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....exactly?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


And it rains on us because the sky is up above us. Anyways it's pointless to argue humanity has not advanced enough to say without a dought what energy is and if it did the definition for energy would fit in a entire library full of books, but still someone should come up with a basic definition that expresses basic concepts. The closest I can come up of the top of my mind for such a complex thing is, observable change of matter through esteemed concepts.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
First show me a measurable distance between now and later or then and now.


Would you like minutes, days, weeks, fortnights?


We don't exist in the later, now and we don't exist in the then, now.


I do not exist at the end of my driveway as well as the beginning of my driveway at the same time but I can still determine a quantifiable distance between here and there - all while existing in only one of those.


We exist in the now at a constant rate determined by entropy. Do you disagree with entropy?


I disagree with your understanding and application of it.

First of all, a constant rate? Determined how? Please tell me how exactly you know what a constant rate is? I sure hope it is not measured. Speaking of which, entropy is a measurment itself.

It is nice to use cool words and all but it did nothing to deny the fact that I can tell you how far from now an hour is or how it will take until it is tomorrow.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Would you like minutes, days, weeks, fortnights?


Explain how a solar clock works, please. Then proceed to tell me clocks measure time.



I do not exist at the end of my driveway as well as the beginning of my driveway at the same time but I can still determine a quantifiable distance between here and there - all while existing in only one of those.


A physical distance is different, as that physical distance as you can transverse that distance within physical space. Time is a measurement of cycles and sequential events and always has been. You don't transverse cycles, you exist within them. Our position around the sun right now exists right now, not one month from now, but we can deduce the distance of physical space it will travel within it's cycle around the sun.


I disagree with your understanding and application of it.

First of all, a constant rate? Determined how? Please tell me how exactly you know what a constant rate is? I sure hope it is not measured. Speaking of which, entropy is a measurment itself.


Currently, right now this constant rate is measured by the oscillations of a cesium atom. If you still want to believe in time, then show me a unit of time that has been measured.


It is nice to use cool words and all but it did nothing to deny the fact that I can tell you how far from now an hour is or how it will take until it is tomorrow.



You've done no such thing, please re-read your post.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Explain how a solar clock works, please. Then proceed to tell me clocks measure time.


Solar clock? They work the same way regular clocks do with a different energy source I guess. Not sure what you mean or how it matters. Besides, I never actually said clocks measured anything, I said time can be measured. Clocks do a pretty good job in helping you quantify that measurement though.

So please, enlighten me as to whatever you are talking about and how it proves time can not be measured?



A physical distance is different, as that physical distance as you can transverse that distance withing physical space.


So what? No one has proven to me that you need anything physical to measure something. Maybe you think you are having a different conversation than the one I am. Time can be measured. That is all I am saying. Stop playing games and just prove me wrong already.


Time is a measurement of cycles and sequential events and always has been.


Huh?


Time is a measurement of cycles and sequential events and always has been.


What?


Time is a measurement of cycles and sequential events and always has been.


I am sorry, say again?


Time is a measurement of cycles and sequential events and always has been.


Hmmm. Maybe there is too much static on this channel because it looks a great deal like you just said time is a measurement. I am not sure how you can tell me time can not be measured while using time as a measurement in your argument. Maybe you want to start over.




You don't transverse cycles, you exist within them.


That is not true at all, not even according to your original argument. If we only exist in the here and now, NOT the then or later, then we cannot exist within an entire cycle but only one moment of it. You do know what a cycle is, don't you? It has a beginning and an end. You are trying to tell me that we cannot measure time because we do not exist anytime but now but at the same time we cannot measure time because it is a measurement of cycles within which we exist at the beginning, middle and end all at the same time?

I am not sure you are even trying.


Our position around the sun right now exists right now, not one month from now,
You mean like not at the END OF THIS CYCLE? Right, go back and redo your last point then because this one refutes it.


but we can deduce the distance of physical space it will travel within it's cycle around the sun.


You mean a cycle where something exists at all points around the sun at the exact same time or would you like to try again?


Currently, right now this constant rate is measured by the oscillations of a cesium atom.


What was that?


Currently, right now this constant rate is measured by the oscillations of a cesium atom.


Wow, I must really need a new connection or something. One more time?


Currently, right now this constant rate is measured by the oscillations of a cesium atom.


I would swear you are telling me something is being measured again within this definition of why time can NOT be measured. I am sure I am just reading it wrong, right?


