What Is Gravity?

[hazelm]

When I "graduated" from eighth grade,  I knew what gravity was.  I understood it perfectly.  Then I grew up and started reading  science.  Now, after reading all the confusing (to me) talk by Ph.D. scientists,  I want to fire my eighth grade science teacher.  I have no idea.  Gravity is obviously not simply an apple falling from a tree.  It is more than planets holding each other in position with push vs pull.   It seems to be a great deal more than we were taught - much, much more.  What scientists talk about today when they talk about gravity could never have been taught in eighth grade.  That I know.  But what I read today does not even sound like gravity.  It seems to be something totally new.

 

My wish?  Can someone please refer me to an author who has written the most simple book ever written which explains to a non-scientist exactly what gravity is?  A  simple book without a lot of math and equations which I cannot read?  Or am I asking too much? 

 

Thank you. 

[Vmedvil2]

Here is a youtube video

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Gravity is what gives a jedi his power. It hinds us penetrates us

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Edited December 18, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[Dubbelosix]

When I "graduated" from eighth grade,  I knew what gravity was.  I understood it perfectly.  Then I grew up and started reading  science.  Now, after reading all the confusing (to me) talk by Ph.D. scientists,  I want to fire my eighth grade science teacher.  I have no idea.  Gravity is obviously not simply an apple falling from a tree.  It is more than planets holding each other in position with push vs pull.   It seems to be a great deal more than we were taught - much, much more.  What scientists talk about today when they talk about gravity could never have been taught in eighth grade.  That I know.  But what I read today does not even sound like gravity.  It seems to be something totally new.

 

My wish?  Can someone please refer me to an author who has written the most simple book ever written which explains to a non-scientist exactly what gravity is?  A  simple book without a lot of math and equations which I cannot read?  Or am I asking too much? 

 

Thank you.

 

I don't think anyone really understands it, but as far as intuition, Newton derived the force law, Einstein extended it to geometry. So far the picture hasn't developed from there in mainstream. For a simple explanation I have no idea where you would want to start...

[hazelm]

I don't think anyone really understands it, but as far as intuition, Newton derived the force law, Einstein extended it to geometry. So far the picture hasn't developed from there in mainstream. For a simple explanation I have no idea where you would want to start...

Thank you.  You may have  hit something there.  The break between what I learned and the rest must have started when Einstein extended it to geometry.  You may be right about my search for a book.  It is my easiest way to glean anything - books.  I don't hear well enough for YouTubes and reading  a screen is tiring on the eyes.

 

I'm full of complaints, aren't I?  :-)    I'll see what I can find from Einstein.  I do have a couple of his I have not yet read.  Maybe there is a clue there.

 

Have a good holiday.  Hazel

[hazelm]

Without maths, would it not be better to describe gravity as the effect that causes all objects to be attracted to each other.

 

Newtons laws are reasonably accurate, GR is used when increased accuracy is required. Then a new theory may be required to extend the accuracy of GR in the long range, and inside of Black holes. 

That is what I learned - your first sentence, that is.  But when I read the many threads showing up now,  I have to realize something new has been added -- I think.

[Farsight]

When I "graduated" from eighth grade,  I knew what gravity was.  I understood it perfectly.  Then I grew up and started reading  science.  Now, after reading all the confusing (to me) talk by Ph.D. scientists,  I want to fire my eighth grade science teacher.  I have no idea.  Gravity is obviously not simply an apple falling from a tree.  It is more than planets holding each other in position with push vs pull.   It seems to be a great deal more than we were taught - much, much more.  What scientists talk about today when they talk about gravity could never have been taught in eighth grade.  That I know.  But what I read today does not even sound like gravity.  It seems to be something totally new.

 

My wish?  Can someone please refer me to an author who has written the most simple book ever written which explains to a non-scientist exactly what gravity is?  A  simple book without a lot of math and equations which I cannot read?  Or am I asking too much? 

 

Thank you. 

You don't need a book, Hazel. Gravity is easy. Einstein explained most of it in his 1920 Leyden Address. A concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star conditions the surrounding space, making it “neither homogeneous nor isotropic”, this effect diminishing with distance. As a result the speed of light varies. So light curves downwards like sonar waves curve downwards in the sea, because there’s a vertical gradient in wave speed. Then matter falls down because of the wave nature of matter. That started with Louis de Broglie’s 1923 letter to Nature on waves and quanta, where he said “the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path”. Just think of the electron as light going round a closed path, then simplify ot to a square path. The horizontal component bends downwards, so the electron’s position changes. In other words, it falls down: 

 

 

See my "physics detective" article on how gravity works for more details.  

