Why we are not any the wiser on Gravity

My little gravity chart (not to scale). I'm thinking that what we understand to be "particles" are actually more like event horizons that have a component of extension into non-physical dimensions. In the diagram below, the axes vectors continue "in" infinitely without intersecting. So our solid particles are actually "holes" and we interact with the edges.

I'm afraid I don't have the mathematical background to explain it better in those terms.

People proclaiming online how science has got it wrong are a dime a dozen. Sadly most of them if not all them have no idea what they are talking about.

For anyone really interested in gravity I'd suggest to study physics, a couple semesters at least. So that you have some basic understanding of what is the status quo and how to do science properly/methodically.

Then feel free to try and do better than the generations of physicists before you.

a reply to: Hyperboles

The first direct observation of gravitational waves was made on 14 September 2015, and was announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016.

Previously, gravitational waves had only been inferred indirectly, so that's progress in my book.

Gravity is kind of a weak force hence rather hard to detect directly.

Its 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together.

Although the other forces act over different ranges, and between very different kinds of particles, they seem to have strengths that are roughly comparable with each other, not so with Gravity who seems to be the misfit.

We will get there eventually.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Although the other forces act over different ranges, and between very different kinds of particles, they seem to have strengths that are roughly comparable with each other, not so with Gravity who seems to be the misfit.

It's a real oddball. For one, the way it's presented in physics is that it's essentially acceleration. Static acceleration, I guess. And it doesn't have poles like magnetism. Yeah, there are magnetic monopoles, but for the most part magnetism has a north and south pole. Gravity just goes one way -- "down." Like a little whirlpool where the end point is the particle, and the strength of the whirlpool depends on the complexity of the particle and how many of them are clustered together.

No wonder folks have had a tough time merging it with other forces, although I personally think in my own barely-educated way that it has to do with how it vectors into various subdimensions compared to other forces like magnetism which seem to be more toroidal than vortex-like.

Dog, the question is do we *want* to understand it?

As of right now, our understanding of it is...... lacking, to put it lightly (pun intended.. maybe). The majority of our understanding is based on an old, simplistic test and model which factors in very few variables. If we continue to study it, there's a very good chance our current calculations and mathematics involving gravity could change, altering our understanding as well as many established theories.

Basically, keep playing dumb and leave well enough alone so we don't have to change anything, is the COA we have chosen to take.

The bending of space is wrong.

Gravity straightens the curve.

Curve (wave/energy) potential = 100%.

Gravity is 90% the potential energy.

I will post a summary so far in my own Gravity thread in the next couple of days.

Gravitational waves... ah yes... all the evidence for them being discovered brushed aside with a statement of "I don't believe" and presented with zero evidence in order to maintain the OP's way of thinking and acceptance of ignorance over evidence.

en.wikipedia.org.../2019

The most interesting event being this one

en.wikipedia.org...

Which was an event in which the LIGO observetory recieved a trigger for a gravitational wave candidate, about 1 second later there being a short duration gamma ray burst. Triangulation was performed and a search box given to astronomers, which were then able to find a transient fading object constant with an envelope of neutron rich material being blown off a central object.

So, an observation across a huge range of the electromagnetic spectrum, all stemming from a gravitational wave observation... it will be interesting to see that even 'explained away' as the ligo results have before by people like the OP who want to just say "oh its just noise and they don't understand their own experiment" Despite, you know, them not knowing how the experiment works at all.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Why we are not any the wiser on Gravity

Maybe you're no wiser, but we as a society are wiser.

originally posted by: sapien82
To say we are no further forward is a lie

as we detected the first gravitational waves in 2015 giving more support to the theory of gravity as a fundamental force of nature.

Gravitational waves discovered

You're right, this was a significant discovery, although Einstein's theory doesn't necessarily interpret gravity as a force, but the experiment did match his theory, that gravity is at least a pseudo-force with the properties Einstein's theory predicted. This is what Feynman said about the possibility that gravity is a pseudo-force according to relativity, in the Feynman lectures, see 12–5: Pseudo forces:

www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu...

