[Ethos]

Here we are confronted with the age-old question: What came first, Matter or Gravity?

There is another question that is giving me trouble these days and I would like some help solving it. Because gravity is associated with matter, we assume that matter causes gravity. And gravity is thought to be the warping of space/time, the bending of the spatial fabric itself. We all have learned that energy and mass are interchangeable, thus, there is really no difference between the two except that mass appears to be the Localized Orbital manifestation of energy. That being said, for matter to appear, energy must in some fashion be manipulated to become localized. Since gravity is associated with space/time itself and, at least in my estimation, more basic to the vacuum than either energy or matter, I find myself asking the next question:

What came first, Matter or gravity?

This may sound like an absurd question, but regarding that view I would ask for reasonable and testable evidence to prove either case.

#1. Does matter produce gravity or,
#2. Does gravity establish the enviornment where energy can becomes localized?

Is the latter possible and if not, please explain why.

[Bored chemist]

The answer to the question you have said you are asking is the chicken (except for the trivial case of animals that were egg layers and vastly predated the chicken).
You might want to think about changing the title of the thread.

[Ethos]

The answer to the question you have said you are asking is the chicken (except for the trivial case of animals that were egg layers and vastly predated the chicken).
You might want to think about changing the title of the thread.

Quite right BoredChem. I'll take your advice sir, seems like the other title wasn't getting much attention. Just trying a little play on words there BC, maybe it will generate some attention now?

[Tony_82]

As I understand it, as matter travels through the universe, the gravity field travels with it. If gravity establishes the environment where energy can become localized, what would cause the gravity field to move with the matter?

[Ethos]

As I understand it, as matter travels through the universe, the gravity field travels with it. If gravity establishes the environment where energy can become localized, what would cause the gravity field to move with the matter?

As I understand the standard model, shortly after the Big Bang, the 4 forces were a single super force. As the evolution of the universe evolved, the four forces split off and became the familiar ones we observe today. But this all happened before matter began to appear from the extremely dense energy field. Because gravity was present before the formation of matter, I believe that instead of matter giving rise to gravity, it's the other way around. Gravity, which in some curious way must be associated with the electromagnetic force, gives rise to the geometric enviornment of space/time within which matter can form.

If Matter gives rise to Gravity, then the standard model is wrong. According to the standard model, gravity existed before matter did and if that's the case, where did the gravity come from with no matter to initiate it's presence?

I contend that gravity is in some way related to the electromagnetic phenomenon and conditions space/time by manipulating the course of electromagnetic radiation from a wave into an orbital framework.

And to answer your question: We will always observe the presence of both matter and gravity moving together because matter does not exist without this manipulation of space/time. When this manipulation breaks down, the matter returns to it's wave form. It's really all about the geometry, and the electromagnetic effect applied to the permitivity and permeability of space/tiem.

[Mr. Scientist]

Here we are confronted with the age-old question: What came first, Matter or Gravity?

There is another question that is giving me trouble these days and I would like some help solving it. Because gravity is associated with matter, we assume that matter causes gravity. And gravity is thought to be the warping of space/time, the bending of the spatial fabric itself. We all have learned that energy and mass are interchangeable, thus, there is really no difference between the two except that mass appears to be the Localized Orbital manifestation of energy. That being said, for matter to appear, energy must in some fashion be manipulated to become localized. Since gravity is associated with space/time itself and, at least in my estimation, more basic to the vacuum than either energy or matter, I find myself asking the next question:

What came first, Matter or gravity?

This may sound like an absurd question, but regarding that view I would ask for reasonable and testable evidence to prove either case.

#1. Does matter produce gravity or,
#2. Does gravity establish the enviornment where energy can becomes localized?

Is the latter possible and if not, please explain why.

They came together according to relativity. Gravity IS the same as matter, so matter IS the presence of gravity.

[Tony_82]

As I understand it, as matter travels through the universe, the gravity field travels with it. If gravity establishes the environment where energy can become localized, what would cause the gravity field to move with the matter?

As I understand the standard model, shortly after the Big Bang, the 4 forces were a single super force. As the evolution of the universe evolved, the four forces split off and became the familiar ones we observe today. But this all happened before matter began to appear from the extremely dense energy field. Because gravity was present before the formation of matter, I believe that instead of matter giving rise to gravity, it's the other way around. Gravity, which in some curious way must be associated with the electromagnetic force, gives rise to the geometric enviornment of space/time within which matter can form.

