Do We Know Nothing?

[Seph83]

I think the simplist answer is we know NOTHING about gravity.

there is only theory on what gravity actually is... all we know are its effects.

for example the mayans knew with amlost perfect accuracy about the suns behavior to such a degree that they could predict the earths presession. Buut they had absolutly no knowledge of anything ABOUT the sun, like nuclear fusion and photons.

That is pretty much where we are at the moment. We understand gravity's behavior with an extraordinary degree of accuracy, however we know absolutly nothing about gravity.

[russ_watters]

We understand gravity's behavior with an extraordinary degree of accuracy, however we know absolutly nothing about gravity. Those two statements contradict each other. Being able to make accurate predictions is all that we ask of science.

[Seph83]

If that is all you want to know then I am envious.

[ZapperZ]

I think the simplist answer is we know NOTHING about gravity.

there is only theory on what gravity actually is... all we know are its effects.

for example the mayans knew with amlost perfect accuracy about the suns behavior to such a degree that they could predict the earths presession. Buut they had absolutly no knowledge of anything ABOUT the sun, like nuclear fusion and photons.

That is pretty much where we are at the moment. We understand gravity's behavior with an extraordinary degree of accuracy, however we know absolutly nothing about gravity.

This is misleading. If you look carefully at everything that you think you know, you will see that all you know is actually just your ability to describe something. The knowledge of a set of properties and behavior of something is what constitutes your ability to say that you know what it is. Now it doesn't mean that you know EVERYTHING about it, but it certainly does not allow you to say you know NOTHING about it.

Physics is just that - our ability to describe the behavior of a system. There's no greater evidence to show that we know quite a bit about something when we can make quantitative prediction of what that something is going to do. Look at your modern electronics. I will even say that we know more about gravity than you know more about the behavior of your closest relatives.

Zz.

[Defennder]

The problem is, you can always keep asking "Why?" for any explanation offered. Unless you believe that the fundamental facts of our universe are somehow reducible to axioms of logic.

[Seph83]

I will even say that we know more about gravity than you know more about the behavior of your closest relatives.

Zz.

lol... that wouldn't suprise me. I don't claim to be able to predict the behavior of my closest relatives.... AT ALL

I don't want to start an argument. I am just trying to put across that saying all you want to know is the behavior of a "thing" is like saying all you want to know is how to drive a car but not caring how a car operates.

Of course "why" will be the eternal question to every answer and I hope we will never stop asking.

[ZapperZ]

lol... that wouldn't suprise me. I don't claim to be able to predict the behavior of my closest relatives.... AT ALL

I don't want to start an argument. I am just trying to put across that saying all you want to know is the behavior of a "thing" is like saying all you want to know is how to drive a car but not caring how a car operates.

Of course "why" will be the eternal question to every answer and I hope we will never stop asking.

Then don't claim that we know nothing about it. The pedestrian definition of "knowing nothing" simply does not apply here. Would you depend your life on something that we know nothing about? Honestly?

You haven't shown an example where it fits into your criteria of knowing "something". If that doesn't exist, then your categorization that we know nothing about gravity is moot.

Zz.

[Seph83]

To know something we would know the cause of gravity. We would also have a model that would work universally from macro to plank space. Perhaps a theory exists that I don't know of, but even then it will just be a theory.

[ZapperZ]

To know something we would know the cause of gravity. We would also have a model that would work universally from macro to plank space. Perhaps a theory exists that I don't know of, but even then it will just be a theory.

But see, when you find the "cause" of something, that "explanation" really is a description at that lower level.

You haven't managed to find an example in physics where you can say that there is this "cause". What about E&M? Or the strong force, etc... etc.? By your criteria, do you also claim that we know nothing about physics, and thus, we know nothing about everything in our universe?

Zz.

[Seph83]

Your not far off :biggrin:

I'm bound to get shot for saying this on a physics forum but to quote socrates "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."

See what you made me do! This is a thread about gravity and you have reduced me to a level where philosophy has had to enter discussion!

I warned you I didn't want to start an argument. :blushing:

[ZapperZ]

Your not far off :biggrin:

I'm bound to get shot for saying this on a physics forum but to quote socrates "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."

See what you made me do! This is a thread about gravity and you have reduced me to a level where philosophy has had to enter discussion!

I warned you I didn't want to start an argument. :blushing:

Then you have a strange of not wanting to start an "argument" by knowingly starting something that you KNOW will get a reaction. And since when do you go by your understanding our your world based on some "quotation"?

So you still haven't been able to show me an example of something that you know. Then I will resort to having ask you this: What is an apple?

Or are you also claiming that you know nothing about an apple?

Zz.

[Seph83]

ok... I am going to have to stop this now.

Yes I can tell you what an apple is. and, like gravity, I can tell you how it behaves. If you want to know then pm me because you are taking this thread way off topic.

[ZapperZ]

This is no longer off-topic. So tell me, what is an apple that you think you know?

Zz.

[LightbulbSun]

The thread title is contradictory. I'll give you a hint, it's within the part that says "know nothing."

