why does gravity work the way it does? I mean, we know how it works, but... why?
>>8177899
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
>>8177900
>physics isn't science
/sci/ in a nutshell.
>>8177902
metaphysics isn't physics
>>8177906
this question doesn't meet any requirements for being metaphysical. The definition of metaphysics is as follows:
"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space."
Nothing about this question is philosophical and you know it.
>>8177902
why am I not surprised that you're too retarded to tell the difference between physics (an actual science) and metaphysics (what your shitpost is about)?
just go away and stay gone until you're not an idiot anymore
>>8177911
But that's exactly what your question was about...
>>8177915
>I don't know how to answer the question so I'll just accuse you of shitposting
nice deflection bro.
>>8177920
are you literally 5? because that's what this post suggests.
adults are able to accept that they've done something stupid and can then try to fix their retardness. I suggest you give it a try.
In the meantime, never post again on this board.
Are we have any evidence that gravity is not a magnetic force?
>>8177951
Yes. We have better models of electromagnetism than of gravity, they fit predictions to an extreme degree without explaining gravity.
Gravity works the way it works because God wills it. Jesus Christ is Lord. Confess and Repent with your mouth and you will be saved.
>>8177962
>Confess and Repent with your mouth
Is this your way of saying allow your nearest priest to molest you?
We don't know why. A more useful question is how.
Newton : Matter attracts other matter, instantly.
Einsten : Matter doesn't attract other matter directly. Instead if matter exists in a point of space, it has affects on the geometry around it.
Neither of these make a good attempt of explaining WHY mass attracts other mass, or WHY mass affects the geometry of space-time. Dark matter and dark energy are such a fuck up that General Relativity is probably wrong, because when you try explain the universe as a field, you get errors when you try to examine things at a quantum mechanical level.
>>8177899
I think a better way to phrase this would be 'what is the causal agent responsible for gravity'. Literally a metaphysical question until someone can identify it
>>8177899
I'll answer your question if you rephrase it.
Firstly, tell me what you know about gravity anon...
why does anything even?
someone pls halp
>>8177962
I'd argue that's not that case. In fact there's even evidence in the bible that the world doesn't work he way God wants. In fact once Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit during the season it wasn't meant to. I suggest reevaluting your post
>>8177988
as for dark matter we probably know what it is now, all that stuff about ancient black holes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTVIMOix3I
There doesn't need to be a why in gravity
The apple didn't fall until Pluto sat beneath it
but what caused the stem to break?
string theory actually does a nice job on gravity and how it functions and why but
>>8179816
but string theory has made no testable hypothesis that have been confirmed.
>>8179672
So if gravity is a warp in space and time, does that mean that all forces are?
>why
summerfags pls go back to class or read some books or something fgs
short and long answer: nobody knows
gravitational field emissions. now prove it.
>>8177899
You know what Neil says. People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
take a row of light that's REALLY thick, or really fast or something, will it move dat torsion balance like miley cyrus?
>>8179639
according to reason a black hole is simply a conglomerate of particles with a gravitational attraction so strong that light cannot escape. think gravity isn't effective on light? shine a light through an open door.
u cannot know nuffin
See: The Incompleteness Theorem
>>8181764
what happens when u c it?
>>8181764
>See: The Incompleteness Theorem
That says that you cannot know everything.
Philosophers belong in /thrash/
>>8177899
There is NO gravity. Don't you watch the news?
The world sucks.
>>8181769
Knowing everything is omniscience. That implies there is a limit, a 100% of things to know. We can empirically test the nature of things. Such as gravity, the existence of certain cells or particles, ect. If not call me a fagggot. Pleb undergad psyc student who gets hard for philosophy.
>>8181767
u find the answer to P=NP????
>>8177899
because all matter is a foreign material in the universe which is actually only empty space
The universe is trying to push the foreign material out of existence
>>8179816
Loop quantum gravity blows you the fuck out
>>8177899
What do you mean, "why"?
You know that gravity is a fundamental force, right?
>we know how it works
we don't
>>8182573
speak for yourself
Things go towards something bigger
Like my dick was attracted towards your mum's fat arse and tits
>>8181905
P is a multiplication neutral :^)
Well
I tend to agree with the others saying your question belongs to metaphysics/ philosophy, since science is all about answering (or at least trying to answer) the question "how?" and metaphysics answering (or trying to answer) the question "why?"
