How do we make something simple even simpler? We eliminate specifications.
Gravity requires particles with mass, so let’s do away with that.
Gravity sucks, so let’s do away with that.
Gravity has one particular measure of force, let’s lose that.
None of these are really true. Photons, which are massless, are affected by gravity as evidenced by gravitational lenses. Even in a universe with only photons, general relativity says that there will be non-trivial gravitational effects.
Gravity is simply the curvature of space-time. It’s more like how two objects moving due north (from the northern hemisphere) get closer together, than like suction (where the force arises from the absence of a force pushing out in a situation that is normally in equilibrium).
Gravity isn’t a force, in exactly the same way that the centrifugal force isn’t a force. With the centrifugal force, you feel like there’s a force pulling you outward, but this is an artifact of your intuition’s insistence on using a rotating frame of reference. With gravity as we typically experience it, space itself is “shrinking” (i.e. curved in time), and the actual force is from the earth’s surface accelerating upward at a constant rate, which itself is due to its rigidity (ultimately arising from the Pauli exclusion principle). We experience it as a force downward due to our intuition’s insistence on using a frame of reference stationary relative to the surface of the earth.
General Relativity is profoundly simple and beautiful in a way that I think is well worth taking the time to understand if you’re interested in this stuff. It was discovered due to Einstein’s persistent belief that the laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames, and in particular that the mass of inertia and the mass of gravity being equal could not be a coincidence, and are actually the exact same kind of thing.
I appreciate your comment, and will take some time to process it and read the links. This is definitely not an area I have any expertise in and I’m not meaning to propose that this is how gravity actually works in reality—it’s more an illustration that something gravity-like, and elements that are like atoms or systems etc can arise out of very simple and random rules without the need for fine-tuning, and that constants (or regularities) can be arrived at by means of natural equilibria rather than being lucked upon, or designed.
But I probably haven’t made this clear. It was something I actually wrote I while ago and have only recently published here, so it may require a re-write, clarifying my intention and incorporating the points you’ve raised. You’re the first to provide a rigorous rebuttal for it so far, so I appreciate you lending your expertise in this respect.
None of these are really true. Photons, which are massless, are affected by gravity as evidenced by gravitational lenses. Even in a universe with only photons, general relativity says that there will be non-trivial gravitational effects.
Gravity is simply the curvature of space-time. It’s more like how two objects moving due north (from the northern hemisphere) get closer together, than like suction (where the force arises from the absence of a force pushing out in a situation that is normally in equilibrium).
Gravity isn’t a force, in exactly the same way that the centrifugal force isn’t a force. With the centrifugal force, you feel like there’s a force pulling you outward, but this is an artifact of your intuition’s insistence on using a rotating frame of reference. With gravity as we typically experience it, space itself is “shrinking” (i.e. curved in time), and the actual force is from the earth’s surface accelerating upward at a constant rate, which itself is due to its rigidity (ultimately arising from the Pauli exclusion principle). We experience it as a force downward due to our intuition’s insistence on using a frame of reference stationary relative to the surface of the earth.
General Relativity is profoundly simple and beautiful in a way that I think is well worth taking the time to understand if you’re interested in this stuff. It was discovered due to Einstein’s persistent belief that the laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames, and in particular that the mass of inertia and the mass of gravity being equal could not be a coincidence, and are actually the exact same kind of thing.
Thanks Adele,
I appreciate your comment, and will take some time to process it and read the links. This is definitely not an area I have any expertise in and I’m not meaning to propose that this is how gravity actually works in reality—it’s more an illustration that something gravity-like, and elements that are like atoms or systems etc can arise out of very simple and random rules without the need for fine-tuning, and that constants (or regularities) can be arrived at by means of natural equilibria rather than being lucked upon, or designed.
But I probably haven’t made this clear. It was something I actually wrote I while ago and have only recently published here, so it may require a re-write, clarifying my intention and incorporating the points you’ve raised. You’re the first to provide a rigorous rebuttal for it so far, so I appreciate you lending your expertise in this respect.