Does gravity put planets and other matter together to create life like cells put us together?
??? Cells do not "put us together"; they reproduce, attaching chemically to each other as they do so. Gravity is a force of attraction between any two particles of matter, but the gravity between any two cells would be so weak as to be useless.
Yes, they also communicate with each other in forming communities within themselves. Gravity is small particles coming together to form communities, cells are small lives coming together to form communities, it takes gravity to put the cells together. What do you mean the gravity of the cells would be useless, I am misunderstanding this part? I'm not talking about cells putting the universe together although physics leans that it does claiming that all is created from the subjective. thanks
Philosophically, gravity may build cells into bodies. Physically, when cells reproduce and divide they are already in contact. Chemical interaction, not gravity holds them there. The attraction of gravity between any two such minute "particles" such as cells is extremely weak. The smallest interaction with other particles such as air would immediately break any contact between two cells held together only by gravity.
On the other hand perhaps I misunderstand you entirely. You indicate physics claims all is created from the subject, but the study of physics does all it possibly can to eliminate the subjective from any considerations.
Without gravity to regulate the chemicals movement, how would there be correct transportation of chemicals? How can physics eliminate the subjective when subjective can impact a particles location and reality? It takes the subjective to measure or view the objective. This is what physics says. thanks
Were gravity the only regulator of chemicals movements we could only grow down, not up. Sap would not climb a tree trunk, and the hair on your head would not grow at all as it needs to go up, not down.
Of the known physical forces, gravity is by far the weakest - the only reason the effect is large (you cannot jump up a mile and drift back down) is because of size. The earth has a large gravity field because of the uncountable number of atoms in it. Solitary cells have relatively few atoms and exert very little gravitational force on neighboring atoms or cells.
But gravity does regulate our growth, if it pushed down on us too hard, we couldn't grow tall, or could we? Gravity also plays a part in plants and trees, they gravitate towards the sunlight.
I don't understand how gravity is considered weak when it regulates and puts order into the entire universe. Without gravity, how would we be alive to define weak? Weak compared to what? Not about how much gravitational force the cells put out, but the gravity that allows them movement. I am enjoying your comments, thanks.
Gravity is extremely weak when compared to electromagnetic force, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Gravity does not "allow" movement of anything; the ONLY thing it can do is attract one particle to another. Nothing else. Everything in the universe is attracted to some degree to everything else. You are pulled towards the planet Mars, for instance, but the pull of Mars on your body is so slight as to virtually immeasurable, in spite of the fact that Mars is of planetary mass (the amount of gravity between two bodies is dependent on the product of their masses).
Consider that a small magnet will pick up a good sized steel plate even AGAINST the pull of gravity from the earth. Gravity is weak.
You're right - plants gravitate towards sunlight. Opposite gravity, and gravity plays no part (plants will grow nearly sideways if that is where the light is).
Size - I really think that if gravity was greater plants and animals could still grow large - nature finds a way. At the same time increased gravity would affect other things - air pressure would go up, storms might increase in severity and the time between falling and hitting the ground goes down meaning that tall animals might have a real disadvantage as they are generally slow.
I don't think people will understand this the way you do TD.
by Credence24 years ago
I would like the opinion of you science professionals as to if this is something that we could accomplish by the end of the century? Could it be one of those structural aspects of the universe that cannot be overcome...
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
on the religion forum I was describing what I thought was quantum physics...that the universe is accelerating and expanding in a spiral. Is that quantum or something else or combination of things...?
by mbuggieh4 years ago
ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA: "In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. In string theory, the...
by pennyofheaven5 years ago
Last night we had a news segment announcing that scientist may have found what is dubbed as the God Particle. That which gives us mass as I understand their technical terms. It is early days but they are confident this...
by pisean2823117 years ago
God didn't create the universe -- it was actually a result of the inevitable laws of physics, British physicist Prof Stephen Hawking has concluded.In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking said: "Because there...
by Daniel J. Neumann7 years ago
Hey anybody,I feel like these particular verses have been received poorly. I'm trying to describe the validity of imagination. I'm trying to say that, even if it's in our heads, it still exists in our heads. And what's...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.