Is Gravity the Key to Understanding Everything?

[SpartanInjun]

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 gravitational pull. We are existence. We are gravity.

What do you think?

 

[cristo]

Everything is Gravity because everything is everything.

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

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?

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.

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?

What do you think?

I thought that, although in the philosophy forum, discussions like this should have something backing them up.

 

[SpartanInjun]

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

 

[cristo]

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'.

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

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

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?

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)

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

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.

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."

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'.

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?

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.

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."

 

[SpartanInjun]

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

Just as you did in this post, taking bits of what you don't like and disregarding what you can't refute.

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?

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.

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

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

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."

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)

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?

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

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."

There's nothing to report, you're just running your mouth off.

 

[cristo]

Just as you did in this post, taking bits of what you don't like and disregarding what you can't refute.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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

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

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?

There's nothing to report, you're just running your mouth off.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

A step-by-step analysis:

Think about it...

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...

, 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.

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.

Existence is everything, so it must be 'binded' to itself.

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

(oxymoron in fundamentalism)

As in religious fundamentalism? Is that relevant?

If that's true, then why isn't that particle fundamental to other particles?

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.

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?

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

So really, particle or not, existence is gravity.

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?

So existence has to constantly move to continue being.

What? What does movement have to do with it?

This requires to pull and tug on itself. The same can be said about consciousness.

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

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.

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

What do you think?

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?

 

[SpartanInjun]

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.

Precisely.

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.

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

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

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...

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?

Particles can be transformed into their negative counterparts.

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.

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.

 

[SpartanInjun]

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)."

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?

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.

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

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

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.

As in religious fundamentalism? Is that relevant?

Apparently.

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

What? What does movement have to do with it?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

Yeah, why would I have posted this if I didn't want to ask?

 

[DaveC426913]

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?

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

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

OK, so you're a nihilist.

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.

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

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.

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

And up goes the other warning flag.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Look, I think we've been about as generous as we can be...

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.