Gravity vs Mass

[gnostic]

I don't disagree with science

but let's get down to it...…..you have an explanation for the Cause?

You are evading.

I am asking you.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't disagree with science

but let's get down to it...…..you have an explanation for the Cause?

I Don't think it makes sense to ask for a cause of a fundamental force.

 

[Polymath257]

and now you recant your confession
and the tree in the forest makes a sound......ONLY
if you are there......with your numbers

Huh? It is reasonable to think it makes a sound because we have the science (and numbers) to back up a theory describing how sounds are formed and a tree falling in a forest is one situation where we expect sounds to form.

But there are also situations, backed up by numbers, where sound does NOT form (say, in a vacuum). In such situations, we would, based on the theory, expect sounds NOT to form.

The evidence (in the form of numbers) supports the theory which allows us to understand when to expect certain phenomena.

 

[Thief]

Huh? It is reasonable to think it makes a sound because we have the science (and numbers) to back up a theory describing how sounds are formed and a tree falling in a forest is one situation where we expect sounds to form.

But there are also situations, backed up by numbers, where sound does NOT form (say, in a vacuum). In such situations, we would, based on the theory, expect sounds NOT to form.

The evidence (in the form of numbers) supports the theory which allows us to understand when to expect certain phenomena.

I think it unreasonable to push numbers
and prediction
only to turn about and claim some things unpredictable

and that's ok

 

[Polymath257]

I think it unreasonable to push numbers
and prediction
only to turn about and claim some things unpredictable

and that's ok

Why is it unreasonable if the testing and numbers show it not to be predictable in a predictable way?

 

[Thief]

Why is it unreasonable if the testing and numbers show it not to be predictable in a predictable way?

that stance does not display your understanding

it only deems that you cannot speak of a certainty

and the Cause for gravity is …..what?

are you sure?

I don't think so

 

[Polymath257]

that stance does not display your understanding

it only deems that you cannot speak of a certainty

And in QM, we can predict probabilities very accurately. This leads us to the ability to predict macroscopic properties accurately. But, at base, it is a probabilistic theory and not a deterministic one. But it is still the best scientific description of the world we have.

and the Cause for gravity is …..what?

are you sure?

I don't think so

Causes for gravity: energy (including mass), pressure density, momentum density.

Yes, these have been tested and verified. The basic equation G=(8G pi/c^2) T describes this effect. The equations for geodesics then describe how things will move based on that curvature.

If you want to know why that equation is true, I don't think there *can* be an explanation of a fundamental force. Perhaps gravity isn't fundamental and we will find a more fundamental description of it. but at some point, there is no further down to go. At this point, the above equation for gravity appears to be fundamental.

 

[Valjean]

belief requires no evidence
but apparently science is headed the same way

?????
Isn't the requirement for evidence and rejection of unevidenced belief the sine qua non of science?

so there seems understanding of mass
and understanding of gravity

as long as you believe in numbers

What does "belief in numbers" mean? Numbers are how phenomena are described, measured and tested. How would you describe or measure effects without numbers?

but what is the actual source?
most substance having sufficient quantity
goes after other quantities
the draw ….just happens

"The source" is just how the universe is put together, it's how things shook out in the moments after the Big Bang. Fundamental constants and 'laws of nature' are the fabric of our reality -- and they just are. They might have been different; they might be different in a different universe, but however they shake out, they just are, and everything we see or that happens conforms to them.

Sorry if it's all too annoyingly complicated, but that's how it is. What alternative, simplified system would you imagine?

 

[Subduction Zone]

?????
Isn't the requirement for evidence and rejection of unevidenced belief the sine qua non of science?
What does "belief in numbers" mean? Numbers are how phenomena are described, measured and tested. How would you describe or measure effects without numbers?

"The source" is just how the universe is put together, it's how things shook out in the moments after the Big Bang. Fundamental constants and 'laws of nature' are the fabric of our reality -- and they just are. They might have been different; they might be different in a different universe, but however they shake out, they just are, and everything we see or that happens conforms to them.

Sorry if it's all too annoyingly complicated, but that's how it is. What alternative, simplified system would you imagine?

I can have a little empathy for some like @Thief . To those that cannot do math it may appear that a "belief" is necessary to use numbers correctly. Try explaining how one derives the formula for the volume of a sphere to a person that cannot do high school algebra. It is not the easiest task to do. When they see someone using calculus or even higher math it looks like a combination of a foreign language and magic spells.

 

[Valjean]

Thief said: ↑
and light cannot escape the draw of a black hole

is it that for the mass that light particles have
----------

Light is an electromagnetic frequency and is assumed to not can leave a black hole. Still, the another electromagnetic frequence of gamma rays have no troubles leaving the galactic "black hole" as observed here.

