Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The true nature of gravity      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 lookingforsophia
Joined: 3/3/2009
Msg: 39
view profile
History
The true nature of gravityPage 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Feng Shui has helped me think Outside the Box. I'm designing an Octagonal home.

A Circle is just a Regular Polygon with an Infinite number of sides.
Perhaps 3D Polygons could serve as a Framework .

I saw a documentary recently about how our Mathmatica affects our perceptions and abilities to solve new problems.
Why do we find Base 10 Thinking so intuitive, was one example. Ten Fingers?
Personally I like Cookies by the Dozen.

"We are poor marksmen, hunting black birds in the dark, in a country with few birds"

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
- Albert Einstein
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 40
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/11/2012 12:39:45 PM
RobinMJ:

I dont agree with your assesment. mathematics, fundamentally, is based on multidementional line geometry, the most glaringly obvious of which is liner mathematics, which forms the base for more complex systems of calculation. Linear geometry is inescapable with the current system.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 41
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/11/2012 1:18:19 PM
RobinMJ:

The ideas I have described above are not my focus right now. currently, I am working on the new dimensional model I vaguely described. It is at least something that I can see tremendous progress in. If I were to delve more deeply into my ideas about a new system of math now, it could turn out to be a dead end and thus a wast of my time. I think I'll save it for when I run out of other more viable ideas.
 Balsamica
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 42
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/11/2012 6:07:26 PM
Two things, from what I understand (or don't really understand):

With galaxies moving away from eachother, it is also space itself that is expanding. Space is not empty, so you to get you need to distinguish space from, say, void.

"Gravity" occurs when a large object creates a warp in the space-time surrounding it and smaller bodies travel in that warp like a ball around the edge of a barrel.

Excellent program on this on PBS Nova, "The Illusion of Time" better than I can describe.........
 twowheelsdown2012
Joined: 10/8/2011
Msg: 43
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 6/7/2012 5:07:39 PM
Perhaps "artificial" gravity, and gravity are exactly the same? Products of acceleration.

In order for this to be so, it would mean that all objects with mass are expanding, thereby creating acceleration. Perhaps this expansion is linearly linked to the expansion of the universe?

You put 2 balls in space. They both expand. They appear to attract each other, and it is somewhat like trying to measure a balloon being blown up with a tape measure that is getting longer at the same time.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 44
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/10/2012 10:53:49 AM
^^^^
http://pic.epicfail.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/intelligence-fail-does-it-rain-in-australia.jpg
evidence!
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/11/2012 9:56:28 PM
Gravity is a myth. The earth sucks.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 46
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/26/2012 12:05:54 AM
What do you base this on?


I've already explained this: the mathematical inability to calculate the True area of a circle or volume of a sphere, and using geometric constructs as a substitute.


I don't know if it's true, what about hyperbola? ellipses, curved space?


All of your examples are based in the use of liner mathematitics.


all described by the proper math.


?

The math isn't proper it is inaccurate. All curved line are inaccurately calculated, so far, there is no way to get around it.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 47
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/27/2012 5:45:29 PM

x = y^2,3,4


You're talking about plotting in a coordinates system. I know you know how a coordinates system works: it's a geometric construct. You are describing points on a graph, not the line itself or the line's True curvature. This does not make pi any less nessessary or any more acurate when used to (inacuratly) describe the area or a circle.

You need to adress the nessesity for these equation and their in accuracy:

Pi r squared

4/3 pi r cubed


Do you have a math degree?


No, I do not (not for a lack of trying though). I have dyslexia and disgraphia and i don't do very well in academia; in fact, I didn't even finish highschool and when I went to college I payed for the whole thing myself, but I gave this attempt at a socially acceptable "education" up, due to money constraints (I'm very poor) and "mental disfunctions" (though I don't see them as disfunctions; I just think diffently than most others).
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 48
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/28/2012 12:17:23 AM

I don't know why you are stuck on pi. We can't even calculate it's exact value... You are stuck on flatland.


Mathematically, we are all stuck in flat land, I am trying to get us out. Our continued reliance on pi is flat land. Our inability to make rational sence of irrational numbers or truly comprehend the nature of imaginary numbers is flat land. We use coordinates like a cruch, and, as a result, mathematically, we have an incomplete understanding of the universe (about as incomplete as the geometric constructs we substitute for the volume of a sphere).


There are non linear systems where the input is not proportional to the output... Most of life is described by non-linear differential equations which is why it is so difficult to solve.


We do not truly understand how imaginary numbers (such as i ) work, we just know that they do.


I don't know why you are stuck on pi. We can't even calculate it's exact value...


That's what I am talking about. I think it can be calculated or at least rationally understood under a different/new system of logic. The universe does not exist on a grid, and neither should our logic.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 49
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/28/2012 12:55:40 PM

This is the thinking of many cosmologists. The real question is why does gravity leak into other dimensions and not magnetism or the electromagnetic force. And why, when gravity is so comparatively weak, does it act over such a greater distance than the other forces? All questions I suspect Unified Field Theory will answer.


Isn't this already mostly understood? Gravity doesn't really exist. It is the warping of space/time around mass which creates dimples that keeps things in place.

The only way to create anti gravity would be to have something of large mass which would create its own warping of space and would interfere with our own. Like the moon and tides. The moon doesn't cancel out the effects of space pushing us in place but it slightly lessons it which can be seen in tides.

Creating a localized interference with the mass of the earth and its warp in space doesn't exactly seem practically possible. If it was ever created it would have to have a mass higher then earth which would cause a whole lot more than a localized effect. So, right now the best approach to 'anti-gravity' is still acceleration. Or, "go that way really fast."

The problem I am having is I can't find anywhere that applies Einstein's version of gravity to the moon and tides :(
Hasn't anyone tried to describe it yet? Everywhere all I find is 'gravitational pull' explanations.

http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1917

In order to understand Einstein’s contribution to cosmology it is helpful to begin with his theory of gravity. Rather than thinking of gravity as an attractive force between two objects, in the tradition of Isaac Newton, Einstein’s conception was that gravity is a property of massive objects that “bends” space and time around itself. For example, consider the question of why the Moon does not fly off into space, rather than staying in orbit around Earth. Newton would say that gravity is a force acting between the Earth and Moon, holding it in orbit. Einstein would say that the massive Earth “bends” space and time around itself, so that the moon follows the curves created by the massive Earth. His theory was confirmed when he predicted that even starlight would bend when passing near the sun during a solar eclipse.


Y U No keep up science class?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 50
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/28/2012 8:16:21 PM

As far as gravity goes, modern field theory calls it a massless particle without charge, but this is not yet proven.


Maybe it isn't proven or found because it doesn't exist.


http://www.netowne.com/ufos/gravity/index.htm

I don’t believe that gravity pulls us. I think push is a more accurate concept. A heavenly body such as the earth displaces the fabric of space-time, and the result is an effect of tension against the surface of the earth. Matter is pushed down in an elastic-like effect. The tautness of curved space-time holds us down. The fabric of space-time, which covers the earth, is curved because the massive presence of the planet earth distorts the fabric. The fabric of space-time is invisible matter, and although we cannot see the fabric of space-time we can observe its effects.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/05/110505-einstein-theories-confirmed-gravity-probe-nasa-space-science/

One common way to visualize the geodetic effect is to think of Earth as a bowling ball and spacetime as a trampoline. Earth's gravity warps spacetime the same way a bowling ball weighs down the middle of a trampoline.


What he showed was that the direction of light was shifted by the effect of warping space and time. The particle vs wave was another part.
http://jcconwell.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/this-first-observational-proof-of-general-relativity/


Einstein first proposed his General Theory of Relativity in 1915. It describes how any massive object, such as the Sun, creates gravity by bending space and time around it. Everything in that space is also bent: even rays of light. Consequently, distant light sources, behind the massive object, can appear in a different position or look brighter than they would otherwise.


Am I misreading this? If so, please explain.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 51
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/28/2012 11:08:41 PM

When you post links on a subject, you should post links from experts in the fields, reviewed published papers from physicists or cosmologists not retired information specialists, they carry no weight.


So... secret knowledge that you can't share? I asked to explain please. Just because you tell me I am wrong doesn't really mean anything. You are not exactly an authority here as far as I can tell and 'just because' doesn't help.

Are you saying that it is incorrect and Einstein did not make the claim that gravity is created by warping space? Or are you saying that yes... it does this but that means gravity pulls from the center of mass like a giant magnet?

Please explain what you are saying.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 52
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/29/2012 5:48:46 PM

I recant, I must have made a mistake when I looked up your link the first time, it did not take me to where it did this time.


Haha, I kind of wish you didn't. I already feel half crazy for thinking it.
 AnnB72
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 53
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/30/2012 11:10:41 PM
I just figured I'd post this here because it seems relevant to this discussion...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/feb/22/highereducation.highereducationprofile

Michio Kaku on Gravity and String Theory:

Kaku is the Henry Semat professor of theoretical physics at the City University in New York, and the man who, in the late 1960s, co-founded the field theory of strings - the equation that united a complex series of equations which described the behaviour of sub-atomic particles into a coherent whole.

Kaku started work on another theory, only to realise he was looking at the same phenomenon at a higher vibration on the rubber band. And no one is laughing any more. For years, physicists and cosmologists have been searching for the grand theory that united quantum physics and gravity theory. Einstein spent the last 30 years of his life on just this problem, trying, in his words, "to read the mind of God".

"He got to the fourth dimension and dabbled with the fifth," says Kaku, "but there wasn't yet the understanding of the nuclear force and quark model to allow him to progress. String theory is now the only real contender for the grand unified theory; everything else has fallen by the wayside. If Einstein had never lived, we would have been able to determine all his ideas from string theory."

Kaku slips into overdrive as he explains all the implications. "String theory predicts the universe is like a soap bubble that is expanding and dying," he says. Billions of years from now stars will blink out; the night sky will be dark and the oceans will freeze over. But we may have an escape route. Our soap bubble co-exists with other soap bubbles; every time a black hole forms it may be creating a baby universe. The matter being sucked in may be blown out the other side, creating a white hole in a twin universe, which will expand very rapidly, like our own Big Bang.

Kaku's bet is that string theory will then be verified, but there's plenty happening here on earth to keep him occupied. Both string and M theory predict that gravity can seep across parallel universes - which means their existence can be proven by looking for deviations from Newton's inverse square law of gravity. One such experiment has already been conducted in Denver. "The results came back negative," he smiles, "but this just shows there are no parallel universes in Denver. Physicists in Atlanta are already planning to repeat the experiment at the atomic level."



He's also mentioned that gravity 'pushes'. It seems to me, since I've been reading some of these theories, that this man is at the forefront of cutting edge science. I'm new to string theory, though I have done some reading, so when I came across this thread I thought this might be interesting to some of those who have a deeper understanding of it.
I also understand that time can be in 2 dimensions? Making the count go from 11 (1 time dimension) to 12 (2 time dimensions). There was some other article which mentioned up to 16 dimensions, and another which brought up infinite dimensions...(by the application of Occam's Razor).

"Standard quantum field theory posits that the state space of a quantum field—i.e., Fock space—
is a Hilbert space of countably infinite dimension."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.3817.pdf
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 54
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/30/2012 11:24:06 PM
hahaha, I wasn't expecting someone to find nearly the exact same thing I made up in another thread.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/15419393datingPostpage5.aspx

I don't like the 'white hole' There are too many blackholes. If this were the case we would have a whole bunch of white holes in our own universe. I think it would be rare event and not related to black holes... unless of course the center of every star is a 'white hole' event. Too many would be an unstable universe of universes.


It falls apart at the 'bubble' concept. Bubbles have walls. Matter coming from or to another bubble would be done at a breach where both touch and not randomly distributed through the center. That would be rather 'swiss cheese' with inner tubes. To sloppy.
 AnnB72
Joined: 7/2/2012
Msg: 55
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 9/30/2012 11:43:44 PM
I think the idea of these white holes is intriguing, however. I would think, however, that a black hole would have to be a certain size in order to create this 'white hole' effect and produce another universe, but then that could be my limited thinking. It is mind boggling to imagine that every black hole would be capable of such a thing. If infinite dimensions were really the case, would we even know about white holes in our universe? It seems to me, mathmatically speaking, we can only acknowledge a finite number of dimensions with any coherency.
Isn't it true that not all black holes erupt, so to speak? Only when they take in too much?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 56
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 10/1/2012 12:06:30 AM
kind of seems to me that the difference between multiple universes and multiple dimensions is a mess. If you have multiple universes then multiple dimensions are not necessary and the magical world of multiple dimensions is no longer necessary.

