It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascinating Theory of Gravity

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

You still do not get it.

What is cut and dried is the OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA!

Quote me and show me where I said ANY theory is cut and dried!

Jeez... What is cut and dried is the relationship between mass and gravity.

Show me one, even remotely provable, instance where this is not true.

Seriously...read the words.



Observable phenomena = point of perspective perception translation. That's all I was suggesting.




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

How exactly is there no rationale for it?

It is not 3D so much as 4D. So it appears you are going to dump Quantum Mechanics down the toilet as well (which allows for additional dimensions). How very flat-earther of you.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

How exactly is there no rationale for it?

It is not 3D so much as 4D.


3D confine, with an additional factor of when something existed at a specific coordinate juncture. Time is unlike the other dimensions since we can adjust those dimensions but cannot adjust time. Well, unless you're one of the kids on this board who transcends time and space in his bedroom. I think we all know what I referring to. Three spatial dimensions that define a displaced volume.


So it appears you are going to dump Quantum Mechanics down the toilet as well (which allows for additional dimensions). How very flat-earther of you.


Even Einstein considered the Copenhagen Interpretation to be ludicrous, as did Schrodinger (with his parody thought experiment involving his cat). I find it telling that anyone's theory "allows" for additional dimensions. How magnanimous of these theorists. I'm sure that Reality feels blessed by such generous minds.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: chr0naut

...

After all, how much force would it actually take to "reach out" to the moon and hold it into the orbit it has? I would imagine that it takes a lot. And yet, if this force is emanating from our own planet's core, then why aren't we all crushed to the surface by it? Yes, that seems like a little kid question, but perhaps it only sounds like that because we're so used to the idea that the same force that yields to a leaf in a strong breeze, is the same force that holds the entire moon to its orbit.

...

In the case of the gravity that holds the moon in place, the equations show that the force keeping us on the ground and keeping the moon in orbit is the same. This is where mathematics can actually clarify things by introducing scale to the scenario. In the case of the moon, the force acting upon any particular particle of the moon is smaller than the force upon any similar mass particle at the earth's surface.

Yes, the moon is massive and the force required to hold the entire thing in orbit is similarly massive but the classic 'rubber sheet' analogy does well in explaining how curved space-time could cause bodies to orbit (despite the fact that it is metaphorically recursive, explaining the action of gravity but requiring an understanding of gravity to do so). It provides a scale analog, that we can visualize, to see with our imagination if it would agree with mathematically generated values and with observation.

I myself have not encountered any particular issue with the current curved space-time paradigm of gravitation, but I do admit that my acceptance of the theory is, by this stage of my life, deeply entrenched.



So, are you able to translate the definition "space-time" into an actual 3 dimensional environmental confine? I already understand Einstein's original definition, and have no problem with the sensible nature of it, but this translation of that into a 3D fabric has still got me irritated. There doesn't seem to be any rationale for it.


No, I think that limiting things to a 3D construct is the issue.

Mathematically we know that higher dimensionalities are possible and we know that we actually need those higher dimensions to make numerical sense of what we observe, so I would say that it is sensible to use the tools at hand if they work consistently, even if the mechanism is not fully proven/error free (all measurement has a certain tolerance band of error).

In the case of a deflection in angular momentum (change in direction) from space-time curvature in a 3D realm, we could understand that by considering the metaphor of light being refracted. The angle of the light is changed as it passes from a medium of one density into a medium of another density (say, air into glass).

In the same way, an objects angular momentum would be changed as it passes through space-time of one density/curvature, into a different density/curvature.

Of course angular momentum implies movement but, as Einstein proposed, movement itself is irrelevant when everything else is moving in the same direction and velocity, so stationary objects would also be included in this example.

Of course, it is only an analogue, a metaphor, so treat it as such. The mathematical expressions explaining movement through particular space-time topologies give a better explanation of this change in angular momentum, unfettered by the deficiencies of the model.

edit on 2/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

First off, thanks for thinking I am a kid! lol been a number of decades since then.

2ndly you knock theories that allow for extra dimensionality and yet you present this "Shadow Theory" from what century for consideration? Hmm... Flat earth society calls, no doubt.

Granted..Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics and yet his own theories supported QM in many ways. There is a quote related to Einstein and QM which I will paraphrase as: God does not play with dice (at least Einstein was convinced of such). This is hardly a disproof of QM. Perhaps you should discuss with an actual physicist why QM holds such sway as it does today. There is much observable phenomena that supports it and it has survived every test.

