Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 17 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gravity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Template:Vital article

	Gravity was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 10, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Relativity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Astronomy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

What is it?

All these theories about the effects of gravity but not one theory mention about what gravity actually is and/or the mechanism of how it works. It would appear there may be no theories and the article should state that. If theories exist they should be mentioned in the article. Most of this article apears to be fluff on abstract and unrelated downstream topics based on only the effects of gravity. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody knows! The best guess we have is that gravity works by atoms exchanging "virtual particles": why this creates a force anyway is very hard to understand. The only reason we think this might be the case is because it's worked for all the other forces we know, but if you do the same maths with gravity, for technical reasons it doesn't work. There are thousands of physicists working to resolve this problem. However, Einstein's equivalence principle suggests that gravity isn't really a force, it is purely an effect of the geometry of spacetime. There are plenty of physicists who believe that there are no virtual particles because (a) the Einstein principle makes gravity different, (b) the maths doesn't work for gravity, and (c) despite dedicated experiments, nobody has seen the elusive gravity particle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.55.215 (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is very inaccessible to a layman who comes here to get the answer to the question "What causes gravity?" If we know, the article should say so. If we don't, it should say we don't. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact the article is quite tendentious insofar as it plumps squarely down in the Einsteinian account of things, as though it was all quite settled: "The phenomenon of gravitation itself, however, is a byproduct of a more fundamental phenomenon described by general relativity, which suggests..." Stating that something is while in the next breath basing that assertion on a "suggestion" is, to say the least, somewhat overreaching. Space time curvature and the finite but open universe that it is premised upon have been in question ever since telescope observations during Einstein's own lifetime strongly "suggested" that the universe was actually non-curved and still expanding and may well be expanding to infinity. All in all, such topics invite a more skeptical, provisional and, dare I say, scientific approach, or so it seems to me. Orthotox (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that Einstein's suggestion that gravity is the effect of mass on the geometry of spacetime. You stretch out a bed sheet and put a big ball in the middle. Then put a smaller ball somewhere else on the sheet. The smaller ball will roll towards the bigger ball. The question is: why does matter warp the fabric of spacetime in the first place? — Confession0791 04:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Five Elements/Elders", artwork for a personal graphic novel project. - I first wrote the following Theory of Rendundant Terminology as a question for newton.dep.anl.gov . I'm sure I violated some rules of their format, so they have not as yet replied:

"Is (your weight) not the result of an equation that is based on the pressure (air, water what have you) around you, specially ABOVE you (just like underwater), plus your mass MINUS the weight taken off the total of Pressure + Your Mass from CENTRIFUGAL force of the Earth trying to fling things off of itself? I ask because no one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to what 'gravity' itself is. I've never believed that mass attracts mass (the moon and earth are pretty massive, both with their own supposed 'gravity', yet we live). My question is a call for a true definition of how 'gravity' can seem to inexplicably exist. I believe it has more to do with the pressure of air all around and above us pushing us DOWN at a force all 'round about 1000 pounds per square foot of us. My question calls for an equation solved with factors that I'm unfamiliar with.

(Your/Something's/Anything's mass on Earth + Average Earth air pressure below the clouds) - (the weight that is offset by centrifugal force) = your weight?

Now if the weight offset by the Earth spinning at around 1000 mph IS around the weight of the Air pressure around you, then 'gravity' is a made-up word that says it is an unknown force that somehow magically magnetizes you to the ground when you are more prone to actually being thrown off the Earth if it were not for the Compressed Air between the Atmosphere and the ground.

It doesn't matter how deep into the Earth you go, you won't become 'heavier' because of LAVA MAGNETISM. Go deeper and you think the extra pressure will push you down harder therefore you're heavier? No, you will have MORE centrifugal spin effect the closer you are to Core, therefore equalizing with the air pressure around you and maintaining your weight.

When something is crushed under the weight of earth pressure that is not air (like WATER), we say it was crushed by the pressure all around and above it. We do not say, 'It has more gravity, its own weight crushed it'. Above water, we insist the rules (physics) change somehow right from the quark.

The universe may be labeled 'an empty vacuum', but that doesn't mean to say the whole mass of the Universe does not have PRESSURE. The pressure exerted by the Universe on a Planet PLUS the spinning planets centrifugal release of water, heat, mineral and biological gases EQUALS Atmosphere, with the resulting 'sandwich' of pressurized air created automatically between atmosphere and solid ground. From a universal point of view, this little pocket of air pressure acts as a LOCK for anything that is heavier than what the earth can throw off of itself. Hence, water experiences Evaporation, to be made into Clouds most irrefutably, when the ceiling called Universal pressure is met that pushes it back DOWN (which is why water doesn't just fly off forever, even without 'gravity').

