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.

 

Seven things that don't make sense about gravity

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
We still dont understand gravity. The nuclear force and gravity - is it one and the same? Why does gravity does not have anti-gravity?



What is gravity?
The Newtonian idea of gravity was nice and simple, then Einstein turned things upside down, and even that isn't the end of the story

Why does gravity only pull?
All the other forces in nature have opposites – so what makes gravity different?

Why is gravity so weak?
Gravity is the weakling among the fundamental forces – what makes it such a misfit?

Why is gravity fine-tuned?
If gravity were a tiny bit stronger, the universe as we know it would not exist

Does life need gravity?
From plants to quail, life of all stripes seems to need gravity to work properly

Can we counter gravity?
People have long dreamed of building a shield against gravity, but no one has managed to do it – yet

Will we ever have a quantum theory of gravity?
Quantum mechanics and relativity, our two best theories of how the world works, seem strangely at odds with the world as we experience it - and with each other


Source: www.newscientist.com...




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
I actually wonder if we have the completely opposite view of what gravity really is. Maybe it is a push force by everythng else in the universe. It only appears to be a pull force because the mass of say the Earth blocks some of the push force from one side and so it appears we are being pulled to the earth when actually we are being pushed. Does that make sense?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Why is gravity fine-tuned?

Strong anthropic principle might be the closest we can ever get to the answer to that question.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stevedel0
 



Why is gravity fine-tuned?

Strong anthropic principle might be the closest we can ever get to the answer to that question.


The strong anthropic principle states that universe gives rise to intelligent life. Intelligent design says that there is a creator of the universe, and the laws of the universe are set by the creator. Would you choose the Strong anthropic principle over intelligent design?



It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


I think that's weak anthropic principle is it not?

Well I meant the other anthropic principle where the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history.

A way to explain it would be through multidimensions. If every possible time line has to exist, then only the one with the laws of physics fine tuned for life as we know it to exist is the only one that can be observed by us. Everything else occurs, its just that there's no life to observe it.

Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being

Hardly scientific though



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by stevedel0
 


The weak and strong anthropic principles :


Weak anthropic principle (WAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."[13]
Unlike Carter they restrict the principle to carbon-based life, rather than just "observers." A more important difference is that they apply the WAP to the fundamental physical constants, such as the fine structure constant, the number of spacetime dimensions, and the cosmological constant —, topics that fall under Carter's SAP.

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Barrow and Tipler): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."[14]
This looks very similar to Carter's SAP, but unlike the case with Carter's SAP, the "must" is an imperative, as shown by the following three possible elaborations of the SAP, each proposed by Barrow and Tipler:[15]
"There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers.'"
This can be seen as simply the classic design argument restated in the garb of contemporary cosmology. It implies that the purpose of the universe is to give rise to intelligent life, with the laws of nature and their fundamental physical constants set to ensure that life as we know it will emerge and evolve.
"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."
Barrow and Tipler believe that this is a valid conclusion from quantum mechanics, as John Archibald Wheeler has suggested, especially via his participatory universe and Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
"An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe."
By contrast, Carter merely says that an ensemble of universes is necessary for the SAP to count as an explanation.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I LOVE gravity. It is amazing for me to think of a giant cloud of dust slowly being pulled together into a dense ball of gas that spins faster and faster creating suns and planets.

Hypothetically speaking if only two pieces of dust existed each at opposite ends of the universe given a long enough time line they would eventually be pulled towards each other through gravitational attraction?

I mean how the HECK does something like that work? It is truly wondrous.

Solar systems, Galaxies and even clusters and SUPER clusters of thousands of galaxies all pulled together to form something larger all due to gravity.

What I do not understand is at what smallness of size does gravity cease to control things and the nuclear force takes over?

How small does something get before gravity does not affect it anymore?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
I actually wonder if we have the completely opposite view of what gravity really is. Maybe it is a push force by everythng else in the universe. It only appears to be a pull force because the mass of say the Earth blocks some of the push force from one side and so it appears we are being pulled to the earth when actually we are being pushed. Does that make sense?


This might make sense if gravity is property of space-time. So the Earth's mass, creates a void in space where fictitious space-time particles rush in to fill the void, and moving space-time frame with it, and cause what we feel as gravity. No one has figured it out yet, so I would say, your theory is possible



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sunny_2008ny
 


Gravity isn't an independent force, its a force of mass/matter. The bigger an object is, the more pull it has. Small objects pull back on larger objects. Gravity has a cumulative effect. Each object in a galaxy has its own pull while the galaxy itself has a net pull derived from all its contents. This is the same at the atomic level, each atom has its own pull but when they are grouped together in complex compounds, all their pulls are grouped together into one unified pull (while each atom still maintains a small pull of its own).

Gravity didn't result in matter, matter resulted in gravity so it has to be friendly to the requirements of the universe because it came about directly after the matter of the universe was formed. Wondering how gravity made matter, is putting effect before cause which can only happen in really really wrong quantum physics theories. So basically its not fine tuned for matter and its workings because matter fine tuned gravity for itself.

