Do we really KNOW *gravity*?

[Thief]

I think Albert made a mistake
attempting to describe gravity as a fabric
time and space......as a fabric

and then later to say.....time does not exist
it is an illusion

I agree.....time IS an illusion
and doesn't really describe gravity

 

[Revoltingest]

I think Albert made a mistake
attempting to describe gravity as a fabric
time and space......as a fabric

and then later to say.....time does not exist
it is an illusion

I agree.....time IS an illusion
and doesn't really describe gravity

Time is a pretty persistent illusion...like energy & matter.

 

[ChristineM]

I think Albert made a mistake
attempting to describe gravity as a fabric
time and space......as a fabric

and then later to say.....time does not exist
it is an illusion

I agree.....time IS an illusion
and doesn't really describe gravity

Entropy, the arrow of time is a reality. How people generally perceive it is the illusion

You appear to have time (one dimensional) as the same as space time (4 dimensional) so i can understand your confusion

 

[Native]

But he didn't put those known motions into the equations. The calculations, never the less, agreed with the known motions. Furthermore, the calculations were used to *predict* previously unknown motions that turned out to be correct.

But based on his wrong assumptions anyway.

And Newton found a pattern, gave specific laws of motion, and tested those laws in new and previously untested situations where they worked.

I wouldn´t call it *a pattern* watching an apple fall to the ground - unless it was a lot of apples

The 'philosophical skills' are only needed to make a hypothesis. After that, the hypothesis leads to conclusions that can be tested. The *key* is testability, not philosophical orthodoxy.

Thanks for your confirmation on what I said

Refraction requires some matter, so that light is slowed down. Also, it requires moving between different densities of material, so the speed changes in the transition. That is not what is going on in a vacuum.

You and your *vacuum* You can´t make light bend = refract unless it passes through gases or clouds of dust. Such *bending* doesn´t need an *occult agency* anywhere.

No, that is NOT why Einstein 'rejected' Newton's position. Einstein had already discovered special relativity, which is different in many respects to Newton's laws of motion. Einstein was searching for a description of gravity that was consistent with special relativity. That required a re-thinking (maverick!) of the nature of time and space. And, in that re-thinking, gravity became a property of the geometry of spacetime.

Everything from 1 assumption to X-numbers of other assumptions and lots of vild speculations.

You would be much better off making a hypothesis of flying pigs from watching their ears flapping. At least then you could explain what forces are at play.

 

[ChristineM]

You would be much better off making a hypothesis of flying pigs from watching their ears flapping. At least then you could explain what forces are at play.

I notice you always fall back on personal insults when it gets to heavy for you

 

[Native]

I've seen gravity demonstrated by analogy as something like a "weight" applied on another sort of "dimension"

Maybe you´re referring to Einsteins silly 2D *rubber sheet* field?

 

[Polymath257]

But based on his wrong assumptions anyway.

If it works, it is correct.

I wouldn´t call it *a pattern* watching an apple fall to the ground - unless it was a lot of apples

Apples, and planets, and things falling (not just apples).

Thanks for your confirmation on what I said

You are welcome.

You and your *vacuum* You can´t make light bend = refract unless it passes through gases or clouds of dust. Such *bending* doesn´t need an *occult agency* anywhere.

But that's exactly the point. It *does*bend even though it isn't passing through gas or clouds, or anything else. it is passing *by* something.

Furthermore, the amount of bending is precisely what is predicted by Einstein. Why would this be the case if Einstein was wrong?

Everything from 1 assumption to X-numbers of other assumptions and lots of vild speculations.

You would be much better off making a hypothesis of flying pigs from watching their ears flapping. At least then you could explain what forces are at play.

Again an explanation of mechanism isn't required. What is required is the ability to predict observations in detail. And the theory of gravity does that very, very well.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you´re referring to Einsteins silly 2D *rubber sheet* field?

As I have described before, this is an *analogy*. The actual distortion is of both space and time: it is 4D, not just 2D.

