• JohnDClay
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I put it in my force balance equations, it’s a force. It doesn’t matter that it’s from curving spacetime rather than exchanging particles, it still exerts force on things.

      • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        But the point of general relativity is that a free-floating observer is equivalent to an observer in free space. That means that falling due to gravity, which you call a force, is an unaccelerated movement, i.e. no force.

        • JohnDClay
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          If I take a relativistic frame of reference. If I take an ‘absolute’ non moving frame of reference, gravity shows up as a force. I use the later for calculating loads and statics, even though it’s technically not correct. And in that case gravity shows up as a force.

          • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m not trying to argue approximations. Physics is just approximations all the way down. But as a physicist, I also love arguing about technicalities, and that’s also kinda the point of science communities for me.

    • Zerush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Well, its a geometric deformation of space-time because the displacement by mass

      • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        In our current understanding of physics, it’s an effect from the curvature of space and not a force. Quantizing gravity results in unphysical divergences. Whether there will be a way to model gravity as an exchange of particles, we can’t know for sure. So according to our current knowledge, it’s not a force.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Knowledge is knowing that tomato is a fruit.

      Wisdom is still not putting it in a fruit salad.

      Gravity isn’t a force. Its effects can be mapped to an equivalent pseudo force and used as such. Outside of general relativity, or Quantum mechanics discussions, gravity is a force.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          We don’t know. Right now, relativity and QM fundamentally disagree on what gravity is. Both are also hugely accurate in their predictions. QM treats it as a force comparable to EM or the strong force. GR says it’s space itself moving. The force we experience is just a reaction to us trying to stay still, as space moves through us.

          Beyond that, defining anything as fundamental is a challenge. How are you using fundamental?

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Depends on your definition. If you stop at quantum mechanics way of defining a force with boson exchange then you may also say gravity doesn’t exist, because it’s not included in the standard model for now.

      • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well, firstly, we can quantize gravity pretty easily, it just has unphysical divergences.

        But secondly, I think it makes most sense to talk about the current accepted physics because we don’t know how quantum gravity will work.