[ZapperZ]

It's a title that I came up on the fly since these posts were split from another thread. It is consistent with the first post.

Zz.

[rewebster]

If I can assume what Seph83 may be saying, is that, he would like to know a little more of what's going on in the way gravity works---more of the 'reasons' how/why gravity works.

Two hundred years ago to now, more knowledge has been gained as to the make up and the nature of things, but still there is no explanation written in any books as to the fundamental and foundational aspects of gravity. We know more about an apple in a lot of ways for 'what' an apple is, as to the same thinking as what is common knowledge/written about gravity (and a few more of those type of things).

[Crosson]

So tell me, what is an apple that you think you know?

Apples can be defined ostensively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition).

[Gear300]

I think the simplist answer is we know NOTHING about gravity.

there is only theory on what gravity actually is... all we know are its effects.

for example the mayans knew with amlost perfect accuracy about the suns behavior to such a degree that they could predict the earths presession. Buut they had absolutly no knowledge of anything ABOUT the sun, like nuclear fusion and photons.

That is pretty much where we are at the moment. We understand gravity's behavior with an extraordinary degree of accuracy, however we know absolutly nothing about gravity.

There was a PF member that said this...forgot the name, but to put it simply: science tells the how rather than the why.

[rewebster]

Apples can be defined ostensively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition).

yep---there's a cop-out way physicists/scientists answer a lot of these 'questions' especially if someone asks something like, "why does gravity work the way it does?"

The aloof answer physicists/scientists give is: " 'Why...?' is a question for philosophers not for scientists-----scientists blah, blah, blah....."--especially if its something they don't know the 'real' answer to.

[Crosson]

The problem with asking "What is gravity?" is that this is a loaded question; it assumes that 'gravity' is the name of something. General Relativity shows us that this is a bad assumption. This is the same problem that comes from a question like 'What is time?', this assumes that 'time' is the name of something. A better question would be "Under what circumstances do we use the word 'time'?", since this explores the meaning of the concept without starting with a loaded question.

[Seph83]

Crosson, rewebster, and gear300 have put it very well.

I can tell you what an apple is. An apple is a fruit that grows on an apple tree that contains seeds that can grow into other apple trees. It is biological and consists of cells. They are usually red, have a waxy skin and are very tasty, except the skin gets stuck in my teeth. :D

[ZapperZ]

Crosson, rewebster, and gear300 have put it very well.

I can tell you what an apple is. An apple is a fruit that grows on an apple tree that contains seeds that can grow into other apple trees. It is biological and consists of cells. They are usually red, have a waxy skin and are very tasty, except the skin gets stuck in my teeth. :D

... and what you have done is give a list of description of an apple and all its associated properties. Have you managed to "explain" what an apple is?

Zz.

[Seph83]

I have explained what an apple is. An apple is a fruit that grows on an apple tree. I understand what you are saying but you are asking the wrong questions.

[ZapperZ]

I have explained what an apple is. An apple is a fruit that grows on an apple tree. I understand what you are saying but you are asking the wrong questions.

What is wrong about it?

"An apple is a fruit that grows on an apple tree" is the same as "gravitational force is the force of attraction between two bodies with mass".

In the end, both are "descriptions" of the property of the subject matter. If you claim that you know something about an apple, then how come you claim that "we" know nothing about gravity?

Zz.

[Seph83]

The key difference between these two expressions is the word Fruit and Force. Fruit can be defined but can you tell me what force is?

Saying it is a force is merely describing its behavior. Like saying an apple is tasty.

EDIT : and I just noticed you haven't described what gravity is as you have described what "Gravitational force" is

[rewebster]

What is wrong about it?

"An apple is a fruit that grows on an apple tree" is the same as "gravitational force is the force of attraction between two bodies with mass".

In the end, both are "descriptions" of the property of the subject matter. If you claim that you know something about an apple, then how come you claim that "we" know nothing about gravity?

Zz.

The 'apple' analogy may not be the best----as it is a 'physical' thing----I think I remember you using the apple analogy before. It seems you may be putting 'gravity' in the area as 'love', 'hate', or an 'argument'.

OK----let's do it this way----

Are you, personally, 'satisfied' with YOUR knowledge about an apple?

Are you, personally, 'satisfied' with YOUR knowledge about gravity?

[cristo]

I sense that this discussion is going to continue ad nauseam. I doubt that you will accept any answer, and will keep picking down to the level of asking for a definition of "between."

By the way, gravity and gravitational force, are the same thing.

Are you, personally, 'satisfied' with YOUR knowledge about gravity?
That's a completely different question: no physicist will answer yes to that!!

[Seph83]

rewebster,

now those are good questions!

If you are satisfied with your knowledge then in your little world you are confident that you know what something is. If you are unsatisfied, then the opposite is true.

However I stand by my original statement but perhaps we can compromise.

how about this:

"All we know about gravity is its behavior."

[ZapperZ]

The key difference between these two expressions is the word Fruit and Force. Fruit can be defined but can you tell me what force is?

