How does gravity work?
How does gravity work?
In a word: refraction. Details in the usual place: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
Re: How does gravity work?
Imagine a deformation of real/material structure of physical space/vacuum/aether and related force/pressure...
Re: How does gravity work?
Well, physical space basically is the deformation of Big Bang stuff. A vacuum is just a place from which all the atoms have been removed, but there is no getting rid of the Big Bang stuff. Physicists have been very reluctant to use the word 'aether' since special relativity explained the observable phenomena without reference to the luminiferous aether on which Maxwell predicated his field equations; from which time cranks have mangled aether into a meaningless term, so it is best avoided.Cerveny wrote:Imagine a deformation of real/material structure of physical space/vacuum/aether and related force/pressure...
Re: How does gravity work?
Is this a joke? Your explanation of airplane lift is wrong and ignores wing dynamics. Your explanation of gravity is laughable.uwot wrote:In a word: refraction. Details in the usual place: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
Re: How does gravity work?
Well, I didn't get into wing dynamics, because it's not really relevant. I presume you are referring to the model that argues that the greater speed of air over the top of the wing creates a partial vacuum, which generates lift. This is true, but it isn't essential, after all, paper aeroplane manage without it.wtf wrote:Is this a joke? Your explanation of airplane lift is wrong and ignores wing dynamics.uwot wrote:In a word: refraction. Details in the usual place: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
I'm pleased you can appreciate it on at least one level. I don't know how funny your explanation of gravity is, but the preferred model, general relativity, while unquestionably a work of genius and fantastically successful in its accuracy and predictions, is essentially dualistic, as it is predicated on the interaction of two separate substances: spacetime and matter. There is nothing in GR that explains how matter warps spacetime. That makes no difference to the utility of GR, but it's just a model.wtf wrote:Your explanation of gravity is laughable.
Re: How does gravity work?
Sorry, but almost all, you have written here is wrong:( How big bang? Can not you feel it is as a logical, as a physical nonsense? Consider, please, rather a "phase border", something like a beginning of (physical space) crystalisation. Today's physicists are, I am afraid, aware that structure of vacuum (aether) is a key to the understanding of Universe. I am personaly quite sure that it is a regular, growing/condensating 4-d crystal. The (space) metric must be represented by certain real, physical structure. The physical forces must be transported via real physical object/elements... Math is only a platonistic dreaming about a real world, that must have a strictly discrete, merely limited, structure. Dear uwot, believe, it is the time to use a logic at the first, instead of a math, that has left physics into blind alley:( sorry, please, bad Englishuwot wrote:Well, physical space basically is the deformation of Big Bang stuff. A vacuum is just a place from which all the atoms have been removed, but there is no getting rid of the Big Bang stuff. Physicists have been very reluctant to use the word 'aether' since special relativity explained the observable phenomena without reference to the luminiferous aether on which Maxwell predicated his field equations; from which time cranks have mangled aether into a meaningless term, so it is best avoided.Cerveny wrote:Imagine a deformation of real/material structure of physical space/vacuum/aether and related force/pressure...
Last edited by Cerveny on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: How does gravity work?
Shucks, I don't often get accused of being consistent.Cerveny wrote:Sorry, but almost all you, have written here is wrong...
I have no idea.Cerveny wrote:How big bang?
I don't really have an opinion on whether it's a logical nonsense, but all the physical evidence supports the big bang model.Cerveny wrote:Can not you feel it is as a logical, as a physical nonsense?
The problem I have with your analogy of crystalisation is that it gives the impression that time is somehow physical; something that can crystalise.Cerveny wrote:Consider, please, rather a "phase border", something like a beginning of (physical space) crystalisation.
If by that you mean one or more quantum fields, then I agree.Cerveny wrote:Today's physicists are, I am afraid, aware that structure of vacuum (aether) is a key to the understanding of Universe.
Maybe it is, but what evidence supports your hypothesis? More to the point, what evidence supports only your hypothesis?Cerveny wrote:I am personaly quite sure that it is a regular, growing/condensating 4-d crystal.
Which big bang stuff is.Cerveny wrote:The (space) metric must be represented by certain real, physical structure.
Which big bang stuff does.Cerveny wrote:The physical forces must be transported via real physical object/elements...
Whether mathematical models are predicated on the truth about reality is irrelevant for the purposes of physics, but it is undeniably the case that the group of mathematical models that have been developed are astonishingly accurate. I think observation is the starting point for physics; if the logical conclusions don't conform with observation, then either the logic is wrong, or the universe isn't logical.Cerveny wrote:Math is only a platonistic dreaming about a real world, that must have a strictly discrete, merely limited, structure. Dear uwot, believe, it is the time to use a logic at the first, instead of a math, that has left physics into blind alley:(
Happy oblige to.Cerveny wrote:sorry, please, bad English
Re: How does gravity work?
I do not have enough strength and motivation to get you convinced of your misunderstanding. The physics becomes a faith, unluckily:( Perhaps you will be (sometime) willing to consider simply following model: The History is a growing/crystallising solid, the Presence is a (live) phase border and the Future is, say, a liquid. Elementary particles are particular deffects in regular structure of (solid) physical space/vacuum/aether. The rest explanation you can find in my other posts. Sorry all for I am still repeating/boring, I promise to rest for a while.
Re: How does gravity work?
Sounds like a different wording of growing-block interpretation of spacetime, which seems to defy the relativistic implications of being simultaneous with both 'solid and liquid' states of anyplace that is not 'here'.Cerveny wrote:The physics becomes a faith, unluckily:( Perhaps you will be (sometime) willing to consider simply following model: The History is a growing/crystallising solid, the Presence is a (live) phase border and the Future is, say, a liquid. Elementary particles are particular deffects in regular structure of (solid) physical space/vacuum/aether.