If Matter gives rise to Gravity, then the standard model is wrong. According to the standard model, gravity existed before matter did and if that's the case, where did the gravity come from with no matter to initiate it's presence?

I contend that gravity is in some way related to the electromagnetic phenomenon and conditions space/time by manipulating the course of electromagnetic radiation from a wave into an orbital framework.

And to answer your question: We will always observe the presence of both matter and gravity moving together because matter does not exist without this manipulation of space/time. When this manipulation breaks down, the matter returns to it's wave form. It's really all about the geometry, and the electromagnetic effect applied to the permitivity and permeability of space/tiem.

I'm not disputing what your saying, just asking questions. But if you accept the theory that after the Big Bang, the 4 forces were a single super force, and matter developed after it, you've answered your own question.

[Ethos]

I'm not disputing what your saying, just asking questions. But if you accept the theory that after the Big Bang, the 4 forces were a single super force, and matter developed after it, you've answered your own question.

Quite right my friend, and that's the difficult pill that contemporary physicists can't swallow. The common understanding is that Matter creates Gravity. I am challenging this view by asserting that Gravity creates Matter.

[Ethos]

They came together according to relativity. Gravity IS the same as matter, so matter IS the presence of gravity.

Maybe I misunderstand the concept of the Superforce? I thought this theory suggests that all four forces were combined at the beginning of the Big Bang. If that is true, Matter was not immediately present at that time which leaves Gravity a separate and distinct phenomenon. Also, if Gravity and Matter are the same things, why do we give them different names?

Maybe you meant to say? Mass and Gravity are the same.

Mass and Gravity are almost indistinguishable one from the other, however, Mass and Matter are not the same things. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for one to say: Mass creates Gravity! Because Mass and Gravity are almost identical. Nevertheless, it is very common to hear the following statement from physicists: Matter creates Gravity! About this view, I respectfully disagree.

[Mr. Scientist]

They came together according to relativity. Gravity IS the same as matter, so matter IS the presence of gravity.

Maybe I misunderstand the concept of the Superforce? I thought this theory suggests that all four forces were combined at the beginning of the Big Bang. If that is true, Matter was not immediately present at that time which leaves Gravity a separate and distinct phenomenon. Also, if Gravity and Matter are the same things, why do we give them different names?

Maybe you meant to say? Mass and Gravity are the same.

Mass and Gravity are almost indistinguishable one from the other, however, Mass and Matter are not the same things. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for one to say: Mass creates Gravity! Because Mass and Gravity are almost identical. Nevertheless, it is very common to hear the following statement from physicists: Matter creates Gravity! About this view, I respectfully disagree.

Not really.#


I think you do understand, but relativity is no walk in the park - IF anything, it's all about arriving either too early or too late, but nothing in relativity makes those mistakes.

[Ethos]

Not really.#


I think you do understand, but relativity is no walk in the park - IF anything, it's all about arriving either too early or too late, but nothing in relativity makes those mistakes.

Then would you agree? That the presence of Gravity induces the creation of Matter. And like Vern has postulated; That the Electromagnetic force is responsible, in some incompletely understood way for the creation of Gravity.

If these assertions are true, then Vern is correct. All aspects of our existence can be traced back to the presence and manipulation of space/time by the electromagnetic force.

[Mr. Scientist]

Hi ethos - please stay!

[Mr. Scientist]

Not really.#


I think you do understand, but relativity is no walk in the park - IF anything, it's all about arriving either too early or too late, but nothing in relativity makes those mistakes.

Then would you agree? That the presence of Gravity induces the creation of Matter. And like Vern has postulated; That the Electromagnetic force is responsible, in some incompletely understood way for the creation of Gravity.

If these assertions are true, then Vern is correct. All aspects of our existence can be traced back to the presence and manipulation of space/time by the electromagnetic force.

When i corrolated verns theory with a scientist, he said we ignored many aspects of electromagnetism, such as the W and Z bosons. In a sense it's true, but the aspect of it was not true enough to say Verns hypothesis cannot be modelled to suit such a conjecture. Needless to say, it would require a team of scientists and many new decades of work.

[Ethos]

Hi ethos - please stay!

Yes, I've had a change of heart sir. BTW, My recent decision was not based upon anything or any action taken by any of you dear folks. It was entirely a personal and private matter which I am really not at liberty to discuss. I would like to reassure all my friends here that, absolutely nobody here was responsable for this move. Please rest assured, nothing was said or done by anyone here that prompted me to make that decision. None of the discussions and or posts by anyone were responsible. In any case, I'm glad to be back...........Ethos

[Mr. Scientist]

good