Gravity and it's caveats

[nutnspecial]

And I don't mean the movie, cuz if you are just looking for pscho inner conflictions and monologue, birdman is better suited. Way better.

As far as physics and the theoretical unknown, intersteller is more along the lines I'm thinking.

WHAT TRUMPS GRAVITY?

Nothin I can think of. Even light and dark matter cannot escape it, but in return cannot effect gravity.

SO WHAT IS IT?

All I know is that gravity is better at moving things than ev's or even ice.

HOW TO HARNESS IT, now that is the question? It would be great, and would even trump being able to grab electrons from the air to generate electricity, just as lightning is perceived to do, and photovoltaics attempt to some degree with sunlight.

Btw there are studies in photosynthesis that show a faster-than-light occurence in the energy transfer at the atomic/subatomic level.

Lol on the tangent subject I recommend both movies as well as 'son of a gun' (the title track fits so well), 'seeking a friend for the end of the world", and 'oblivion' (I took all of these allegorically towards our perceived place vs our real place/potential in the world)

 

[zener]

Isn't that a astrophysics question?
Our guvments spending billions to find the Graviton with stupidly expensive particle accelerators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

 

[melodious]

How about magnetism? It has the ability to attract or repel.

 

[The fingers]

I've often mused about harnessing the power of cosmic rays as an energy source.

 

[John in CR]

WHAT TRUMPS GRAVITY?

Time would be my guess.

 

[Drunkskunk]

In the US more than 130,000 deaths were caused by gravity related accidents annually. It's time for this madness to end! It's blatant Newtonian Socialism trying to force us all together.

Call, write, or email your congressman. Tell them you support a repeal of the Law of Gravity. No Law is Just that holds us down!

 

[Punx0r]

:lol:

 

[cal3thousand]

WHAT TRUMPS GRAVITY?

Time would be my guess.

Space and Time! Without either, there would be no gravity. Gravity is driven by mass stretching the fabric of space-time.

 

[liveforphysics]

WHAT TRUMPS GRAVITY?

Time would be my guess.

Space and Time! Without either, there would be no gravity. Gravity is driven by mass stretching the fabric of space-time.

Entanglement has obliterated the space/time illusion to be constructs of human perception limitations rather than "real".

Aside from humans making up names and observing effects, gravity, light, magnetics, 'matter' and most everything else is best described as 'semi-observable mysteries' IMHO.

 

[MrDude_1]

HOW TO HARNESS IT, now that is the question?

I have the solution to this....
park your EV at the top of the hill.

what do I win?

 

[nutnspecial]

So a few jokers but no movie 'buffs' aye?

Well you get a 'free' ride mrdude!
That's kindof my point, was wondering if/what deep thinkers' opinions were on the subject.

I agree with lfp, entanglement is showing that our understanding is currently very limited about the way things really are, the way they work.
I hate (not that anyone did in this thread) when people hold on to tight to what they think they know, assuming there's no room for improvement, that all we know is right up to this point. Evolution of understanding is directly related to what we call progress.

The concepts of magnetism and gravity are interesting. We understand that photons are involved with the former, and theorize about gravitrons thusly for the latter.
It's interesting how each are similar, with the exception that we can make magnets and use them to fight gravity in our evs. What if a simpler principle existed that explained both, and allowed for easier manipulation of gravity- I guess that was my thinking.

Time and space are important. It's possible that all of 'time' really exists in it's entirety within and during every second that we are perceiving it. So then I tend to think along the same lines for space, matter, energy (basically all the same thing)

But that's besides the point- while I'm 'stuck' here, I just wanted to ride my bike like I'm going down a hill as often as I want without ice or freakin batteries and dumb heavy copper wound motors that will never beat gravity in it's purety and simplicity.

 

[MrDude_1]

So a few jokers but no movie 'buffs' aye?

Well you get a 'free' ride mrdude!
That's kindof my point, was wondering if/what deep thinkers' opinions were on the subject.

I agree with lfp, entanglement is showing that our understanding is currently very limited about the way things really are, the way they work.
I hate (not that anyone did in this thread) when people hold on to tight to what they think they know, assuming there's no room for improvement, that all we know is right up to this point. Evolution of understanding is directly related to what we call progress.