Saying it is a force is merely describing its behavior. Like saying an apple is tasty.

No, if you look carefully, the definition of a fruit is also a "description" (it has "seeds" as an example). So your "explanation" really isn't one if you look deeper into it. I can do the same with "force" as being the gradient of a potential energy field. And one can also do the same with that "definition", because we can continue asking "but what is a potential energy field"?

The point here being that every thing you perceive to be an "explanation", really isn't, because as you go to a lower level, it becomes a description.

Not only that, saying an "apple" is a "fruit" is no different than pointing to a periodic table, i.e. using a made-up categorization of the property of a set of objects. It explains nothing. It only appears as if you have made an explanation because you are living in an world in which the word "fruit" is a familiar idea. So when you say that, people seem to think they know what it is and it satisfies their question on what it is. However, trying telling that to an alien who knows nothing about the concept of a fruit. You'll end up describing what it is based on the description of what a fruit is supposed to be.

This is what physics has to do since it has to describe the physical world but not in terms of any cultural/social connotations. Another alien coming here on earth will still measure the rate of fall of objects on the surface of the earth with the SAME description that we have, whether they understood Newton's laws or not.

EDIT : and I just noticed you haven't described what gravity is as you have described what "Gravitational force" is

So what's the difference? We know nothing about gravity, but actually know something about gravitational force?

Zz.

[Seph83]

By the way, gravity and gravitational force, are the same thing.

I understand what you are saying, but in his definition of gravitational force he has used the word force to describe what it is.

That is similar to saying that the definition of Happiness is feeling happy. It defines itself and therefore requires no further explanation.

[ZapperZ]

OK----let's do it this way----

Are you, personally, 'satisfied' with YOUR knowledge about an apple?

Are you, personally, 'satisfied' with YOUR knowledge about gravity?

Maybe you should have read my original post in here:

This is misleading. If you look carefully at everything that you think you know, you will see that all you know is actually just your ability to describe something. The knowledge of a set of properties and behavior of something is what constitutes your ability to say that you know what it is. Now it doesn't mean that you know EVERYTHING about it, but it certainly does not allow you to say you know NOTHING about it.

That is what I am arguing against, the claim that "we know NOTHING about gravity". I'm not arguing that we know EVERYTHING about gravity.

Asking someone if one is "satisfied" (whatever that means) with gravity is vague. I'm satisfied enough with it that I am confident that the building that I'm in would not fall down and the bridge that I'm crossing would not collapse. If one isn't satisfied with gravity at this level, one should get out of any and all structures.

But I'm not "satisfied" with it when we try to extrapolate our knowledge into more exotic areas, because these are still "research-front" areas that have yet to successfully describe its properties in that regime. But this occurs in ALL areas of study - that's why there are areas of study! That's why there are scientists! We don't get employed to study things we already know!

Zz.

[ZapperZ]

I understand what you are saying, but in his definition of gravitational force he has used the word force to describe what it is.

That is similar to saying that the definition of Happiness is feeling happy. It defines itself and therefore requires no further explanation.

No it isn't. I can quantify the force of attraction between the two bodies. You have no ability to quantify "happiness". Either way, your explanation of a fruit and my explanation of gravity are still only description.

Zz.

[rewebster]

I understand what you are saying, but in his definition of gravitational force he has used the word force to describe what it is.

That is similar to saying that the definition of Happiness is feeling happy. It defines itself and therefore requires no further explanation.

I'm basically 'happy' with what I know about an apple---now, a cellular mechanic may not be--but I'm not a cellular mechanic.

The knowledge that you're looking for about gravity just isn't printed/'part of the knowledge base' yet----zapper just doesn't want to say that, maybe----the 'accepted' explanations are the 'main' ones---everything else is defined as 'crackpot ideas'

[ZapperZ]

I'm basically 'happy' with what I know about an apple---now, a cellular mechanic may not be--but I'm not a cellular mechanic.

The knowledge that you're looking for about gravity just isn't printed/'part of the knowledge base' yet----zapper just doesn't want to say that, maybe----the 'accepted' explanations are the 'main' ones---everything else is defined as 'crackpot ideas'

I don't know what "axe" you are trying to grind here against me, but I would suggest you stop putting words into my mouth. I know you are trying to pick a fight here for some odd reason, so I would strongly suggest you stop this line of "attack" right this minute.

Zz.

[rewebster]

No it isn't. I can quantify the force of attraction between the two bodies. You have no ability to quantify "happiness". Either way, your explanation of a fruit and my explanation of gravity are still only description.

Zz.

I don't have a 'degree' in 'happiness'----but for those that have studied the idea, I think they 'feel' just as strongly that THEY CAN quantify 'happiness'---just as strongly as you think you can quantify 'gravity'

---I just read your last reply--I'm not----I think we're just 'talking' about it-----if you feel that I am trying to 'start' something, I wasn't----but I will 'stop' if you wish

[cristo]

I don't have a 'degree' in 'happiness'----but for those that have studied the idea, I think they 'feel' just as strongly that THEY CAN quantify 'happiness'---just as strongly as you think you can quantify 'gravity'
Happiness cannot be quantified on a scale that is the same for every person, whereas the gravitational force between two bodies can be. That is, happiness is subjective, whereas the gravitational force between two bodies is objective.