How then, does a black hole differ between holding ordinary light and repulsing gamma rays?

The gamma rays aren't leaving the black hole. The radiation is generated at the periphery of the black hole.

I don't disagree with science

but let's get down to it...…..you have an explanation for the Cause?

The cause of gravity? Yes. General relativity. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: A Simplified Explanation | Space

and now you recant your confession
and the tree in the forest makes a sound......ONLY
if you are there......with your numbers

What is it with you and numbers? What else do we have?

Does an unwitnessed tree fall create sound? No mystery; a simple question of definitions.

 

[Valjean]

Thief said: ↑
and light cannot escape the draw of a black hole

is it that for the mass that light particles have
----------

Light is an electromagnetic frequency and is assumed to not can leave a black hole. Still, the another electromagnetic frequence of gamma rays have no troubles leaving the galactic "black hole" as observed here.

How then, does a black hole differ between holding ordinary light and repulsing gamma rays?

The gamma rays aren't leaving the black hole. The radiation is generated at the periphery of the black hole.

I don't disagree with science

but let's get down to it...…..you have an explanation for the Cause?

Yes. General relativity. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: A Simplified Explanation | Space

and now you recant your confession
and the tree in the forest makes a sound......ONLY
if you are there......with your numbers

What is it with you and numbers? What else do we have?

Does an unwitnessed tree fall create sound?
Define "sound."

 

[gnostic]

I really don’t see the point in asking, but I will ask anyway...

So if you disagree with science about gravity, then what do you think cause gravity? And what do you think the cause the effect of gravity on object?

Do you propose an alternative model that are falsifiable and testable...and tested?

I don't disagree with science

but let's get down to it...…..you have an explanation for the Cause?

You are evading.

I am asking you.

I am still waiting for your reply that’s not evasive.

Are you not proposing alternative model to the current theory of gravity?

And if so, then what other mechanic that you are proposing that different from the current ones?

The current mechanics are General Relativity on top of the Newtonian Mechanics. General Relativity go beyond Newton’s theory on gravity.

 

[Thief]

And in QM, we can predict probabilities very accurately. This leads us to the ability to predict macroscopic properties accurately. But, at base, it is a probabilistic theory and not a deterministic one. But it is still the best scientific description of the world we have.

I think this much is the sum of your abilities

and never will there be more

 

[Thief]

I am still waiting for your reply that’s not evasive.

Are you not proposing alternative model to the current theory of gravity?

And if so, then what other mechanic that you are proposing that different from the current ones?

The current mechanics are General Relativity on top of the Newtonian Mechanics. General Relativity go beyond Newton’s theory on gravity.

so this is the top of the line
and God is not better?

no Source of creation and the forces that hold the universe together?

it is one thing to measure
another thing to predict

and Albert E. worked to his death...….trying to catch God
in the act

 

[Milton Platt]

I have a question of which I will not post
I already know.....no one can answer it

but it does relate to this topic and so.....a redirect and a blindside
right up front

do you THINK you understand gravity?
and WHAT has mass got to do with it?

and if the Creator gets a mention
don't be surprised

I don't fully understand gravity...not a surprise, since I am not a physicist or cosmologist. My limited understanding of mass is that greater mass creates greater gravitational force.

I have no knowledge of a creator.

 

[Thief]

I don't fully understand gravity...not a surprise, since I am not a physicist or cosmologist. My limited understanding of mass is that greater mass creates greater gravitational force.

I have no knowledge of a creator.

at least you are direct

 

[Milton Platt]

at least you are direct

Thank you. One of my few positive qualities. LOL
This is an interesting thread and bears following.

 

[Native]

The gamma rays aren't leaving the black hole. The radiation is generated at the periphery of the black hole.

Of course The galactic hole itself is empty just like in the eye of a rotating hurricane and all motions can only be assumed and suggested by watching the "sides of the hole", the periphery. And that goes for all frequensies of electromagnetism.
Read more here - Ghostly gamma-ray beams blast from Milky Way's center

 

[Native]

The current mechanics are General Relativity on top of the Newtonian Mechanics. General Relativity go beyond Newton’s theory on gravity.

Still, the Newtonian basic ideas of gravity rules the overall theories in cosmology - well sort off, since it only "works" by adding all kinds of dark this and that.

 

[Polymath257]

I think this much is the sum of your abilities

and never will there be more

And we have very good evidence this is inherently how the universe works. If you can do better, let someone know and you will be on a trip to Sweden.