The concepts of magnetism and gravity are interesting. We understand that photons are involved with the former, and theorize about gravitrons thusly for the latter.
It's interesting how each are similar, with the exception that we can make magnets and use them to fight gravity in our evs. What if a simpler principle existed that explained both, and allowed for easier manipulation of gravity- I guess that was my thinking.

Time and space are important. It's possible that all of 'time' really exists in it's entirety within and during every second that we are perceiving it. So then I tend to think along the same lines for space, matter, energy (basically all the same thing)

But that's besides the point- while I'm 'stuck' here, I just wanted to ride my bike like I'm going down a hill as often as I want without ice or freakin batteries and dumb heavy copper wound motors that will never beat gravity in it's purety and simplicity.

clearly you just need to invent a portal gun... like in the video game, named...portal.

then you put one portal on the ceiling, one on the floor, and drop a magnet... put a coil around it all, and make your gravity powered electricity... of course you would have to find a method of maintaining the portal that used less power than you created, but in fiction land, lets pretend.
also you couldnt draw more power than the potential energy of the mass being dropped.. but just make everything bigger as needed.

then you use your gravity to electricity generator, to power an extension cord, and use your portable portal generator to create two other portals one on the wall, and one on your bike/car/bus/spaceship and then you can plug your vehicle into the stationary generator.


and all you need to make this possible is a little magic. or unknown physics that violate the conservation of energy.... but hey! it would be cool if someone made portals.

 

[MrDude_1]

another modern portal generator.
use a hydroelectric generator.. tank on the top... feeds into tank far below.... but bottom of lower tank has a portal to the upper tank...

once again... if only physics let us do this.... lol..

(this is going to drive liveforphysics mad... because you have to ignore so many things for this to be possible)

 

[nutnspecial]

Oh, so a video game savant ? Portal and halflife are two of my favorites because they draw their 'scifi' from current 'sci' theory. .. . .The gravity gun.
Can't wait to see what's next for those games.

Portal gun, mmm, will ponder over some cake.

 

[MrDude_1]

Oh, so a video game savant ? Portal and halflife are two of my favorites because they draw their 'scifi' from current 'sci' theory. .. . .The gravity gun.
Can't wait to see what's next for those games.

Portal gun, mmm, will ponder over some cake.

The cake is a lie.

 

[nutnspecial]

[youtube]Z-oF4Znv-bM[/youtube]

It's good cake!


But maybe you were referring to the theoretical cake as life as we know it? Maybe Portal was?

 

[Magnumb]

And I don't mean the movie, cuz if you are just looking for pscho inner conflictions and monologue, birdman is better suited. Way better.

As far as physics and the theoretical unknown, intersteller is more along the lines I'm thinking.

WHAT TRUMPS GRAVITY?

Nothin I can think of. Even light and dark matter cannot escape it, but in return cannot effect gravity.

SO WHAT IS IT?

All I know is that gravity is better at moving things than ev's or even ice.

HOW TO HARNESS IT, now that is the question? It would be great, and would even trump being able to grab electrons from the air to generate electricity, just as lightning is perceived to do, and photovoltaics attempt to some degree with sunlight.

Btw there are studies in photosynthesis that show a faster-than-light occurence in the energy transfer at the atomic/subatomic level.

Lol on the tangent subject I recommend both movies as well as 'son of a gun' (the title track fits so well), 'seeking a friend for the end of the world", and 'oblivion' (I took all of these allegorically towards our perceived place vs our real place/potential in the world)

What trumps gravity? The endless imagination of Mathamagicians; a child using a magnet to pick up a steel ball bearing (thus defying earths gravity)...

And in closing...the electromagnetic force which is 10^39 times more powerful than gravity (fact). In fact, gravity is the weakest force in the universe. It might be a scary thought, but it is indeed true. Fact is, dark matter, point singularities (black holes) et'al are fascinating band aids for a broken gravity based standard cosmological model. A model where the only way to explain a high energy event (say sudden and epic gama-Ray emissions) are mathematical constructs, such as black holes, black hole ejecta etc.

I don't expect my post to be popular, but one must challenge common doctrine (aka standard model)

Discuss. :wink:

 

[thewmatusmoloki]

Entanglement has obliterated the space/time illusion to be constructs of human perception limitations rather than "real". Aside from humans making up names and observing effects, gravity, light, magnetics, 'matter' and most everything else is best described as 'semi-observable mysteries' IMHO.

Agreed.

 

[thewmatusmoloki]

You may even have to change your user name to "liveforquantumphysics" with that opinion.

