Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Everything is Gravity

  1. Oct 5, 2007 #1
    Think about it, gravity is everywhere. Even in the 'fundamental particles', there is gravity, except no one can quite explain why. I will present my own explanation, which is philosophical, but it is quite stupid to separate philosophy from science. Philosophy is objective based as well, except, instead of explaining how things work, it explains the human experience. It explains what is. And that's exactly why I'm posting this thread.

    Everything is Gravity because everything is everything. Existence is everything, so it must be 'binded' to itself. Makes sense, yeah? Think about it for a second.

    Ok, so many scientists say that gravity comes from a "separate" (oxymoron in fundamentalism) particle called a graviton. If that's true, then why isn't that particle fundamental to other particles? If we can't break down fundamental particles, just as we can't find any evidence of a graviton existing, then doesn't that prove that existence just is? So really, particle or not, existence is gravity.

    So existence has to constantly move to continue being. This requires to pull and tug on itself. The same can be said about consciousness.

    Everything is affected by this gravity. Even light affects our weight. Our consciousnesses are a product of gravity, desperately seeking to hold itself in our heads up and away from the gravity of the earth. We seek to find the perfect balance between all gravitional pull. We are existence. We are gravity.

    What do you think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 5, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I do not have a clue what you mean by this phrase, specifically the "everything is everything" part.

    Why should the graviton be a particle that is fundamental in the make up of other particles? It's a mediator for the gravitational force.
    I thought that, although in the philosophy forum, discussions like this should have something backing them up.
  4. Oct 5, 2007 #3
    I see, you took bits of my point that you didn't like, and you replied to them as if they were my 'strong points'.

    I explained this already. Everything that you see and can touch and can "measure" IS everything else. That's really elementary, there.

    So there are just 'fundamental' particles that can't be broken down any further, thus proving that existence just is, with no defining characteristic, other than, that it exists. (again, just in case you have selective memory as you have shown in your previous post, because these particles can't be broken down any further, they just exist because they just are, now re read the sentence prior to the parenthesis. Here, I'll make it easier for you)

    In other words, these 'fundamental particles' are actually divisions of the universe. The universe is divided on itself with particles that just are, with no other defining characteristics other than themselves. Right.

    You still have yet to explain how a 'fundamental particle' is fundamental when it's not fundamental to other particles, and why these 'fundamental particles' can be converted into 'anti-particles'.

    I've backed this up with logic and common sense. I expect you to do the same, not run your mouth off as if you're better than me for repeating something you've heard from someone else.
  5. Oct 5, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, I replied to the parts of your post that I had something to say to.

    Everything I can see and touch is everything else? What does this mean? In what field is this an elementary remark? It doesn't make sense as is stated. For example, what are you referring to with the "else" part of this statement?

    There's really no need to attempt to patronise me here. Ok, how about you tell me what you are referring to by "existence"

    Divisions of the universe? I guess you could say that as matter in the universe is made up of fundamental particles, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "divided upon itself."
    Sorry, why do I have to explain this? Last time I checked you were the one conjecturing. What fundamental particles are you talking about converting into anti-particles?
    Feel free to report my post if you feel it has broken any guidelines, but I don't see anything in my above post that can be taken as "mouthing off."
  6. Oct 5, 2007 #5
    Just as you did in this post, taking bits of what you don't like and disregarding what you can't refute.

    Yep. Everything is everything else, they are one in the same. Our distinctions are merely subjective tools to navigate, whether it be walking on the ground or space travel.

    You don't know what existence is? It just is.

    You're saying that these fundamental particles 'just are' and can't be broken down further hence the term "fundamental". Now, if that's true, then the universe has parts of it that 'just are' but cannot be anything else. The universe having fundamental particles means the universe cannot be fundamental to itself. It is 'divided' on these particles, because the particles would make parts of the universe 'different' from other parts. (I'm not talking about stars and black holes)

    Any of them. We have something called anti-matter, you realise.

    There's nothing to report, you're just running your mouth off.
  7. Oct 5, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, I'm breaking up your post and responding to every couple of sentences. What would you rather I did?

    I don't know what your second sentence means, but if you use a word like everything then, necessarily, there cannot be anything that does not fall into this set.

    I want you to tell me what you are talking about when you use the word "existence." And an answer like "it just is" clearly will not suffice.

    Of course the universe is not fundamental-- it is created of lots and lots of matter, energy, etc..

    Right, if you continue to speak like this then the conversation is over. What has antimatter got to do with anything, and why are you asking me about it?

    Have you thought, perhaps, that you are the one who's "running your mouth off," simply because you have come up with some theory that, when questioned, you cannot defend.
  8. Oct 5, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    SpartanInjun, this thread has started off on the wrong foot partly because of ambiguous terms. It's going to be locked very soon unless we can agree on logical and sensical terms as a foundation.