One very important feature of pseudo forces is that they are always proportional to the masses; the same is true of gravity. The possibility exists, therefore, that gravity itself is a pseudo force. Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system? After all, we can always get a force proportional to the mass if we imagine that a body is accelerating. For instance, a man shut up in a box that is standing still on the earth finds himself held to the floor of the box with a certain force that is proportional to his mass. But if there were no earth at all and the box were standing still, the man inside would float in space. On the other hand, if there were no earth at all and something were pulling the box along with an acceleration $g$, then the man in the box, analyzing physics, would find a pseudo force which would pull him to the floor, just as gravity does.

Einstein put forward the famous hypothesis that accelerations give an imitation of gravitation, that the forces of acceleration (the pseudo forces) cannot be distinguished from those of gravity; it is not possible to tell how much of a given force is gravity and how much is pseudo force.

It might seem all right to consider gravity to be a pseudo force, to say that we are all held down because we are accelerating upward, but how about the people in Madagascar, on the other side of the earth—are they accelerating too? Einstein found that gravity could be considered a pseudo force only at one point at a time, and was led by his considerations to suggest that the geometry of the world is more complicated than ordinary Euclidean geometry. The present discussion is only qualitative, and does not pretend to convey anything more than the general idea. To give a rough idea of how gravitation could be the result of pseudo forces, we present an illustration which is purely geometrical and does not represent the real situation. Suppose that we all lived in two dimensions, and knew nothing of a third. We think we are on a plane, but suppose we are really on the surface of a sphere. And suppose that we shoot an object along the ground, with no forces on it. Where will it go? It will appear to go in a straight line, but it has to remain on the surface of a sphere, where the shortest distance between two points is along a great circle; so it goes along a great circle. If we shoot another object similarly, but in another direction, it goes along another great circle. Because we think we are on a plane, we expect that these two bodies will continue to diverge linearly with time, but careful observation will show that if they go far enough they move closer together again, as though they were attracting each other. But they are not attracting each other—there is just something “weird” about this geometry. This particular illustration does not describe correctly the way in which Einstein’s geometry is “weird,” but it illustrates that if we distort the geometry sufficiently it is possible that all gravitation is related in some way to pseudo forces; that is the general idea of the Einsteinian theory of gravitation.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: sapien82

I don't think gravitational waves were discovered it was just again 2 April Einstein's general relativity in my opinion

I don't even know what that means. Is this some kind of gibberish because you're using the "speaking version"? I also don't know version of what when you say that. Maybe make a draft with the voice utility of whatever you're talking about, and then make manual corrections instead of excuses.

How else do you explain the results of the experiments which detected gravitational waves?

originally posted by: andy06shake
Its 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together.

You're off.

Gravity is roughly 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 times weaker than the electromagnetic force.

That's off a little too, according to this, but these are approximations anyway:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It would not be the first time.

Still, it illustrates the point of it being rather hard to detect with the instruments and tools currently available.

Anyhoo we are wiser on Gravity than we used to be pre-2015, so there is that.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Anyhoo we are wiser on Gravity than we used to be pre-2015, so there is that.

Agreed, you're absolutely right about that.

Actually now the door is open to a new type of cosmological observations, so we not only know more about gravity but we can learn more about the cosmos through studying more gravitational waves, and we can observe and learn things we might not have known about, by other means of observation.

Einstein discover all there is to know about gravity.
apple fall down!

did you know
they now now some thing Dose travle faster than light!

The electric universe theory is making advances.
I think Newtonian physics is completely wrong. They were trying to disprove the existence of the ether.
Tesla and Walter Russel were working with a completely different understanding of how the universe works. They were working with the ether.
Wallace Thornhill is also doing a lot of work to advance the understanding of gravity.



Boscovich also had a completely different understanding. in this video Clif High explains what Boscovich was talking about years before the plagiarist Einstein was propped up by the media of the time. www.bibliotecapleyades.net...