 

[nutnspecial]

What trumps gravity? The endless imagination of Mathamagicians; a child using a magnet to pick up a steel ball bearing (thus defying earths gravity)...

And in closing...the electromagnetic force which is 10^39 times more powerful than gravity (fact). In fact, gravity is the weakest force in the universe. It might be a scary thought, but it is indeed true. Fact is, dark matter, point singularities (black holes) et'al are fascinating band aids for a broken gravity based standard cosmological model. A model where the only way to explain a high energy event (say sudden and epic gama-Ray emissions) are mathematical constructs, such as black holes, black hole ejecta etc.

I don't expect my post to be popular, but one must challenge common doctrine (aka standard model)

Discuss. :wink:

I think that's well written and gives fuel for thought. Although I admit, singularities as bandaids for a broken model has me perplexed.
Yes, gravity is very weak when we compare it other things and try to measure it, yes we can beat it with rocket fuel, ice or ev's, a magnet in the hand of a toddler.
I think my point was that there still exists no natural way to beat it - the cleanest and most effient way to travel thru space/time is still rolling down a hill, so I never thought of it as a broken model, just one that could be better manipulated.

 

[Magnumb]

Well, I was feeling extra chippy last night figured I'd start with a bang and taper off from there :wink:

I am passionate about this area of study, I don't know everything clearly, but cosmology is an exciting field that could do with some shaking up.

If we were to look at gravity as typically depicted, really we run up hill as we escape it. I'm certainly not defying the idea of gravity being a central force in our cosmos, I do challenge the notion that it is the primary one.

If we were to scale everything down so that 1 lightyear represented 1 mile on earth, then the sun would be a spec about 1/100th of an inch across, the orbit of Pluto, our outer most planetesimal would be 3.5 feet away from that spec. Zoom out more and the nearest star, also a spec, would be 4.5 miles away. This is the distance most "close" stars are from one another.

With this in mind how realistic can it be to conceive of gravity as being the driving Factor in our galaxy...let alone the cosmos. (The above is paraphrased as I couldn't remember the scale off the top of my head - though it's a common scale used for describing our little home in the universe)

I love a good discussion! I think this is a great topic and always worthy of challenge and thoughtful discourse. Our universe is amazing!!!

Most of our notions of gravity and its roll in the cosmos began and were rooted in the 17th century, it wasn't until more recently in history that research about and understanding of electromagnetic force and the field of plasma theory study bloomed.

I think we often believe that most of what we believe today was developed by recent great minds, but modern physicists worked with the presupposition that gravity was our universes dominant force. It's no wonder then that most theoretical physics have spent their energy propping up a gravity centric model. Often when theory comes first, observational bias comes second.

 

[Magnumb]

I think that's well written and gives fuel for thought. Although I admit, singularities as bandaids for a broken model has me perplexed.
Yes, gravity is very weak when we compare it other things and try to measure it, yes we can beat it with rocket fuel, ice or ev's, a magnet in the hand of a toddler.
I think my point was that there still exists no natural way to beat it - the cleanest and most effient way to travel thru space/time is still rolling down a hill, so I never thought of it as a broken model, just one that could be better manipulated.

Regarding singularities etc, there is a belief that black hole theory is a unified and well understood thing. It's spoken of with great authority, yet if you consider the following, one can understand better that really there isn't a 100% unified theory.

For instance, there are 4 types of black hole universes (black holes) and 3 types of big bangs. Black holes are infinite and are asymptotically curved or asymptotically flat. However, the moment you put more than one black hole into the universe, it can no longer be asymptotic - it isn't asymptotically anything...therefore not infinite. Infinite objects (both size and lifetime) can't fit into any big bang universe as they are of finite size or finite age.

The fact is that General Relativity isn't compatible with black holes (admission by Einstein himself - please look it up)

His field equations that sought to bring more (then current) theory under the umbrella of his equations are a mess. His equations ultimately divide by zero, even if one sees no problem there, they produce invariants which in tensor calculus (which his field equations are) is absolutely impossible. It's a no no.

Black holes are a construct to give sufficient strength to gravity to accomplish anything we view in the universe (and frankly don't understand). The electromagnetic force is 10 to the 39 power more powerful than gravity (as I already mentioned but it always bears consideration anew)

In my opinion the standard model is a broken model at its core. why is that exciting? Because theoretical maths have powered our observations of the Galaxy, with an electric model, a scalable, multidisciplinary approach can be taken that doesn't require you to be an unmitigated genius to just understand, and with scalable experimentation in the field of electromagnetic and plasma research, we are seeing micro reproduction of macro events. It's exciting.