If you still want to believe in time, then show me a unit of time that has been measured.


You mean besides the cycles you keep yapping about being measured?
You took care of that already. I guess what I am missing is where you proved that a minue is not a measurement of time. Care to try?




You've done no such thing, please re-read your post.


Done no such thing? I think you need to re-read what you just responded to.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by K J Gunderson

It is nice to use cool words and all but it did nothing to deny the fact that I can tell you how far from now an hour is or how it will take until it is tomorrow.



You've done no such thing, please re-read your post.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by sirnex]


See what I said there. I never claimed to do anything so what "such thing" did I not do? Talk about reading.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



Solar clock?


Explain to me how a solar clock works and then proceed to tell me time exists.

As for the rest of your post, all I could glean out of that was sarcastic ignorance. I'm not very great at teaching someone a simple common sense concept, which is why I'm begging you to tell me how something as simple as a solar clock works and tell me what it's measuring.

Once you figure that out, then perhaps you'll understand the rest of my post and in the future will do without the sarcastic rhetoric.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
silent thunder:

the universe seems to be expanding, yet gravity is a "drawing together," i.e., the opposite of general expansion. I've wondered about the relationship between expansion and gravity.


That is interesting, what if there is something being drawn out of the nothing & that causes the nothing to expand & that something is also the stuff that flows into the warp/gravity wells?

You extract 'proximity'/'closeness' from one place to put it [let it flow] somewhere else.
That is quite intriguingly abstract. Kind of seductive (scary?).
Very concise. Quite empiric?

Proximity is eroding one place & flowing to between mass bearing objects?

It is weird. I both like & don't like it.

I have always thought of it as some perpendicular, 4th dimensional flow of gravitons, that are external to our Universe, but the idea that gravity flow is sort of intrinsically harvested right from our own Universe is an interesting one. It is kind of more efficient, but sort of sinuous & not perhaps as easy to get a handle on. It is nicely reciprocal, but seems a little claustrophobic at least to me.

If as i usually think of it, gravity/graviton-flow is perpendicular to the fabric of space-time then the attraction of objects to one another is arguably an illusion, they are actually being pushed perpendicular to space-time & only go closer to one another because of funneled warping of space-time.
The funnels get smaller so the objects get closer, which also would make it a weak force, as gravity is compared to other forces.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
An interesting thought,

if you keep eroding 'proximity' could it potentially increase the dimensionality of the void/nothingness?

Would that make sense? That as you remove more & more closeness within/around an object it may eventually slip off into somewhere else, notably another dimension?

Black holes become singularities, expanding nothing becomes extradimensional.

Another weird thought: What if, way out in the depths of space, between galaxies, there is access to higher dimensions? Like it may already be there, but just over the 3d horizon too far for us to see into the higher dimensions?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Explain to me how a solar clock works and then proceed to tell me time exists.


Really? You do not know what "Solar clock?" means?

Let me help you out. I had never heard of a "Solar clock" before so I had to google it. The only things I could find called "Solar clocks" were regular clocks that were solar powered.

So, either you need to tell me what on Earth you are talking about or explain what you want to know...how a clock works or how solar power works.

I thought I was pretty clear about that so hopefully this fixes that.


As for the rest of your post, all I could glean out of that was sarcastic ignorance.


Seems you are having a hard time reading then. Is English a problem for you?


I'm not very great at teaching someone a simple common sense concept, which is why I'm begging you to tell me how something as simple as a solar clock works and tell me what it's measuring.


You are not good at teaching anything to anyone but I am sure you know that. I am sure you spend all day thinking about how stupid and uninformed EVERYONE else on the planet is. I can tell that being you is quite a burden. Poor thing.

You tell me what a Solar clock is and I will be happy to teach you about how they work. Not sure why you want me to explain whatever you are talking about to you but ok.

Unfortunately, what that measures has nothing to do with anything I said. Multi-meters do not measure time but that does not mean time can not be measuered. If your "Solar clock" thingy does not measure time, then it is not much of a clock. My "clock clock" measures time just fine.

So far, you have failed to explain why time can NOT be measured and have failed to make a cogent argument.

See if you can fill another post with pretty much nothing other than calling me sarcastic and ignorant. I do not mind those things but I am having trouble being convinced of anything meaningful by them.

