Gravity: What We Know vs What We Don't

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seph83
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the paradox of understanding gravity, highlighting that while its effects can be predicted with great accuracy, the underlying nature of gravity remains largely unknown. Participants reference historical knowledge, such as the Mayans' ability to predict celestial movements without understanding the sun's mechanics, to illustrate the current state of scientific knowledge about gravity. They debate the distinction between describing behavior and understanding causes, arguing that science often explains "how" phenomena occur rather than "why." The conversation touches on the philosophical implications of knowledge, suggesting that true understanding may be elusive and that our grasp of gravity is still incomplete. Some participants assert that while we can describe gravitational behavior, we lack a comprehensive theory that explains its fundamental nature, likening this to knowing the properties of an apple without understanding its essence. The dialogue emphasizes the ongoing quest for deeper knowledge in physics and the limitations of current scientific explanations.
  • #51
rewebster said:
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

But better, http://allchars.zwolnet.com/" is a little utility that let's you enter various key combinations like this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
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)
 
Last edited:
  • #53
rewebster said:
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?!
 
  • #54
baywax said:
§o, ¥oü †hin∆ ¥ou® §mar†er †hañ å 5th Ωrader, eh?!

is this another one of those trick questions?
 
  • #55


baywax said:
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.
 
  • #56


oldman said:
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 canceled 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57


baywax said:
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.
 
  • #58
rewebster said:
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.
 
  • #59


out of whack said:
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)
 
  • #60


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.
 
  • #61


oldman said:
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:
 
  • #62
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!")
 
Last edited:
  • #63
rewebster said:
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...

[quote}Long-distance quantum communication with entangled photons using satellites
Aspelmeyer, M.; Jennewein, T.; Pfennigbauer, M.; Leeb, W.R.; Zeilinger, A.
Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, IEEE Journal of
Volume 9, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003 Page(s): 1541 - 1551
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSTQE.2003.820918

Summary: The use of satellites to distribute entangled photon pairs (and single photons) provides a unique solution for long-distance quantum communication networks. This overcomes the principle limitations of Earth-bound technology, i.e., the range of the order of 100 km afforded by both optical fiber and by terrestrial free-space links.[/quote]

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

Here's something similar

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.
 
  • #64
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
rewebster said:
(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".
 
  • #66
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
 
Last edited:
  • #67


Seph83 said:
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.
 
  • #68
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
 
  • #69
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.
 
  • #70
rewebster said:
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).
 
  • #71
rewebster said:
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...:rolleyes:
 
  • #72
baywax said:
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? :rolleyes:
 
  • #73
rewebster said:
They have mind readers up there in that CSIS?------and what exactly are YOU doing/working on in your secret lab? :rolleyes:

CSIS was more interested in the personal doughnut vending machine idea than the fluid mechanics of a beer hat.
 
  • #74
Can we build a model to simulate gravity and accurately describe the dynamics of gravity within the model?

Dale
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
gator6913 said:
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?
 
  • #76
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.
 

Attachments

  • Gravity-Simulation-7.gif
    Gravity-Simulation-7.gif
    4.3 KB · Views: 502
  • #77
gator6913 said:
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! ... any physicists reading this!?
 
  • #78
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.
 
Back
Top