My main issue is that all current theory is presented as fact; pier review by press release has become the norm and the standard model has fallen far short in the area of future predictability. Science is almost constantly trying to fit new unexpected information into old theories. I'm not saying it's like this across the board, but in cosmology, yeah, pretty much how it's been working. Comet 67p being just the latest example.

 

[nutnspecial]

This is exactly what I attempted to put out there, and fully stand behind.
I'm afraid if science ever gets to the equation to explain everything, it will be so completely different than what we think now.

Yes 'things don't add up', and there are clues everywhere.

Would you have an opinion on this?
-I wanted to point out in the magnet believers thread that if math uses infinity to describe fractals and geometry, it too must be missing something- in my mind this is a good place to start because many don't even follow/understand physics and quantum mechanics to see the issues with them. Sure we have developed useful systems for math/science, but there are holes.

I've heard 'experts' say that 0.3333... is accurate for 1/3 because other fractions are looked upon as 0.5000...(infinite 0's, infinite also).

2/2= 1
2x 0.5000... =1 infinite zero's make no difference,
3/3= 1
3x 0.3333... =0.9999... Still not 1.

And my thinking is you can't add infinity to infinity anyway- it's illogical.
It's so simple. But maybe some think that's why it doesn't matter. "ah well, let's just throw an infinity in here or there when it doesn't add up"

For all the things we use base 10, it seems to me it should be able to logically define 1/3 or pi.
If base 10 is so arbitrary(needs to use infinity even attempt to describe the simplest fractions or shapes) in a few (or all) applications, why do we use it at all?

Because although inadequate, we have figured out nothing better or more accurate?

Thanks for the post magthumb, if you have any sources to cite, I'd be very interested in looking for some presentations that help me think along the lines you described.

 

[r3volved]

Curious if anyone has heard of Nassim Haramein and his "Black Whole" theory?

http://resonance.is/

He's based it on the schwarzschild proton and incorporates torque and Coriolis effects into Einstein's relativity equations. Very interesting, but I don't have the math background to differentiate the actual physics from the whoo.

I'd love to hear other's opinions on his work...preferably people who can understand it.

 

[Magnumb]

Curious if anyone has heard of Nassim Haramein and his "Black Whole" theory?

http://resonance.is/

He's based it on the schwarzschild proton and incorporates torque and Coriolis effects into Einstein's relativity equations. Very interesting, but I don't have the math background to differentiate the actual physics from the whoo.

I'd love to hear other's opinions on his work...preferably people who can understand it.

I'm not a huge fan of his, but I applaud his radical thinking on the subject, I'll also freely admit I haven't spent a great deal of time looking into his stuff, so I should reserve judgement. I am glad he challenges the norm, you don't necessarily need to be correct in your own theory to poke holes in someone else :lol:

My issue with any theory that uses the swartzchild solution is that it's a bastardization of swartzchild's original equation that absolutely did not support in any way shape or form black holes. In fact, I think it was Hilbert (I'll look it up) who then made it fit. So strange how science pre-empted a fabulous solution, changed it, put his name to it and then used it as proof of unobservable phenomena.

I'll take some time and look more into that guy. As I recall he was more new age-ish which sometimes obscures any real scientific revelation.

I'll say this, whatever side of the debate one lands on. Provided you arrive at your personal views about it intellectually honestly, meaning through personally putting your beliefs to trial vs regurgitating what we hear every day or where simply taught, then I'd say you are richer for the journey. In my mind, simply being willing to do that is what informs a really good discussion. I'll respect anyone to the end who's views are their own, even if I vehemently disagree! More than anything I respect the process by which one arrives at a conclusion, more than the conclusion itself. Ironically, it's how many solutions are arrived at in the standard model where the problem exists.

I'll be the first to tell you I have a lot to learn,and while I may be direct in my posts I don't mean to portray that as being authoritarian in nature. Not at all. My wife keeps me exceedingly humble, and I've been lurking here long enough to see such wonderfully brilliant minds. I assure you all, I am well below average, verging on serviceable idiot some days :lol:

But honestly, what better forum than ES to discuss such things.