[rewebster]

Happiness cannot be quantified on a scale that is the same for every person, whereas the gravitational force between two bodies can be. That is, happiness is subjective, whereas the gravitational force between two bodies is objective.

first, I'm sure glad this discussion is in the 'philosophy' section-----


'happiness' can be put on a scale for 'each' person, though----so it is (or can be) scalar----(just as each 'mass' is different)

Where I was going with it was, depending on one's interest in any given field (psych, philo, physics---and even in their 'sub'-fields) is where certain qualitative/quantifying factors are observed and defined. Some people want to know more, and ask in different ways.

To 'some people', the 'gravitional forces', say, of a 'black hole', between two meteors, and between two protons in the same nucleus, doesn't make sense from 'some viewpoints' ---

[russ_watters]

If that is all you want to know then I am envious.
I didn't say that it was! See what you made me do! This is a thread about gravity and you have reduced me to a level where philosophy has had to enter discussion!

I warned you I didn't want to start an argument. Right from the start, this was about science vs philosophy. You are objecting to science by asserting things about science that aren't how science works. Your objections are philosophical.

[kenewbie]

What is wrong about it?
"An apple is a fruit that grows on an apple tree" is the same as "gravitational force is the force of attraction between two bodies with mass".

In the end, both are "descriptions" of the property of the subject matter. If you claim that you know something about an apple, then how come you claim that "we" know nothing about gravity?


I don't buy that. There are different depths of knowledge. I believe the original comparison with the Mayans was very nice. They could describe the patterns of the planets very accurately, however we can do one better: We can show that the patterns emerge from another system, the planets (including our own) orbit around the sun. This deeper understanding can then be used to derive multiple phenomena, and so I would call our knowledge better/deeper/more correct or whatever, than the Mayans.

To me, science is the search for the deepest phenomena; the ones which all other emerges from. Once you get "one level below" a certain event and can explain it as deriving from something else, then that thing is more understood than something we can only describe at face value.

As far as I know, we have no phenomena that could explain gravity as emerging from something else. So, gravity is either a "deep phenomena" (as in fundamental law) or it is not yet understood. We cannot be sure of which, of course.

Also, there has been many attempts to "explain" gravity. One I know of was the idea that everywhere in space there are tiny particles that are uniformly distributed in all directions, and these particles push on objects. If an object is relatively alone in empty space, the force evens itself out as it pushes equally from all directions. However, once an object gets close to another, they will block out particles coming from the direction of the other, and so they both get a force that pushes them towards the other. This thing even follows the square of the distance description of gravity, but it did not work out for various reasons.

Now, with such an explanation that actually works, I would say that we would have an explanation of gravity beyond a behavioral description, and thus we could say that we do in fact "know gravity".

k

Edit: Ok, when I think of it, perhaps "space time" works as an underlying system for the emergence of gravity, I don't know enough about that to say for sure. But the point still stands, there are degrees of knowledge.

[baywax]

This is misleading. If you look carefully at everything that you think you know, you will see that all you know is actually just your ability to describe something.
Zz.

Well put!

Further to that we know everything but cannot begin to describe the knowledge. We are subject to all the stimulus presently occurring in the universe right now so, logically, we experience and perhaps even understand everything that is taking place at any time.

The impediment to this state of "all-knowing" is that fact that we cannot compute, express or describe the data we receive simply because it is absorbed simultaneously by the sub-conscious or perhaps by an even less obvious mechanism of our bodies. And the nature of our physical make-up disallows the logical and sequential deciphering of the information.

This would partially explain the practically autonomic reflex we sometimes see when a person picks up the phone only to find the person they're calling already dialing on the line. It may actually explain a number of "coincidental" happenings. There is an undercurrent of knowledge that we have so far been unable to consciously tap into, at will.

So, somewhere in everyone's constitution we all understand what gravity is, how it takes place, why it takes place etc..... but, we lack the training and understanding to decipher the vast storehouse of information we are probably carrying around regarding this, and many other, phenomena.

[oldman]

Further to that we know everything but cannot begin to describe the knowledge.
I agree with the gist of most of what you are saying, Baywax, ---that there is lots of knowledge which can't be expressed -- but this doesn't quite make us or anyone else all-knowing!

Zapper Z is almost correct in saying "If you look carefully at everything that you think you know, you will see that all you know is actually just your ability to describe something. " Indeed, describing gravity with one of our invented mathematical dialects, say Newton's law or GR, expresses predictively our species's current knowledge of gravity, which ain't "nothing", Seph 83.

I say 'almost' because Zapper Z takes the anthro'centric view, which is of course a prejudiced perspective that we naturally adopt.

