# Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Feb 29, 2016.

1. ### river

Messages:
11,752
Then Space has a physical something , at the minutist level .

No object can generate a gravitational field with out it being a real physical thing

3. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
Right, space is a fluid physical object and does not only create mass (Higgs field) but is also affected by mass.

5. ### river

Messages:
11,752

Space is not a fluid .

It is Fluidic . It expands . Why ?

Because both energy and matter have a fundamental space , Room , needed to exist .

And both , energy and matter , manifest continually

Hence expansion

Last edited: Feb 22, 2019

7. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
Which means it behaves as a fluid.
Because like all matter, it is affected by temperature changes.
This may explain further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity[/QUOTE]

8. ### river

Messages:
11,752
No

Which means that in the inner three dimensional sphere , is physical .

Messages:
11,752
10. ### river

Messages:
11,752
Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,166
Just to be clear...

There are two descriptions or theories of gravity.

In the Newtonian picture, gravity is a field that exerts forces on masses. In that picture, a dropped object falls to the ground because there is a force on it due to the Earth's gravity.

In the general relativistic picture, gravity describes the curvature of spacetime. That curvature is affected by a number of things, the most important for our purposes being the presence of mass. In this picture, a dropped object falls to the ground because, having no force on it, it follows the "shortest path" through the local spacetime near the surface of the Earth.

That's more or less the relativistic picture. The one that describes gravity as a force is the Newtonian picture.

The fact that the two pictures are quite different makes it very important to be clear about which one you're talking. Mixing them up only creates confusion.

12. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,166
Space is not a fluid. Nor is it a physical object or substance. The Higgs field is not "space"; it's a field that exists in space.

Space does not have a temperature and it is not affected by temperature changes. There is no such thing as "the temperature of space".

13. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
Is a vacuum really empty?
Very much like a fluid body generating waves and interference patterns.

David Bohm proposed a Universal "Pilot Wave".

I associate wavelike behaviors to a medium with fluid properties.

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,166
What's a physical something?

What do you mean by "a real physical thing"?

So you're saying it is a fluid and it isn't a fluid, at the same time. This is why this thread is in Pseudoscience.

The "expansion of space" refers to the observation that distances between objects in space tend to increase over time. It doesn't mean space is a substance. It isn't.

What does this even mean?

Explain why energy needs a "fundamental space". What is a "fundamental space", anyway? There's nothing in my physics textbooks about that.

And what do you mean by energy and matter manifesting continually? Are you saying they appear out of nowhere, or what? What are you talking about?

If it's a fluid, it's not a vacuum.

What does that even mean? Why does the "quantum realm" need energising? What does it mean for that "realm" to have energy? What are you talking about?

This is confected nonsense.

Explain, or admit that you're just making bullshit up.

15. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,166
Please explain how relativity is going to work in your spacetime "medium". If you say space is a fluid, then in some frame of reference that fluid will be at rest. In other words, it ought to have some "preferred" frame of reference. Everything in relativity says space doesn't work that way.

This is why the old idea of the "luminiferous aether" was thrown out 100 years ago.

16. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
That is the reason for my original question. A desire to achieve clarity.
One must admit that having two functional definitions of "gravity" is confusing to the layman, such as myself.

17. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
It may appear to be at rest, without being at rest. Is that not the very definition of "relativity"? AFAIK, nothing in space is at rest.
Right, I see no reason for a preferred frame of reference. I don't even know what "preferred frame of reference" means.
I don't know what that means. Maybe an early intuitive recognition of the Higgs field?

I find it very interesting that this example shows the hydrogen atom, which is the main constituent property of the most recognizable fluid medium of water.

IMO, if space (or its constituent properties) exhibits fluidlike behaviors I believe it is perfectly reasonable to assert that spacetime has fluidlike properties. Fields are an expression of fluidlike behaviors. No field is static, all fields act in a wavelike manner. Therefore fields that make up space have fluidlike behaviors, no?

The "Mexican Hat Potential" of the Higgs field.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

Looks fluidlike to me!

Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
18. ### river

Messages:
11,752
Space though has no fluidic properties . Because space is not a physical thing .

Mexican hat potential of the Higgs field , matters not .

19. ### river

Messages:
11,752

Cosmic Web ,

Galaxies , Quasars , Suns , planets , moons etc.

Right down to the quantum level

And below .

To the superfluid

Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
20. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
The Higgs field gives mass to matter. If the expressed potential of the Higgs field displays fluidlike behaviors it can be said to be fluid in essence. It does not need to be material at all. Fluidity is the only property that can explain wavelike behavior, be it physical or metaphysical.

21. ### river

Messages:
11,752
The Higgs field its self , needs an energy source , its self .

Which is from quantum , which is from the superfluid

22. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,820
That was Newton's interpretation, but he was wrong. Just because a theory is functional does not mean it is correct. The Einstein interpretation is the ONLY correct one. Newton's functional mathematics were useable even if his fundamental premise was wrong.
I agree. Gravity is not a direct force, it is causal to acceleration as result of space curvature in the presence of a massive body.

There is never a force on an object. It always falls freely along the shortest spacetime coordinates towards the deepest part of the gravity well. As the spacetime coordinates stretch nearer the bottom of the spacetime well, the object accelerates until it experiences resistance such as an atmosphere or the surface of a massive body, except for neutrinos of course.......

Question: does spacetime warp inside a physical body?

I kinda like this passive dynamic curving/stretching perspective rather than an active dynamical force. If that is correct I hope to find out......