Sorry, I'm not sure this is a question then. It's a request to check the equation to dispel the myth known as gravity. No equation can ever be made that has 'Gravity' in it, it would be flawed in trying to prove its own existence. And a reminder to self that we shouldn't be messing with the clouds above our heads lol, they push us down, it's PUSH, not a non-existent, inexplicable PULL. I have no references for my theory."

1. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/

Fullchain (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Physicist Michio Kaku says it like this: "The earth doesn't pull you to the ground, space pushes down on you." So, is it plausible that matter is the absence of space, rather than vice-versa? — Confession0791 22:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't gravity "a property or quality" of space-time? why don't we just say it that way? 50.181.71.228 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect drawing in relation to curved spacetime.

The gravitic well, is defined accorded to a point mass at it´s center. There is no point mass, there are gravitic effects within that mass and when you resolve the equations, the attraction becomes equivalent in all directions, away from the center, implying an outwards force, instead of an inwards force. Drawn, that implies that the tip in the center, is higher energeticly then outside the gravitic well. A sinc curve, without the side lobes, is the real curvature.

Citation Needed: Graviton

In the second paragraph of the introduction, the following sentence is found: "It is hypothesized that the gravitational force is mediated by a massless spin-2 particle called the graviton." Who, for instance, offers this hypothesis? How much credibility does it enjoy within the scientific community? Is the graviton truly considered to be massless? A spin-2 particle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC58:5910:344E:22CB:E148:1FD1 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) i think it is due to the attraction between positively charged atoms in the core and negatively charged particles in objects. otherwise if there would be only gravity then earth would get closer and closer to sun and their would be no life.and our son would get mixed or combined or it will fuse with other stars. that's how our universe is expanding. by Yashswasat Mittal DPS MR NAGAR MATHURA UTTAR PRADESH INDIA CLASS- 8

"as the agent" ?

"as the agent that gives weight to physical objects"  

What does that mean? "Agent" looks like a weasel word to avoid using the incorrect term "force" How about this:

In non-scientific terms, it is most commonly recognized and experienced as the quality of space-time that gives weight to physical objects, and causes physical objects to fall toward the ground when dropped from a height.

50.181.71.228 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Consider this alternative:

In non-scientific terms, it is most commonly recognized and experienced as that which gives weight to physical objects, and causes physical objects to fall toward the ground when dropped from a height.

Kyle 07:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

With the advent of special relativity...

Does gravity have an infinite range? We all now know that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light just as electromagnetic waves such as a light itself propagate EM fields at the speed of light, they can still continue forever, right?--195.194.89.201 (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the first sentence of this Misplaced Pages page.

"Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other." I think the first sentence (of the Gravity Misplaced Pages page) is misleading to someone who wants to learn about gravity. As an aficionado of physics, space science and quantum mechanics, would it not be better to say something like this:

"Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other. Many people still mistakenly think that mass attracts mass. While Newtonian physics describes gravity in this way, Einsteinian physics, since 1905, tells us that gravity is actually caused by a physical body traveling through space-time. (In jest, it sort of hurts your head!) Gravity is still one of the most hotly contested and misunderstood scientific theories known to humankind."< ref >The Complete Idiot's Guide To Understanding Einstien, by Gary Moring, 2nd Edition, 2004.< /ref >< ref >The Universe In A Nutshell by Stephen Hawking, 2001.< /ref >

Any thoughts? Mikewest (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC) June 10, 2014

Methinks not. For reasons of style, correctness, and congruence. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(a) Don't use ref tags on talk pages.

(b) You didn't actually change the first sentence, so it can't be all that misleading.