 

[Polymath257]

You would be much better off making a hypothesis of flying pigs from watching their ears flapping. At least then you could explain what forces are at play.

Instead of ridiculing the ideas, why don't you offer actual objections?

Why do you demand mechanisms when for basic forces there cannot be an underlying mechanism?

 

[Ponder This]

Subject: Do we really know gravity?

OBS: BEFORE replying, try to think outside the squared boxes.

We think that a mass automatically creates gravity. The problem is that gravity is an energy. It requires energy to make it. Newton did not explained that. And it is STILL not explained today.

Gravity must have an energy source to be created. Our laws of physics tell us that but we have ignored this fact.

The data indicates that hydrogen and helium make up nearly all of the nuclear matter in the universe. The most abundant element, hydrogen, accounts for 74% of the mass while helium contributes 25%. Heavier elements comprise less than 1% of the total.

How does this fits with the *gravity* suggestions?

Again, gravity is not free. That is impossible. Other explanations are needed!

What are your thoughts of this?

I think that a wise man understands that there are always unanswered questions and mysteries within mysteries.
Does a grain of sand see the beach?
When the sun shines brightest all the stars are concealed.

Science often tells how, but rarely tells why.
All things are moving even when they are at rest.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
But based on his wrong assumptions anyway.

If it works, it is correct.

Plese apply some scientific logics here. An unexplained force which needs another black force, isn´t something to set on equations and calculations because it´ll all end up in dark sentenses.

But that's exactly the point. It *does*bend even though it isn't passing through gas or clouds, or anything else. it is passing *by* something.

Light is electromagnetic and its waves are effected by E&M atomic particles, hence the wave is bended, You don´t need Einstein´s strange speculations to conclude that. Just go out in a sunny day and whatch all kinds of light refraction patterns

Furthermore, the amount of bending is precisely what is predicted by Einstein. Why would this be the case if Einstein was wrong?

As I also said above - And I wouldn´t count on the standing predictions in modern astrophysics or cosmology as most of the *predictions* are simple hindsight bias confirmations based on an initial assumption which lacks logical sense and need all kinds of *black stuff*

Instead of ridiculing the ideas, why don't you offer actual objections?

Because it doesn´t seem to be grasped.

Why do you demand mechanisms when for basic forces there cannot be an underlying mechanism?

You could for instants step out of the box and se if other explanations could explain the force in question. So blame yourself.

As I have described before, this is an *analogy*. The actual distortion is of both space and time: it is 4D, not just 2D.

Which forces are you talking about? The one which needs more dark agencies but the one which was assumed in the first place?

And how can *time* be a bended dimension? It´s all speculative nonsense and science fictions.

 

[Native]

Science often tells how, but rarely tells why.

Excatly But the self complacent scientist and their followers acts as it´s the truth and nothing but the truth. But they´re just repeating theories and assumptions and not facts. Otherwise we would have a TOE long ago.

And when pointing out some of their scientific delusions, they get emotional and say *you just dont understand*.

 

[Revoltingest]

...they get emotional and say *you just dont understand*.

Sometimes people don't. I regularly see criticism of
general relativity, but no one ever presents a model
that works better. If someone ever does, let's see
what kind of reception it gets.

 

[epronovost]

And when pointing out some of their scientific delusions, they get emotional and say *you just dont understand*.

You actually don't understand physics or mathematics or quantum mechanics. Hell, you had to be corrected on pretty much every single assertion you made from the definition of force, the different banch of mathematics you talked about to the very word "theory".

I take it you don't know or have eve heard of Higg's field do you?

 

[Martin]

You can experience gravity directly right now. Just direct attention to the feeling of bodily pressure due to your weight, eg in the soles of your feet if you're standing up.
It will take the physicists a while to work out them gravitons and such, but, well, at least you know what it feels like.

 

[blü 2]

I wouldn´t count on the standing predictions in modern astrophysics or cosmology as most of the *predictions* are simple hindsight bias confirmations based on an initial assumption which lacks logical sense and need all kinds of *black stuff*

That's your view and you're welcome to it.