The nuclear forces, gravity, and em (and in my mind matter itself) are all the same thing. The size and certain other requirements dictate what manifestation of the force presents itself. Making up imaginary particles and dimensions to explain the differences only hurts us when instead we could be learning what their common factor is and then use that information to learn a lot about how the universe really works.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by grapesofraft
 


I agree, here's a picture i did for another thread...




posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


Thats a 2D diagram and on top of that, there isn't any grand reference point in space to determine an up or down. For that to be right you'd have to include diagonal forces ( a sphere of force) which make the math a bit more complicated. That diagram also assumes a 90 degree earth when earth is actually tilted at 23ish degrees.

Your best bet bringing that theory forward is somehow linking the flow to the earths magnetic poles.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Eitimzevinten]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by grapesofraft
I actually wonder if we have the completely opposite view of what gravity really is. Maybe it is a push force by everythng else in the universe. It only appears to be a pull force because the mass of say the Earth blocks some of the push force from one side and so it appears we are being pulled to the earth when actually we are being pushed. Does that make sense?


The problem with that, is that if you go to the moon, you would still weight the same as on Earth, in fact, gravity on the moon would be variable depending on its location relative to the Earth. However, we know that's not true.

Now, I really didn't understand what he wanted to say here:


All the other forces in nature have opposites – so what makes gravity different?


Maybe he forgot Strong Force? And Weak Force? Come to think of it, of the fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force is the weird one!


[edit on 12-6-2009 by daniel_g]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
maybe this will help you guys understand how gravity works...


Google Video Link


...he gets to it around the 18-19 minute mark - just watch...


do you think he's correct?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 


Stan the man, this video inspired me to question conventional thinking. It truly is a great video, especially the coke bottle and waves.

His device towards the end with a plank of wood and solenoids seems very, very interesting. I PM'ed a member who said he'd built it; he didn't respond. Perhaps he got sucked-up into some other dimension.

So in answer to your question adrenochrome: "do you think he's correct?" - wholeheartedly - YES



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 




do you think he's correct?


Hehe I seriously doubt it. I have tried to look into Stan's background and there is little information on it. I mean the guy has his own website but everyone does today. And his site is full of fringe information- none of which can be scientifically (using the scientific method) and independantly verified.

He claims to have some college level education in engineering but is primarily self-taught. Maybe, but if he was so bright why do him and his wife have to resort publishing books on emergency prepardness like on his website?



I honestly think he's probably a fraud. There are really bright people who did receive 4-year engineering degrees but were primarily "self-taught" in mathematics and analysis. Here is one by the name of Paul R. Hill. Look at his career! And there is actually records of it. Also, if you read a book by this individual you can tell his writing style is that of a scientist. People who are that intelligent usually show it when they communicate. Stan seems like another sensationalist (with a website) and slightly above average knowledge of science.

So short answer: No I don't think that Stan has discovered anything that all the other (real) brainiacs failed to grasp.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Scramjet76
 


I watched some vids a while back and i remember some stuff about his need to bug out in Oz because of his disclosures. Here's a vid series about him...



Stan Deyo has held Above Top Secret Security Clearance and worked undercover for the FBI. He was part of an exclusive "black project", headed by Dr. Edward Teller specializing in the development of "flying saucer technology".





posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I like this explanation...

Think of the Earth as a Bowling ball and think of space-time as a trampoline... Putting the ball onto the trampoline causes the fabric to stretch into a depression. Now if we were to roll a golf ball representing any other body around the edge of the Trampoline, what would happen when the ball reaches that depression? Gravity!

Check out these videos (and the rest of the site). einstein.stanford.edu...



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ABiGOR
 


The space-time model is incorrect. Time is a fake dimension invented for human simplicity and is dependent upon change.

If you stopped everything in the universe from changing for a "second", would there be a hiccup in "space-time" or would it be business as usual at the end of the pause?

If you said there would be a hiccup, I request from you an equation and diagram that explain how something can change without changing. The fact of the matter is, it would resume as usual because the forces that keep it going aren't stopped, they are just "frozen" potential. Upon the end of the pause, the light that was stopped continues on its path, the momentum in matter before the pause is preserved and things keep moving as they were.

Our actual flow of change is direct. A model of space-time humors the idea that time is above the change required to measure it. If you want to make "time" a valid dimension, you must split it up into two dimensions. One of ongoing change and one of potential for change. They are two separate components of the same thing. Making time a single dimension, discredits one or the other in an equation.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I think gravity is the natural relationship between every object in the universe. This kind of crosses into quantum physics about how every particle in the universe is connected and how they've managed to create the same particle in two different locations.

Gravity might just be matters natural attraction. I believe the universe has a 'desire' to be whole like it was at the big bang, and that being apart is unnatural for it. Who knows, maybe gravity is the physical manifestation of love


Either way, I know for a fact that our current model for gravity is false. It just seems too simple for the universe.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Why do orbiting objects seem to be grouped along the same plane?


Gravity seems to create semi-closed systems (that's probably not the right term) - the moon is within the earth's system of gravity, while the earth system is within the sun's system of gravity...

Gravity is like some type of indiscriminate magnetism (besides charged plasma particles or some such)...


I don't know! I am stumped.... What is that damn stuff? Place an ounce of gravity onto my tounge and I'll let you know.



new topics




 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join