I will quote my son-in-law who graduated Summa cum Laude from Texas A&M with a major in physics and a minor in mathematics: "Anyone who claims to understand Quantum Mechanics is lying"

And then there is this: Teleport

Einstein was hardly infallible nor was he all-knowing. I find his life and thinking fascinating and count him as one of my top 5 historical people I find interesting. Yet I will not put him on the Godhood pedestal. Napoleon is also on that list, btw (that is presented just as an FYI).


edit on 2-6-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

Oh, and when I referenced 4D I was not clear. Time was not the 4th dimension I meant, but rather a 4th physical dimension.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

Oh, and when I referenced 4D I was not clear. Time was not the 4th dimension I meant, but rather a 4th physical dimension.



Okay, then. I guess I have nothing to say about a 4th spatial dimension. Well, except that it doesn't exist.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: chr0naut

...

After all, how much force would it actually take to "reach out" to the moon and hold it into the orbit it has? I would imagine that it takes a lot. And yet, if this force is emanating from our own planet's core, then why aren't we all crushed to the surface by it? Yes, that seems like a little kid question, but perhaps it only sounds like that because we're so used to the idea that the same force that yields to a leaf in a strong breeze, is the same force that holds the entire moon to its orbit.

...

In the case of the gravity that holds the moon in place, the equations show that the force keeping us on the ground and keeping the moon in orbit is the same. This is where mathematics can actually clarify things by introducing scale to the scenario. In the case of the moon, the force acting upon any particular particle of the moon is smaller than the force upon any similar mass particle at the earth's surface.

Yes, the moon is massive and the force required to hold the entire thing in orbit is similarly massive but the classic 'rubber sheet' analogy does well in explaining how curved space-time could cause bodies to orbit (despite the fact that it is metaphorically recursive, explaining the action of gravity but requiring an understanding of gravity to do so). It provides a scale analog, that we can visualize, to see with our imagination if it would agree with mathematically generated values and with observation.

I myself have not encountered any particular issue with the current curved space-time paradigm of gravitation, but I do admit that my acceptance of the theory is, by this stage of my life, deeply entrenched.



So, are you able to translate the definition "space-time" into an actual 3 dimensional environmental confine? I already understand Einstein's original definition, and have no problem with the sensible nature of it, but this translation of that into a 3D fabric has still got me irritated. There doesn't seem to be any rationale for it.


No, I think that limiting things to a 3D construct is the issue.

Mathematically we know that higher dimensionalities are possible and we know that we actually need those higher dimensions to make numerical sense of what we observe, so I would say that it is sensible to use the tools at hand if they work consistently, even if the mechanism is not fully proven/error free (all measurement has a certain tolerance band of error).

In the case of a deflection in angular momentum (change in direction) from space-time curvature in a 3D realm, we could understand that by considering the metaphor of light being refracted. The angle of the light is changed as it passes from a medium of one density into a medium of another density (say, air into glass).

In the same way, an objects angular momentum would be changed as it passes through space-time of one density/curvature, into a different density/curvature.

Of course angular momentum implies movement but, as Einstein proposed, movement itself is irrelevant when everything else is moving in the same direction and velocity, so stationary objects would also be included in this example.

Of course, it is only an analogue, a metaphor, so treat it as such. The mathematical expressions explaining movement through particular space-time topologies give a better explanation of this change in angular momentum, unfettered by the deficiencies of the model.


Still, we know that there is proximity and relative position, and that means that there is space that exists as volume. Since this is true, and proven true, then there needs to be a definition of what it is that allows for proximity and relative position. Einstein describes this as "space-time" (as opposed to the aether, which was the prevailing idea of his day), and that suggests that he was "replacing" this aether with his "space-time" medium. Especially when he started suggesting that this space-time could be warped by the mass of objects.

So, again, can you or anyone explain to me what this "space-time" is? It must be a material medium if it's capable of affecting and being affected by the material mass of 3-D objects. I refuse to blindly accept a math equation, since math is like philosophy as far as how it relates to reality.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

First off, thanks for thinking I am a kid! lol been a number of decades since then.

2ndly you knock theories that allow for extra dimensionality and yet you present this "Shadow Theory" from what century for consideration? Hmm... Flat earth society calls, no doubt.


That "shadow theory" is the only theory that effectively challenges Relativity without suggesting an absurd notion like a supernatural magnetism that somehow holds the moon in place without crushing everything else that's much deeper within earth's gravity well. If I can find someone to rationally and effectively defend Relativity against this, then I'll be happy to proceed with my own work that materially explains Relativity as it relates to gravity.


Granted..Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics and yet his own theories supported QM in many ways. There is a quote related to Einstein and QM which I will paraphrase as: God does not play with dice (at least Einstein was convinced of such). This is hardly a disproof of QM. Perhaps you should discuss with an actual physicist why QM holds such sway as it does today. There is much observable phenomena that supports it and it has survived every test.


He said that statement as a criticism of superposition and the collapsed wave theory.


