Comments on: Emergence Of Gravity

By: Mike Petersen

Mike Petersen — Fri, 05 May 2017 15:25:45 +0000

Peter Fuhrman looks suspiciously like a flat earther.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:49:37 +0000

No, gravity has been studied since well before the Ancient Greeks. China, the Mayans, etc. all had descriptions of gravity.

By: Peter Fuhrman

Peter Fuhrman — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 23:06:23 +0000

Gravity was INVENTED to bolster the lie of the Copernicus globe earth. Even they did not believe gravity was viable.

By: Dense

Dense — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 08:56:06 +0000

I am no expert….but I have a theory…the Ligo Scientic corporation states that the cause of gravitational wave is rotation of spherically non-symmetric mass about a fixed axis . for example, a perfectly spherical star spinning about its axis would not produce a gravitational wave but a star with a lump on its surface would emit gravitational waves, now, relating this to entropic energy : a perfectly spherical star would not have a change in entropy when it spins, as the physical appearence of the star taken at any two time instants is exactly the same. thus, there is no entropic force acting & hence there is no gravitational wave. But when a star with a lump rotates, its physical appearence would be same only if the time interval is an integral multiple of its period of rotation. i.e, if at one instant the lump is on right side then after a few instants the lump would be on left side ( for time interval = time period/2), so that means there is no spherical symmetry when it rotates or even if its stationary. when this star rotates, the entropy of the system is continuously changing because in each instant the position of the lump changes. thus, the entropic energy associated with the star will continually change. if gravity is an emergent force due to change in entropy, then that means, an object that is not spherically symmetrical when rotates will continually radiate gravitational waves due to the continuous change in entropy associated with it. Damn ! that indeed would explain GW. Lol !

By: jpatrick

jpatrick — Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:19:10 +0000

Describing gravity, dark matter, and dark energy in terms of entropy seems to me like relating four dependent variables without knowing what is independent. This would explain the bizarre constraints required for it to work in a closed system. Elegant as it is, I haven’t bought into this approach yet.

By: Toffeenose

Toffeenose — Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:29:47 +0000

Another aspect of Verlinde’s latest paper is that, in addition to entropic and holographic considerations, he treats Spacetime (actually static ‘space’) like an elastic solid, and addresses the stress-strain relationship using the usual linear approximation. Using similar thermodynamic and holographic considerations, and treating Spacetime as a dynamic elastic solid, one can calculate that the total energy density is the Critical Friedmann value that makes space ‘flat’, as observed. One can also predict that the energy density of Dark Energy is 2/3 of the total – again, in good agreement with observations.

By: leonard veria

leonard veria — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:50:44 +0000

How can ''emergent gravity from entropy'' can be related to the gravitational waves recently observed? Wasen't that observation a evidence for gravity to be a fondamental force, or they are not related

By: Oskar Axelsson

Oskar Axelsson — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:59:59 +0000

I have a suspicion that Verlinde is onto something huge. As you say, a lot remains to be sorted out, but if you can explain both dark energy and matter and as a sideline the gravitational behaviour of galaxies and galaxy clusters by a parameter free (almost) theoretical argument based on string theory, I call it a good days work.

By: Frank Jansen

Frank Jansen — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:00:09 +0000

thanx again!