[hazelm]

You don't need a book, Hazel. Gravity is easy. Einstein explained most of it in his 1920 Leyden Address. A concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star conditions the surrounding space, making it “neither homogeneous nor isotropic”, this effect diminishing with distance. As a result the speed of light varies. So light curves downwards like sonar waves curve downwards in the sea, because there’s a vertical gradient in wave speed. Then matter falls down because of the wave nature of matter. That started with Louis de Broglie’s 1923 letter to Nature on waves and quanta, where he said “the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path”. Just think of the electron as light going round a closed path, then simplify ot to a square path. The horizontal component bends downwards, so the electron’s position changes. In other words, it falls down: 

 

 

See my "physics detective" article on how gravity works for more details.  

gravity -------->>>>> light?  Hmmm?  Definitely I need a book.  :-)

[Farsight]

gravity -------->>>>> light?  Hmmm?  Definitely I need a book.  :-)

You need to read what Einstein said, Hazel. A book will tell you fairy stories about curved space, and won't tell you how gravity works. See the second paragraph below:

 

[hazelm]

You need to read what Einstein said, Hazel. A book will tell you fairy stories about curved space, and won't tell you how gravity works. See the second paragraph below:

 

I am sorry,  Farsight, but this loses me.  Piecemeal sound bights is what I see.  I will check out Einstein asap.  Hazel

[Dubbelosix]

To those who I reply to and involved, yes the main idea behind gravity is that there is an attractive force (but) gravity is a pseudo force, the centrifugal force does play a similar role to antigravity in the sense it pushes things away.

 

Newton saw the attraction law probably from the electromagnetic law of attracting charges and the intuition here is that gravity in particular masses, behave much 1like our standard theory for interacting charges.

 

Einstein true enough, brought curvature into the picture but when I say physics has not progressed from here, I mean it in the most sadistic sense when it comes to the standard model.

[hazelm]

Variable speed of light theories are none mainstream. here is a easy to read wiki for you, ignore the gozzintas. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light Einstein did play with them in his early work, but in the end the speed of light is c, regardless of none mainstream ideas referencing Einsteins old work. 

 

"

General critique of varying c cosmologies[edit]

From a very general point of view, G. Ellis expressed concerns that a varying c would require a rewrite of much of modern physics to replace the current system which depends on a constant c.^[64] Ellis claimed that any varying c theory (1) must redefine distance measurements (2) must provide an alternative expression for the metric tensor in general relativity (3) might contradict Lorentz invariance (4) must modify Maxwell's equations (5) must be done consistently with respect to all other physical theories. Whether these concerns apply to the proposals of Einstein (1911) and Dicke (1957) is a matter of debate,^[65] though VSL cosmologies remain out of mainstream physics."

 

That is not to say that if a photon passes through a medium, it can not slow down. Cherenkov radiation is an example.

Reply to 006 and flummoxed:

 

Tomorrow, when everyone is busy tearing pretty (and costly) wrappings off bicycles, etc.,  I shall sit here quietly reading your Wiki reference.  You see, what is confusing me is light appearing in a question about gravity.  And I suspect that's where I lost my connection between what I do know and what I read now that makes no sense at all.    I promise to get onto it tomorrow. 

 

Thank you very much.  And thank you for the bit about variable speed.  That's good to know.    I know I have read that speed c is "in a vacuum".  That would make a difference, would it not?  Also - and search as I do - I cannot again find it, I once read a comment by some scientist that Einstein did not say you can't travel faster than the speed of light.  He said you can but you'd have a terrible time trying to get back.

 

Mind now, I am  not saying that Einstein really said that.  Only that a scientist who was being interviewed said that Einstein said so.   Some day .....  That's another topic that just relates.

Edited December 24, 2019 by hazelm

[Dubbelosix]

Tachyons are those things we rarely like to talk about, aside one poster here. There is a theoretical case in which tachyon could have been responsible for the background temperatures; basic idea is that the background temperature is the leftover Cherenkov radiation. Wild but some preliminary calculations have supported it in mainstream.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[OverUnityDeviceUAP]

Tachyons are those things we rarely like to talk about, aside one poster here.

