What is gravity?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
seeds
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What is gravity?

Post by seeds »

_______

I suggest that no matter what the actual underlying (nuts and bolts) mechanics of gravity may be, it should be obvious that it seems to be the perfectly structured phenomenon for keeping us magnetically adhered to the surface of this orb we are standing on.

Furthermore, the truly quirky thing about gravity is how utterly oblivious humans are of just how strange it really is, as is depicted in my illustration below...

Image

...For it seems that because of gravity, we are functioning in precisely the same context expressed by the second little guy, yet most humans are so unconscious of our actual setting, that the idea of it seeming “fishy” doesn’t even enter into their minds.

As a thought experiment, imagine taking the sphere that the two little guys are standing on and flattening it into a disk, to where the bottoms of their feet are almost touching.

Now imagine them going about their daily business on this disk, completely upside-down from each other - as their disk world slowly flips around and around (like a giant coin) through space.

Now as crazy as that would be for the little guys in the illustration, it pretty much describes the status of our circumstances here on earth.

In other words, if we were functioning on both sides of a disk, as opposed to a sphere, then there would be very little difference between the two (yet consider how fantastically strange a disk world would be).

Therefore (and IMO), the question of “what” gravity is, does not seem to be as important (philosophically) as the question of “why” we were wired in such a way as to make the upside-downness of our situation seem so “natural” to us when, in fact, it is totally bizarre.
_______
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: What is gravity?

Post by QuantumT »

thedoc wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 8:05 pm
gaffo wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 1:28 am how is your view on gravity the only logical explanation?
It's the only one that makes sense to Quantum T so it's the only one, An argument from incredulity.
Maybe I should've been more specific. The only logical explanation to me!
I did not intend to sound arrogant :wink:
gaffo
Posts: 3476
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What is gravity?

Post by gaffo »

QuantumT wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:46 pm
I made a suggestion, earlier in this thread, that neutrons could be the source of gravity, but I had to discard that theory, since most hydrogen stars have no problems sticking together and generating gravity.

thanks for clairification - and thank you for the above reply to me - otherwise I'd not have thought of it.

the 1st gen stars after the big bang were made up of Hydrogen (with a tad of He and Lithium (even less so)................so mostly Hydrogen - which has no neutrons.

yet they burned via the balence of gravity vs fusion to He to maintain the equilibrium to be a short lived stable star.

............so I understand your point above.

..............

but that does bring a question to my mind that i never thought of before.

"heavy" Hydrogen - what? 1 percent of H is of that type (Hydrogen with one neuron).

my question that i never though about until now is: was that 1-percent (like the few He and Lithium) "heavy" Hydogen created in the big bang, or in the 1st generation hydrogen stars?

or both?
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: What is gravity?

Post by QuantumT »

gaffo wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 9:17 pm but that does bring a question to my mind that i never thought of before.

"heavy" Hydrogen - what? 1 percent of H is of that type (Hydrogen with one neuron).

my question that i never though about until now is: was that 1-percent (like the few He and Lithium) "heavy" Hydogen created in the big bang, or in the 1st generation hydrogen stars?

or both?
What you call heavy hydrogen actually has a name. It is an isotope, and it's called Deuterium.

All particles in the universe has been here since TBB. Not a single one has gone away, nor has any of them popped into existence after.
I assume that all the neutrons got attached to protons from the start, but they were not so many (1/7), so most protons got no neutron partner.

It is therefore logic to assume that even the very first stars had deuterium in them.
gaffo
Posts: 3476
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What is gravity?

Post by gaffo »

QuantumT wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 9:45 pm
gaffo wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 9:17 pm but that does bring a question to my mind that i never thought of before.

"heavy" Hydrogen - what? 1 percent of H is of that type (Hydrogen with one neuron).

my question that i never though about until now is: was that 1-percent (like the few He and Lithium) "heavy" Hydogen created in the big bang, or in the 1st generation hydrogen stars?

or both?
What you call heavy hydrogen actually has a name. It is an isotope, and it's called Deuterium.
i think you are correct here. got "heavy water" (H-deuterium2 oxygen) confused with hydrogen's heavy isotope.