Yes, some backing (unique predictions) would help if this interpretation is being presented as a hypothesis. I consider growing block to be selective of the worst traits of both eternalist and presentist interpretations, but lack of said differentiating evidence seems to prevent these views from being labelled hypotheses.
Re: How does gravity work?
Well, with what strength and motivation I have, let me clarify my position. A theory such as general relativity has two elements; on the one hand, there is the mathematical description of phenomena; it is not an act of faith to believe the accuracy, it is an act of measurement. On the other hand, where faith comes in is believing that the physical model on which it is based, that matter warps spacetime, is true. Personally, I don't think it is, as there is no mechanism that accounts for the interaction, but the physics, the mathematical description works extremely well.Cerveny wrote:I do not have enough strength and motivation to get you convinced of your misunderstanding. The physics becomes a faith, unluckily:(
Re: How does gravity work?
I didn't mean to jump on you like that, but this helps me understand. You are not endeavoring to explain the conventional Newtonian or Einsteinian model of gravity; rather you're putting forth your own personal theory. Is that right? In which case you're not necessarily wrong, just nonstandard. I don't know much physics beyond the basics and am not in a position to evaluate alternative theories.uwot wrote:... the preferred model, general relativity, while unquestionably a work of genius and fantastically successful in its accuracy and predictions, is essentially dualistic, as it is predicated on the interaction of two separate substances: spacetime and matter. There is nothing in GR that explains how matter warps spacetime. That makes no difference to the utility of GR, but it's just a model.
Is this a fair understanding of your site?
Oh I completely agree with that. Physics is a historically contingent activity of human beings that has been remarkably accurate in its predictions and remarkably useful to engineers. But that's not the same as claiming that our current understanding of physics is the ultimate truth of the universe, or even that such a thing exists; let alone that we humans could ever come to know the ultimate truth even if it did exist.uwot wrote:A theory such as general relativity has two elements; on the one hand, there is the mathematical description of phenomena; it is not an act of faith to believe the accuracy, it is an act of measurement. On the other hand, where faith comes in is believing that the physical model on which it is based, that matter warps spacetime, is true. Personally, I don't think it is, as there is no mechanism that accounts for the interaction, but the physics, the mathematical description works extremely well.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10657
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: How does gravity work?
Hi uwot. After the Higgs Field was discovered, what a year or a few ago - i watched Sean M. Carrol explain it while stood at a podium on a conference of some sort - and boy is he good at explaining thinks to laymen as myself.uwot wrote:In a word: refraction. Details in the usual place: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
It seemed apparent that this Higgs particle playes a crucial role in causing SOME other particles to be affected by some sort of soup - the field, and hence causing them to be susceptible to display the characteristics of mass - in fact the cause of gravity.
It was some time ago, and i'll try and find the vid if you havent seen it. Are you familiar with Sean Carrol? I've seen other docos where he's been involved and am impressed with his ability to explain these complexities at the sub-atomic world.
Re: How does gravity work?
Well, boys, enjoy (and measure) your Emperor's New (even expanding) Clothes ("empty space")wtf wrote:I didn't mean to jump on you like that, but this helps me understand. You are not endeavoring to explain the conventional Newtonian or Einsteinian model of gravity; rather you're putting forth your own personal theory. Is that right? In which case you're not necessarily wrong, just nonstandard. I don't know much physics beyond the basics and am not in a position to evaluate alternative theories.uwot wrote:... the preferred model, general relativity, while unquestionably a work of genius and fantastically successful in its accuracy and predictions, is essentially dualistic, as it is predicated on the interaction of two separate substances: spacetime and matter. There is nothing in GR that explains how matter warps spacetime. That makes no difference to the utility of GR, but it's just a model.
Is this a fair understanding of your site?
Oh I completely agree with that. Physics is a historically contingent activity of human beings that has been remarkably accurate in its predictions and remarkably useful to engineers. But that's not the same as claiming that our current understanding of physics is the ultimate truth of the universe, or even that such a thing exists; let alone that we humans could ever come to know the ultimate truth even if it did exist.uwot wrote:A theory such as general relativity has two elements; on the one hand, there is the mathematical description of phenomena; it is not an act of faith to believe the accuracy, it is an act of measurement. On the other hand, where faith comes in is believing that the physical model on which it is based, that matter warps spacetime, is true. Personally, I don't think it is, as there is no mechanism that accounts for the interaction, but the physics, the mathematical description works extremely well.
Re: How does gravity work?
Not really. I am trying to explain Newton and Einstein, but with graphics, rather than mathematical symbols. If you want to get all Newtonian, in essence, the density of Big Bang stuff diminishes with distance according to his inverse square law. Einstein believed that spacetime had mechanical properties and that it could be warped, same as Big Bang stuff. Much as I would like the credit, very little of what I'm writing is original.wtf wrote:You are not endeavoring to explain the conventional Newtonian or Einsteinian model of gravity; rather you're putting forth your own personal theory. Is that right?
Re: How does gravity work?
What exactly is "big bang stuff?" If by matter or mass, you're just obfuscating Newton. If you mean Higgs bosons, you're not differentiating Newton from contemporary theory. We all agree that matter is attracted to other matter and that Newton's formula for gravitation is a pretty good approximation, with refinement by Einstein. But "big bang stuff?" What is that?uwot wrote:I am trying to explain Newton and Einstein, but with graphics
I looked at your page again and still have the same concerns I did earlier.