The Myth of Gravity

Okay, Marcel, I see your philosophy is based on Aristotle's metaphysics.

That's fine; however, why would one be compelled to accept metaphysical philosophy over scientific objectivity, when your question is "How much more could we DO if we actually understood what it is all about???"

What does one do with a belief system? It isn't about doing. Take for example your belief that time is continuous. That classical notion requires a metric of reversible trajectory in contradiction to your "explosive evolution" which is a one-way process. Compare this philosophy based on belief to Newton's scientific pledge to "make no hypoothesis." Inevitably, one who bases one's conclusions on logic alone will end in contradiction, because so much (most, actually) of what we objectively know of Nature is counterintuitive.

The anlogies you make between physics and metaphysics are not true. We certainly do know the difference between gravity and inertia, e.g. -- the equivalence principle refers to the equivalence between gravitational force and acceleration, and follows from Newtonian mechanics. Newton had shown that the acceleration of an apple toward the center of the Earth and the acceleration of the moon around the curvature of the Earth are due to the same physics -- Einstein extended this result to the vacuum, away from the influence of a gravity field, where an observer without external reference cannot distinguish between acceleration in one direction and gravity in the opposite direction. The significance is classical symmetry -- reversibility -- which gets right back to the time continuum.

Jacobson's and Verlinde's entropic model identifies gravity with information entropy. Because the mathematical model of information entropy (due to Shannon) is identical to thermodynamic entropy, one finds that if the world is made entirely of quantum information (and how's that for a metaphysical premise?) then information entropy holds it together. This goes right against the grain of classical gravity and its reversible continuous field.

Now that you've given me your operational meaning for metaphysics and I see that it is Aristotelian rather than solipsistic, I understand. However, I based my question on your claim, if I understood correctly, that there is no objective universe (which would imply solipsism). There is an objective component to your philosophy, however -- Aristotle's rules of logic and pure deduction.

As I implied, science does not shy from metaphysical realism -- I think the Jacobson/Verlinde model is an excellent example. Can we do more with a purely metaphysical POV than with science? I doubt it, though I wouldn't dare sell short the metaphysical contribution to scientific motives.

Tom

Repulsion and attraction have to be balanced in order for gravity and electromagnetism to be united/balanced, as DiMeglio says. This provides, and must be understood as providing, distance in space.

Okay, Marcel, I see your philosophy is based on Aristotle's metaphysics.

M= If you say so. I was more thinking along the lines of Plato's cave allegory...

That's fine; however, why would one be compelled to accept metaphysical philosophy over scientific objectivity, when your question is "How much more could we DO if we actually understood what it is all about???"

M= That's my whole point. Metaphysics, or more specifically ontology, can be an objective source of knowledge if it is structured like individual segments of science, as truth systems. A sequence logically deduced without a choice and starting from an impossibility is objective. Simply, the subject matter is different.

What does one do with a belief system? It isn't about doing. Take for example your belief that time is continuous. That classical notion requires a metric of reversible trajectory in contradiction to your "explosive evolution" which is a one-way process. Compare this philosophy based on belief to Newton's scientific pledge to "make no hypothesis." Inevitably, one who bases one's conclusions on logic alone will end in contradiction, because so much (most, actually) of what we objectively know of Nature is counterintuitive.

M= The reversible trajectory does not imply reversible time! While you watch the pendulum going back and forth, the time on your watch is not going backward!

The analogies you make between physics and metaphysics are not true. We certainly do know the difference between gravity and inertia, e.g. -- the equivalence principle refers to the equivalence between gravitational force and acceleration, and follows from Newtonian mechanics. Newton had shown that the acceleration of an apple toward the center of the Earth and the acceleration of the moon around the curvature of the Earth are due to the same physics -- Einstein extended this result to the vacuum, away from the influence of a gravity field, where an observer without external reference cannot distinguish between acceleration in one direction and gravity in the opposite direction. The significance is classical symmetry -- reversibility -- which gets right back to the time continuum.

M= Time is not reversible. While you do all sorts of experiments and observations, the rest of the world keeps going on; The grass grows, you get older, earth keeps flying around the Sun.. Why would anyone think that in his small experiment things are going dany ifferently than in the rest of the world or even the universe?

