo was right. Why then is this fraud not revisited? Because both Church and State are now going along with the fraud for different reasons, but both eliminate God from motion.

I hope you understans what I say.

By the way I believe gravity is an electromagnetic effect.

Hi Cassini,

The way I see it, God is so consistent about how he moves physical objects, that we simplify things for ourselves and call it a “law of nature”.

So, we can make up a “law of nature” that predicts how God moves particles around, and how God moves the Earth around the Sun, etc.

I don’t think it affects heliocentricity vs. geocentricity.

Does that make sense?