We are up against the richest oil corporations who are funding most the science remember.

"science advances one funeral at a time" - Max Planck

In my opinion, the electric universe theory is a much more logical explanation of gravity and the universe. You don't have to make up things like dark matter to explain the holes in Newtonian Physics.






Also the recent discoveries of Voyager 1 and 2 prove we are in an electric universe.
NASA is saying they ran into a "firewall"

It is an electromagnetic wake our sun is creating as it plows through the plasma in the universe.
Our sun is an electric generator, not a nuclear furnace.

futurism.com...

a reply to: booyakasha

Far as I'm aware Electric Universe Theory discounts the notion of black holes, which if im not mistaken we actually managed to image not that long ago.

And as you say it also dispenses with the likes of dark matter and dark energy and yet the universe is apparently expanding.

I don't know that much about the ins and outs of it in the entirety all the same not being a physicist nor scientist but is the electric universe theory not considered to be a pseudoscience affair?

a reply to: booyakasha

The number people the take the EU theory seriously are growing daily. More and more discoveries are being made. The proponents are starting to make cosmology predictions that are far more accurate than those based solely on math and what our current experts are able to regurgitate. Just like newtons law of gravity, he was able to come up with a formula that explained 'what' but not even close to explaining 'why' or even 'how'. I think the biggest win will be when the EUs theory of our sun is confirmed. There is no patching together the outdated theories after that. When the sun is found out to be an electrical phenomena versus a nuclear reactor, then the fun starts.

good times ahead.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: booyakasha

Far as I'm aware Electric Universe Theory discounts the notion of black holes, which if im not mistaken we actually managed to image not that long ago.

Very very far from actually capturing an image of a black hole though. They took some data from their sensors and massaged the *#&* out of it. Just like the big bang that they support, there is a lot of 'magic' in their theories that make great leaps from assumption to assumption. Like Thornhills EU prediction on the deep impact to Comet Tempel 1, those predictions were vastly more accurate versus mainstreams predictions.

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: Hyperboles

Why do you think or say 'nothing can bend space'.

Have you got a rulebook?

What we call 'gravity' is an observable and measurable phenomena of the reality we share. And it is more complex than words or numbers we know can describe.

Simply put though....like attracts like. In this case, mass. Or matter.

Or maybe it doesnt matter. It could be an illusion.

Either way, we experience it together on this spinning mass in the cosmos.

I think he/she is saying that within the bend is it limited (and if so, why?), therefore what are the forces of gravity, then? Doesn't that change the picture?

a reply to: ClovenSky

The black hole, in the center of Messier 87, and its ""shadow"" was captured in an image for the first time via an international network of radio telescopes, 7 of them to be precise.

By there very nature black holes cannot be seen, but the hot disk of material that encircles it shines bright against a bright backdrop, such as the disk, and the black hole appears to cast a shadow.

What does Electric Universe theory say is casting the shadow if not the singularity estimated to be 6.5 billion times the mass of the Sun?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ClovenSky

The black hole, in the center of Messier 87, and its ""shadow"" was captured in an image for the first time via an international network of radio telescopes, 7 of them to be precise.

By there very nature black holes cannot be seen, but the hot disk of material that encircles it shines bright against a bright backdrop, such as the disk, and the black hole appears to cast a shadow.

What does Electric Universe theory say is casting the shadow if not the singularity estimated to be 6.5 billion times the mass of the Sun?

But the gravity of black holes is not our reality...we have a tamer environment, but how tame?

a reply to: InTheLight

Well once light or anything else enters into the event horizon it's not coming back out again, accept via some form of Hawking radiation emitted from the poles apparently.

As to it not being our reality, well we cannot really say for sure whats going on past a certain point, down to the classical laws of mathematics and physics breaking down where singularities are concerned.

What do you mean we have a tamer environment?

You're made of stardust and the product of suns and supernova, that's not exactly tame beginnings.