Why is gravity so weak? My theory.

Every force in the universe is said to be much greater than the force of gravity,why? Most scientists are starting to accept the theory that the gravity comes from a different dimension. But that just seems so unlikely,so im guessing thats their way of saying i dont know.

So what im getting at is why not look right in front of our eyes and see for our selves that gravity is so weak simply because the universe is part of a much bigger mass. It is so unimaginably huge that most people would say impossible. No matter what all objects in this reality should behave in the same way right? And if so could our universe be just a piece of dust floating in a much bigger space?

Originally posted by SonoraUndergroundLabs
Every force in the universe is said to be much greater than the force of gravity,why? Most scientists are starting to accept the theory that the gravity comes from a different dimension. But that just seems so unlikely,so im guessing thats their way of saying i dont know.

So what im getting at is why not look right in front of our eyes and see for our selves that gravity is so weak simply because the universe is part of a much bigger mass. It is so unimaginably huge that most people would say impossible. No matter what all objects in this reality should behave in the same way right? And if so could our universe be just a piece of dust floating in a much bigger space?

I think gravity relies on mass, it seems weak to us but as soon as you start to move into space you have the mass of the planet pulling down on you. Sure you can jump in the air but look how much force is needed for rockets to get out of the Earth’s *atmosphere*! Its force seems to spread over vast distances rather than locally. I do believe there are dimensions on other frequencies but I don’t think those would explain gravity, assuming other dimensions follow the same laws as our own why would they have effects in our physical reality?

reply to post by OwenGP185

Beats me thats what the scientists said on tv.

reply to post by OwenGP185


But saying relative to magnetism think of a magnet the size of the earth. And you were on the earth every grain of magnetic material would be ripped out of your body. And if u had in iron girder im guessing it would be flattened to a piece of paper.

Originally posted by SonoraUndergroundLabs
Every force in the universe is said to be much greater than the force of gravity,why? Most scientists are starting to accept the theory that the gravity comes from a different dimension. But that just seems so unlikely,so im guessing thats their way of saying i dont know.

So what im getting at is why not look right in front of our eyes and see for our selves that gravity is so weak simply because the universe is part of a much bigger mass. It is so unimaginably huge that most people would say impossible. No matter what all objects in this reality should behave in the same way right? And if so could our universe be just a piece of dust floating in a much bigger space?

Why is gravity weak? You postpone some other "huge mass" and that should kind of delete our local gravity?

I don't get it, please elaborate for more details.

I'm not sure about this, but I picked up somewhere that Gravity is so much weaker than eg Electromagnetism because of a dimensional difference. Both can be considered as curvature or distortion of spacetime, but gravity is a gentle distortion of the spacetime in our familiar dimensions, while the Coulomb forces is a severe distortion in unfamiliar, smaller dimensions. These other dimensions are like 10^40 smaller than the ones we're used to, and the amount of distortion is the perceived "force" strength.

Nobody really knows why. One idea is inspired by string theory/ brane models scenarios. In string theory, gravity is mediated by closed strings whereas the other forces are mediated by open strings. And it turns out that open strings have their ends attached to submanifolds (the so-called branes) whereas closed strings may propagte freely in all dimensions. If our universe is one of those branes, this would explain why gravity appears weaker: the force is "spreading" out in all dimensions and appears to us weaker. The other forces mediators are confined within our brane and do not "leak" out in all the dimensions.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


Im saying in thought that we are extremely small. Meaning we COULD be part of just a piece of paper in someones closet, and the lights off lol.

reply to post by Samuelis


I am fully aware of the Brain theory, im looking much larger than that though. Could the brains be somehow like a molecule attaching to eachother each one with different properties creating something larger than that?

Did someone just watch Curiosity?

Gravity is only "weak" compared to the other three fundamental actions.

This weakness is easily demonstrable - on a dry day, rub a comb across your shirt to give it static electricity, then hold it over a piece of paper on a desk. If you were successful, the piece of paper lifts off the desk. It takes an entire planet to keep the paper on the desk, but this force is easily overcome with everyday materials employing the electromagnetic force.

Source

reply to post by SonoraUndergroundLabs


How does this relay to gravity?

The one thing I'd like to know is why gravity is apparently mono-polar and always attractive in nature. (It probably does have a relation to why it's weaker than the other forces.)

The other known forces (electrical charge and magnetism, or combined electro-magnetism) are bi-polar and have both attractive and repulsive attributes. This is why we can exploit them to the extent that we can.

One of the odd thoughts I could come up with is that gravity could also be bi-polar, but that one pole would always have to be acting in another dimension somehow - and the effect of the force would be from superimposition and free alignment of the field lines. (Imagine some kind of "magnet" that would always be able to line up so that N and S are never in repulsion.) Yet this idea seems goofy without any practical way to prove it.

If you think about it, gravity also seems to be a byproduct of energy density. (Given what is already known of mass and energy equivalency.) Inertia is a simiar if not the same effect, but with kinetic energy. Could also be something odd like the displacement of zero-point energy and its virtual pair interactions. (Such things could pop into space and pop out, but not where some energy bias already exists. Thus a net effect would be that such interactions push clusters of dense energy towards each other. Inertia would likely relate to such interactions only being able to pop up behind an already moving object.) Then again this may be more of a quantum approach than anything relating to field principles.

I'd be curious if either theory could be researched to the point of producing useful results, and not just being seemingly pointless math exercises on paper. The whole idea of applied physics leading to yet another domain of engineering, yadda yadda... Imagine if one of those yielded a means to influence the bias of gravitation relating to a specific mass or inertial relating to a given center of gravity.

Well I was reading that, a strong enough electromagnet, could reduce the mass gravity eq. So it stands tor reason that, gravity is just as stron, but being repelled, or absorbed, or reduced in strength beacuse of the magnetic field.

It is almost impossible to say, because we don't have the means to explore the possibilities.

As for string theory, it is sstarting to look more and more like one of those math exerercises. No substantial proof ahs been brought to confirm stirng theory, other than mathmatical equations.

reply to post by pauljs75


Gravity only attracts because the universe is filled with regular matter. Introduce negative matter and, suddenly, you'd have repulsive gravity as well. However, there would still be a couple very significant differences. In the case of electromagnetism, like charges repel and opposite charges attract. In the case of gravity, like normal masses attract, like negative masses repel, and opposite masses chase each other around (as strange as that may sound - a negative mass will be attracted to a normal mass, while the normal mass will be repelled by the negative mass, resulting in the two accelerating off in a straight line).

Originally posted by Samuelis
I'm not sure about this, but I picked up somewhere that Gravity is so much weaker than eg Electromagnetism because of a dimensional difference. Both can be considered as curvature or distortion of spacetime, but gravity is a gentle distortion of the spacetime in our familiar dimensions, while the Coulomb forces is a severe distortion in unfamiliar, smaller dimensions. These other dimensions are like 10^40 smaller than the ones we're used to, and the amount of distortion is the perceived "force" strength.

Nobody really knows why. One idea is inspired by string theory/ brane models scenarios. In string theory, gravity is mediated by closed strings whereas the other forces are mediated by open strings. And it turns out that open strings have their ends attached to submanifolds (the so-called branes) whereas closed strings may propagte freely in all dimensions. If our universe is one of those branes, this would explain why gravity appears weaker: the force is "spreading" out in all dimensions and appears to us weaker. The other forces mediators are confined within our brane and do not "leak" out in all the dimensions.

I like how you ripped off (read: copy & pasted) not one, but two different posts on a thread over at physicsforums... you didnt even remove the spelling mistake. Poor form.