QuantumT wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 9:45 pm All particles in the universe has been here since TBB. Not a single one has gone away, nor has any of them popped into existence after.
not so.

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of mater is made from energy (and vise versa of course).

E=Mc2.


nt to mention Hawking Radiation's "virtural particles" being make via the vacuum of space.............and BH's lowing mass via those particles/anti-particles being make at he EH, and some drifting outside of the EH to allow the BH to loss mass and eventually "Evaporate".




QuantumT wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 9:45 pm I assume that all the neutrons got attached to protons from the start, but they were not so many (1/7), so most protons got no neutron partner.

It is therefore logic to assume that even the very first stars had deuterium in them.


yes i think so too.
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: What is gravity?

Post by QuantumT »

gaffo wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 10:11 pm not so.

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of mater is made from energy (and vise versa of course).

E=Mc2.


nt to mention Hawking Radiation's "virtural particles" being make via the vacuum of space.............and BH's lowing mass via those particles/anti-particles being make at he EH, and some drifting outside of the EH to allow the BH to loss mass and eventually "Evaporate".
More and more scientists actually consider all matter to be information (not matter or energy, just data). We are quite sure nothing in the universe can disappear, but if anything can be added, and how that could happen, is another - and very interesting - discussion.
gaffo
Posts: 3476
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What is gravity?

Post by gaffo »

QuantumT wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:02 pm
gaffo wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 10:11 pm not so.

.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of mater is made from energy (and vise versa of course).

E=Mc2.


nt to mention Hawking Radiation's "virtural particles" being make via the vacuum of space.............and BH's lowing mass via those particles/anti-particles being make at he EH, and some drifting outside of the EH to allow the BH to loss mass and eventually "Evaporate".
More and more scientists actually consider all matter to be information (not matter or energy, just data).
ok, you got me on your "hook". what nonsense are you talking about here -per "data" vs matter/energy.

no dissrepect, just saying i see "bunk" here and you got me hooked like a fish in reply to your post.
User avatar
QuantumT
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:45 pm
Contact:

Re: What is gravity?

Post by QuantumT »

gaffo wrote: Sat May 12, 2018 11:11 pm ok, you got me on your "hook". what nonsense are you talking about here -per "data" vs matter/energy.

no dissrepect, just saying i see "bunk" here and you got me hooked like a fish in reply to your post.
They call it information theory. It's the new kid on the block. But it's gaining scientific territory rapidly, mostly due to string theory, wich is based on math (read my thread about "Math and reality": https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 26&t=24014).

Here's a mainstream article about it:
http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-ba ... nformation
seeds
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What is gravity?

Post by seeds »

_______

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Looking back at my OP, it dawned on me that in the same way that quantum entanglement could be the underlying reason for an object’s weight with respect to the gravitational pull of a planet (see the OP), it could also be the reason why an object can never move at the speed of light.

Again, this is all just fun speculation, however, to demonstrate what I am getting at, I need for us to look once again at the unique feature of the laser hologram:

Image

The fact that all three of the objects keep emerging from the broken pieces of the photographic plate is because the patterns of information that underpin their construction appear to exist in a seamless and interpenetrating state of “oneness” within the photographic emulsion.

All of which, of course, is a loose analogy of the “superpositioning and entanglement” taking place within the theorized “Universal Wavefunction.”

Now because the three objects are so intimately bonded to each other at their informational level, it means that if we were somehow able to rotate the key and change its orientation relative to the die and the paper clip, then the entire matrix of underlying information would have to re-adjust its attributes in order to accommodate the change.

Now with the above in mind, imagine that the photographic plate of the hologram is a metaphorical representation of the information that underpins the entire universe...

(again, the “Universal Wavefunction”)

...and that every object in the universe is intimately bonded to each other similar to the three objects in the hologram.

In which case, isn’t it possible that the resistance that one encounters in trying to move an object at extreme velocities...

(a resistance that is described as the object gaining mass)

...is, in truth, the result of the entangled informational matrix of, again, “the entire universe” being incapable of re-adjusting its attributes fast enough to accommodate the changing position of that object as it approaches the speed of light?

In other words, what appears to be a situation where the mass and weight of the entire universe seems to be latching on to the object and preventing it from reaching that maximum speed,...

