General relativity

[shinbits]

Yes, it does . Otherwise, the theory is inaccurate (or incomplete), which means it's technically false, which means the deity wasn't behind it. A complete description of reality would necessarily include the deity who instigated it .

You misunderstand. People make theories. Just because someone chooses to leave God out of theory doesn't mean that God wasn't behind what the theory discusses.

 

[Gracchus]

Assuming an object is not moving, and gravity isn't a force, what makes it fall?

Not moving? Relative to what?

According to the Big Bang theory, the space containing the universe expanded into an empty space which was already there, I'm assuming.

You are assuming wrong. It is space itself that is expanding in the time dimension. Can't picture it?

But I'm thinking matter probably expanded into the fourth dimension - time - creating space-time.

That is my conjecture.

Of course, as it expands, it is also contracting by falling back into the singularity, the black hole which is manifest in our view as many black holes.

Imagine a golf ball with very deep dimples. The diameter of the golf ball is time. The dimples touch the core of the ball, so each is a boundary of the singularity. As you approach the boundary of the singularity, you are accelerated by its gravity, so time slows down and space contracts in the direction of the acceleration. And you give up potential energy.

It's not really that simple of course. Consider that as we look outward in every direction we see a smaller universe because we are looking backward in time. So the larger, later universe is contained in the smaller older universe. So, to picture the situation, just turn your golf-ball inside out.

Anyways, the equations which describe gravity must have existed before the Big Bang. A Bang wouldn't create an equation. Equations are not material things. They belong to the mind. Perhaps this proves the mind of God existed before gravity.

The mind devised the equations to fit the reality. God is an unecessary assumption, unless the process itself is God.

For instance, perhaps just as every black hole is the boundary of one singularity, so is the individual mind the boundary of one mind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Assuming an object is not moving, and gravity isn't a force, what makes it fall?

In principle, any of the other three forces: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force.

According to the Big Bang theory, the space containing the universe expanded into an empty space which was already there, I'm assuming.

No. The space that was the universe expanded, and continues to expand. It didn't expand into anything, because there wasn't/isn't anything to expand into.

But I'm thinking matter probably expanded into the fourth dimension - time - creating space-time. Anyways, the equations which describe gravity must have existed before the Big Bang. A Bang wouldn't create an equation. Equations are not material things. They belong to the mind. Perhaps this proves the mind of God existed before gravity.

It proves that you misunderstand the nature of an equation. Things behave in particular ways, and we can describe these behaviours with mathematical models. That doesn't mean the models themselves actually exist, but that we can use mathematics to predict how things behave. I mean, the simple fact that we can use multiple different techniques and mathematical expressions to describe the same thing should make this obvious enough. The universe has no idea what a differential is. Heat doesn't flow don't a potential gradient because it's obeying some mystical equation in the sky. It does so because of the fundamental forces involved, which we can generalise and describe as a mathematical potential.

 

[MarkT]

In principle, any of the other three forces: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, or the weak nuclear force.

So gravity isn't the force of attraction?

No. The space that was the universe expanded, and continues to expand. It didn't expand into anything, because there wasn't/isn't anything to expand into.

There has to be something to expand into. If space is confined by three dimensions, then there has to be a fourth for it to expand into. Without the 4th dimension - time- , you wouldn't have a Big Bang. And I'm guessing, by regulating the 4th dimension/time, you can regulate the Big Bang.

My hypothesis: the universe is expanding within the confines of time. No time, no Big Bang, no universe. The universe appears to be expanding because time is passing. It came into existence in the beginning. When the end comes, when God declared it, then the universe will collapse.

It proves that you misunderstand the nature of an equation. Things behave in particular ways, and we can describe these behaviours with mathematical models. That doesn't mean the models themselves actually exist, but that we can use mathematics to predict how things behave.

I agree. I always thought gravity was the force of attraction. But some people say it's an equation; curved space. Some say it's not a force. I'd say Einstein's equations might predict the position of a moving object in the vicinity of a massive object. But the math is a representation. It doesn't mean space is actually curved.

If gravity is an equation and not a force, then there is no force acting on objects that are not already moving and nothing to make an object that isn't moving fall.

Relative motion is irrelevant in this case since we're not interested in the path of a falling object. We're asking why it falls when no force is acting on it?

I mean, the simple fact that we can use multiple different techniques and mathematical expressions to describe the same thing should make this obvious enough. The universe has no idea what a differential is. Heat doesn't flow don't a potential gradient because it's obeying some mystical equation in the sky. It does so because of the fundamental forces involved, which we can generalise and describe as a mathematical potential.

That's right. But the universe doesn't have to know anything. It follows the rules because it has no choice. I'm saying the equations/rules had to pre exist the universe in the mind of God who set all things in motion. Everything exists within the confines of time; actually within the confines of God's will because it was He who declared all times and all seasons, the beginning and the end.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So gravity isn't the force of attraction?

No. It's a force of attraction, just like the other forces.

There has to be something to expand into.

Nope. We're talking about space. There's nothing 'outside' because that's all there is. It's not like blowing up a balloon; there's no space outside for the universe to blow up into. Rather, space just got bigger. It's like clipping out of a computer game; you don't go out the virtual universe, you just end up outside the program. It's not that there's nothing outside; it's that there isn't an outside to go into.

If space is confined by three dimensions, then there has to be a fourth for it to expand into. Without the 4th dimension - time- , you wouldn't have a Big Bang. And I'm guessing, by regulating the 4th dimension/time, you can regulate the Big Bang.

More or less, but spacetime didn't expand into the fourth dimension (it moves along the fourth dimension, but that's it).

Consider a balloon: if you're on the surface, and the balloon's being blown up, into what is the extra space expanding into? The surface is closed, there's no 'outside' in this 2D plane, but it's expanding nonetheless.

I agree. I always thought gravity was the force of attraction. But some people say it's an equation; curved space. Some say it's not a force. I'd say Einstein's equations might predict the position of a moving object in the vicinity of a massive object. But the math is a representation. It doesn't mean space is actually curved.

Actually, it does. If Einstein's model of spacetime is correct, then space is curved by mass. The equations just represent the motion of bodies in such a system.

It's like saying that lightspeed isn't the speed of light, just because it's used in mathematical equations.

If gravity is an equation and not a force, then there is no force acting on objects that are not already moving and nothing to make an object that isn't moving fall.

Yes, but gravity is a force, so your point is moot.

Relative motion is irrelevant in this case since we're not interested in the path of a falling object. We're asking why it falls when no force is acting on it?

If it accelerates from rest, then a force is being applied to it. That's the long and the short of it, really.

That's right. But the universe doesn't have to know anything. It follows the rules because it has no choice. I'm saying the equations/rules had to pre exist the universe in the mind of God who set all things in motion. Everything exists within the confines of time; actually within the confines of God's will because it was He who declared all times and all seasons, the beginning and the end.

I disagree. The equations didn't exist before the universe because they're simply human techniques to describe how things move. Like I said, a particle accelerates because a force is being applied to it, not because an equation exists in the Mind of God, or some such.

Equations are descriptive, not prescriptive.