I will quote my son-in-law who graduated Summa cum Laude from Texas A&M with a major in physics and a minor in mathematics: "Anyone who claims to understand Quantum Mechanics is lying"


Apparently a lot of people say this. That could mean that Quantum Mechanics has some issues, but whatever.


Einstein was hardly infallible nor was he all-knowing. I find his life and thinking fascinating and count him as one of my top 5 historical people I find interesting. Yet I will not put him on the Godhood pedestal. Napoleon is also on that list, btw (that is presented just as an FYI).


I have often suspected that his Special Theory of Relativity was a gag. He did go in for absurdist humor. He did have great hair though. I'll give him that much.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster
That "shadow theory" is the only theory that effectively challenges Relativity without suggesting an absurd notion like a supernatural magnetism that somehow holds the moon in place without crushing everything else that's much deeper within earth's gravity well. If I can find someone to rationally and effectively defend Relativity against this
I don't understand what you're saying here, are you saying that relativity predicts you will be crushed by gravity? I've never seen such a prediction.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster
Can you even explain to me what space-time is? Not the mapping strategy definition of space-time, but the "fabric" definition of space-time. Can you supply a link that actually defines it as this 3 dimensional "aether" that provides the geometry of open space? I have been through papers, and technical explanations, as well as the idiotic Youtube videos, and after weeks of simply looking for a definitive description of what it is, the best I have come up with is that space-time is a residual matrix of position points that exist as a result of the prior existence of material items occupying these positional locations at previous instances in time.


Not exactly, it's the coordinate system in which other laws of physics are expressed in their more fundamental form. This coordinate system was static in pre-relativistic Euclidean space, and assumed, and had no time evolution or dynamics of its own, but it does in Einsteinian relativity. Einstein provided the material laws of motion (coupled nonlinear differential equations) which describe this effect.

Roughly, you have a 'wave equation' on space time (the einstein field equations), and the rest of the laws of physics are adapted to work on that 'moving/curved background' instead of how they were originally developed to be in flat, invariant space-time.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Hi, gravity fans !

Sooooooo, that gravity theory makes us ask questions: =

We all know that in the past, there was a BIG continent called "Pangea"/ "pangée".
We all know that in the past, the animals where BIG !
= Could it be because the earh was smaler ?
= Could the earth become bigger because of all she receives from all arround?
= Can we prove WHAT size the earth was, XXX,000,000 years ago ?
Hmmmmmmmmm?. . .

Sooooooo, that gravity theory could explain those other things. . .

Blue skies.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: NorEaster

Seriously? Defend Relativity against what amounts to a cult theory from what, the 17th century? Seriously? lol

Sorry..



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: C-JEAN

Um, no.

lol

1st Pangea is still here, it has just been broken up and moved around a bit by the movement of plate tectonics.

Gravity had nothing to do with the size of the dinosaurs etc but rather a higher level of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Sorry to burst that bubble but gravity has not changed much on earth due to accretion of the earth over the last 100 million years.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: NorEaster
That "shadow theory" is the only theory that effectively challenges Relativity without suggesting an absurd notion like a supernatural magnetism that somehow holds the moon in place without crushing everything else that's much deeper within earth's gravity well. If I can find someone to rationally and effectively defend Relativity against this

I don't understand what you're saying here, are you saying that relativity predicts you will be crushed by gravity? I've never seen such a prediction.


No, Newtonian attraction theory is the one that seems most bizarre, with the gravity well strong enough to hold the moon in place (from 25,000 miles out) while allowing a feather to float on a breeze deep in its own well. As far as I know, that attract theory is the only widely embraced theory that challenges Einstein's curved "whatever-it-is" gravity theory.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: NorEaster

Seriously? Defend Relativity against what amounts to a cult theory from what, the 17th century? Seriously? lol

Sorry..


Which cult theory? Newton's supernatural "magnetism", or the one that has 150 neutrinos per square centimeter (at near the speed of light) bombarding every material thing in the universe from all sides, save whatever "shadow area" is created by the simple proximity of interfering electrons, protons, and neutrons (to whatever degree they do, which supposedly is enough to create this shadow), that causes the constant wave of (approximately) 7.5 billion neutrinos per second, passing through the average person's body to create a pressure that's uneven relative to the exposed versus the shadowed side?

The "shadow theory" actually emerged during Newton's lifetime, and from one of his own friends. I really like that the Internet makes proving a statement easy and fun.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: NorEaster
Can you even explain to me what space-time is? Not the mapping strategy definition of space-time, but the "fabric" definition of space-time. Can you supply a link that actually defines it as this 3 dimensional "aether" that provides the geometry of open space? I have been through papers, and technical explanations, as well as the idiotic Youtube videos, and after weeks of simply looking for a definitive description of what it is, the best I have come up with is that space-time is a residual matrix of position points that exist as a result of the prior existence of material items occupying these positional locations at previous instances in time.