But this is not to say that if a phenomenon can't be described, no knowledge about it is possible. For example, babies know perfectly well how to attract the attention of their parents. They know from yelling! One might classify this as instinctive or hard-wired knowledge, but knowledge it certainly is. Another example is my cat's unerring knowledge of how high to jump, and of how to pounce on mice. Or must one remain anthro'centrically correct, and never admit to knowledge in our fellow creatures!

Back to gravity: Seph 83 has indeed grossly underestimated our knowledge of gravity, but it is also misleading for physicists to say, for example, that "gravity is the distortion of spacetime by mass" as if this expresses the last word on the subject. Seph 83 could have correctly insisted that our knowledge of gravity is presently incomplete. Physicists have no idea at all of the means by which mass (whatever this is) distorts spacetime (an abstraction of two mysteries, namely space and time). Hopefully sometime in the future we will be able to describe this means, and so deepen our understanding. But it may never be quite complete.

After all, we're just a chattering species of African ape, probably as limited in some ways as our African cousins, the cat family. We're vocal, but not much good at hunting mice.

[baywax]

I agree with the gist of most of what you are saying, Baywax, ---that there is lots of knowledge which can't be expressed -- but this doesn't quite make us or anyone else all-knowing!

Zapper Z is almost correct in saying "If you look carefully at everything that you think you know, you will see that all you know is actually just your ability to describe something. " Indeed, describing gravity with one of our invented mathematical dialects, say Newton's law or GR, expresses predictively our species's current knowledge of gravity, which ain't "nothing", Seph 83.

I say 'almost' because Zapper Z takes the anthro'centric view, which is of course a prejudiced perspective that we naturally adopt.

But this is not to say that if a phenomenon can't be described, no knowledge about it is possible. For example, babies know perfectly well how to attract the attention of their parents. They know from yelling! One might classify this as instinctive or hard-wired knowledge, but knowledge it certainly is. Another example is my cat's unerring knowledge of how high to jump, and of how to pounce on mice. Or must one remain anthro'centrically correct, and never admit to knowledge in our fellow creatures!

Back to gravity: Seph 83 has indeed grossly underestimated our knowledge of gravity, but it is also misleading for physicists to say, for example, that "gravity is the distortion of spacetime by mass" as if this expresses the last word on the subject. Seph 83 could have correctly insisted that our knowledge of gravity is presently incomplete. Physicists have no idea at all of the means by which mass (whatever this is) distorts spacetime (an abstraction of two mysteries, namely space and time). Hopefully sometime in the future we will be able to describe this means, and so deepen our understanding. But it may never be quite complete.

After all, we're just a chattering species of African ape, probably as limited in some ways as our African cousins, the cat family. We're vocal, but not much good at hunting mice.

By my own statement a rock is "all knowing" because it is also exposed to all events that have taken place, are taking place and will take place in the universe. It just lacks the means to express what it "knows". It takes some very careful examination to extract the "data" that is found in the rock.

My answer to gravity, which I gave to ZZ at one time, is that the formation of mass (ie: wave condensation and the collision of quarks) after the bb created holes in the overall background radiation which attracted more, smaller amounts of mass (thus creating larger collections of mass/matter). So that, surrounding these collections of matter and condensed waves, there is an area of less "buoyancy" (no proper term here) than is found in areas with no mass present.

[rewebster]

By my own statement a rock is "all knowing" because it is also exposed to all events that have taken place, are taking place and will take place in the universe. It just lacks the means to express what it "knows". It takes some very careful examination to extract the "data" that is found in the rock.

My answer to gravity, which I gave to ZZ at one time, is that the formation of mass (ie: wave condensation and the collision of quarks) after the bb created holes in the overall background radiation which attracted more, smaller amounts of mass (thus creating larger collections of mass/matter). So that, surrounding these collections of matter and condensed waves, there is an area of less "buoyancy" (no proper term here) than is found in areas with no mass present.

"buoyancy" is a 'fun' one to think about--in these respects

[baywax]

"buoyancy" is a 'fun' one to think about--in these respects

Well, its not far from the rubber sheet model of gravity. Lets say you're in the Bermuda Triangle in a boat. You are bobbing along until a huge methane gas bubble wrecks your buoyancy and you fall through to the sea floor.

Now, let's say the universe is one big em radiation pool, soon after the bb. Then we get these holes forming because some of the em rad is condensing and colliding into pre-matter like stuff. The holes that form in the em are always around the matter... where em used to be and is now condensed. Where the hole is, things "fall".

[rewebster]

well----that's one thing I'm happy about----I haven't been in either of those situations

[baywax]

well----that's one thing I'm happy about----I haven't been in either of those situations

Ha! And experience is the best teacher so, I really haven't got a clue about any of this stuff either since I haven't been there either.

However, Lao Tzu said this about experiencing the world without actually going anywhere:

Without going outside you can know the whole world.
Without looking through the window you can see the ways of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.
Thus the sage knows without traveling.
The sage sees without looking.
The sage works without doing (47).

http://www.hermitary.com/articles/china-4.html

[out of whack]

Without going outside you can know the whole world.
Without looking through the window you can see the ways of heaven.
The farther you go, the less you know.
Thus the sage knows without traveling.
The sage sees without looking.
The sage works without doing (47).
So that's how stay-at-home drop-outs happen to know it all! :rofl:

[rewebster]

like Newton (he had books)

[out of whack]

like Newton (he had books)
Touché!

