0

My question is about the current accepted theory of Gravity. First of all, let me start by saying that I am not a physicist, and that my mathematical understanding of Special/General Relativity (SR and GR) is extremely limited at best (so please try not to make fun of my thoughts/views). I do agree that the presence of Mass (matter) in the universe does warp (curve) space, but I have a very hard time accepting that it also does the same to “Time”.

Let me try to explain to the best of my abilities: I see time as just a necessary tool, a reference scale, like the ticking of a clock or the swinging of a pendulum, etc. There really is no “time” per se, there is only movement and space, so when time appears to be affected, it is really just a change (warp, curve) in distances of the space of the measuring/reference tool. I do feel the passing of time (due to memories, sunrise, sunsets, getting old, etc.) but it is really an illusion. Because of this view, I can see how the path of an object that already has movement (momentum and energy) through space can be curved from its straight trajectory by the influence of a large mass encountered in the vicinity of the travel (ex: small asteroid passing by close to earth).

However, if there is no motion whatsoever (let us pretend that both objects appear instantaneously and are absolutely motionless with respect to each other in space), I just can’t see how they would start moving towards each other (ex: the asteroid begins moving towards earth). From what I have read, SR/GR state that the static objects are always moving in time when stationary, and that is what causes the objects to begin to move, and to “accelerate” towards each other (the asteroid obviously accelerating towards the earth due to its much smaller size). And then, once the asteroid lands on earth’s soil, and remains there on top of the surface, motionless, that it is “time” again (time passing by) what keeps it under the earth’s gravity force, per say.

So, since I do not think that time exists as described in the beginning of my question, it makes it very hard for me to even begin to understand this. It feels that there has to be something else at play, involving only space and its characteristics, plus motion. Sometimes I would like to think that it is the constant expansion of space which would cause the initial movement of the objects, and the subsequent acceleration. Has anyone ever tried to find some kind of relationship between the rate of expansion of the Universe and the acceleration of gravity on earth?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
C. Muzzarelli
  • 11
  • 4
    Please add line breaks in the future - it's very hard to read a wall of text. – auden Feb 09 '17 at 01:12
  • Is this your question?: "Has anyone ever tried to find some kind of relationship between the rate of expansion of the Universe and the acceleration of gravity on earth?" – Jake Watrous Feb 09 '17 at 01:30
  • Physics takes an objective, pragmatic view of time, it is that which is measured by a clock. It must do, otherwise any other definition leads us into philosophy, which I think your question is based around. As far as I am aware, nobody has established any correlation between the force of gravity on Earth and the expansion of the universe. –  Feb 09 '17 at 01:30
  • There is a correlation, just not causation. The force of gravity is proportional to the distance between objects and the mass of the object(s). This concept is tied in to the rate of expansion and Earth's gravitation. – Jake Watrous Feb 09 '17 at 02:04
  • Maybe your idea of what time is differs from the use in moden physics. As said by Countto10, time is by modern definition "what is measured by clocks". Clocks exist and measure something. A theory that uses the concept of time makes predictions about what an observer will see when his clock shows a certain time based on what he sees at different times, as well as what other observers should see at certain times of their clocks based on their movement relative to the first observer and on what she sees at a certain time. How do you visualize movement or speed without a concept of time? – Adomas Baliuka Feb 09 '17 at 04:38
  • let us pretend that both objects appear instantaneously and are absolutely motionless with respect to each other in space is equivalent to "let's pretend the laws of physics can be broken". Also, this example is more Newtonian than GR/SR. – Kyle Kanos Feb 09 '17 at 11:51

2 Answers2

0

Well for me, the fabric of spacetime and the normal objects live in a "different world"

Like they don't seem to affect each other that much. But space and time affect each other, it's obvious if you go close to a black hole. The gravity sucks in and sometimes created a swirl space around it, the huge gravitational force caused the time to dilate.

The creation and the expansion of the universe have to do with dark energy and inflation field, both having repulsive forces.

The acceleration on earth (9.8), this number has something to do with mass, which really doesn't have much to do with the expansion of the universe though.

The reason unmoving things started to move towards each other is because of the force of gravity

At the first stage of the Big Bang, the matter was not meant to be equally separated. In some region, there were denser matters gathering, and those regions would create a relatively stronger gravitational forces, pulling more matter towards them.

Nicole. C
  • 74
-1

The first thing that happened after the big bang was the universe inflated. I think this means that space itself was created. I think, but I am not sure, that space was filled with the Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson is a particle with very strange characteristics, ie, the field created by the Higgs Boson is indistinguishable from empty space.

I think you are right, time is not real, it is a by product of the fact that there is a limit on how fast we can go and how far apart things are. Time is basically a way to count.

hooch
  • 27