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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaShredder
 



It has been recently confirmed that all matter in the universe is a fluctuation of the fabric of space(quantum waves).


Hi, can you link any sources for this?

Thanks!




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I just updated my last post with the proper links

Second line



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by ParaShredder
 



It has been recently confirmed that all matter in the universe is a fluctuation of the fabric of space(quantum waves).


Hi, can you link any sources for this?

Thanks!


Also, a great book to read that exlains it all is: Schodingers Universe by Dr Milo Wolff. This book will blow your mind.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I have often wondered about gravity aswell. See, the thing I dont totally get, is when they show us the demonstration of space-time as a fabric, then place a heavy object in the middle to show how the sun effects space-time, when the roll a smaller ball it does "orbit" but only for a short time before it is pulled into the gravity of the larger object. Now, if this were the case, wouldn't all the planets in our solar system, and every solar system for that matter, be pulled into the sun eventually? Why do we keep orbiting at the same distance and not get sucked into the suns depresion caused in the fabric of space-time? Or am I just missing out on something here and sounding like a fool??



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
I have often wondered about gravity aswell. See, the thing I dont totally get, is when they show us the demonstration of space-time as a fabric, then place a heavy object in the middle to show how the sun effects space-time, when the roll a smaller ball it does "orbit" but only for a short time before it is pulled into the gravity of the larger object. Now, if this were the case, wouldn't all the planets in our solar system, and every solar system for that matter, be pulled into the sun eventually? Why do we keep orbiting at the same distance and not get sucked into the suns depresion caused in the fabric of space-time? Or am I just missing out on something here and sounding like a fool??


The warping of space is only another way of looking at the space time/quantum waves being emitted by a massive object. The key to understanding gravity is to understand inertia and what causes it, as I explained in my previous posts.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Let me start off by saying that I'm certainly no physicist, but whenever I've thought about Eisnteins bowling ball theory and the way in which it bends space time it's never made any sense to me. Probably because I'm not a physicist but here's why I can't understand it.

Whenever you see a model of a ball (like our planet) bending space time you always see an object that is 3 dimensional in nature pushing down on space time which is always illustrated as a flat 2 dimensional plane. When I think about it in that way then I can see why objects that come near to, or into the depression would roll or be sucked in. No problem

But is space time 2 dimensional and flat? I can't see how it could be, or is it simply that it's easier to illustrate it in that way?

The way that I see it is that if you were to create that same depression in space time all alround an object it wouldn't be a depression at all. Essentially you would be creating a bubble in space time which would bend it outwards and therefore turn it into a repelling force as opposed to an attracting force which would then push everything else away.

As I said, I'm no physicist so if someone could explain this to me I'd appreciate it.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by RMFX1
 


Its just an easier way to illustrate it. In reality if you were able to see it, it would look like a dense haze around the planet decreasing with the square of the distance. The old 2D gravity well diagram is actually outdated because more is now known about the cause of gravity.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by nonnez
 


You have seen so many explanations because no one really have a answer to it. Even though some like to take it for granted all there is are lots of theories over it and yet no real answer.

The day someone will be able to explain you gravity for A+B that person will probably also be able to reverse it.

In my opinion, to put in a really crude way I like to think gravity as the "harmonization of frequencies".



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by RMFX1
Let me start off by saying that I'm certainly no physicist, but whenever I've thought about Eisnteins bowling ball theory and the way in which it bends space time it's never made any sense to me. Probably because I'm not a physicist but here's why I can't understand it.

Whenever you see a model of a ball (like our planet) bending space time you always see an object that is 3 dimensional in nature pushing down on space time which is always illustrated as a flat 2 dimensional plane. When I think about it in that way then I can see why objects that come near to, or into the depression would roll or be sucked in. No problem

But is space time 2 dimensional and flat? I can't see how it could be, or is it simply that it's easier to illustrate it in that way?

The way that I see it is that if you were to create that same depression in space time all alround an object it wouldn't be a depression at all. Essentially you would be creating a bubble in space time which would bend it outwards and therefore turn it into a repelling force as opposed to an attracting force which would then push everything else away.

As I said, I'm no physicist so if someone could explain this to me I'd appreciate it.


Man we could spend the rest of our lives elaborating ideas over these topics. Personally I think space can very well be just a illusion of our senses that are stuck at certain frequency level. Thus there is no bending space because in fact there is no space to begin with.

I better hit the bed and sleep because this a never ending conversation that never reaches anywhere



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
reply to post by nonnez
 


You have seen so many explanations because no one really have a answer to it. Even though some like to take it for granted all there is are lots of theories over it and yet no real answer.