(c) The proposed edit fails WP:TONE, WP:CONCISE, and WP:VAGUE, even before getting into your questionable understanding of your sources. Even reworking it into something encyclopedic—Gravitation or gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all physical bodies attract each other owing to the movement of their mass through spacetime—my understanding is that the fundamental mechanics of gravitation remain unsettled (regardless of sourcing available to individual theorists) and, regardless, that's not clearer than the existing lede, just something that should be explained at length below it. — LlywelynII 23:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

qualitative explanation of gravity

In 2003 the russian scientist Vasily Yanchilin published his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation in which he argues that gravity is a pure quantummechanical proces. This he bases on the hypothesis that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty. Then in the half of a particle nearest to an external mass there will be less quantummechanical transitions towards the farthest half then from the latter towards the nearest half. Net result is movement of the particle towards the external mass. Newton and Einstein only gave quantitative explanations while the latter assumed as a working hypothesis that the speed of electromagnetic waves in vacuum is constant. Real vacuum does not exist since there is radiation which has energy and energy is connected to matter. Yanchilin maintains that light is related to the potential of the total mass of the universe which is in all directions the same at a certain time and a certain place. But decreases with the expansion of the universe; so in the past c was bigger and therefore the supernova I A standard has to be adjusted. Which causes diappearance of accellerated expansion of the universe. Please read the book; it is written excellently didactically and find much more new interpretations, p.e. about the red shift of sunlight which is not explained by the old general theory of relativity because this theory assumes that the second at the sun is slower and that radiation has to overcome gravity of the sun while not the sum of both is measured. Very interesting is how photons pass mass and at which speed; what Yanchilin wrote about it should be discussed extensively. The book is available by googling the author's name and a copy is in the Library of Congress. Short notitions can be found on www.janjitso.blogspot.com. I write this from a computer in the library of the University of Amsterdam. Evil people there blocked part of the Internet, so I cannot write from my e-mail site. Jitso Keizer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.50.96.170 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Entanglogravitational Spring - Partially Entangled Degrading Groups

Entanglogravitational Spring - Partially Entangled Degrading Groups

entanglogravitatioal theory demands from all particles be partially entangled, even with virtual particles, and very few one to one absolutely entangled -but that is rare.

The angular momentums of that ensembles, act like a spring, that forces all particles aligning with more accuracy their mean angular momentum by killing virtual particles.

So gravity slays space, therefore virtual particles of the partially entangled groups. The energy of the dead particles is transformed to speed, that's why gravity attracts things, but also partial that entanglement's degradation generates heat because of entropy.

We know that speed is angular momentum from particle measurments. A particle alone has a rotating spin to all possible angles. It is like a fan, but with a more delicate rotational mode. If you want to cut your finger by a fast fan, you have to interact with it, and touch it at some degrees. So you the observer define the degrees of touching, but a different observer may touch the same particle at different degrees, without

changing it's fundamental properties, only the data we record namely spin polarization.

What we choose is the angle of measurement, what we do not know is if it spins possitively or negatively to the directon we randomly selected. Also, if we twist the particle there is a probabilistic chart of how much spin gets affected.

We can though affect the measured spin data, if we measure twice, without tilting the measuring apparatus, only by moving the device at a secondary measurement at a fraction of the light speed so it gets noticeable. We use a chart of how spin gets affected by a moving detector at different speeds during measurements.

Dark matter is degrading partial entanglements but the virtual partially entangled particles probabilistically are annihilated at a predictable within a statistic range rates.

Dark energy requires vast regions afar from real particle huge accumulations like galaxies and glactic flocks. Quantum noise of vast voids exceeds the relativistic death of particles, therefore we have a runaway universe because dark energy seems to win the game at the grandest scales.

This is entanglogravity, or Entanglemential degradating gravity.

Most scientists connect mathematically entanglogravity with chromatogravity.

Chromodynamic Gravity = Chromatogravity = Chromogravity

Remember, the average spin of a group should cancel, also small partially entangled spin groups, are connected in bigger groups.

The particles that form a group at each "quantum frame" change. So not the exact same particles of a Planck scaled region cancel each other all the time, this is a chromodynamical probabilistic effect, and the larger the scale the more stable the group linkages are.

Tiny Planck scale entalogravitational groups, tend to exchange partners.

Gravitons are not unknown.

Gravitons are normal real and virtual standard model partially entangled particles (also very few absolute binary entangled ones)

which belong to groups that change probabilistically at every averagingally beholded frame of action

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.204.228 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My goodness. Look at all those words. (I use "word" very loosely since many of these are not actually words)

Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research, much less for original research with undefined and ambiguous terms contradicted by the scientific community. We don't make the facts: we take them directly from reliable sources, or not at all. TricksterWolf (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Chinese measurement

For comments about the measurement by Tang et al. covered in the Speed of gravity subsection of this article, please see the Speed of gravity Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Issues with forces definitions.