But since you reject the conclusions of physics ─ on grounds which escape me, since their only claim to status is that they work very successfully ─ why do you bother to pursue a physics explanation for your ideas at all? Wouldn't you be happier with a more flexible, less accountable, system like astrology or Tarot?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excatly But the self complacent scientist and their followers acts as it´s the truth and nothing but the truth. But they´re just repeating theories and assumptions and not facts. Otherwise we would have a TOE long ago.

And when pointing out some of their scientific delusions, they get emotional and say *you just dont understand*.

No, all you can do is to demonstrate a lack of education. Math is key to understanding even Newtonian physics and you do not seem to understand the rather basic calculus needed for that. It gets a bit more complex when one moves on to Relativity. You cannot point out any "delusions" if you do not understand the topic. All you can do is to make your own lack of education in the topic even more obvious. You have not even been able to defend any claimed "assumptions" just as creationists can never defend that claim when talking about evolution. Assumptions of the sort that you charge are simply not allowed in the sciences. People do not accept outcomes due to assumptions but on how well the theory works when tested.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe so. A least it requires some serious out-of-box thinking.

Why does it take any more out-of-the-box thinking than electromagnetism, or the weak or strong nuclear forces? They all "do" things (have measurable effects), but nobody is any clearer on what any one of them actually "is."

For example, compare the EM force to gravity: a smallish magnet will lift a paper clip off of your desk -- countering the effect the entire Earth's gravitational power on that same paper clip (well actually, the gravitational effects of both Earth and clip, each upon the other). This makes you ask yourself, why should one fundamental force be so incredibly much more powerful (like 10^40 power more) than another?

So I guess I'm kind of curious as to why you chose to focus only on gravity? I mean, do we really know the other 3 (so far as we know) fundamental forces?

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
But based on his wrong assumptions anyway.

Plese apply some scientific logics here. An unexplained force which needs another black force, isn´t something to set on equations and calculations because it´ll all end up in dark sentenses.

And if that combination is able to predict actually observed motions in new contexts, that is all that is required.

Light is electromagnetic and its waves are effected by E&M atomic particles, hence the wave is bended, You don´t need Einstein´s strange speculations to conclude that. Just go out in a sunny day and whatch all kinds of light refraction patterns

Yes, if there is matter around, refraction will happen. But, again, that is NOT the case in the astronomical situations we are discussing.

As I also said above - And I wouldn´t count on the standing predictions in modern astrophysics or cosmology as most of the *predictions* are simple hindsight bias confirmations based on an initial assumption which lacks logical sense and need all kinds of *black stuff*

Except that the 'hindsight' predicts things about future observations in detail.

Because it doesn´t seem to be grasped.

Maybe you need to give more detail about your objections?

You could for instants step out of the box and se if other explanations could explain the force in question. So blame yourself.

Many people have attempted mechanisms for both gravity and E&M. In neither case has any mechanism been found. Yet the equations predict phenomena that are then observed and the accuracy is quite amazing.

Which forces are you talking about? The one which needs more dark agencies but the one which was assumed in the first place?

And how can *time* be a bended dimension? It´s all speculative nonsense and science fictions.

On the contrary, we can now measure the difference in how time 'flows' between floors of a building. The degree of that difference is precisely what is predicted by GR. When 'land waves' go by, the change in the gravitational potential is enough to show up in our most refined clocks.

THAT is what curvature in time means. It can and has been measured. The effects need to be taken into consideration for GPS, for example. The change in how time works between the surface and in orbit is enough to throw off the calculation of position unless it is accounted for.

This isn't speculative. it is measured in detail and practical in effect.

 

[Thief]

Entropy, the arrow of time is a reality. How people generally perceive it is the illusion

You appear to have time (one dimensional) as the same as space time (4 dimensional) so i can understand your confusion

not confused.....

time is not a forceor substance

it is only a quotient
one man made type of measure divided by another man made measure