Not exactly, it's the coordinate system in which other laws of physics are expressed in their more fundamental form. This coordinate system was static in pre-relativistic Euclidean space, and assumed, and had no time evolution or dynamics of its own, but it does in Einsteinian relativity. Einstein provided the material laws of motion (coupled nonlinear differential equations) which describe this effect.

Roughly, you have a 'wave equation' on space time (the einstein field equations), and the rest of the laws of physics are adapted to work on that 'moving/curved background' instead of how they were originally developed to be in flat, invariant space-time.



So, basically Einstein was reinventing the aether medium concept, only without tossing the word aether into his verbiage. I guess that this is why his opening sales pitch for General Relativity - concerning gravity - was that it works regardless of the existence of the aether. That was pretty slick of him.

After all, how can a warp that redirects material and even photon movement be possible unless it's an aether (of sorts) that is being warped. So, basically, scientists still embrace the aether theory, even if they now insist that it's an evolving aether, and not the static aether of their fathers and grandfathers.

To be honest, this is what I've been really trying to establish with this thread. I figured that if I challenged General Relativity enough, that someone would feel required to go into some level of detail concerning the mechanical aspects of how "space-time" warping actually affects material objects. Of course, the simple requirements of physical interaction demands that this "space-time" be as physically existent as the objects being affected and redirected by it. Numbers on a blackboard obviously cannot affect planets and stars and stuff that sits on planets.

What seems increasingly clear is that no one has bothered to ask the obvious question "What is the physical nature of space-time?", and have simply let the math lead them around as if it (on its own) can make planets and stars and galaxies behave as they do.

What a fascinating culture we live in.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NorEaster

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: NorEaster
Can you even explain to me what space-time is? Not the mapping strategy definition of space-time, but the "fabric" definition of space-time. Can you supply a link that actually defines it as this 3 dimensional "aether" that provides the geometry of open space? I have been through papers, and technical explanations, as well as the idiotic Youtube videos, and after weeks of simply looking for a definitive description of what it is, the best I have come up with is that space-time is a residual matrix of position points that exist as a result of the prior existence of material items occupying these positional locations at previous instances in time.


Not exactly, it's the coordinate system in which other laws of physics are expressed in their more fundamental form. This coordinate system was static in pre-relativistic Euclidean space, and assumed, and had no time evolution or dynamics of its own, but it does in Einsteinian relativity. Einstein provided the material laws of motion (coupled nonlinear differential equations) which describe this effect.

Roughly, you have a 'wave equation' on space time (the einstein field equations), and the rest of the laws of physics are adapted to work on that 'moving/curved background' instead of how they were originally developed to be in flat, invariant space-time.



So, basically Einstein was reinventing the aether medium concept, only without tossing the word aether into his verbiage. I guess that this is why his opening sales pitch for General Relativity - concerning gravity - was that it works regardless of the existence of the aether. That was pretty slick of him.


"The aether" was, at that time, the electromagnetic aether, not gravitational and was proposed to have certain characteristics which were not observed by experimentation.

General relativity is completely unlike the 19th century aether---or any other physical theory.



After all, how can a warp that redirects material and even photon movement be possible unless it's an aether (of sorts) that is being warped. So, basically, scientists still embrace the aether theory, even if they now insist that it's an evolving aether, and not the static aether of their fathers and grandfathers.


Since it's so sufficiently different, they call with with a different name corresopnding to its theoretical formulation, space-time metric.



To be honest, this is what I've been really trying to establish with this thread.


What's that? If you abuse terminology sufficiently confusingly, like calling Maxwellian statistical mechanics the same as phlostigon when it isn't, it's possible to confuse people?


I figured that if I challenged General Relativity enough, that someone would feel required to go into some level of detail concerning the mechanical aspects of how "space-time" warping actually affects material objects. Of course, the simple requirements of physical interaction demands that this "space-time" be as physically existent as the objects being affected and redirected by it. Numbers on a blackboard obviously cannot affect planets and stars and stuff that sits on planets.


Yes, Einstein was always interested in experimental validity.



What seems increasingly clear is that no one has bothered to ask the obvious question "What is the physical nature of space-time?", and have simply let the math lead them around as if it (on its own) can make planets and stars and galaxies behave as they do.


What's the difference? The physical nature of space time is what it does, and the math says exactly how much.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel




What's the difference? The physical nature of space time is what it does, and the math says exactly how much.



Why muddy a perfectly good 17th century discussion with such things as reality and math?





posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I like the idea that gravity is produced by particles "falling into themselves," or more accurately into an unseen dimension sitting at right angles to all the other dimensions we're used to observing. Solid form and substance are actually manifestations of tiny little event horizons of energy too backed up to completely fall into the hypothetical dimension. Magnetism works the same way, but with a different dimension.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join