Jacobson's and Verlinde's entropic model identifies gravity with information entropy. Because the mathematical model of information entropy (due to Shannon) is identical to thermodynamic entropy, one finds that if the world is made entirely of quantum information (and how's that for a metaphysical premise?) then information entropy holds it together. This goes right against the grain of classical gravity and its reversible continuous field.

M= entropic model information identical -if- .. ; all this is not exactly rock solid. "is made entirely of quantum information (and how's that for a metaphysical premise?)" Do you think that metaphysics is any kind of weird flight of fancy? It is not.

Now that you've given me your operational meaning for metaphysics and I see that it is Aristotelian rather than solipsistic, I understand. However, I based my question on your claim, if I understood correctly, that there is no objective universe (which would imply solipsism). There is an objective component to your philosophy, however -- Aristotle's rules of logic and pure deduction.

M= The problem is in the words you use and your constant attempt at trying to match this approach to a category that you know about i.e. Solopsism. The universe was existing and evolving by itself long before we showed up to observe it. It does exist, but not in the form we transform it into by our experience. The real trick is to strip off our knowledge from the transform we effect by experience and effectively remove the observer from the equation.

As I implied, science does not shy from metaphysical realism -- I think the Jacobson/Verlinde model is an excellent example. Can we do more with a purely metaphysical POV than with science? I doubt it, though I wouldn't dare sell short the metaphysical contribution to scientific motives.

M= We would get right to the point much faster.. Understanding, I mean. Doing, will come in time.

Marcel,

Marcel, your laws of logic are directly from Aristotle: Identity, Noncontradiction, Excluded Middle.

Before science became distinct from philosophy (and especially physics, which until relatively recent times was known as "natural philosophy") we did do science according to Aristotelian logic. Why don't we still? Because we found that deep nature does not necessarily obey physical intuition. Take the one instance of Aristotelian science that Galileo overthrew. Until Galileo's experiments, one would not question that objects of different mass fall at different rates -- it's logical. The Galilean model gave Newton the basis to show that the acceleration of the moon falling around the curvature of the Earth is the same force that accounts for an apple falling toward Earth's center, which could never have been deduced by Aristotelian physics. Newton's model gave Einstein the basis to show the equvalence between gravity and acceleration, i.e., between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And as a result of this equivalence, because an observer away from the influence of a gravity field cannot distinguish between a force pushing up and a force pulling down, we find one demonstration of time reversibility (symmetry) in classical physics. This is not controversial, and not something you could deduce from your logic.

That time is apparently not reversible is even deeper and even further removed from your logic, because it involves quantum physics which outright contradicts your metaphysical rules.

Scientists in general don't deny the role of metaphysics in reaching for that which is beyond grasp. When you say, however, that understanding gets us to the point faster -- well, it didn't get you to the point of understanding time reversibility in classical physics, did it? I am reminded of von Neumann's reply to a young physicist who said he did not understand von Neumann's recommendation to use a certain mathematic method: "One does not understand (a math technique)! One gets used to it!"

Contemplating "existence" is, I agree, an important part of being human and an excellent way to condition one's imagination to break free of traditional ways of thinking. When we get to exploring how nature really behaves, though, most of what we know is counterintuitive, often to an extreme.

Tom

Tom,

Marcel, your laws of logic are directly from Aristotle: Identity, Noncontradiction, Excluded Middle.

M= For that part, yes, the rule of non-contradiction was for Aristotle of the highest order.

Before science became distinct from philosophy (and especially physics, which until relatively recent times was known as "natural philosophy") we did do science according to Aristotelian logic. Why don't we still? Because we found that deep nature does not necessarily obey physical intuition. Take the one instance of Aristotelian science that Galileo overthrew. Until Galileo's experiments, one would not question that objects of different mass fall at different rates -- it's logical. The Galilean model gave Newton the basis to show that the acceleration of the moon falling around the curvature of the Earth is the same force that accounts for an apple falling toward Earth's center, which could never have been deduced by Aristotelian physics. Newton's model gave Einstein the basis to show the equivalence between gravity and acceleration, i.e., between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And as a result of this equivalence, because an observer away from the influence of a gravity field cannot distinguish between a force pushing up and a force pulling down, we find one demonstration of time reversibility (symmetry) in classical physics. This is not controversial, and not something you could deduce from your logic.

