Why two mass attracts each other?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You got me.

I just feel since there are so many unsolved crimes in the world someone of your intellect shouldn't waste so much time on forums.
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I just feel since there are so many unsolved crimes in the world someone of your intellect shouldn't waste so much time on forums.
Click to expand...

I used most of my time developing a theory. I already developed one theory. This theory can solve some problems.
 
What does "pressure term" in the cosmological metric mean? and how can it be dominant?

You totally lost me with your example of universal inflation.

I understand the concept of an (near) infinitely small and dense singularity creating a near infinite gravitational pocket, which inevitable exceeded its capacity and exploded into the "inflationary epoch" The phenomenon of inflation has nothing to do with gravity itself. Gravity is the potential of a massive object to warp spacetime. It is a constant relative to mass, but it is not an energetic repulsive force
 
Write4U said:
What does "pressure term" in the cosmological metric mean? and how can it be dominant?

You totally lost me with your example of universal inflation.

I understand the concept of an (near) infinitely small and dense singularity creating a near infinite gravitational pocket, which inevitable exceeded its capacity and exploded into the "inflationary epoch" The phenomenon of inflation has nothing to do with gravity itself. Gravity is the potential of a massive object to warp spacetime. It is a constant relative to mass, but it is not an energetic repulsive force
Click to expand...

The 'pressure term' is the cosmological constant in the FLRW cosmological solution to the EFE [metric]. When that part of the metric is dominant Guth's soliton will inflate. Want to understand this physics then read the literature. WMAP is a good place to learn some cosmological physics.
 
brucep said:
The 'pressure term' is the cosmological constant in the FLRW cosmological solution to the EFE [metric]. When that part of the metric is dominant Guth's soliton will inflate. Want to understand this physics then read the literature. WMAP is a good place to learn some cosmological physics.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I shall.
 
I did a little checking of thos terms and nowhere did I see the assertion that gravity can be a repelling force. I got the impression that WMAP and EFE have to do with spacetime geometry.

Are talking about two objects where one objects is so massive that its gravity field swallows the gravity field of the smaller object, causing planets or other orbiting objects to fall away from the smaller object, toward the larger?

If I am missing some important issue, please indulge me and explain to me in very basic terms how gravity can become repelling.
 
Tye suggested that they check that the expansion of the universe not be affected by the supercooling. In the supercooled state, a false vacuum is produced. The false vacuum is a vacuum in the sense that it is state of the lowest possible density of energy; it is false in the sense that it is not a permanent state of being. False vacuums decay, and Guth was to find that the decay of the false vacuum at the beginning of the universe would produce amazing results, namely the exponential expansion of space
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth

Before the BB, I have no problem with a "false vacuum", collapsing into itself and creating a singularity, which in turn compressed near infinite energy to near infinitely small dimensions, which resulted in a massive mega quantum event. IMHO, in view that the inflationary epoch occurred at superluminal speed, speaks of an outward force of pure energy. Gravity was not yet in play as matter was formed during the inflationary epoch, at which time gravity (caused by mass) became a player, albeit a passive player.

Question, does raw energy have mass? If raw energy consists of massless particles, then gravity would not be present the instant before. When matter began to form, gravitational spacetime distortion was created and gravity made it's entrance on the cosmic stage.
 
Write4U said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth

Before the BB, I have no problem with a "false vacuum", collapsing into itself and creating a singularity, which in turn compressed near infinite energy to near infinitely small dimensions, which resulted in a massive mega quantum event. IMHO, in view that the inflationary epoch occurred at superluminal speed, speaks of an outward force of pure energy. Gravity was not yet in play as matter was formed during the inflationary epoch, at which time gravity (caused by mass) became a player, albeit a passive player.

Question, does raw energy have mass? If raw energy consists of massless particles, then gravity would not be present the instant before. When matter began to form, gravitational spacetime distortion was created and gravity made it's entrance on the cosmic stage.
Click to expand...