[rewebster]

Touché!

how do you get/do that 'e' ?------is your keyboard 'set' a little differently? --or?

(looking at my keyboard--???)

[out of whack]

how do you get/do that 'e' ?------is your keyboard 'set' a little differently? --or?

(looking at my keyboard--???)

Simple: Alt-0-2-3-3 :yuck:

But better, AllChars (http://allchars.zwolnet.com/) is a little utility that lets you enter various key combinations like this.

[rewebster]

from memory, then?---(or a little cheatsheet near the computer)---or did you use that program for that 'e' , though?

(nice little program, I just downloaded it---thanks)

[baywax]

from memory, then?---(or a little cheatsheet near the computer)---or did you use that program for that 'e' , though?

(nice little program, I just downloaded it---thanks)

§o, ¥oü †hin∆ ¥ou® §mar†er †hañ å 5th Ωrader, eh?!

[rewebster]

§o, ¥oü †hin∆ ¥ou® §mar†er †hañ å 5th Ωrader, eh?!

is this another one of those trick questions?

[oldman]

By my own statement a rock is "all knowing" because it is also exposed to all events that have taken place, are taking place and will take place in the universe. It just lacks the means to express what it "knows". It takes some very careful examination to extract the "data" that is found in the rock.........

It's now clear that you have some strange ideas, Baywax ---nothing at all wrong with this, but you need to convey them so that others can follow your reasoning, if you wan't them considered. For instance, why do you identify mass with 'wave condensation' --- I can't follow this --- and 'quark collisions': are you perhaps thinking of quarks as tiny marbles? Know-all rocks filled with data --- too strange! But keep thinking and good luck.

Rather ditch Lao-Tzu as a role model: He's too like the drop-out mentioned by out of whack.

[baywax]

It's now clear that you have some strange ideas, Baywax ---nothing at all wrong with this, but you need to convey them so that others can follow your reasoning, if you wan't them considered. For instance, why do you identify mass with 'wave condensation' --- I can't follow this --- and 'quark collisions': are you perhaps thinking of quarks as tiny marbles? Know-all rocks filled with data --- too strange! But keep thinking and good luck.

Rather ditch Lao-Tzu as a role model: He's too like the drop-out mentioned by out of whack.

Here's someone one who's thinking along the same lines... not as strange as you claim, really.

This isn't gospel physics and it hasn't been widely peer reviewed. Dale Wahl has touched precisely on the theories I have based my ideas of waves colliding and (edit) depleted e-m radiation fields.



Matter

According to current scientific theory, a process called nucleosynthesis which is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from preexisting nucleons is thought to have formed all matter in the universe shortly after the big bang. Once this process ended no additional matter has been formed within our universe. However, we do know matter can be changed from one element to another such as hydrogen to helium. There are four ways matter can be changed in form nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, radioactive decay and electron bombardment.

Experiments I have preformed strongly suggest matter is continuously formed within our universe. The process appears to begin with the interaction of electromagnetic waves. This interaction is commonly known as destructive interference and is currently thought to completely destroy two photons erasing them from existence. My experiments suggest a different outcome for these photons that experience destructive interference, their motion or velocity is all that is cancelled and those photons continue to exist drifting in space similarly to matter drifting in space.

http://electromagnetic-waves.com/default.aspx

To help you grasp the concept of getting data out of rocks I'll refer you to the science of Geology.

To help you understand the manuscripts known as the "Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching", I'll just say that "Lao Tzu" is thought to be a term describing an anonymous group or club of University Frats who diverted from Engineering to put together an ethical handbook for a neighbouring sorority.

[out of whack]

To help you grasp the concept of getting data out of rocks I'll refer you to the science of Geology.
But rocks don't study geology. I hadn't commented on this earlier but I think your use of vocabulary was somewhat lax in your claim that rocks know everything. Knowledge is a characteristic of sentient beings. I don't suppose you believe that rocks are sentient. Perhaps some rewording would be appropriate to prevent misunderstandings.

[out of whack]

from memory, then?---(or a little cheatsheet near the computer)---or did you use that program for that 'e' , though?

(nice little program, I just downloaded it---thanks)

A quick chart:

0224: àáâãäåæç
0232: èéêëìíîï
0240: ðñòóôõö÷
0248: øùúûüýþÿ

I remember 0233 for some reason (more common?) but other characters are close to this value and quickly identifiable by trial and error since they follow a semi-regular sequence.

[baywax]

But rocks don't study geology. I hadn't commented on this earlier but I think your use of vocabulary was somewhat lax in your claim that rocks know everything. Knowledge is a characteristic of sentient beings. I don't suppose you believe that rocks are sentient. Perhaps some rewording would be appropriate to prevent misunderstandings.

OK, I use quotes when I anthropomorphize or use metaphoric terminology.