When I talk about anything understand that my understanding is built atop mountains of observational evidence and self-developed highly topologically accurate higher dimensional math hacks and effiecient enough such that I can do 4 dimensional topologies by hand on graphing paper.

 

Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible ****... me.

 

I don't think anyone really understands it, but as far as intuition, Newton derived the force law, Einstein extended it to geometry. So far the picture hasn't developed from there in mainstream. For a simple explanation I have no idea where you would want to start...

I understand it..better than most.

 

A simple explanation is that; instead of one of four forces, it is the causal eventuality of fluid dynamics giving rise to the quantum interactions, itself being far more fundamental than any of them.

 

A far more perplexing question than what gravity is, is what space is. The answer I have derived over the years is that space is far more fundamental than gravity itself, of course giving rise to it. Asking what space is, is equivalent to asking what weaves the fabric of existence into being. And that is geometric principles, such as adding infinite corners to a square, becoming a hexagon, and ultimately a perfect circle. We carry these to their higher dimensional counterparts and we get what I have found, operations like spin or rotation are factors of time, which is what you get when you start changing the space past the third dimension, you can make it go up, down, forward, diagonal, and everything inbetween but spin and rotation are one of the final operations of the dimension of time. When a body spins it flattens, a sphere becomes a disc, when it rotates and spins that disc is flattened upward along a polarity.. into a cylinder - the universe we live in is cylindrical!

 

A test cylinder containing the reality fluid. As this fluid expanded from a perfect sphere condensation occured slowing the expansion until it stopped due to this condensation, sort of hitting a wall, and flowed back to the center until it became perfectly spherical again, we see this as the cosmic microwave background, at perfectly spherical heavier particles accelerated into photons, very bright event and it's still occurring the particles that make us just haven't settled back into their point of origin yet.

 

 

Entanglement is the result of the fact that what happens on one side also happens on the other because both sides shared identical causal conditions to get where they are. It's not really real, but it is.

 

Also, in ADS evaporation and creation are interchangeable just like beginning and end, this is why photons do not experience the passage of time and are ageless.

Edited December 26, 2019 by OverUnityDeviceUAP

[Vmedvil2]

I am sorry,  Farsight, but this loses me.  Piecemeal sound bights is what I see.  I will check out Einstein asap.  Hazel

 

Okay, Hazel here is the simple explanation of gravity basically gravity is the curving of space that moves things around the curve it creates.

 

 

 

Variable speed of light theories are none mainstream. here is a easy to read wiki for you, ignore the gozzintas. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light Einstein did play with them in his early work, but in the end the speed of light is c, regardless of none mainstream ideas referencing Einsteins old work. 

 

"

General critique of varying c cosmologies[edit]

From a very general point of view, G. Ellis expressed concerns that a varying c would require a rewrite of much of modern physics to replace the current system which depends on a constant c.^[64] Ellis claimed that any varying c theory (1) must redefine distance measurements (2) must provide an alternative expression for the metric tensor in general relativity (3) might contradict Lorentz invariance (4) must modify Maxwell's equations (5) must be done consistently with respect to all other physical theories. Whether these concerns apply to the proposals of Einstein (1911) and Dicke (1957) is a matter of debate,^[65] though VSL cosmologies remain out of mainstream physics."

 

That is not to say that if a photon passes through a medium, it can not slow down. Cherenkov radiation is an example.

 

Completely agree with you. C is a constant in the universe, I fought Farsight about this when we were discussing Penrose's theories and the Solutions for General Relativity for Black Holes (http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36286-penrose-process-discuss/), To think that the speed of light is variable is crackpottery, even gravity travels at C.

Edited December 25, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Okay, Hazel here is the simple explanation of gravity basically gravity is the curving of space that moves things around the curve it creates.

 

 

 

 

 

Completely agree with you. C is a constant in the universe, I fought Farsight about this when we were discussing Penrose's theories and the Solutions for General Relativity for Black Holes (http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36286-penrose-process-discuss/), To think that the speed of light is variable is crackpottery, even gravity travels at C.

 

Nope, check shapiro delay for gravitational and radiation waves. Turns out the delay is not equal.