Are you really trying to enlighten anyone or just looking to win an argument on the internet with a stranger?

Once you figure that out, then perhaps you'll understand the rest of my post and in the future will do without the sarcastic rhetoric.

[edit on 2-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



So, either you need to tell me what on Earth you are talking about or explain what you want to know...how a clock works or how solar power works.


Sorry, Sun Dial. I use the two words interchangeably as they both describe the same thing. I would appreciate that you do without the ignorant sarcasm though.


You are not good at teaching anything to anyone but I am sure you know that. I am sure you spend all day thinking about how stupid and uninformed EVERYONE else on the planet is. I can tell that being you is quite a burden. Poor thing.


I never said you were stupid, just that you had reading problems. Thank you for confirming my previous statement on your ability to comprehend what your reading. It's never a good idea to 'read into' what you 'want out of' for sake of argument, you only look foolish.


You tell me what a Solar clock is and I will be happy to teach you about how they work. Not sure why you want me to explain whatever you are talking about to you but ok.


Look up a sun dial, explain how it measures "time" and then proceed to attempt to tell me time exists. Fundamentally all clocks measure a process other than time and no clock measures a single unit of time. Once you understand how a sun dial works and the physics behind our rotation around the sun and how all this correlates into our concept of time, then hopefully you'll begin to understand more clearly what I'm talking about.

As a side note: You can also look up 'time does not exist', there are plenty of scientific articles to be found through google that can explain this far better than I can.

The rest of the post is sarcastic drivel, do away with that and I may have something to respond too.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Sorry, Sun Dial. I use the two words interchangeably as they both describe the same thing. I would appreciate that you do without the ignorant sarcasm though.


Actually it is four words and getting mad at me because you said the wrong thing kind of tells me all I need to know about having a rational discussion with you.

Should I apologize for not knowing what you meant because you called it something NO ONE ELSE EVER HAS?

Should I apolgoize for asking you to clear it up?

Should I apologize because you repeated it to me as if I was too stupid to understand the first time only to have you realize YOU SAID THE WRONG THING TWICE?

Explain to me how you being wrong and getting huffy with me over it shows my ignorance?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I never said you were stupid, just that you had reading problems. Thank you for confirming my previous statement on your ability to comprehend what your reading.


Ummmm... huh? You said the wrong thing. You used two words that made no sense. I read them exactly as they were. You now admit you said the wrong thing and then still accuse me of having trouble reading?

Seriously, if you want to have a real conversation, you are going to have to at least be adult enough to admit that mocking my reading comprehension after admitting you WROTE THE WRONG THING is about as IGNORANT as you can get.

Man up and see if we can move on.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You do the very thing you accuse me of when I'm doing no such thing. I find that very interesting and the only thing I can deduce accurately from such a response given by yourself is that you have no real interest in discussing this with me. The whole purpose of that response was to do nothing more than to troll and illicit a like response from myself.

When your ready to continue the discussion without the sarcastic ignorance, I'll be more than happy and willing to continue on.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by sirnex
I never said you were stupid, just that you had reading problems. Thank you for confirming my previous statement on your ability to comprehend what your reading.


Ummmm... huh? You said the wrong thing. You used two words that made no sense. I read them exactly as they were. You now admit you said the wrong thing and then still accuse me of having trouble reading?

Seriously, if you want to have a real conversation, you are going to have to at least be adult enough to admit that mocking my reading comprehension after admitting you WROTE THE WRONG THING is about as IGNORANT as you can get.

Man up and see if we can move on.


The words I used interchangeably have no bearing on your claim that I called you 'stupid' or that I assume everyone is 'stupid', again I can only ask that you take the time and patience to comprehend what your reading as your response to my reply over your claim have nothing to do with semantics.


[edit on 3-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I would like to add with relative assurity that all of the gravity warping goes in the same binary direction from the surface of the presumed 4D oversphere of space-time.

That is why they conjoin consistently additively rather than randomly add or cancel each other out.

If you have one funnel stretching left from a sheet of spandex & another stretching right, when they meet they would cancel each other out, which thus far has never been observed.

If the funnels went outwards [spikes] from the center of the over-sphere they would have to bend/change-direction somewhat to conjoin. You would get funny odd fractional measurement changes. ie. 1 + 2 = 2.9967... instead of 3
So i will also guess that the warping goes to the center of the oversphere because that would fit with a condensation of volume.

re-think. If one is adding two gravity wells that both point inward, you would still get some odd fraction of [gain? or] loss of total gravity warp as they add,
so my argument about odd, imperfect values may not hold up, but the contraction of volume argument still does.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by slank]



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Gravity is calculated as an accelerating force.
Inertia is calculated as a linear force/effect.