Sort of like saying "the harddrive holds all the data",
(even though it doesn't have fingers, hands or arms to hold anything)

[oldman]

Baywax, It seems you are getting caught up in all sorts of fringe nonsense. Examples:

Talk of sentient rocks, explained by: "(for) the concept of getting data out of rocks I'll refer you to the science of Geology". Then quoting someone who says: "Experiments I have preformed strongly suggest matter is continuously formed within our universe" which you claim "isn't gospel physics and it hasn't been widely peer reviewed". You bet.

Stating that you "use quotes when I anthropomorphize or use metaphoric terminology" instead of just using plain language to say what you mean.

And mysterious stuff about "Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching" generated by some "anonymous group of frats?.......

Too much for me, I'm afraid. Cheers.

[baywax]

Too much for me, I'm afraid..

If I took every word as literally as you do, I'd be convinced you really are afraid.:eek:

[rewebster]

don't some scientists believe that photons/particles can 'communicate' with each other if sent off in different directions?


(I'm getting ready for a "that's different!")

[baywax]

don't some scientists believe that photons/particles can 'communicate' with each other if sent off in different directions?


(I'm getting ready for a "that's different!")

Here's one entry to do with this idea...



http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/2944/28271/01263786.pdf?temp=x

Here's something similar

[quote]Toshiba Research Europe Ltd., Cambridge Research Laboratory


Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Communications

Quantum cryptography can be implemented by sending encoded single photons ('particles' of light) along standard telecom fibres. These particles of light correspond to extraordinary dim light signals - an ordinary light bulb emits 1 billion billion photons per second. The sender (Alice) encodes one bit, i.e. 0 or 1, onto each photon. This can be done in a number of ways, for example by applying different time delays to the photons to represent 0 and 1 using a device called a 'phase modulator'.

Nearly all the photons launched into the fibre are scattered out enroute, allowing only very few to actually reach the other end. However, quantum cryptography is robust against photon loss, since only photons detected by Bob are used to form the key. Thus, keys can be formed even over fibres in excess of 100km. Although using single photons is a very inefficient way to communicate, its attraction is that it allows a measure of the security of each communication.

Quantum cryptography can also be performed over air based, line-of-sight optical links of the type sometimes used for high bandwidth connections between buildings, or in some local area networks. These free space links may be useful for replenishing the key material of communication satellites in low earth orbits or for secure communication between satellites.

http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotoncommunications.html

I think the idea of communication between photons is a misconception you've come across that has developed out of these technological advances.

[rewebster]

I'm not one in those 'some' group---entanglement, to me, won't hold up----(I was being 'ironical' with that previous post)


oh--and 'being ironical' doesn't mean I'm from Iron.

[baywax]

(I was being 'ironical' with that previous post)

What can I say...

Lets look at the terms surrounding storage of data.

A person's brain that stores a lot of information, "knows" a lot.

A computer that stores a lot of information "stores a lot of information".

Why is there a differnence in terms for the same condition?

• "Knowing" information is not a definition of "Sentience".
• "Sentience" is defined as "being able to perceive or feel things" (Oxford Dictionary)

So, by definition, my use of the word "knowing" in reference to the data stored by the constitution of a rock, is not so incorrect as to be "scarey".

[rewebster]

well, I think, that words like 'knowing' , 'reacting' , etc. can be taken in different context---does the 'rock' react to its surroundings?



to some degree, but it doesn't know that its reacting(?)------it, to me, is just the interplay of physical circumstances (air, gravity, etc.) that it is in at any given surrounding----I don't know if you're meaning something on the level of 'star wars' idea of 'that everything has the Force' or not----

I don't think the 'rock' would care (or know) whether or not if it was on dry land or in the water---it may contain some record of ever being in the water or on land (or where it was formed)--but I think those are physical properties rather than 'it knowing' something


maybe its like those CSI shows---the info/data/evidence would just sit there until it is found and interpreted (the specific physical properties of that evidence)


A rock doesn't have 'data'--a rock has properties that WE can interpret AS data

[Redbelly98]

If that is all you want to know then I am envious.

I see a long thread here and pardon me for jumping in without taking time to read it entirely. But I'll just point out the above statement is an admission that we do know something about gravity, in contradiction to the premise that we know nothing about it.

[rewebster]

there may be a few other threads (quite a few really) that may also have a little 'dramatic quality' to the title of the thread too

[out of whack]

People tend to embellish. It's easier to do than to be precise and it grabs attention better, but the intended meaning tends to be missed as a side effect.

[baywax]

A rock doesn't have 'data'--a rock has properties that WE can interpret AS data

True enough.

The same can be said of a human brain. I have knowledge in my brain... but CSIS (Canadian version of the CIA) will interpret it as data pertinent to their inquiry.

So all we have said about it is that the word "know" is a term that is relative to circumstance(s).

[baywax]

A rock doesn't have 'data'--a rock has properties that WE can interpret AS data

True enough.

The same can be said of a human brain. I have knowledge in my brain... but CSIS (Canadian version of the CIA) will interpret it as data pertinent to their inquiry.

