What is the nature of gravity?

[Linusthe2nd]

I documented my claim. That’s why my post commands more respect than yours.

And I explained why your documentation does not say what you say it does. There is a huge difference between reality and mathematical physics. The very nature of an equation requires that the data select only certain aspects of reality and ignore others. That means that these theories never accurately reality, and the more abstract they become the further removed from reality they are.

As I said, space does not curve, neither does time, and the two together do not equal gravity. This is nothing but mathematical slight of hand to " save the appearances. " It has good uses of course, but it does not reflect reality.

Linus2nd

 

[Brandon_Cal]

As I said, space does not curve, neither does time, and the two together do not equal gravity. This is nothing but mathematical slight of hand to " save the appearances. " It has good uses of course, but it does not reflect reality.

Linus2nd

It is much more than just a mathematical sleight of hand. You are correct to say that mathematical models approximate reality using abstraction, but the “curvature of spacetime” is not a mathematical abstraction, rather its a realistic theory to explain how the equations of relativity make sense to our universe. Curvature of spacetime is Einstein’s explanation as to how gravitation functions, and when physicists talk about spacetime’s extrinsic curvature they literally mean that it curves.

 

[Aloysium]

It is much more than just a mathematical sleight of hand. You are correct to say that mathematical models approximate reality using abstraction, but the “curvature of spacetime” is not a mathematical abstraction, rather its a realistic theory to explain how the equations of relativity make sense to our universe. Curvature of spacetime is Einstein’s explanation as to how gravitation functions, and when physicists talk about spacetime’s extrinsic curvature they literally mean that it curves.

You’re the guy to ask, I guess.

So there would be one space-time that includes all the physical universe, right?

I am assuming that the bending is dynamic. Is that correct? Two objects not moving relative to one another are still pulled towards each other, right? Standing still, I’m being pushed onto my sore feet.

Can we say what causes the bending? Are we not back to where we were? - things fall.

Other than being able to calculate more precisely how to get satellites where we want, we have simply adopted another metaphor to arrive at the same mystery.

Fill me in on what you think.

 

[Bahman]

I am the OP.

If I have understood, we really do not know the nature of gravity.

Is that correct?

We know a great deal about it and millions of other points, but the essence of gravity is not known.

Is that correct?

THANKS!

Yes, that is correct. As I mentioned in my earlier post we don’t know what quantum theory is as we cannot reach the energy high enough to observe graviton. It is believe that force in nature are mediate by particles, for example photon in case of electromagnetic force.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

You’re the guy to ask, I guess.

So there would be one space-time that includes all the physical universe, right?

I am assuming that the bending is dynamic. Is that correct? Two objects not moving relative to one another are still pulled towards each other, right? Standing still, I’m being pushed onto my sore feet.

No, otherwise it wouldn’t be relativistic. Shouldn’t we think of there being (n^2-n)/2 “spacetimes”, if you will, for ‘n’ total objects we are considering?

Can we say what causes the bending? Are we not back to where we were? - things fall.

Ah! I think I get ya. My initial post, despite not choosing my words carefully, was intended to address what I thought was an implication that there is no realism to relativity, not unlike what certain modern-day geocentrists try to do for their own pet theories. Thanks for pointing this out, because I now think I misunderstood Linusthe2nd.

 

[Bahman]

No, otherwise it wouldn’t be relativistic. Shouldn’t we think of there being (n^2-n)/2 “spacetimes”, if you will, for ‘n’ total objects we are considering?

Ah! I think I get ya. My initial post, despite not choosing my words carefully, was intended to address what I thought was an implication that there is no realism to relativity, not unlike what certain modern-day geocentrists try to do for their own pet theories. Thanks for pointing this out, because I now I think I misunderstood Linusthe2nd.

General relativity based on space-time continuum are the classic theory of Gravity as Newton laws are classical theory of motion, etc.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am the OP.

If I have understood, we really do not know the nature of gravity.

Is that correct?

We know a great deal about it and millions of other points, but the essence of gravity is not known.

Is that correct?

THANKS!

Correct, the essence/nature of gravity is still a mystery.

Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is much more than just a mathematical sleight of hand. You are correct to say that mathematical models approximate reality using abstraction, but the “curvature of spacetime” is not a mathematical abstraction, rather its a realistic theory to explain how the equations of relativity make sense to our universe. Curvature of spacetime is Einstein’s explanation as to how gravitation functions, and when physicists talk about spacetime’s extrinsic curvature they literally mean that it curves.

On the contrary, it is a mathematical abstraction, which abstracts from the nature of reality to " save the appearances. " I don’t object to the very real practical purposes of this method. But to claim that it reflects the reality of nature is a philosophical jump that is intellectually dishonest. space does not curve and time is not a function of space, nor do either have anything to do with gravity. That I absolutely reject as does anyone with their feet in the real world of nature.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

General relativity based on space-time continuum are the classic theory of Gravity as Newton laws are classical theory of motion, etc.