The day someone will be able to explain you gravity for A+B that person will probably also be able to reverse it.

In my opinion, to put in a really crude way I like to think gravity as the "harmonization of frequencies".




I like that one gravity does keep all in balance some how, if it wasen't for gravity nothing would be, even if we dont know what it is we know its something we can always count on to be. Even the sun will be gone one day even this galaxy the milky way way wont be around forever, but gravity will always be around in one form or another. It really brings a sort unseen of harmony to all freguencies of life,



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by thomas_
 


The explanation I gave of gravity is based on WSM theory. In WSM theory the only real substance that really exists in the universe is the substance of space time/ fabric of space. Everything else, all matter and the forces of nature are merely fluctuations of this substance.


www.spaceandmotion.com...



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

The words I used interchangeably have no bearing on your claim that I called you 'stupid' or that I assume everyone is 'stupid',


Now you are just going off the track completely. What was that you said about me not being able to read again? What was it you said insulting my ability to understand words written on a page? Oh yeah, I forget because I am too busy still laughing at the fact that you WROTE the wrong damn thing and then insulted my intelligence for not knowing what you MEANT TO WRITE.


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.




It had nothing to do with semantics. If you are talking about something, you need to refer to it by a name it is known by. I told you I had never head that term before so I looked it up. What did I find? I found SOLAR POWERED CLOCKS. So I asked what you wanted to know, how solar power works or clocks. If you meant sundial, you needed to say SUNDIAL. Sorry but that is how life works. You can not sit there asking me questions about made up words and then insult me for not being psychic enough to compensate for YOUR MISTAKE.

Thanks for proving though that your arugment has no merrit and you would rather concentrate on exchaging personal barbs. Not interested. I do not have time for that. I know because I can measure it.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You do the very thing you accuse me of when I'm doing no such thing.


What thing is that? What are you talking about?


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.


Why because I stayed on topic while you started attacking my reading comprehension because your made up word did not float?

All I wanted to discuss was measuring time. You are the one that went off talking about "solar clocks" and then insulting me for not knowing you meant something else completely. You obviously have no real response and whatever point you wanted to make seems to have fled you.

I can measure time. You can measure time. Time is measurable. Now you can insult me or actually discuss it. The choice is clearly yours.


The whole purpose of that response was to do nothing more than to troll and illicit a like response from myself.


What was the purpose of calling me illiterate after asking you what your fake, wrong, made up term meant? Was that to further discussion? How often does telling someone they are wrong because you miss-spoke further the discussion?



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


What a load of crap. Dude, people can read this stuff here. It is not like denial works when we can scroll up. You went on and on about a "solar clock" and then attacked my reading comprehension for asking you what the hell that was because it is not only not a real term, it certainly does not refer to a SUNDIAL.

When you are ready to discuss, give it a shot and let's see how it goes. If you want to write random wrong words though, do not get upset at me again for not knowing what you MEANT to write.

So again, the point you have spent all these posts attacking me over, accusing me of attacking you over, and not refuting one bit is that time is measurable.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



All I wanted to discuss was measuring time.


And yet, you fail to do any such thing when I have been trying to ask you to perform a simple task. You do more bitching than talking my friend, and no amount of bitching is going to make you appear more 'intellectual'.


PS. Your absolutely correct, everything said is readable by everyone here. Including yourself, so please go back and re-read our conversation IN CONTEXT.


My offer still stands on discussing our debate over time, granted you can do without the sarcastic ignorance and get back onto our discussion.

Explain to me how a solar clock/sun dial (I DO use the words interchangeably, so please don't bitch about semantics as technically, both are correct description of the device being used to measure "time") works and then proceed to tell me time still exists.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
And yet, you fail to do any such thing when I have been trying to ask you to perform a simple task. You do more bitching than talking my friend, and no amount of bitching is going to make you appear more 'intellectual'.


No, you asked me to explain how something that does not exist works. Then you insulted me because you used the wrong words. That is what happened. Spin it any way you like but it is here, in print.


PS. Your absolutely correct, everything said is readable by everyone here. Including yourself, so please go back and re-read our conversation IN CONTEXT.


My offer still stands on discussing our debate over time, granted you can do without the sarcastic ignorance and get back onto our discussion.


You mean like I tried to in my last post and yet still, all I get is this crap?


Explain to me how a solar clock/sun dial (I DO use the words interchangeably, so please don't bitch about semantics as technically, both are correct description of the device being used to measure "time") works and then proceed to tell me time still exists.


LOL. However you need to phrase it to pretend you were not wrong, even after you admitted you were wrong. I am not sure how a logical conversation can be had here at this point.

What do you want to know? The sun moves, the shadows change. Any points on that "clock" are merely relative.

