- #1
kizl
- 2
- 0
Hi all,
First up, I should make the point that I am not a physicist. I studied physics at school, but can't say I was ever any good. As such, this question may have a very obvious answer that I have missed. That said, it has been puzzling me for a while so I thought I would ask a forum of people that I hope have a better understanding of these things than I do.
I understand the basics of Newton's law of gravity. I understand that the general consensus (from a non-scientificly worded perspective) is that objects with mass will attract one another.
My question is, what evidence do we have to say that the inverse is not the truth? I.e. rather than objects that have mass being things that attract other objects, why do we not believe that it is 'space' that repels objects, with what ever it is in 'space' (call it x) that is causing gravity becoming less and less strong at a rate directly proportional to the amount of mass involved? Maybe 'x' is some sort of repelling 'field' in space that reduces in strength as mass increases?
To put it another way, space has less mass and so more 'x'. Earth has more mass and so less 'x'. So it isn't the higher level of mass in the Earth that is pulling you towards it, but rather the higher level of 'x' in space that is pushing you towards the Earth.
I know that this flies in the face of conventional thinking. I know I don't have a neat formula to present to people. I am not trying to cause a debate, and I hope that I won't be told that I am wasting peoples time. I am just interested to know whether there is a specific reason that we chose that gravity was a force that attracts rather than repels. Maybe the scientific community simply flipped a coin, but I hope that there is more to it than that, and I'm hoping someone might be able to tell me what it is.
Thank you in advance for any light you are able to shed on my problem.
Regards,
Andy
First up, I should make the point that I am not a physicist. I studied physics at school, but can't say I was ever any good. As such, this question may have a very obvious answer that I have missed. That said, it has been puzzling me for a while so I thought I would ask a forum of people that I hope have a better understanding of these things than I do.
I understand the basics of Newton's law of gravity. I understand that the general consensus (from a non-scientificly worded perspective) is that objects with mass will attract one another.
My question is, what evidence do we have to say that the inverse is not the truth? I.e. rather than objects that have mass being things that attract other objects, why do we not believe that it is 'space' that repels objects, with what ever it is in 'space' (call it x) that is causing gravity becoming less and less strong at a rate directly proportional to the amount of mass involved? Maybe 'x' is some sort of repelling 'field' in space that reduces in strength as mass increases?
To put it another way, space has less mass and so more 'x'. Earth has more mass and so less 'x'. So it isn't the higher level of mass in the Earth that is pulling you towards it, but rather the higher level of 'x' in space that is pushing you towards the Earth.
I know that this flies in the face of conventional thinking. I know I don't have a neat formula to present to people. I am not trying to cause a debate, and I hope that I won't be told that I am wasting peoples time. I am just interested to know whether there is a specific reason that we chose that gravity was a force that attracts rather than repels. Maybe the scientific community simply flipped a coin, but I hope that there is more to it than that, and I'm hoping someone might be able to tell me what it is.
Thank you in advance for any light you are able to shed on my problem.
Regards,
Andy