Can gravity and the strong force be combined before the big bang by assuming no acceleration hence no gravity?
105266
The universe "before" or at the instant of the Big Bang was probably a very different place, and the physics we observe now might be very different from what we would observe under such extreme conditions. \n\nI might make a few comments to help you:\n1. there are four fundamental forces, not just 2 (strong, weak, gravity and electromagnetism)\n2. there are more kinds of acceleration than that caused by gravity\n3. gravity still exists even when forces are balanced and there is no acceleration\n4. the strong force still exists when forces are balanced and there is no acceleration (in an atom, the strong forces balance the EM repulsion of the protons).\n5. since time was created in the big bang, there is no "before", at least according to some views of the theory\n\nLook at the attached link to help you understand the big bang more.
1135511
Back in 1998 the idea of anti-gravity as a real phenomenon appeared to be possible - or is it?\n\nThe galaxies in the expanding universe appeared to be accelerating - was this some kind of anti-gravity force?  To account for this speed-up in expansion, most astronomers and astrophysicists favor bringing back Einstein's fudge factor. But keep in mind that no real evidence exists for reverse gravity; Einstein just made it up so that his equations would support the idea of a static universe. In a twist he could never have imagined, antigravity has returned to support the idea of a universe expanding forever at an increasing rate.\n\nThe fact that there MAY be an anti-gravity force implies there may be some way to take advantage of it, but if gravity is not actually a force but a distortion of space instead, the propulsion engine will have to find a way to distort space (we don't know how to do this).  When we understand the Higgs particle better, perhaps.\n\nCheck out the link below for an update on the subject of "anti-gravity"
324067
No. Gravity has to do with the mass of objects--you have some too.
1094849
setting aside the philosophical issues and taking this question strictly within scientific contexts, probably one of the hardest questions, if not the hardest yet, is related to the question of whether the universe as we know it would forever expand till the end of time (because we know right now that it is expanding), or will everything's mass and gravitational pull would be quite enough to "pull" everything back at some point in time such that the Big Bang sort of reverses itself (the current scientific paradigm agrees with the Big Bang theory).\n\nthe catch here isn't in the question of the forever-expansion or the eventual "Big Crunch" of the universe, but of where to find all the mass that is in question (remember, with enough mass, the Big Crunch will ensue). problem is, if i'm not mistaken, if we adhere to Einstein's Relativity (which we do), there isn't even enough DETECTED mass in the universe to actually hold itself together. at the quantity of mass scientists have been able to confirm, the universe should be chaotic, instead of peaceful and following an orderly behavior. without enough mass, there wouldn't be enough gravitational pull to hold the heavenly bodies steady in their "places", whatever they may be doing.\n\nthe true hard question here is actually: "what makes up the missing mass?", because as we can see, the universe is itself NOT chaotic and not falling into pieces or something. this would mean that there actually is something in the universe (or in space) that has mass that we cannot yet see or detect, and that there's enough of it to hold the universe together. scientists have referred to this "missing matter" as "dark matter", since we cannot yet see or detect it, but we somehow know its there. as far as i know, scientists haven't been able to pinpoint what dark matter actually is.
82803
Yes acceleration and force should have a linear correspondence in this experiment (noise excluded). Obviously Force = Mass * Acceleration.\n\nIt is difficult to give much more qualitatively without a better description though.
402813
No, I think it'll take too long for them to join together.  They're generally so far apart that the gravitational pull on each other is very very small.  Besides, the universe is constantly expanding, so instead we'll end up in a position where everything is just cold and the density of matter is very small.  That's just one theory, though.
307277
There was no *everything* before the Big Bang. In fact, the phrase 'before the Big Bang' is probably meaningless since time itself began with the Big Bang.\n\nAn analogy may be in order. Model spacetime by a \nsphere with time being  represented by going down \na longitude line and space for a fixed time being\nrepresented by a latitude line. The Big Bang would \nbe represented by the north pole. In this model, \nspace expands until we get to the equator and then \nstarts to contract again until we get to the south \npole, which represents a 'Big Crunch'.\n\nIn this model, ask what is north of the north pole. \nThis is *exactly* like  asking what is before the Big \nBang. There is no real answer because the question\nassumes that time exists before the Big Bang, but \nin fact, time is part of the structure of the universe \nand began at the Big Bang.\n\nIn the real world, the spacial part is three dimensional, \nnot one dimensional like in our model (the circles of \nlatitude). Also, it is likely that the universe\nwill expand forever, so instead of a sphere, a \ntrumpet shape may be more appropriate. But the actual \nmodels used by scientists are generalizations and\nelaborations of models like this toy model.
