For years now, I have been preoccupied with the issue of gravity. I wanted to conduct a study in a research university environment, but I don't think such an opportunity exists in Greece, and certainly, I don't have the financial means to pursue it abroad.
I purchased some books, but soon realized that I couldn't agree with them and that as humanity, we don't have a complete understanding of gravity.
Then I started thinking about it more intensively.
Gravity exists. It's a force that pulls us to the surface of the planet. It keeps the Earth orbiting around the sun. If we fall from a height of about 1.70 meters, it pulls us with such energy and angle that it can be fatal.
But ultimately, does gravity cause or is it caused by mass?
We have adopted Einstein's theory, which states that mass, the larger it is, the greater the distortion it creates in the space-time continuum around it. If space-time is a sheet, masses are like balls on the spread sheet, causing it to curve under their weight.
A nice view and example. However, this happens in the example because there is gravity under the sheet, so it attracts objects and makes them curve the sheet. In space, in a vacuum, would the same thing happen?
It seems to happen. We have seen it with instruments, measurements, telescopes, with our own eyes. But my problem is the cause of this observed result, not its existence. That is unquestionable.
So I think it's arbitrary to assume that cosmic dust can acquire gravitational forces. If that were the case, mountains would attract airplanes and they would fall onto them. And don't tell me that a mountain can't pull an airplane... If that were the case, then a mountain floating in space couldn't pull smaller rocks onto it to eventually form an entire planet!
I believe that the forces that acted in the creation of planets were electromagnetic in nature. They are much stronger. But still, ultimately, then planets should be giant metallic spheres. At least in our solar system, this is not observed; instead, we have giant gas spheres with enormous gravity.
Also, I believe it would take billions of years to form, either under the influence of electromagnetic forces in space, or even more so under the influence of gravity, which is weaker. On the other hand, gravity is weak but it has kept us in orbit around the sun, keeps the sun in orbit around the center of the galaxy, and keeps the moon pulling our oceans from our surface (see tides).
Anyway, I would really like some help in calculating how long it would take for planets to form, since the theory says that gas disks swirl until they form solid cores with such mass that they gravitationally attract more material to eventually become planets. And ok, these gaseous disks swirl around a star, because the star attracts all the matter; but how is a star formed, since there is nothing else to cause this rotation in space to become something so huge and massive, ultimately, like a star that will be responsible for creating a stellar system?
Many questions, many discussions in the middle, many discussions that never took place and that might have helped.
My own estimate is that it is not the mass that curves spacetime. It's spacetime itself that gets distorted at those points that will eventually become the center of a body, whether it's a planet or a star. So spacetime itself creates distortions and matter falls there. The first matter needed to create a core. Then, depending on the intensity of this distortion, more matter "falls" and eventually becomes a body. Which body may be responsible through its mass for extra gravitational force. But maybe not.
Why not, though? I think if every body could create gravity around it, then asteroids wouldn't be asteroids, they would have become something else, or we would see somewhere in their belt a central core that over billions of years would form a small planet. Yes, planetoids are observed, but they are such small bodies that they have minimal gravity.
Let me reduce it to a simplification: Could the Voyager, which has left the solar system (see 2nd link) and contains metals, if it enters an interstellar cloud, attract gases electromagnetically, acquire such mass, and eventually gain gravity and become a star or a planet? So is humanity responsible for the future creation of a stellar system? This idea seems very unlikely to me.
Furthermore, if as we approach the core of the Earth, which has a small gravity on the surface, this should become infinite at the center. So why doesn't the Earth ultimately collapse and condense into a single point in its center? Is this the future of the entire universe? To be filled with black holes? And how is it that gravity on the surface of the Earth is not so strong as to collapse our world under this force, but is instead so strong that it has a huge satellite in orbit around us for billions of years, and that satellite instead of falling towards us, moves away due to its infinite rotation.
So with all these, at this stage, I conclude that spacetime itself defines the points of gravitational interest. Perhaps the search for gravitons (the particles responsible for gravitational interaction) is futile if I am right. I would like to hear opinions from colleagues or give them food for thought.
Anyway, I don't have evidence for these. They are just thoughts. I'm just a lover of science and exploration and nothing more.
Comentários