The accelerated perception of gravity could be due to less area of space [surface] as you go down the funnel.
It could even be the same thing as inertia, if you see inertia as a higher dimensional effect.
Because there is less lateral space [radius of smaller funnel circles] the forward inertia is necessarily increased to keep the total 2D [3D?]movement equal.

Inertia in [relatively] flat space may seem linear, but it could be 2D [3D?] and merely appear that way because the lateral portion of it is equal & unapparent. But that is just a possible proposition with no particular evidence to suggest or deny it.

I think of inertia like the Universe 'expecting' something to do what it has been doing. Joe runs the drug store. Everyday i go to the market & Joe still runs the drug store. So whenever i go out i anticipate that Joe will be running the drug store. My brain only registers 'change' if Joe is NOT running the drug store. Energy is only require to change that relatively consistent state.

There is no impediment to consistent movement. Arguably all movement is necessarily relative, so it says that consistent changes in spacial relationships is equal to no changes in spacial relationships.

If an object is traveling at [near ] the speed of light,
how do we not see the rest of the Universe traveling at [near] the speed of light in the opposite direction?
Shouldn't time slow down for the rest of the Universe too?
If the object is shortening along the vector of movement, maybe the Universe is instead stretching along that same vector of movement.
Maybe if the Universe stretches out & its time slows down they cancel each other out?
If a near light speed object gets all rubbery, why is the whole universe not considered equally & conversely rubbery?



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by hyperdyne
 


"She is saying that light has no mass yet reacts to a gravitational field as if it has mass."

Actually she does not. Light travels in what is believes to be straight path that itself is not effected by the mass of the object it passes. However, the path of space/time itself is bent so what to the photon appears as a straight line is actually not.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
'straightness' of a line has to be considered an embedded, relative perceptual-basis idea.

Either that or some kind of logic construct.
From a to c is the straight[est] path compared to the a - b - c path or the a - d - c path. It is the minimal path of transited nodes.
In some higher dimension static geometry it could be bent all to heck, but from the graph structure, closed-set, self referential system that is the definition of a/the straight[est] 'line' there in the system.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Excellent question, tauristercus!

To think that gravity has a "speed"... I have never thought of that. You have a brilliant questioning mind. Due to Newton's First Law, whenever the gravitational force of the sun disappeared, the earth would obviously continue in a single line in the direction of the last vector within its orbit about the sun. Of course, every other planet would do the same thing, so there would be high probabilities of planetary collisions, not to mention the gravitational forces of larger planets having even further effects on the small planets. It would be an astronomical cluster^%($. The resulting chaos would probably drift in space until it reached a large body like a star and became new asteroids and planets.

I have always believed that gravity has something to do with heat. Stars are very hot in comparison to planets, and they seem to be superior in their gravitational effects. Also, scientists believe most planets contain molten cores. Gravity is mysterious.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nonnez
 


Here is your answer!

Most science only attempts to describe the effect of gravity but does not attempt to explain what the cause of gravity is. It has been recently confirmed that all matter in the universe is a fluctuation of the fabric of space(quantum waves). www.newscientist.com...

At the subatomic level "particles" oscillate at a specific frequency. At the Macroscopic level the "particles" of a body's out going quantum waves combine into a lower frequency de Broglie wave(warping of space time). The larger the object the lower frequency its outgoing quantum waves. When the lower frequency quantum wave of the earth come into contact with an other object like a satellite the more powerful waves from the earth cause the waves of the satellite's "particles facing the earth to oscillate at a lower frequency. This causes a doppler effect of quantum waves to form inside the satellite facing the incoming waves from the earth. This doppler effect of quantum wave cause motion in that direction(inertia).

Gravity is the effect of a more massive object inducing inertia on a less massive object. This discovery opens the door for gravity control. This is not being taught at the universities yet as this is at the latest stages of research and experimentation. However I feel that the TPTB may have known this for much longer.

A good description of matter waves/quantum waves and what causes inertia:
glafreniere.com...

A better description of my post:
www.mirit.ru...

Important to remember: Quantum waves are not EM waves!

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join