# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?  (Read 8845 times)

#### Marshall Peck III

• Guest
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« on: 28/02/2011 19:30:04 »
Marshall Peck III asked the Naked Scientists:

Question : All along, I have been basically told that gravity is an attractive force between bits of matter (what matter is is another question, of course). Recently, while watching Professor Michio Kaku of City University in San Francisco speak on his science program, I was shocked to hear him say that gravity is actually a force of space pushing on "us" and every bit of matter.

So, since this was the first and only time I heard this explanation, it struck me that I had never heard it before.  Am I simply not informed, mistakenly assuming that the lay person's explanation is right, ignorant beyond words, or what ? Professor Kaku's words made immediate sense to me. I think this is the only explanation. I just cannot believe I have been led towards the opposite view by all my science reading and general absorption.(absorbtion should be the correct spelling!).

Does this pushing aspect of "the gravity event"also relate to the acceleration of the "universe" ? Space appears to be a giant spring, with seemingly unlimited energy.

I will stop now before doing too much more damage.

Thank you... Regards,

Marshall Peck III
USA/France

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 28/02/2011 19:30:04 by _system »

#### rwjefferson

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 22
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #1 on: 10/03/2011 01:28:41 »

yes in deed allison wonderland
there is such a thing as a relative headwind

Does this pushing aspect of "the gravity event" also relate to the acceleration of the "universe"?
"relatively speaking"

inflation.101
energy is equal and opposite gravity in verse right angle by spacetime constant
mass tends toward rest; energy flows
gravity is a traction; energy re: pulsion
What happens as countless suns convert immeasurable mass into unimaginable energy by eons of time? What happens as energy exceeds mass by spacetime constant?

...gravity is actually a force of space pushing on "us" and every bit of matter...

gravity.101
drill a deep dark hole in the middle of a icy hockey rink
create a perfect vacuum within this black hole
draw lines of iso barometric pressure to graph the re: sulting warp of the atom sphere
drop the puck up; let the games begin
What happens to sound in the eyes of hypersonic drainholes?

hydrogen.101
center a marble sized sphere meshed by strong matter in side a coliseum screened by an electromagnetic fabric
create at least three perfect vacuums within the relative sphere
What do strong and weak and electromagnetic and casimir and vanderwaals and gravity and wind all hold in common? How much dirt is in a hole 1'x1'x1'x1'?

...I just cannot believe I have been led towards the opposite view by all my science reading...
Don't get me started on the propagation of dogma. I see through the cloak of mathematical symbols and calculations and holy science authority.
e=mc2 ≠ spacetime warped as fabric
Doh. Too late. I dood it. Again.

ItS
truth
r~

to see through the looking glass of holy science authority
take another little purple pill; repeat after me
there is no warp or string of spacetime fabric
gravity is all so a push in verse inertial differential

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2787
• rouge moderator
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #2 on: 10/03/2011 13:00:56 »
Michio Kaku needs to be taken with a pinch of salt sometimes! And so does RWJ above

Classical gravity is best thought of as an attractive force between any two massive objects.  GenRev complicates this picture and has gravity as a distortion of the fabric of space time itself - the "force" we feel is actually action of following a geodesic in the curved spacetime.  Theories that try and link gravity with quantum field theory are even more abstruse - and, as yet, not complete or consistent.

I presume Prof Kaku (who is a great physicist and communicator, but also a bit nutty) was referring to certain methods of explanation of the so-called dark energy that is driving universal expansion

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #3 on: 10/03/2011 20:17:15 »
gravity is actually a force of space pushing on "us" and every bit of matter.

When two object take effect there must be some kind of matter-connection between objects.

Between moon-earth,,is space-matter,,,which make this matter-connection,,and surface on earth is this matter-"push" because space-matter layer is same kind like air-layer near the earth-surface.

Near surface density is high-and when we rise up,,density is lower,,and lower,,
air-layer and space-matter layer is same kind propertyes.

All in the space is matter,,18centuryes says,,ether,,,that is good word,,we have forgot that,,when se speak vacuum,,

Space-matter
- not heavy-still strong
- invisible,,means see-through
- all planets,,space-craf, shuttle,,etc,,is flying in this space-matter,,

Satellite or moon-vehicle cannot take any control-power,, push/pull direction,,if there is no matter round of it where to push-pull.

Pure emptyness,,vacuum,,there is no possibility that push-pull power to go any direction.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1797
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #4 on: 11/03/2011 03:17:33 »
Quote from: Heikki Rinnemaa
Pure emptyness,,vacuum,,there is no possibility that push-pull power to go any direction.

Shouldn't Newton's equal and opposite force make its presence felt here?

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2011 05:19:13 »
I draw more my thoughts,,,

kg/m3 means density

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #6 on: 11/03/2011 05:23:52 »
Shouldn't Newton's equal and opposite force make its presence felt here?

Bill,,,i answer your question,,,before i have translated it and i'm sure then that i have understand what exactly you mean,,, sorry,,my born-language is not english,,, i come back this issue,,,

I dont know what you mean word,,,felt,,

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #7 on: 12/03/2011 00:08:37 »
Gravity is best seen at a black hole :) don't get to close though. And as Imatfaal said, it's expressed in the 'distortion' of SpaceTime. But it is also acting on you just like a force, which is why Newtonian gravity works so well. Think of it as matters/lights wish to be at rest relative it. Matter finds that rest inside the center of that black hole, and maybe? Light is there too? It depends on how you view lights propagation. Simply stated we see causality chains making us define light as propagating which seems to be answering to most of the cases we can think up for testing radiation. But it is also true that radiation only exist in its 'interactions', so pick your choice :)

#### Heikki Rinnemaa

• Full Member
• Posts: 92
• MoHei. :)
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #8 on: 12/03/2011 04:59:34 »
Bill,,if this is the answer,,look image.