But there's still a possibility you wanted to ask for something else, and I don't think I am competent enough to explain you this, but if you check about "gravitational waves" you may find what you were looking for.
But we still don't know exactly how it works, we just keep discovering more and more, and trying to adjust our theories to the results we got, physic is "empiric" .
The the electromagnetic force being defined in QFT as an exchange of virtual photons, gravity is an exchange of virtual particles with negative mass.
As something with negative mass impacts, it imparts kinetic energy in a vector force in the opposite direction of its travel.
Bam.
>>8182858
oh i'm sorry, i didn't know you found proof of gravitons or have another gravitational quantum theory which is substantiated.
we don't know how it works. if you found that out, you would be in nobel-prize territory, and you're not. go home, brainlet.
>>8177899
Check this out.
Pretend you are a beam of light. You only know straight lines. If you wanted to travel in a perfectly straight line it would be impossible. Even the slightest angle would cause you to form a full circle at some point. Space is shaped so that straight lines don't actually exist. Space is curved. This curvature causes the effect of gravity.
>>8183943
Not op. I know this is the answer, but I don't understand entirely. When I think of space being curved I imagine squishing and stretching a sponge and how gravitational lensing works. But I can't understand how gravity causes acceleration. Why do things accelerate under gravity, rather than just travel in arcs like on a bent track?
>>8183968
Space is curved in such a way that if you traveled in a perfectly straight line for an infinite amount of time, you would end up back where you started. Space is curved in such a way that no matter where you are in the universe, you will always end up back where you started, because you can't physically travel in a straight line, and you will always make a full circle and come back. Both of those have to be true, kinda trippy if you ask me because they seem like they would contradict, but that's the beauty of higher dimensions.
>>8183968
They do travel in arcs, exactly like a bent track.
However, one of the dimensions it's bent along is *time*.
If you draw a path along a graph where one axis is space and the other is time, then the slope of that path is obviously the velocity.
If that path is curved, then the slope will change as you move along the time axis, which means the velocity varies over time. In other words, it's accelerating.
Because we experience time at a very different scale than space - a 45 degree angle along this space-time graph is equal to lightspeed, so you only need very tiny changes in angle to produce very large changes in velocity - space-time doesn't need to be bent much at all to produce noticeable acceleration.
>>8184062
Has anyone rederived general relativity in just the 1+1 dimensional case? I think that'd actually be possible for a layman (like me) to understand pretty easily, since you can draw it out as simple diagrams and the curvature of a 2-dimensional manifold can be described with just a simple scalar field, easily shown by embedding in 3-space. I know special relativity is fairly easy to demonstrate in the 1+1 case.
>>8177899
Asking "why" is incredibly complicated.
Why is ice slippery?
We don't actually know what gravity is, we just (mostly) know what it does. It's probably extra-dimensional in nature judging by the way it curves spacetime
>>8177988
>Einsten : Matter doesn't attract other matter directly. Instead if matter exists in a point of space, it has affects on the geometry around it.
So is it really the objects moving, or spacetime itself?
>>8177911
you beautifully formalized OPs question lmfao
>>8181918
Except string theory doesn't contradict any known experiment, and LQG contradicts everything.
It can't even produce smooth spacetimes, or particles, and predicts massive entropy density.
>>8179575
Hmm. So does that imply God is more of a sit back and watch kind of guy, rather than dropping divine interventions left and right unless necessary?
>>8183121
lol moron
You cannot answer "why" questions. No, not even with God. You hit a logical boundary eventually.
Why is this question any more meaningful than asking why electricity works?
>>8184655
It's not any more meaningful, but it's just as impossible to answer.
Because it does
Don't question the universe
>>8177936
Wow so defensive... The question of why gravity works the way it does need not be a metaphysical question, or rather it need not have a metaphysical answer. Given what we know about relativity we could speculate on such matters, but it would require a greater knowledge and understanding than most on this board possesses and even then a genius mind to make sense of it all. In future just respond;
>I don't know
Now get the fuck off my board.
