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.
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
Why is gravity fine-tuned?
Strong anthropic principle might be the closest we can ever get to the answer to that question.
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.
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.
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?
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?
All the other forces in nature have opposites – so what makes gravity different?
Google Video Link |
do you think he's correct?
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".