Gravity - is it really there?

[Neogaia777]

Is it in the opposite? Or does it pull or attract just like everything else?

Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?

Acoustic Levitation … How The Pyramids Were Built

 

[Kylie]

Is it in the opposite? Or does it pull or attract just like everything else?

No, it has an attractive effect, just like regular matter.

What is Dark Matter?

Dark matter is the mysterious stuff that fills the universe but no one has ever seen.

www.space.com

 

[Neogaia777]

No, it has an attractive effect, just like regular matter.

What is Dark Matter?

Dark matter is the mysterious stuff that fills the universe but no one has ever seen.

www.space.com

Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?

A hypothetical 'quintessence' can provide a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) force. I don't think there are a lot of people boosting the idea.

 

[Neogaia777]

A hypothetical 'quintessence' can provide a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) force. I don't think there are a lot of people boosting the idea.

I am talking about an energy, or a particle, or a force, that is a constant, and is in direct (opposite) proportion to gravity's laws or rules of attraction though, etc...?

But perhaps that is the closest thing/term/definition I have seen yet....

Thanks for the info...

God Bless!

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

A small clean up was done. Please stay on topic and resist being snarky.

​

 

[Mark Quayle]

The singularity is where GR breaks down and no longer works. We don't know what the laws are that govern that situation, so GR has nothing to say about the actual singularity or what may or may not have come before. Our understanding of cosmology only begins a short time after the BB.

By the descriptions I have heard/read about the BB, while GR can't say much about the singularity, it does say that space-time expanded with whatever occupied it. I was under the impression that space-time was at least governed by what occupied it, and not the other way around. But maybe it was the whole mess expanding together —I don't know. It was said that time began at the BB, and, I believe, I heard that indeed reality/space also did.

 

[Mark Quayle]

A hypothetical 'quintessence' can provide a repulsive (as opposed to attractive) force. I don't think there are a lot of people boosting the idea.

Looked it up on Wiki. Interesting idea!

 

[Mark Quayle]

There are two things incorrect here.

First of all, no one is saying that there was nothing before the Big Bang. The simple fact is we don't know. It's quite possible that our universe existed before that (in whatever sense the word "before" can be said to apply here), but the Big Bang was some kind of rest switch. This of it like a bronze statue. You can examine it and get an incredibly detailed history of it by looking at the wear patterns, analyzing any gas trapped in microscopic bubbles in the metal, etc., but you can only go back to the moment the metal was poured. That metal might have been sitting around as ingots for a hundred years before that point, but you can never learn anything about that, because the act of melting the bronze and pouring it destroyed any evidence of that time.

Secondly, general relativity doesn't apply to cases where the distortion is as great as it was during the Big Bang. So it's incorrect to say that GR makes any predictions about what was before the BB.

Perhaps I misspoke. According to what I have read/heard/understood: Time and space, matter and energy (in whatever form), ergo 'reality', began their expansion at the BB.

According to my ignorant intuitive mind, there has been unmarked, uninhabited space —unlimited 3 dimensional distance— within which the BB came to be. I've had that poo-pooed and explained out of reason enough to drop it, and deal with what they DO say, that it all began there (then?) I don't mean to say that they say there was nothing 'before' the BB.

 

[Kylie]

Is there a theoretical particle, or force, that fits my description?

The Wiki article has a good primer on it. Dark matter - Wikipedia

 

[essentialsaltes]

I was under the impression that space-time was at least governed by what occupied it, and not the other way around.

Both really. The stuff warps the space, and the shape of the space tells the stuff where to go. [And now that the stuff has moved, the shape of the space gets warped to match the new configuration.]

 

[Astrid]

I think as astronauts experience zero gravity it is quite obvious the further we get from the devil, the less we feel him pulling us to the darkness

If it weren't for that naughty Devil
my turtle could fly.

 

[Astrid]

You are right. The Bible is not a scientific compilation. It is a historical one.
Pointing out that "these historical figures walked" speaks to the seeming function of gravity in prelapsarian times.

Reexamining the context of the OP, I will just leave it at that.

If it's historical why does it have the flood story.

 

[Sabertooth]

If it's historical why does it have the flood story.

Even Jesus affirmed the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39.

 

[Astrid]

Even Jesus affirmed the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39.

Who knows what he really said, or exactly what
was meant if the ambiguous quote is accurate.

In all events, there was no world wide flood
as described.

 

[Sabertooth]

Who knows what he really said, or exactly what
was meant if the ambiguous quote is accurate.

He was pretty clear & unambiguous. Read the linked verse and see for yourself.

 

[Astrid]

He was pretty clear & unambiguous. Read the linked verse and see for yourself.

I've read it.
Everyone has his own way to read the Bible.
Hence 40,000 sects.

You are reading it to have Jesus lie.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Even Jesus affirmed the Flood in Matthew 24:37-39.

He didn't affirm; he referenced.

Referencing Gandalf to make some point does not entail the assertion that he existed.

 

[Astrid]

And Moses spoke of Jesus. Those who do not believe Moses, do not believe Jesus either.

Get it through your head that " believe jesus"
does NOT mean " believe what 112 thinks he meant".