656369
I was want to make something abundantly clear,\nTHERE IS GRAVITY IN SPACE! (despite what "keelahkat" says).\nGravity is a force of attraction acting between two masses at a distance...any distance.\n\nThe only way one would experience true "zero gravity" would be to travel an infinite distance away from all objects in the universe with mass.
503357
Maybe it's not really a mass generated force at all. It could just be that it is masses effect on space-time. Actually, I guess it could be that it's not the earth for example that causes gravity but space-times effort to put matter in clumps and roll it into a ball. The bigger the mass the more space-time there is to push against it. Einstein's example was to imagine a bowling ball sitting on a large rubber sheet. The bowling ball would deform the sheet and the curvature of the rubber represented gravity in space-time. The closer you get to the ball the more curvature you have. That would explain why gravity is weaker with added distance.
1157590
Prior to the Big Bang, space did not exist. And neither did Time.
729210
They have energy, and gravity depends on stress-energy not simply mass. However, the gravitational interaction would be exceedingly week.\n\nThey also polarise the vacuum state and so can scatter via the electrostatic interaction. This again would be a very tiny effect and has never been detected, though proposals for experiments exist - see link.
30388
Gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetic force.
373232
No, A BIG NO. even on outer space, the gravity is NOT zero. It is very near to Zero (maybe like 0.0000000000000000000001 or something), but never exactly zero. This is because gravity has a range of infinite, i.e. the effect of gravity reaches to every place in the universe and even more. However, it is also known that gravity's power is inverse square to the range (S/4*pi*a_huge_distance^2 = almost 0, but never exactly 0, unless S=0 which means there is no gravity source), thus after a certain distance, the effect of the gravity is negligible and won't affect almost anything. BUT it is not zero. There is no point in space that have completely zero gravity, if there is at least one gravity source in that space, even if the gravity source is placed very far away from that point or even if the gravity's power is very small.\n\nThe gravity is similar to light in this way of infinite range. If you fire an ideal laser (one that would not spread out even minutely after great distances), and you stand on a very far away point from the laser, you'd still be able to be pointed by the laser. Light is also a force that have an infinite distance. Light however, is not exactly the same as gravity.
1174809
It actually follows the laws of gravity. Even when gravity is present, it is possible to reach a velocity that can escape gravity.\n\nTechnically, with gravity the universe should collapse back upon itself and the big bang would occur all over again. However, gravity is one of the weakest forces in the universe. With that said, it has been measured that the universe is expanding and accelerating at a rate that exceeds the gravitational forces required to initiate the "big crunch."\n\nThere are two schools of thought right now. One is that the universe will continue to decelerate but never completely stop or collapse upon itself. More recent theories have stated that the universe appears to be accelerating.\n\nAs it stands now, I would say that it is safe to say that the odds are extremely low of the universe collapsing back to a singularity.
1100050
Galaxies, planets, stars and some moons only spin under gravity and gravitational influence. If the universe is spinning it would require a massive gravational core or gravity core. If so then we will be swallowed by such a force that we wouldn't be here now.\nIn the looks of galaxies, they are being thrown away from the centre of the universe by a force rather than a spin. So if everything is pulling away then if there is a spin there would be gravity and we wouldn't be going outwards we would be going inwards. Nothing else could cause such a force for a spin but gravity and that's impossible and anything else would not function to physics.
205616
The Begy atomic model. It eliminates the nedd for the quite unbelievable strong and weak nuclear forces. It also defines gravity as a force acting upon the universe rather than from within it. This reduces the forces in this universe to just one the electromagnetic force. Is this a unified field theory?\n\nWeb search, "Begy atomic model"
658894
Gravity is a property of all particles that possess mass. It is just a fundamental force that at the present can not be explained scientifically to a complete extent.\n\nAny particle that possesses mass (which is basically everything apart from light) has its own gravitational potential which stretches off into infinity. Any other mass which enters this field is subjected to a mutually equivalent force. Obviously then, all matter in the universe is simultaneously interacting with all other mass\n\nIt is proposed that a particle called the graviton carries the force between all massive particles, however this has yet to be identified.\n\nAnother theory is that gravitational waves are constantly being emitted by all objects, and these carry forces.\n\nEinstein proved in his general relativity paper that the presence of mass curves space time and what we observe as a force is merely a particle taking the shortest route through space. This is the current view of gravity\n\nGravity is made purely by the presence of mass, exactly what 'form' it takes is not yet proved.