A force or not a force

Apologies to avid physicists but I need to ask this question about gravity.

From what I have read I cannot decide whether gravity is a force or not. If you read about the Big Bang you find that in the beginning there was one super force made up of the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force and the FORCE of gravity. Some time later the gravity force broke away and went somewhere but it’s not clear where. Then we have Alan Guth’s inflationary theory which says the early universe expanded with exponentially increasing speed, faster than light, and this was powered by a reversal of the FORCE of gravity from an attractive force to a repelling force.

Then we have Einstein’s theory that Gravity is not a force at all but is actually the curvature of spacetime caused by mass.

So which is it? A force or not a force. Or is this the problem physicists have tried to answer for years. The connection between quantum gravity which is a force with cosmological gravity which is the curvature of spacetime.

Any thoughts please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From the perspective of Newtonian mechanics, gravitation is a real force as opposed to a fictitious force. Fictitious forces include inertial force, which arises in a reference frame whose origin is accelerating wrt inertial space, and the centrifugal and coriolis forces, which arise in a reference frame whose axes are rotating wrt inertial space. From the perspective of general relativity, gravitation is a fictitious force.

What we call forces are, in the world of quantum mechanics, better termed as interactions. Forces are macroscopic manifestations of the fundamental interactions. Physicists have a very good model for three of the four fundamental interactions at the quantum level. They do not yet have a model for gravitation as a fundamental interaction.

Suppose some future Einstein comes up with a good model for gravitation that reconciles quantum mechanics with relativity. Will this suddenly re-elevate gravitation from its demoted status as a fictitious force to being a real force? The answer is no. It will mean that physicists have a good model of gravitation as a fundamental interaction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe it would be better to talk about a gravitational field and not a force. In fact, in the beginning there was a super field with four fields in it and the gravitational field broke free. We can reserve the word force for the thing we need to push on a mass to give it an acceleration. It requires contact with the mass. Force at a distance, which is what gravity is can best be described as a field problem.

It only remains to define what this gravity field is.

 

Very Good. But even this fails to describe what gravity really is. I eluded to this in another thread of the wrong subforum variety gravity the Mass Effect....litterally.

Gravity and Inertia are both properties of Mass.
Mass or Matter litteral is that which resist change in motion.

To describe what Gravity is you must understand the motion that all mass is resisting. That understanding is drawn from two similar effects that are believed to be completely different.

Gravity is one of the effects.
Deceleration or Acceleration is the other. (Change in motion)


Example One:
From our persepective on Earth they appear to be completely different. On a Planet we are being pulled down to the planet's surface.

Example Two;
A Rocket traveling Accelerating, pushing down against the seat.

Same effect different causes?
No, the cause is the same. Change in motion.
A Rocket is changing it's motion in relation to everything around it.
The Universe is constantly accerlating according to observations from the 90's

I've come to understand Gravity as that which slows down the universe.
And that is the effect of Mass on the Universe. It's a re understanding of relativity that doesn't deal with Gravity as a force but as an effect caused by the differing and changing motion between two objects.

The really, really curious question is... which is in motion the universe or Mass? It's realitive so it depends on your perspective. To us the universe is rapidly accerlating and expanding. To the universe it's standing still while we are rapidly collapsing.

To us nothing is faster than the speed of light.
To the universe there is nothing faster than the speed of darkness.

I find that just fascinating.

 

What "change in motion" is there while standing on a planet's surface?

 

The universe. But that depends on your perspective.
The Planet is doing just what all matter does resisting motion or in another perspective resisting the expansion of the universe which is why time varies near Massive objects.

 

Explain.
Expand.

 

What is time?

 

That's an explanation?
Fail.

 

Actually it is an explantion for in answering the question you will begin to understand.
But if that is where you wish to draw the line of your attention span, then so be it. Consider it a failure by all means.

 

How does the expansion of the universe cause gravitational effects to occur between the Earth and myself?

 

No: you made a specific statement.
And now you're asked to explain you hare off onto something different.
Time is the interval between the occurrence of two (or more) events.

 

This is why you're asking me to expand on this theory because you do not understand what time is. It's all Relative...ALL of it. And hopefully I can effectively show you how that is so by defining the concept of time.

Can you define it by equation in anyway?

 

And you do know what time is?

Equations based on what?
Re-arrange the equations of motion?

 

I'm about to show you.

(I'm using you to test my hypothesis, Oil)

That's correct so what is time according to the equation?

 

t = d/v for one.
Sasquatch.

 

That's right.


Now think of this in terms of a logic problem.
The original equation explains that in order for a distance to be traveled time must elapse through a rate of speed. Relate the equation in your post in sentence form as I have done.

(I must finish this in about 45 minutes as it will take that amount of time to travel the distance between work and home. I'll reply as soon as get there)

 

The time taken is found by dividing the distance by the speed of travel.

 

(I'm back)

Aright,
So, In order for Time to pass a Distance must be traveled through a rate of speed.
We have thus defined Time as motion. More specificly Relative motion.

Thus just as the equations relate that Time passes when we're in motion the equation in your post also relates that Time passes even when even when we are not in motion or appear to be in motion. This is true as you may sit at your desk and type your responses to my post and Time actually still passes.

Yet, Time is defined as distance through a rate of Speed.
The question then becomes what is in motion? According to Alexander Friedmann's equations to answer the problem of a universe that is inclined to contract due to the prescence of matter suggested it was in fact the universe it'self that is in motion.

As a result we know that Time is invariably linked with the 3 tenants of space, Length, Width, and Height. That is why our equation works and that is also why Time passes. Relative Universal Motion.

Now we're getting back to where we started.
Does this make any sense?