    For example "everything is everything" and "it just is" are phrases that do not aid in a discussion; they can't be addressed. Your opening post is similar. This is why cristo (and others) are striving to pull out of your posts the pieces that can be addressed. This is not his failing, in fact, cristo is being pretty accommodating. I read this thread earlier today and huimmed and hawed about an answer, but I could find no point to address. If I had, my responses would be along similar lines as cristo's.

    A suggestion would be to narrow your focus to a single line of reasoning and explore that. Ask a specific question that can be addressed rationally. This is how we do it here. If not, I'm afraid this thread is going to be fodder for the 'Lock'ness Monster (c)DC07.
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2007
  9. Oct 5, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A step-by-step analysis:

    OK, one thing I've learned over years of internet discussion is that the phrase "think about it" fires off a warning flare in my thoughts. The phrase "think about" is a substitute for the phrase "I am unable to communicate my thoughts; I'll put the onus on you readers (and then the blame)."

    You use that phrase twice. I'm just sayin...

    What you've said here is A=B because A=A.

    That is a flavour of "logic and common-sense" of which I am not aware.

    What does binding mean? It must be a cosmological term of which I am unaware.

    As in religious fundamentalism? Is that relevant?

    Interestingly, yes. If you smash fundamental particles, you get other fundamental particles. But, counterintuitive as it may seem, fundamental particles are not composed of smaller fundamental particles. You must add energy to transform them from one to another.

    non sequitur. It sounds like you mean that gravitons are fundamental particles, but this phrase "existence just is" is non-sensical.

    Just because something is fundamental does not mean it is the only thing in the universe.

    A loose analogy: red is a fundamental colour in the sense that it is primary. Does that mean there are no other colours? Or that all orhter colours are made of red?

    What? What does movement have to do with it?

    zoooooooommmm! We've made a hairpin turn and have left the reservation. What does consciousness have to do with anything?

    While this is a pretty metaphor, it has no meaning. This is not a poetry forum.

    You did ask. If you didn't want an answer, you might have instead written your thoughts in a notebook and squirrelled them away where you'll never have to defend them. Why are you getting mad?
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2007
  10. Oct 5, 2007 #9

    Existence = everything that is. Do I need to repeat it again? Explain to me how there could be 'nothing' somewhere.

    Let me guess. A supernatural, omniscient being created the universe outside of time and space, and he is made of 'nothing', yet he exists?

    Someone did mention religious fundamentalism...

    Particles can be transformed into their negative counterparts.

    More assertions from mr. I-think-pride-is-useful. I've defended it, you just can't wrap your mind around what is.

    This all does come back down to consciousness, and everything does have to do with consciousness.

    And no, it's not poetry. It's a matter of fact.
  11. Oct 5, 2007 #10
    I wanted you to think about it yourself... then I laid out my thoughts about it. Did you forget what you read or are you replying to each sentence in my post as you read them?

    A=b because A=A. Pretty much, because there is no such thing as 'equality' in the first place.

    I did put quotes around it. For something to exist it must be itself right? How can it be itself if it is not holding itself together? This comes back down to consciousness, as always.


    And so the energy is what? I've never heard an explanation of what energy is from people who deny the existence of a graviton yet believe in fundamental particles non-fundamental to other fundamental particles.

    Yet, you say we can change these particles into other particles. Okay...

    Gravitons don't exist. The atom was thought to have the been the fundamental particle, then we split that, and now we are going down to quarks which some scientists claim is made up of smaller fundamental particles. When does it stop? When you think you have perfected your equations? Only the feeble minded believe math is anything more than an estimative tool.

    Of course not, because it is everything else, hence the term "fundamental".

    We are the ones who attribute meaning to color. There is no division in the colors, I'm sure you can agree with that. But if that's true, then obviously there are no such things as fundamental particles, as the colors would be banded on the subatomic level.

    You're asking a question that seeks movement (which is why it is a question). Everything has to move and breathe, if it didn't, then what would exist? Again, this comes back down to the fundamental particle thing which I've already disproven.

    What do you you have to do anything? Great question. Because you are asking a question that can only be answered by you. It's funny though, because you're dependent on answers outside of you to answer the question, which makes you question true.

    I will ask that you keep your pet peeves to yourself, and let me decide what I say is exactly.

    Yeah, why would I have posted this if I didn't want to ask?
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2007
  12. Oct 5, 2007 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    But you haven't thought them through enough to communicate them. You use phrases like "it just is" - your discussion is premature.

    OK, so you're a nihilist.

    Look, I think we've been about as generous as we can be. You can't possibly expect us to take you seriously.

    Ah, there's the other shoe dropped. "We" are trapped by our backwards sciences and maths.

    And up goes the other warning flag.
  13. Oct 5, 2007 #12

    Math Is Hard

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, you have, and that is exactly why I have closed this thread. In good philosophical debates, we extend the "principle of charity" to our interlocutor(s). In this case, your charity (and Cristo's) has not been reciprocated.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook