Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Gravity

Old 20th Jan 2009, 12:00
  #21 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Einstein

Is wholly responsible for the madness. He developed the Quantum Theory
(Which he ended up calling "spooky" magic at a distance). And General and Special Relativity, as I recall.

Gravity and "velocity" are mutually exclusive.
Light is EITHER a particle or a wave.
We will know more about gravity when the lash up at Hadron is complete.
Light is visible (sic) when reflected (particled), not as a wave.
"Prior" to the Big Bang, was an infinite field of gravity, without it, there was nowhere for the "matter" (sic) to fill.

There is a unifying theory. At least for now, and guess what? Brilliant minds disagree.


E8 is its name.
 
Old 20th Jan 2009, 13:43
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 76
Posts: 1,538
Having just read up about it on thespacesite.com it is perfectly obvious that we are all standing with our heads hanging out into space and that the earth will fall towards any object, such as an apple, that is no longer held to a fixed structure.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 14:32
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
When you next see Lincolnshire Farmers/Market Gardeners throwing nets over apple trees, remember that it’s not to keep the birds off but a tradition for catching the fruit; from the time before Mr Newton invented Gravity!
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 15:02
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
merlinxx asked:
Why does gravity increase with the increase in intake of alcohol ?
Odd; I find it has the opposite effect when it comes to the, ah, assets of any woman in the vicinity.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 16:54
  #25 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 79
Posts: 4,648
Perhaps gravity was invented to keep voluptuousness under control.


I think a lot about the holographic universe hypothesis. Sometimes, I even find myself thinking that things would be better explained if I was in a Matrix-type existence. It would explain a lot. Space might be in some stack of memory somewhere, the algorithms so well written that only those particles being observed had to be modeled for those moments. The distant galaxies just data on the retina of a sprite.

Life has altered for me in a way that makes me very suspicious that it's not part of some master-plan. So many things fit, so many lessons so perfectly appropriate. I'm in a software program? Naaah, can't be...can it?

We don't hear a complete orchestra by the eardrum being in one place at one time like a microphone. Somehow, we're interpreting a holographic cloud of sound information.


Photons.
Within the last few days I begged a question on another forum about photons. I imagined the discrete package of energy having a quantitative value that was proportional to its energy, but what I could not visualize was the transition to, say, broadcast waves. I said that you never hear a BBC anoucer say, "There will now be a short intermission while we encode the next photon." At what point in the spectrum does the wave become contiguous? Well, that was the question, but I'd got a lot of thinking to do about how a stream of EMF impinges upon the atomic structure of an antenna. Some of the answers have been very thought provoking, and have demonstrated that many in the field had not given in much...erm, thought.

There has been a lot of discussion about a photon losing energy over long distances. This little package of EMF is born at the speed of light, and in a vacuum, remains at that speed until converted...or until it converts the energy level of an electron at some distant point. What sets that speed - and indeed speed limit - in the boiling cauldron of vertical particles in spacetime is not understood. But as mentioned in an earlier post, space becomes modified near a mass, and my musings that it might take the same time to travel different unit distances, would alter everything. Using the speed of light as the absolute datum would have to become qualified. No need now, cos it's not detectable.

Interesting factoid. The human retina can sense 1 photon. About half a dozen will allow the brain to perceive a speck of light. A 100 watt light bulb emits...and I'll split this up...One hundred billion photons in one billionth of a second. To say that the retina has a good dynamic range would be something of an understatement.


When I hear Richard Feynman talk about gravitons I become uneasy. He was a genius. Perhaps the other supreme genius, overlapping in history with Einstein. When someone like that is happy with this mysterious and undetected particle, then I doubt there's a chance that I could be right. But then, there was Lemaître
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 17:11
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Age: 51
Posts: 296
Come on now, everyone knows that you only need a slice of buttered bread, a cat and some duct tape to defeat gravity! Don't they?!
MacBoero is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 19:04
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 40
Maybe it's my age - but I can't help thinking that when 'Einstein Jnr' comes along the whole issue will be turned on its head again.

Is what we observe the truth of 'everything', or is it just particular to our environment and intellect?

Can we see that what is to be seen?

I remember reading a book years ago about black holes. The author tried to explain our perception in terms of 'flat-landers'. He imagined a 'two-dimensional being' traversing across a sphere in a straight line. Eventually the being would arrive back at the start point, unable to comprehend how that was possible as the being had no conception of a third dimension. That analogy was used to try and explain our problem with time and space.

Maybe human beings are simply unable to comprehend space and time (if that is what they are?!) simply because our consciousness and science is limited to thinking in 'flat-lander' terms?!

AJ

PS: Another book I read posed the question that the reason we receive no intelligent signals from space on radio-frequencies, is because advanced beings would have developed beyond the 'radio age' and would use far more sophisticated means of communication. Jodrell Bank is, unfortunately, waiting for the sound of distant 'space drums' when if fact the message is encoded in a far more discrete manner.
AJMortimer is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 21:05
  #28 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
PS: Another book I read posed the question that the reason we receive no intelligent signals from space on radio-frequencies, is because advanced beings would have developed beyond the 'radio age' and would use far more sophisticated means of communication. Jodrell Bank is, unfortunately, waiting for the sound of distant 'space drums' when if fact the message is encoded in a far more discrete manner.
I believe that they are well aware of us, and have been observing us for long enough to know that contacting us would not be a good idea.

"That bunch of semi-evolved nutters from Earth? You'd be mad to go near them. They'll nuke you, or pollute you, or lock you up, or give you diseases, or try to rape you, or possibly all of the above. Steer clear of that lot, and for God's sake, don't answer their radio calls. We don't want them knowing we're here."

We are marked on their star charts with the Galactic equivalent of "here be Dragons".
BlueWolf is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 21:06
  #29 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 79
Posts: 4,648
I'm not sure if Lewis Carroll coined the term 'Flat-Landers', but even if he didn't, he certainly described well, the problems facing a two-dimensional being in a three-dimensional world.

This had to do with spelling out what it would be like if we could not perceive our y dimension for example. We can see from this, how hard it would be to understand the concepts of multiple dimensions, even while enjoying the freedom of three. You have to put yourself in the mind of the poor old 2D man.

An observer in Flat-Land, might observe a ball passing though his 2D existence. A dot appears, slowly gaining size until it's a large circle, then steadily becoming a dot again. As mentioned above, if One were to transit a sphere, the destination would appear to be the same as the departure point, so the poor Flat-Lander would be lost.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 21:50
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: at the edge of nowhere, dogleg England
Age: 36
Posts: 229
We are marked on their star charts with the Galactic equivalent of "here be Dragons".
Either that, or "Harmless"
BombayDuck is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2009, 22:02
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: here
Posts: 118
"Mostly harmless" in the coming edition
the incivil beast is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 01:45
  #32 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Loose Rivets

In an animated discussion with my brother the cosmologist, I proposed the following food for thought. Drenched in the dreamy land of quanta is the postulate that particles can (certainly) be in two places at once, or three. The position of an electron, for example, is merely a prediction and the mathematics falls apart quickly. (statistics are useless.) If that is so, consider this, and hesitate before your relativistic left brain engages,it is possible, and therefore likely, that in all of this universe there is only ONE of each particle. It merely (sic) pauses long enough in each atom (sic) to be observed, and then moves along. For those of us who struggle with TIME vis-a-vis space, that ought to engage a new type of wonder. With even a pedestrian conception of the number of atoms in a mole, or gram, or Planet, put that in your pipe. My other brother, the Pharmacist, still struggles with ("There's more than one Universe?") Being a relatively un credentialed sort, I am allowed this projection of innocent thinking.

AF

(Questions are to be valued perhaps more than answers?)
 
Old 21st Jan 2009, 03:34
  #33 (permalink)  
Lupus Domesticus
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
They's gonna be busy ol' particles then, if'n there's only one of each of them.

I accept the possibility of what you suggest, but I don't believe it to be the case.
BlueWolf is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 03:39
  #34 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 79
Posts: 4,648
In one of those late night conversations - the kind of conversations where One has got outside half a bottle of best malt whiskey - my pal stared into the fire and said, "I think light stands still, and everything else moves."

"Mmmm..." Said I, while thinking, "Bollix...time for bed."

The thing is that statements like (Questions are to be valued perhaps more than answers?) have a very distinct validity. This particular premise - that seems to suggest that questions might stimulate new paths of thought, is manifestly true. However, how often I've been disappointed at the response to one of my rather outlandish questions...especially if the eminent person then launches into a tired old description of the accepted doctrine. So little time to think 'Outside the box'.

Being a Maverick can have its advantages: thinking outside the box, pushing the envelope, (groan) the products of an untrained mind. Could there be the kernel of truth in any of the dross? We usually never find out, the average professor hasn't got time to sort out his/her student's papers, let alone sift through the oceans of this dross that spews from enthusiastic amateurs.

After a public symposium here in southern Texas, I talked with a young, soon to be, PhD. She said my questions were challenging, but I knew it would end there...no time to sift the dross. It was odd, the newspaper had said that it was to focus on the 'Fabric of the Universe."(Sic) but they wandered off into the usual Black Holes and Globular Cluster type lecture.

Heaving this floundering post back on course, I would ask if anyone thinks that an untrained person could possibly hit the jackpot, and suggest an hypothesis that would unify...everything? Lemaître was far from untrained...quite the opposite, he was a very highly, and appropriately trained man, and I'm astonished that Einstein didn't give more time to his model. It seems he (Einstein) even suggested his physics were not up to much...yet the poor soul had hit the jackpot. Perhaps it was Lemaître's faith that made him so lacking in intellectual aggression, who knows? but whatever, it seems he didn't push the argument again.


Something is wrong with the model we're being taught. String theory is being foist upon the scientific world...a bit like a religion. It has been said that PhDs applying for new posts, are almost directed (read forced) to study this bizarre facet of science. A mathematician's toy? So many things are fitting, but then, so they do with Quantum theory. A lot of bits that work...perfectly, but they don't fit together.

There simply has to be something wrong with the very foundations of our thinking. I hope that we are not blind to other dimensions and unable - ever - to see the truth in its entirety. The thing about such blindness is that we may never be able to sense the goal, let alone see it.
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 04:07
  #35 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well

One Universe's parameters, another Universe's errata? Did you read my post about the surfer's unifying theory? E8 ?
 
Old 21st Jan 2009, 04:23
  #36 (permalink)  
Psychophysiological entity
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
Age: 79
Posts: 4,648
I had started out to imply that the single electron hypothesis and the light stands still...notion, had a certain similarity. I have to confess to being outside a bottle of vino tonight, so the drift was even worse than normal for me

I know that a lot of work has been done on Ghostly action at a distance, and other similar work that's at the more esoteric end of the scale, however, I have to confess to not really being able to understand Feynman's Sum over Histories, and other work that seeks to answer the deeper mysteries like the single electron results in the double-slit experiment.

Check yer PMs
Loose rivets is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 05:00
  #37 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Time

Forward, Backward, Sideways, Curved, Dilating (down), Dilating (up),
Trending (collapsing) Trending (Creating). And that's 8. And mass is created (destroyed) when Time alters its state.

Time is to Space as stuff (Quanta) is to Wave.

(This isn't mine, I'm taking dictation.)

AF (Without Time, everything happens at once, and that happened only one time)
 
Old 21st Jan 2009, 05:27
  #38 (permalink)  
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Understanding

As I "understand" this, what "is" requires "observation".

To observe, a "change" is necessary. "A" becomes "B" is a change.

For instance, a hump of light becomes a "photon". The Photon is visible.

"A" cannot "become" "B" without "transition". Transition is impossible

(presently) to observe. Now in the relativistic Universe, there is (can be)

No such thing as a "Point" in Space, it is always a "smudge" because time

does not stop. This also implies that the shortest distance between two

"points" is a curve, because the "universe" is dilating (expanding), actually

"accelerating" in all "directions". It is at the precise moment of transition

that the rules change. I think, for me, that the smallest particle predicted

by E8 is "at" the point of "rule change". Two separate but infinitely

intertwined Universe type thingys. And uhh, why just two? To paraphrase

Quantum theory, "anything that is possible is certain."

AF (apologies for any confusion this causes).
 
Old 21st Jan 2009, 07:10
  #39 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 9,856
The idea there is only one of each particle is an old one.

If you plug a negative time value into the equations which define an electron, or any other particle, you get a positron, or equivalent anti-matter particle.

It was suggested (Dirac, Feynmann? I forget who) that all such particles were paired reflections of the one particle whizzing backwards and forwards through time.
ORAC is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2009, 09:48
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,473
Gravity is just the fluid phase betwixt matter and energy rather like liquid is betwixt solid and gas.
tony draper is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.