In two minds about gravity

Also, the fast orbital speed of stars at the edge of galaxies cannot be explained unless there is a huge amount of unseen mass.

:deep-thought: , maybe space itself is a slinky? Honestly, I wish I had the mathematical expertise to explain this seeming irony.:puzzled:

Maybe in the centripetal acceleration, the right angle is lost when the radius is too large, so the circle becomes a spiral? This would cause the speed to overcome the angle greater than the 90 degrees can, so the magnitude increases due to the component ratio between the radius and speed equaling a higher number. (Speed:radius)

I am told the mathematical equivalent to dyslexia is 'equalitis', a condition I am sorely afflicted with.

I like the slinky idea but is it not cheating to lose the right angle?

Holiday - yep, I agree, it works but I am being picky - what is an exponential delay and what would cause it?

Forgive me guys, was I ever such an idiot in 2008!

I'm glad to see you back Sir Neuron!!

What is your perception of it? Does it bend space and time as scientist suggest?

All interpretations are analogical, topology is no exception. The pattern relating gravity to space-time can be termed bending I'm sure.

A good question Sir. Is gravity the cause of the bending of space time or is it simply the presence of a mass and the resulting effect is what we call gravity? A 'chicken or egg' situation indeed as I see it.

Science does more than merely suggest it, science has proven it.

See Gravity Probe B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in particular Geodetic effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have some identical marbles and you take one and hold it you will feel its weight. If you add another then the weight will be doubled. Each marble adds to the weight but if you let a pile of marbles drop then all of them head downwards individually. It has been proven, it seems, that marbles and atoms behave the same way in a gravitational field (yes, I am aware of the danger of this analogy).
Newton's concept of gravity is that it is a force and along with his laws of motion the behaviour of heavenly bodies and the behaviour of atoms are neatly explained.
And it works well so long as the heavens are already established. However, because everything works in straight lines, it seems there is a doubt that a solar system could be created in any reasonable time. Also, the fast orbital speed of stars at the edge of galaxies cannot be explained unless there is a huge amount of unseen mass.
There has been a fairly recent development though, where small grains were seen to coalesce under electro static effects so the doubt about the rate at which our solar system would have formed seems to be resolved. The unseen mass is as yet undetected, however, there is a theory where the gravitational force has two components but in a workaday sense, there has been no serious challenge to the mathematics of Newton's gravitational model.

It seems Einstein was not happy though and he developed his concepts of time, mass and energy into a new theory of gravity under the heading of General Relativity.
From Wikipedia:
"The general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the state-of-the-art description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation and describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or spacetime."
Early on in the development of the theory, Einstein was able to predict the amount of apparent bending of light around a massive star and also to explain the anomalous precession of the planet Mercury. He correctly supposed that a large mass affects time so that light is delayed very slightly when it passes. In spacetime, it seems a mass in a gravitational field moves in a curve because it is the only option available.

So what are we to make of this? Even with the upgrade there are still puzzles. It seems each concept lacks a connection between the atom and its environment, which is a known problem (quantum gravity), and there are some fantastic solutions but so far not one of them is universally accepted.

At the beginning of this diatribe I wrote about marbles and atoms but I don't think of atoms as being small marbles, anything but. Atoms are definitely dynamic structures. I like to think of them as fuzzy balls with a heart of stone that will spit particles if you poke them and even if you don't and they are inclined to react quickly with compatible things (simple I know but bear with me).
Earth's mass does slow the passage of time as does speed so there will be a difference between a clock near Earth and one far away, or one at rest and one in motion. However, the difference typically would be absolutely very, very tiny and then tiny even more but nevertheless it is a proven variation in the environment. Now suppose the very dynamic atom is sensitive to this variation but not through force but in a way more subtle than that. As I understand it, 'spacetime' means there is a clock intrinsic with every three dimensional thing, and the clock can be affected by other things with clocks. If the dimensions of the thing are big enough or light passes close enough then it will be slowed.

Now, consider the case of a stationary atom near Earth and suppose the structure of the atom to be affected so that it causes the structure to be displaced and reconstructed in a new place. Of course this would be ever, ever so slight but due to the extreme activity of the atom's structure it would be additional, moment by moment. Gradually the effect would cause movement and a movement that would be seen to be accelerating. Of course, given enough time the structure would nudge the speed of light but long before then the increase in speed would cause the atom's own clock to slow until it was the same as the Earth's clock and then there would be no further increase in velocity (a terminal velocity). A place where the clocks would balance would be at the centre of Earth.
In the case of an atom in a uniform orbit then the clocks would be in balance due to the speed necessary to maintain the orbit.
This idea would apply to every atom whether chemically bonded to others or not.

So at the moment this is how I see it but how do you regard gravity and is there anything here on which you would want to comment. In any case I enjoyed writing it and good thinking.

PS: For Binyamin - I found a book on ducks the other day and it advised not to hold a bird too tightly and to check its breathing at regular intervals. It seemed like good advice.

I was expecting a howl of protest but so far there has been none. Hopefully I have described well enough the crazy gravity I have in mind but there is an obvious question and that is; in what direction would an atom move. Well, I have no 'B' idea and that is because I have no idea what the structure of an atom actually is and even if I did know I could only guess.
If I take a conventional view then an atom has a centre around which there is an assemblage of particles and the whole structure accelerates together all at once towards the centre of the gravitational source, much like the analogous marble. Of course, this means there is a requirement to solve the many puzzles that result from this explanation and you can look them up in Wikipedia - see 'Unsolved problems in physics'.
However, if as I suggested in a previous posting that the atom is a dynamic wave structure then perhaps the direction of movement would not be so obvious and might depend on the distance from the gravitational source, i.e. how severely the structure was affected. If an atom were stationary and close it might behave as if it were being acted upon by a force but if the atom were more distant and moving then it might behave as if it were under the influence of curved space. At an extreme distance then it might never truly escape the effect of gravity and or speed.
Here are basic behaviours I think require an explanation - why should a rate of rotational motion result in a gyroscopic effect - why should the terminal velocity for a planet be the same as the escape velocity - and why should ball lightning exist? The mathematics for the first two makes predictions possible but prediction is not the same as understanding and that is a lesson from the past. Science is concentrating on formulating a structure and behaviour for the atom and there has been much success but it has been in the absence of gravity. I think this might be a mistake, but an inherited one, i.e. if the present structure for the atom does not work in gravity then this question must be answered; where does the fault lie?

Sir - maybe is the answer to your question.
Certainly a force is the easier to understand and that was what was proposed by Newton. Einstein's idea about gravity is based not on a force but in that gravity causes space time to be bent.
A great deal of effort has been spent constructing a machine to detect gravity waves, which surely must exist if gravity causes the bending of space time. However, gravity in any form has yet to be detected by any independent means and therein is the puzzle.
But perhaps a concept of gravity is just not required. Perhaps just the presence of a mass causes space time to be bent in which case the connection between masses is the difference in time the bent space causes (there would be no other choice left). It is said that the local rate of time is impossible to detect locally but perhaps the rate at which an apple falls is a clue.
It is interesting to play with these concepts and I see you enjoy it.