(which, from the perspective of entanglement, is exactly what’s happening)

...is simply a mundane issue concerning the limited rate at which the universe can process its own “software.”

And just in case that last part wasn’t very clear:

If it is indeed possible that the quantum has a limit** to the speed at which it can rearrange its patterns of information to accommodate the changing position of an object being pushed to the speed of light...

**(the limit no doubt being the speed of light)

...then because that object is inextricably bonded (enmeshed) with all of the other objects throughout the universe via entanglement, then its incremental approach to that speed is incrementally matched - in direct proportion – by a growing resistance that eventually reaches a point to where it feels like it is dragging the entire universe along with it.

Why?

Because that is exactly what it is doing - dragging the entire universe along with it...

...(hence the theorized problem of acquiring infinite mass).

Anyway, regardless of any of that being true or not, it seems to pair up nicely with my OP. :D

Any thoughts on this?
_______
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What is gravity?

Post by surreptitious57 »

If every object in the Universe is inextricably bonded with every other object in it via entanglement this would
mean they they are all simultaneously dragging the entire Universe along with them in every possible direction

The fact of the matter is that at this point in time it is not known what the cause of entanglement is for it is just another gap in knowledge
Gravity only propagates at the speed of light so it cannot be an explanation for entanglement which is instantaneous whatever the distance
seeds
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What is gravity?

Post by seeds »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am If every object in the Universe is inextricably bonded with every other object in it via entanglement this would
mean they they are all simultaneously dragging the entire Universe along with them in every possible direction
Right.

And in the context of this speculative theory, that is exactly what’s happening.

Just look at the implications of what is taking place within the broken pieces of the laser hologram...

Image

...and then realize that if the key could actually move, then it would indeed be dragging the die and the paperclip along with it (but, of course, not in a way that the statement implies - see clarification**).

And the point is that the same would also apply to a real key (or a spaceship) with respect to the universe.

But as I implied in the prior post, at slow velocities, the universe can easily process its underlying “software” and thus accommodate the changing position of the key with no observable problems.

However, at velocities approaching the speed of light – it cannot.

Therefore, the drag becomes noticeable in the form of what is interpreted as an increase in mass.

**(It is important to understand that the explicated key, die, and paperclip in the hologram are a metaphorical representation of what physicists call “local” reality. Whereas, on the other hand, the patterns of information imbued within the photographic emulsion represent “non-local” reality.

In which case, the idea of the die and the paperclip being dragged along with the key as it moves would not be anything obvious up at the local (“phenomenal”) level of reality, but is in reference to the changes that take place at the non-local (“noumenal”) level of reality due to the key’s entanglement with the other objects.)
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am The fact of the matter is that at this point in time it is not known what the cause of entanglement is for it is just another gap in knowledge
Gravity only propagates at the speed of light so it cannot be an explanation for entanglement which is instantaneous whatever the distance
If you take the time to read the OP, then you will understand that I am suggesting that entanglement is the explanation for gravity, not the other way around.
_______
gaffo
Posts: 3476
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What is gravity?

Post by gaffo »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am If every object in the Universe is inextricably bonded with every other object in it via entanglement this would
mean they they are all simultaneously dragging the entire Universe along with them in every possible direction

The fact of the matter is that at this point in time it is not known what the cause of entanglement is for it is just another gap in knowledge
Gravity only propagates at the speed of light so it cannot be an explanation for entanglement which is instantaneous whatever the distance
correct gravity like electromagnatizm/nulear strong and weak - act at speed of light (ie are relativistic)

entanglement (quantum thing) is instantanous - but limited by distance (short distance - so "space" has an effect upon that "thing" (entanglement).

clearly since neither GM/GP nor Relativity explains "reality" - each a partial and mutually contradictory view of - the answer is that energy/matter(and all known forced related too- have an more funemental nature not yet found concerning them.

to be understood when/if we understand the nature of "matter/energy" (which may be neither in that environment - but the foundation of both and utterly different from either) at HB singularities/universe's big bang.

of course the former may not be the same as the latter - even if one comes to conprehend BH's singuarities (where there is no volume, but still gravity and time (unlike wrt to BB), might still be lightyears from understanding the nature of "Reality/energy/mass/all under them - WRT to BB.
seeds
Posts: 1005
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: What is gravity?

