Philosophy Now Forum

Gravity isn't an attractive force, it's a collection of the energy from smaller physical scales into little entangled packets called matter. Energy and matter that happen to come nearby are more likely to stick around by becoming entangled. The net result looks like attraction.

bonus:. the total amount of energy is static so as it coagulates into matter, the areas between the matter get thinner - we call it vacuum. Because the Aether (the underlying substrate of material reality) is thinning, light can't travel through it as quickly and that's the red shift we see that implies expansion.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:21 pm Gravity isn't an attractive force, it's a collection of the energy from smaller physical scales into little entangled packets called matter. Energy and matter that happen to come nearby are more likely to stick around by becoming entangled. The net result looks like attraction.

Maybe, but how do you know this?

[quote=Atla post_id=675915 time=1698473191 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=599838 time=1664896905 user_id=15238]
Gravity isn't an attractive force, it's a collection of the energy from smaller physical scales into little entangled packets called matter. Energy and matter that happen to come nearby are more likely to stick around by becoming entangled. The net result looks like attraction.
[/quote]
Maybe, but how do you know this?
[/quote]

An answer is a framework of understanding. Since even the best physicists don't understand gravity, the question is, does this understanding answer more questions than it raises?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 1:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 7:06 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 4:21 pm Gravity isn't an attractive force, it's a collection of the energy from smaller physical scales into little entangled packets called matter. Energy and matter that happen to come nearby are more likely to stick around by becoming entangled. The net result looks like attraction.

Maybe, but how do you know this?

An answer is a framework of understanding. Since even the best physicists don't understand gravity, the question is, does this understanding answer more questions than it raises?

Well if it's a random guess then it's probably not (entirely) correct. In which case obviously it would have been better to just stick with the simplest placeholder that gravity is some attractive force.

[quote=Atla post_id=675979 time=1698500986 user_id=15497]
[quote=Advocate post_id=675964 time=1698497938 user_id=15238]
[quote=Atla post_id=675915 time=1698473191 user_id=15497]

Maybe, but how do you know this?
[/quote]

An answer is a framework of understanding. Since even the best physicists don't understand gravity, the question is, does this understanding answer more questions than it raises?
[/quote]
Well if it's a random guess then it's probably not (entirely) correct. In which case obviously it would have been better to just stick with the simplest placeholder that gravity is some attractive force.
[/quote]

It has no resemblance to a random guess. Gravity as it's usually understood had the problem of nonlocality, which is an existential problem than my answer solves.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 3:06 pm It has no resemblance to a random guess. Gravity as it's usually understood had the problem of nonlocality, which is an existential problem than my answer solves.

Okay educated guess then.