You can call it classical if you want, that does not justify ignoring the fact that it is an abstraction, several times removed ( with numerous and necessary " constants " ) from the nature of reality. My objection is not to the theory itself nor with its fruitfullness to scientific endeavors, it is to the unjustified extrapolation which many cosmologists make when they say it is an actual reflection of the nature of reality. That extrapolation is absolutely unjustified.

I recommend to you the following: Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages by John A. Weisheipl and From A Realist Point of View ( 1st & 2nd editions ) by William A. Wallace…

Linus2nd

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks!

I cannot see my own thoughts.

I cannot observe the thoughts of other people.

Thought cannot be observed directly.

Could gravity be caused by a thought or something even higher than a thought?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Could gravity be caused by a thought or something even higher than a thought?

What’s “higher than a thought” mean?

 

[Jim_Baur]

From a Christian or Hebrew based faith, all of the ideas or concepts about God in the Bible are comparisons.

All of the comparisons fall infinitely short–Father, Word (dabar/logos), Person & Trinity (post biblical comparisons) and are weak.

I was thinking in terms of our thoughts that are used to make our inventions.

However, our thoughts would fail in comparison to a Being that could think gravity into existence.

I cannot see my thoughts or those of other people.

We cannot see gravity either.

Is there a connection to not see human thoughts and not seeing gravity?

 

[Bahman]

I cannot see my own thoughts.

Because you cannot have access to your intellect for a strong reason. You just become conscious of your thought when they are ready to be accessed.

I cannot observe the thoughts of other people.

That is true.

Thought cannot be observed directly.

That is partially correct statement. You need consciousness attached with the subconsciousness, where thought occurs, to do so.

Could gravity be caused by a thought or something even higher than a thought?

That is the realm that we have no access to it unless gravity becomes a part of our intellect which is impossible. Basically we only have control on our own body, our body however is a part of external world so which obey it is own rule, some we have control upon through our instinct, the others we don’t. Are you thinking of Jesus walking on water?

 

[Bahman]

From a Christian or Hebrew based faith, all of the ideas or concepts about God in the Bible are comparisons.

All of the comparisons fall infinitely short–Father, Word (dabar/logos), Person & Trinity (post biblical comparisons) and are weak.

I was thinking in terms of our thoughts that are used to make our inventions.

However, our thoughts would fail in comparison to a Being that could think gravity into existence.

I cannot see my thoughts or those of other people.

We cannot see gravity either.

Is there a connection to not see human thoughts and not seeing gravity?

There are four forces in nature that you cannot see three of them but you can experience them.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Bahman

I was not thinking of Jesus walking on the water.

 

[Aloysium]

No, otherwise it wouldn’t be relativistic. Shouldn’t we think of there being (n^2-n)/2 “spacetimes”, if you will, for ‘n’ total objects we are considering? . . .

I’m not sure why I asked that question, but thank you for the wonderful clarification. Things have become far, far more interesting.

The formula states that every object in the universe exists in relation to every other object in such a way that the relationship as defined by relative space-time, is unique.

I had imagined space-time gravity as a plastic sheet on which you place two balls and they roll towards each other. I mistakenly thought that you could continue placing balls on this sheet, but it seems each pair, which is at a subatomic level, comes with its own relative space-time “sheet”. The totality that is space and time in the universe would be the sum of all these interactions, and more, since I would assume, the universe is whole.

This does rest however, on the assumption that this not artifact, created by the act of measurement, not truly representing how the whole works.
Likely measurement is a factor influencing the results, and the situation is even more complicated.

At any rate I like the idea of everything being in a relationship with everything else, even in the case of simplest matter.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Could gravity be caused by a thought or something even higher than a thought?

I’ve got to agree with Bahman on this one. While I’m fairly certain that gravity isn’t influenced by my thoughts whether or not there is a thought or a something higher than a thought sustaining gravitational interactions is something to which we are ignorant. We cannot evaluate the truth value of a claim that it is sustained by some thought or a claim that it is not sustained by thought.

 

[Jim_Baur]

This is not to argue.

This is to ponder out loud and with a quest to solve the problem.

If gravity is not caused by a thought (Logos), then what would one postulate?

Do some postulate chance?

Would it be better to postulate something in being that is greater than gravity–in order to structure or create gravity?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Gravity seems to be electromagnetic in its nature.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If gravity is not caused by a thought (Logos)

Just to be clear, we can’t say that it is or it isn’t.

then what would one postulate?

For now I think this would be in the realm of pure conjecture. The things one could posit are rather unbound.

Would it be better to postulate something in being that is greater than gravity–in order to structure or create gravity?

I don’t think so; not unless what some one postulates could be tested for truth value or provide some utility (such as resulting in better predictions). Though here I am applying a personal bias that correctness and utility are better than incorrectness and absence of utility. Some may have a bias towards some sense of closure that can only be achieved with answers other than “we don’t know.” If this is some one’s bias than s/he might find some answer (Even if it’s wrong) better than no answer.