I have two issues with the third paragraph which describes gravity and the other forces, but I wanted to check here to see what others think first.

0) It is not really fair or accurate to call gravity "the weakest force". There is no invariant way to compare the four forces: they behave very differently on different scales, and they depend on the respective charge values of particles which are affected by them. It would be more accurate to say something like: "because particle rest masses are very small, gravitational effects between individual particles in the same inertial frame of reference are immeasurably tiny".

1) I don't believe it is true that the strong force has limited range. In fact, the strong force is the only force that does not diminish as distance increases (not to be confused with the residual strong or nuclear force, which decays exponentially with distance). Past a certain point, characteristics of particles make it significantly more favorable for the strong interaction to form particle-antiparticle pairs than to increase in distance further; but this isn't the same kind of range limitation as (say) the weak interaction.

I realize all this might be overly pedantic of me, but I think in general the third paragraph could be cleaned up a little. I'll likely attempt this myself if I don't hear feedback soon.TricksterWolf (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

In a way, it is being pedantic. We all know that among all the nonzero forces that can be exerted between a given pair of fundamental particles (while isolated together in vacuum at a particular moment), gravity will be the weakest. And we also know that on the larger scales, gravity is the only one that doesn't get cancelled out in practice by other things. These two observations are widely made (and given prominence) in the literature, so they should be mentioned in our treatment of fundamental forces. But by all means go ahead and finesse the wording. (That said, wouldn't you agree the strong force has limited range in the sense that, if you tried to pull a pair of gluonsquarks apart, beyond a certain distance your work will just end up sucking additional particle-pairs into reality, which conspires to let the force slip away?) Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely, Cesiumfrog. I will try to finesse the wording later, but you're right that the observation of gravity being weak between pairs of particles (even the heavy and energetic ones outside of ultra-relativistic frames) is essential to the article. TricksterWolf (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the wording "in the same inertial frame" to convey the idea of "stationary (with respect to each other)" though. Cheers! Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Move to Gravity

I don't have time to go into the whole spiel and actually appreciate Britannica-style formalism, but I'll just take a second to note:

• Misplaced Pages's policy is not Britannica-style formalism, but to use WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAMEs.
• The common name is gravity. Has been for the entire history of the concept, by orders of magnitude. Remains so.
• The initial rationale for moving most of the page's content to Gravitation was the muddle-headed idea that gravity and gravitation are separate concepts, "gravity" being a Newtonian archaism and "gravitation" being its proper Einsteinic replacement or "gravity" being a force and "gravitation" a tendency in matter.
• In fact, that is almost precisely backwards. Properly speaking, "gravity" is a quality of matter (its grave-ness: its tendency to sink rather than rise, as opposed to objects possessing 'levity' or 'buoyancy') and "gravitation" (an act of gravitating or tendency to gravitate: to grant gravity) is the force or property responsible for creating such a quality. Newton used both terms in their appropriate places, which is why he talks of objects' gravity but a theory of gravitation (Admittedly in Latin, but y'know).
• Improperly speaking, they are complete synonyms and already understood as such on this page. Einstein more often wrote 'gravitation' but he was writing in German and using the word correctly to talk about the tendency/force rather than the attribute of particular objects. In English, it's perfectly acceptable that they refer to the same natural phenomenon: 'gravitation' is definition 5 for "gravity, n." at the OED. Our current article leads with the two terms as synonyms and (despite the namespace and its rationale) uses 'gravity' 108 times to 'gravitation'’s 33.
• Of those two synonyms, 'gravity' is the more common by a wide, wide gulf. All the more so in the professional literature, where Google Scholar returns 2,600,000+ hits for 'gravity' and under 450k for 'gravitation'.

Add my vote to the gravity column when this comes up again, as it has (with 3:1 support) already. — LlywelynII 00:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree, as per above. Bhny (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

References

But seriously... stop using reference tags on talk pages... — LlywelynII

They are usable on talk pages, provided you set the group parameter to the same unique ID in both the reference tag and the reflist template.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2014

This edit request to Gravitation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Universe is a gravitotinal pull 92.28.91.195 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gravitation / Relativity / Cosmology

Hello everybody,

If times are different between altitudes, shouldn't we see different skies of stars ?

Thank you for your answers.

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Top-importance
• B-Class relativity articles
• Relativity articles
• B-Class Astronomy articles
• High-importance Astronomy articles
• B-Class Astronomy articles of High-importance