So all we have said about it is that the word "know" is a term that is relative to circumstance(s).

Moving right along...:uhh:

[rewebster]

True enough.

The same can be said of a human brain. I have knowledge in my brain... but CSIS (Canadian version of the CIA) will interpret it as data pertinent to their inquiry.
So all we have said about it is that the word "know" is a term that is relative to circumstance(s).

They have mind readers up there in that CSIS?------and what exactly are YOU doing/working on in your secret lab? :uhh:

[baywax]

They have mind readers up there in that CSIS?------and what exactly are YOU doing/working on in your secret lab? :uhh:

CSIS was more interested in the personal doughnut vending machine idea than the fluid mechanics of a beer hat.

[gator6913]

Can we build a model to simulate gravity and accurately describe the dynamics of gravity within the model?

Dale

[baywax]

Can we build a model to simulate gravity and accurately describe the dynamics of gravity within the model?

Dale

Hi gator6913;1838016 (can I call you gator?)

Simulating gravity seems to be the topic of many si fi movies. There's always an area of a spaceship where they have to explain how they've simulated gravity by using a gyroscope or a centrifuge.

I don't think its that easy on a massive planet like ours or any other one since there is so much contamination from the gravity going on here.

So, where do we build the lab and the experiment and ensure that we have zero gravity to begin with?

Or, are you talking about a digital/mathematical/hypothetical model of gravity?

[gator6913]

I've been working on a theory for gravity I call "contracting space".

This theory appears to be predicting the mechanism for gravity may very well be the same mechanism for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

This theory calls for space to have some characteristics that can not be ascribed to what we currently consider is space.

It must have properties associated with a solid and have a rigid elasticity.

It predicts all matter contracts a particular volume of space proportional to its mass. It's possible that a single atom may contract 1 cubic meter of space or more and contain it sub atomically. Surrounding all matter will be an area of stretched space as it is forced to fill the area where the contracted space existed. This stretched space will have the most tension closest to the object and will gradually relax towards a normal state of space with distance from the object. When two objects are within a proximity that their gravity is observable the space directly between both objects has more stretch tension than any other position around either object. It is the stretched space between the objects excerting a pulling force on the objects contracted space that is the force of gravity.

The sci-fi simulations of gravity you mentioned are an equivalence of gravity to acceleration.

That too should be explainable if my model is indeed correct. That explanation is: when an object is moving through space it is continually contracting a different area of space. If the object is accelerating the contracted space the accelerating object is containing will experience a pulling force from the space directly behind the accelerating object. The effect is similar to that when stretched space is applying a pulling force on that objects contracted space.

I've attached an animated model I've worked on using water to represent space. Because the medium in my model is not a solid I'm using pumps to replicate matter contracting space using a liquid, this will give my water the characteristics equivalent of being a solid. The pump inlet bulbs in this model will have the same effects on each other as two objects of mass exerting gravitational effects on one another.

[baywax]

I've been working on a theory for gravity I call "contracting space".

This theory appears to be predicting the mechanism for gravity may very well be the same mechanism for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

This theory calls for space to have some characteristics that can not be ascribed to what we currently consider is space.

It must have properties associated with a solid and have a rigid elasticity.

It predicts all matter contracts a particular volume of space proportional to its mass. It's possible that a single atom may contract 1 cubic meter of space or more and contain it sub atomically. Surrounding all matter will be an area of stretched space as it is forced to fill the area where the contracted space existed. This stretched space will have the most tension closest to the object and will gradually relax towards a normal state of space with distance from the object. When two objects are within a proximity that their gravity is observable the space directly between both objects has more stretch tension than any other position around either object. It is the stretched space between the objects excerting a pulling force on the objects contracted space that is the force of gravity.

The sci-fi simulations of gravity you mentioned are an equivalence of gravity to acceleration.

That too should be explainable if my model is indeed correct. That explanation is: when an object is moving through space it is continually contracting a different area of space. If the object is accelerating the contracted space the accelerating object is containing will experience a pulling force from the space directly behind the accelerating object. The effect is similar to that when stretched space is applying a pulling force on that objects contracted space.

I've attached an animated model I've worked on using water to represent space. Because the medium in my model is not a solid I'm using pumps to replicate matter contracting space using a liquid, this will give my water the characteristics equivalent of being a solid. The pump inlet bulbs in this model will have the same effects on each other as two objects of mass exerting gravitational effects on one another.

That is one very nice theory of gravity!

I guess I'm partial to it since it suggests some of the things in my own layman's theory where space is actually filled with radiation and where matter has formed either from that radiation going into a standing wave or "condensing" through collisions of photons, creating hadrons, sigmas etc.. then eventually matter. With the area directly around the newly formed matter being devoid of radiation (since its become matter) there is less "tension" to hold up other, smaller matter and it joins the larger mass.

Space as a solid!:surprised... any physicists reading this!?

[ronjanec]

I personally believe space is a multi-billion light year in size physical sphere and has the same makeup or composition as a elementary particle. Ok everyone you can give me a hard time about my theory I am used to it.