The problem with black holes connecting to other dimensions and injecting matter would be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle


So, then what are white holes? Black holes shouldn't magically transform into tunnels. For them to be portals for creation of alternate universes it would require the transfer of a universes worth of matter at a force to expand a new universe in an instant. IOW all matter everywhere would be moving in the direction of black holes everywhere and this is not the case. The center of the milky way galaxy is a black hole yet all other galaxies seem to be moving away from us...

http://www.universetoday.com/13810/why-are-distant-galaxies-moving-away-faster/

As we look out into the Universe, we see galaxies moving away from us faster and faster. The more distant a galaxy is, the more quickly it’s moving away.
 lucidcoma80
Joined: 10/5/2012
Msg: 57
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 10/14/2012 7:47:32 PM

your theory is based on many misleading subjects.
1)Its not true that close objects attract each other and far away objects repell. The reason far away galaxies are moving farther away from us is not because we are repelling them, its because the universe (spacetime itself) is expanding. Therefore objects which are inside an expanding container by default get farther apart.

2)Gravity ALWAYS attracts, even at very far distances. So to a very, very weak extent, we are actually ATTRACTING those far far away galaxies...but since the galaxies are getting pulled in all directions (not just toward us), and because the expansion of spacetime is a much stronger force when it comes to moving entire galaxies, they move away from us, even though we are attracting them with gravity.

Your requests at putting your name on your new "theory" is definately premature, and even naive. To hope to even come close to postulating a significant new theory in theoretical physics, you have to have an extremely good grasp of its principles.


The idea that gravity repels at large distances was postulated by Einstein. It was called the cosmological constant. He called it his greatest blunder. However, recent research in dark energy is showing that he was probably correct. Gravity may repel at large distances.
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 11/3/2012 4:38:56 PM
I wish I could somehow merge this thread with mine, "speculations of the edge of cosmology/quantum theory".
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 59
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 11/6/2012 7:32:04 AM
I wish you would add something to it to keep it going. I tried moving some parts over but for some reason it seems people don't really think much these things.

I still want to see some evidence that Einstein's description of gravity is being taught to kids. Newtons apple is easy to grasp... how do change that around from pulling to pushing... Science is failing here in education and that is disturbing.

http://hobbsschools.net/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/File/Debbie%20Dean/8th-%20Pre-AP%20Integrated%20Science-%202011.pdf

Gravity is under force and motion and appears to be newton based.

http://www.handsofachild.com/curriculum/science/astronomy/gravity-curriculum.html

Gravity
The Earth’s gravity attracts everything to the ground. If it did not, then everything
would fly into space. Gravity also pulls objects towards one another. The
strength of the force depends on the mass of the objects; the greater the mass of
an object, the greater the pull. The Earth has such an enormous mass that its
force is very strong, pulling everything towards its center.




Am I looking at this wrong? Is it just not important to understand and maybe only important for smart people that continue advanced education? It's weird....
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 60
view profile
History
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 11/14/2012 2:46:42 PM
Just found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGL22PTIOAM&feature=g-logo

Open Letter to the President: Physics Education


To bad it will fall on the deaf
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 61
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 10/11/2013 2:12:25 AM
Billions of years from now stars will blink out; the night sky will be dark and the oceans will freeze over.

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/12552073datingPostpage4.aspx#15590416

Billions of years from now, our sun will likely have become a red giant and will, at the very least obliterate the Earth's surface; there will be no atmosphere or oceans and probably, no Earth at all.

I used to think of gravity as something that attracts us to the Earth, like we are being pulled down from a point below ground. Now it seems like we are actually being pushed down from above by spacetime that is displaced by the mass of the Earth.
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:27:28 AM
^ Sometimes I speculate that it's both. That there can be effectively, if not literally (in whatever sense), a "north" and "south" pole, so to speak. We are both pushed and pulled. That maybe it's just that we can only percieve the attractive effect so far, and/or the scientific models at this time show it to be that way. That things are pushed apart (expanding universe) but localities are pushed/pulled together (creating planets stars etc). But as I meant in my first parenthetical above, it might also not be from one comprehensive force, but instead different things responsible for each effect.
 Post_PrepatoryLIFER
Joined: 8/19/2013
Msg: 63
The true nature of gravity
Posted: 10/11/2013 7:23:35 AM
Gravity and Anti Gravity. Agree to both that there is an equal and opposing force, at least so far shown on the microscopic level to quantum- therefore stands to reason it is also so for the macro, planets, stars, galaxies. Just the force of the big bang- the quantum leap of the rare occurrence of the universe springing into existence or inflating in astronomic amounts from a mere fraction of a moment -blink of an eye- jumped to one of its many alternate states of existence. With this rare force of the 'stretching' of the universe as opposed to pushing or pulling- it sure can be certain that there are indeed other, unseen, indescribable, yet to be discovered forces at play.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The true nature of gravity