Not sure how that even relates so I will just go ahead and still insist that time does indeed exist. Maybe what you think time is does not exist but time in English, by definition does indeed exist. It is measurable.

Maybe you have a real concept you wish to relate but just simply can not find the words since words seem to be a tough spot for you.

I answered you question and I again made my claim. Now what?



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


If you have no desire to discuss the problem with time and why time as a dimension of travel does not exist and why we can neither move backward or forwards through time, why we don't do either, then by all means please discuss.

I've given you an extremely simple task of figuring out how a simple clock works to "tell time" and yet you've done nothing but bitch and whine. You can either discuss or we can just end this discussion. It's entirely up to you as I have no desire to hear someone bitch and whine like an infantile child.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


If you have no desire to discuss the problem with time and why time as a dimension of travel does not exist and why we can neither move backward or forwards through time, why we don't do either, then by all means please discuss.


What are you missing? I said time exists. I said it can be measured. You have a problem with that. All you have done is demand I explain things and call me names for not being psychic. I have no clue what you want to discuss. You are arguing with me and not presenting anything for your side of the discussion.



I've given you an extremely simple task of figuring out how a simple clock works to "tell time" and yet you've done nothing but bitch and whine.


What? I thought you were asking about a sundial? A sundial and a clock do not work the same way at all. Keep swearing at me though. That seems to be convincing.



You can either discuss or we can just end this discussion. It's entirely up to you as I have no desire to hear someone bitch and whine like an infantile child.

Well, I have not tried to get back on topic 3 times and all 3 times this is what I got back so how about you go hassle someone else for a while before mom comes back and catches you online.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


If you know how a sundial works, then you can begin to understand that time is never measured. I have continuously attempted to get you to look this up by asking you to explain it to me in your own words.

All I can say is that I'm sorry that I put too much faith into your ability to converse about such a simple topic with more maturity than what you have presented me with. Your still doing nothing but bitching and trolling. Clearly you have no desire to discuss this or else you actually WOULD HAVE DISCUSSED IT INSTEAD OF BITCHING IN EVERY SINGLE POST.

Sorry for the caps, but I felt the need to really emphasize how you've decided to take this conversation. Seeing as how you neither want to discuss this topic nor have any initiative to learn something without having your hand held every step of the way, I'm out of this discussion with you.

However, my offer still stands to continue the discussion when your ready to do without the sarcastic ignorance and show a mediocre of maturity.

I hope you have a wonderful day!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


If you know how a sundial


Hey, I got your U2U complaining about me not getting back to you in a timely manner. I have no idea what you could possible be talking about. According to you, time does not exist and is not measurable so why would you complain I am taking too long to answer you? How would you know it is taking a long time? How do you know I have not already answered you right away? How do you know that my answer was not the next thing that happened over hear and somehow you just did not get it yet?

If you are correct in your premise, your U2U complaining about how long I am taking makes little sense.

However, your argument that is based on some nonsense you learned in philosophy 101 is just really not a priority to me and is really kind of a waste of my time.

Your U2U proves to me that logic and commons sense are not at play here because then you would know I am aware you answered, I just did not care to get back to you yet. If you cannot figure out that my "my ats" page would tell me that, then I fear you have not the knowledge to really keep any of this up in a real and meaningful way. It also proves that you are measuring time and too much of it passed for you.

So instead of going around and around about sundials, how about you just sit and wait patiently for me to get back to you whenever I decide or perhaps take this time to explain to me why if time does not exist and can not be measured, you are upset I am taking so long.

Game on!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


First, it's against ATS rules to discuss U2U's in any thread, hence why U2U's are private discussions between two people. Second, since we've decided to already break ATS rules on the matter of U2U's let's quote from it.


I'm sorry to see you get so upset from me telling you time doesn't exist and to better comprehend what your reading. If you go back through the posts you can clearly see where your bitching out of context and how you had no real desire to discuss the issue with me. You were fully sarcastic and purposefully remaining ignorant throughout as I attempted to get you to learn about a simple clock and how it "measures time".


Where are you getting this complete nonsensical BS about me complaining that you hadn't replied in a 'timely manner'?

Don't sit there and think you can just make up garbage and be viewed as somehow 'intelligent' for doing so whilst thinking I would just back down from such incessant stupidity.

To clarify the nature of this post:

To show others how idiotic one can be in an attempt to "save face". You made up BS, got called on said BS.

Now what? Would you like to make up more BS my friend?

Remember what I said, life is too short to focus on such negativity. Your negativity is leading to no amount of intelligent thought on your behalf but instead we see it leading to nothing but outright lies.

Good job man!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join