Clarification: I have no problem with a "false vacuum", collapsing into itself and creating a singularity, which in turn compressed near infinite potential energy (lowest possible energy state) to near infinitely small dimensions,
 
brucep said:
That's not true. Gravity can be repulsive when the 'pressure term' in the cosmological metric is dominant. Essentially that's how our universe began as an inflating soliton.
Click to expand...

Oh.. i didn't know that.. So gravity in short is not attractive but repulsive too when cosmological metric is dominant.

So i think this does answers handsa's question:Why Two Masses Attract Each Other?

Answer is not always.. it can be both repulsive and attractive..

Can you tell under what conditions will that pressure term in the cosmological constant becomes dominant as a result it becomes repulsive?
 
Why attraction? ((O}><{O))

Terms like "near infinitely small" or "near infinity" have no meaning ie. they are like saying holy war. We never have war and be holy, We can never be "near" infinity.

Humans do not and may never ever have an answer as to why mass attracts, rather we only know for sure, that if mass-attraction did not exist, then our finite Universe would not exist.

We have different kinds of attractive forces. Ex opposite charges( +- )--- aka dipolar ---attract each other.

Gravity is said to not have a charge or if it has a charge it is all + or all - or all some other kind of charge humans have yet to identify as a 'charge'.

+ and - always seem to exist in conjunction with each other i.e. we have the magnetic dipolar set and the electric dipolar set and these two appear to only exist in conjunction with each other as bosonic photon or collected set thereof.

All of this appears to go back to the basics of motion ergo energy/energetic i.e. a integrated set of somethings that move in reference to each other.

Space in of itself has to primary subcategories non-occupied and occupied.

The occupied space is most often referred to generally as physical/energy with the subcategory of fermions and bosons. Gravity is presumed to exist within the bosonic category.


Maybe it would be more basic/fundamental to ask, why does motion attract motion? Why are these frequencies of occupied space attracted to these frequencies of occupied space?

Any biological that have vision is attracted to the movement of a somethingness in their vision.

Gravity implies/infers that our finite Universe is integrated as coherent whole by this mysterious force( bosonic ). This says to me that, there are two things called mass( OO or ** or ?? etc... ) that have a gravitational force between them that eternally--- or at least the life of the somethings and integrated whole somethingness ---connect those two in and attractive manner.

The term spin is often used as explanation to help explain classical and quantum phenomena. Spin is just one of 6 fundamental motions. I personally like to think of gravity being likened to a rubber band that will never break i.e. no matter how far it is stretched it not only does not break, it has and intrinsic property that pulls in back into itself--- aka contractive force ---.

Ok, so we do not yet answer why gravity( mass-attraction ) exists.

And that leaves the dark energy cosmological type repeling force anti-gravity(?) to be figured out. Here too perhaps we have to use a rubber band analogy and say that, the further will stretch the rubber band apart then when the greater the repling force that is created when it contracts back onto itself.

Personally this kind of analogy is simple and with more proper set of rubber bands or something similar, configured properly, we could see this repeling phenomena modeled more clearly. I dunno as I'm just a common human with simpleton-like characteristics who also wants to understand the cosmos basics/fundamentals and more specifically doing so in such away the does not require an higher education in mathematics.

Or as Paul McCartney sang " whats wrong with that, I need to know, cause here I go, AGAIN!!!!!"..... :)

/r6
rr6 said:
If the two masses did not attract-- mass-attraction ---our finite Universe would not exist.
Mesons( medial/medium ) = OO OO = two quarks = 1440 degrees = surface area of two tetrahedrons.
4 equaltorial/bisecting/great circles compose and define the spherical/spheroidal Vector Equilirbium/cubo-octahedron aka the operating system of Universe.
The strong nuclear force( mesons 2 quarks ) between hadrons-- proton neutron etc ---is often times confused with the strong sub-nuclear force( gluons ) of the nucleus that holds 3 quarks together as a hadron( proton or neutron ).
Hadron( heavy ) = OO OO OO = 6-GrCPP's of the spherical/spheroidal cube are same as the 6 GrCPP's of tetrahedron.

r6
Click to expand...
 
One most important thing is that you just make an assumption that Time which is not dilated is the one called real time... You cannot make hypothesis...

How do you know that it even exists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top