Post by seeds »

gaffo wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:32 am entanglement (quantum thing) is instantanous - but limited by distance (short distance - so "space" has an effect upon that "thing" (entanglement).
No, gaffo, quantum entanglement is not limited by distance. That’s why people make such a big deal about it.

According to certain interpretations of the theory, two entangled particles could reside on opposite sides of the universe (billions of light years apart) and a measurement on one will instantaneously affect the other.

Here’s a short and simple YouTube video - https://youtu.be/8gVzipiwFlU
_______
gaffo
Posts: 3476
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: What is gravity?

Post by gaffo »

kewl, well i've been schooled, thought it was a local thing, but i quess not!

thanks for the correction sir!
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: What is gravity?

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:40 pm Well seeds, I'm sure you don't mean any offence, nor do I take any,...
Nor should you ever, uwot, for I have nothing but the greatest of respect for your logical and illustrative approach to science, and I would never purposely try to insult you.
uwot wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:40 pm ...but the implication is that you believe in god because you understand how complex and ordered nature is. And I don't, because I don't.
No, I believe in God because as I told you in an earlier post, God’s existence was “proven” to me in an epiphany back in 1970.
And, what was that 'epiphany' exactly, and, how was the existence of God proven to you, exactly?
seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm
uwot wrote: Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:40 pm I don't see why the degree makes any difference, but can you give an example of complexity or order in nature that demonstrates the scale of my understatement?
There are so many examples I barely know where to begin.

However, and to slightly paraphrase something I have posted elsewhere, I suggest that the scale of your understatement is demonstrated in how the mere posing of your syllogism seems to casually “take for granted” the unfathomable level of order implicit in just this one image alone....

Image

I mean, if your mind isn’t blown from visualizing the unimaginable stability of the millisecond-by-millisecond precision with which this gigantic orb we are standing on - gently moves around the perfect source of light and energy (unerringly for billions of years, no less), then something is amiss.
But ALL-OF-THIS is very simply, scientifically, explained, and very easily, logically, understood, through 'magnetism', itself. 'Magnetism' is the unifying source, which holds and keeps the Universe in perfect sync. The explanation of Everything explains ALL-OF-THIS.
seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm We’re talking about the precise movement of a gargantuan sphere that not only spins vast oceans and bustling human metropolises around and around - “topsy-turvy” - in a 24 hour rotisserie cycle, but also whose position in space can be calculated with uncanny accuracy – thousands of years in either direction of time.
'Gargantuan' is just a relative word in relation to 'you', a human being. The earth is certainly NOT 'gargantuan' in terms of the Universe, Itself.
seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm Yet it is presumed (by materialists) that such steadfast axial/orbital precision is simply the result of chance and serendipity.
And, yet it is presumed (by 'you') that such steadfast axial/orbital precision is simply the result of God, and purpose.
seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm So yes, in light of just that one simple example alone, your naked and unadorned assertion that “...we observe complexity and order in nature...” (which may as well be referring to an ant colony) seems like an extreme understatement to me.
That 'we' may observe 'complexity', but 'I' observe 'simplicity', instead.
seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm Now to take this one step further, if you will consider the fact that it is also presumed that chance and serendipity (aka “nature”), was not only able to transform the chaotic “stuff” of the aftermath of the alleged Big Bang from something resembling this...

Image
Why is it presumed that that was "chaotic".

That is just the very natural and ordered result/cause after the previous occurrence/effect.
seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm ...into, again, this...

Image

...but also to meticulously equip the orb on the left with every possible ingredient and process necessary to awaken us into existence...
Are you aware that that orb, on the left, could be one of countless other orbs with the ingredients to to, so call, "awaken" a species into existence?
seeds wrote: Wed May 02, 2018 3:55 pm ...then you will understand another one of the reasons for my intense rejection of materialism.

Now I don’t mean to over-dramatize the situation, but even that in itself is not the issue.

The real issue as far as I am concerned can be seen within the context of quantum theory - as is explained in my next post.

(Continued in the next post)
_______
Post Reply