Post by Phractality click to view.

#### Phractality

• Hero Member
• Posts: 523
• Thanked: 1 times
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #9 on: 16/03/2011 13:59:26 »
Shrunk
In my model,  [^] it's dark energy pushing on matter. For that matter, all the forces result from exchange of momentum between dark energy (pressure waves) and regular energy (shear waves).

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11697
• Thanked: 1 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #10 on: 21/03/2011 22:57:13 »
I tried to find how Professor Michio Kaku looks at it but it seems that the only thing I could find was BBC shows? But I don't see space as a 'spring'. You might if looked at it strictly from a QM perspective, ignoring your macroscopic 'reality', define everything as 'virtual interactions' nothing excluded. That means that those 'interactions' don't care for our macroscopic definitions, they don't use those 'borders' we see macroscopically. But that is only a guess from me building on that 'virtual particles' whatever is a description of 'force' or 'energy' carriers, making the atoms and so matter 'exist' and interact with each other.

But looked at macroscopically we have all those borders defining space relative matter, and light relative nothing (blackness) etc, so to get it to work as a 'whole picture' you have to decide how to look at it. You might want to unite them into one, but don't ask me how to do that, or you can look at it as 'emergences' from a chaos perspective. Which, to me, makes a whole lot of sense in that it is a little like as a 'instruction set'. But not a linear boolean one, more like sets in sets in sets that emerges from those first simple instructions. all of them adding to the complexity and interacting with the other 'emergences'. a little like we have DNA, RNA, stem cells, nerve cells, ganglion's, proteins folding in our bodies. All of them 'talking' with each other electrochemically, instructing each other, and by doing so creating and upholding us. But they all came from one egg and one spermatozoa.

That's the way nature create complexity and if we just could see how it finds those first definitions for complexity maybe we could apply them on physics too. there has to be a way for the universe to build from the simple to the complex and I think 'constants' are building stones for that. Our assumptions about propagation etc that we see macroscopically I find to become more and more ah, suspect? Not that I can ignore 'motion', we can see it's importance everywhere but I'm wondering about how the universe defines it. I know how we do, but I'm not totally sure the universe agree :)

If 'gravity' would have a life of its own, then it should be through a 'emergence', as I see it. If it is so then maybe the coupling we see to matter and energy is a necessity for it to exist. So maybe 'gravity' as such isn't what we think it is, but just a expression of something we don't see? I don't know, but I wonder.
==

You might want to think of it this way, decide that every interaction is defined by its 'surroundings'. If that would be true macroscopically then the 'chain' or 'logic' has to work at the 'virtual plane' too

To create a interaction you need some things, they are not the same macroscopically as in a QM perspective though. Macroscopically you need a 'arrow of time' creating the causality chains we see, you will also need 'areas' for those interactions to take place in. You will need 'stuff' acting on that area in such a way that the 'arrow of time' can give us a development, whether that should be seen as of a 'greater complexity' or not is a matter of definition, You might view it differently like a 'cone' of interactions delivering a 'tip' of finalization, from the many to the few. Or you might look at it as a synthesis of information meaning that all of that 'stuff' surrounding the interaction somehow is incorporated in that 'synergized' result. It's also a question of your 'system'. Depending on your borders defined, a interaction in a cell solely, or the whole perspective of that interaction(s) on a human body for example.

In QM times arrow seems to get weird. There you have the possibility of temporal reversibility, you can also question the Plank scale there. We define most things as either being inside the Planck scale or 'outside' it. If it is 'outside' then it's virtual and our 'arrow' has nothing to do with it, as described by tunneling out of a black hole. There you don't need 'areas' either, just as our 'photons' (so weird) is thought to be. There are other assumptions you can make too, but the most important to me is 'times arrow'. That's the really weird one :) and light of course. :)

But as I said, I don't know, it is interesting though.
=

An example of the weirdness; Assume that light doesn't propagate. Where and how do we then get an 'area'? Times arrow? If so, does that arrow exist everywhere? What is it, that it can create a 'one way' causality chain macroscopically, but 'dissolve' into a possible 'two way' Quantum mechanically and dissolve into a 'nothing' outside Planck scale?

You see, without light propagating, all definitions fail. Everything we measure we do through radiation, as far as I know. And that is a problem for 'entropy' too. If we want to define 'times arrow' as entropic processes solely, what does that do to lights 'propagation'. Can there be any? In what way is a photon 'entropic'? Maybe there is a way to realize times arrow as entropy solely, but then I expect you to have to define light as 'not propagating' too. Or else find a novel way of defining light.
« Last Edit: 22/03/2011 00:19:22 by yor_on »

#### billferguson

• First timers
• Posts: 3
##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #11 on: 26/03/2011 23:50:08 »
I agree with Marshall Peck, III. All along, we are taught that gravity is an attractive force, now we are told it is a "push". And, why can't Marshall Peck, III, get an answer to his question without all the jibberish?

We are now told of dark matter, dark energy, 11 dimensions, string theory. I thought that scientist always wanted "extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims". I guess this only applies to the layman, when these scientists claim all this crap they can't prove and expect people to believe. Or, perhaps, they have too much time to fill on all these science shows on the discovery and history channels and the more goofy their claims, the more chance they will be on television. Sorry, folks, just telling it like it is.

Bill Ferguson

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Is gravity the result of space pushing on matter?
« Reply #11 on: 26/03/2011 23:50:08 »

Login
Login with username, password and session length