M= logical operations are not possible with physical intuition or physical reality because they appear to us as multiple natures that are not additive or operational in any way under logic. We therefore compute elements of our experience; mass, color, space etc.

That time is apparently not reversible is even deeper and even further removed from your logic, because it involves quantum physics which outright contradicts your metaphysical rules.

M= my ontology presents logical understanding for both QM and relativity behaviors, not for their measurement. The metric is for our own need to know. It is interesting to consider how in QM the probability of finding (say) a particle in one place in effect represents the relative time of residence of that particle in that place with respect to all other place it may be found in. Within the set of all places where the particle may be found, the places where time runs the slowest is where the probability of finding it is the highest; this distribution of the rate of passage of time is what the wave function describes.

Scientists in general don't deny the role of metaphysics in reaching for that which is beyond grasp. When you say, however, that understanding gets us to the point faster -- well, it didn't get you to the point of understanding time reversibility in classical physics, did it? I am reminded of von Neumann's reply to a young physicist who said he did not understand von Neumann's recommendation to use a certain mathematic method: "One does not understand (a math technique)! One gets used to it!"

M= Physics is our experience; ontology is about what's out there. Where we do not agree is in the metaphysical conclusions of physics.

Contemplating "existence" is, I agree, an important part of being human and an excellent way to condition one's imagination to break free of traditional ways of thinking. When we get to exploring how nature really behaves, though, most of what we know is counterintuitive, often to an extreme.

Tom, it is a new field and I can only use words that are already used and carry meanings that do not entirely apply. The "existence" I speak of offers no chance for contemplation. "Existence" is the logical operation of substitution where one complex (derivative) form of time replaces locally the base time because time in one place cannot be both derivative and not derivative (rule of non-contradiction).

It is entirely possible that you never get to understand this. My own inhability to find the right combination of old words and the overwhelming simplicity of this logic may conflict with some very of your very complex (and complete) philosophical and scientific baggage. Kids would understand this and it may well be part of 6th grade curriculum one day... ??

Marcel,

Superman, are you saying that a type of inertial resistance/inertial binding energy/GRAVITY -- that would either increase or decreased with distance -- with generally balanced attraction and repulsion -- would thereby fix or determine position/distance in space within the framework/context of what is described herein?

Exactly. This is our ideal unification of electromagnetism and gravity.

Agreed?

Super Man,

I super require more words or require more super words before I super agree with anything. :-)

Marcel,

Not sure what you're saying, Marcel. If it's that metaphysical philosophy supercedes science as a true description of reality, you've already failed. I tried to explain that Aristotelian logic (from which Aristotelian science was derived) does not apply to the science we know today -- we practice science as a demonstrated correspondence between theory and result.

Take your definition of "existence" as time dependent in an absolute space. This Newtonian notion was overthrown by general relativity. Extending Newton, Einstein showed how the derivative ("rate of change") specifying uniform motion relates to the second derivative ("rate of change of the rate of change" for which Newton invented the calculus to describe accelerated motion), in a mathematically complete theory of gravity. So you think that it's a contradiction to say that an object is in uniform motion (at rest) or moving (accelerated) in the same place at the same time? You're wrong. General relativity showed that there is no such absolute reference frame. My rest frame might be your accelerated frame, and vice versa. One description is not more valid than the other.

Most sixth graders still have nimble enough minds to take on that "baggage" and unpack it in creative ways. It's a much richer world than one finds in the metaphysics to which they already have ample exposure in churches and mosques, religious schools and popular media. From that, we get creationism and holy wars.

Education is supposed to liberate us from the prison of ordinary thinking, not build one.

Tom

Dear Tom,

As I said, you do not understand the first thing about what I am saying.

First, Aristotle was a few centuries back there and he did't know what we know now. His philosophy was for his era, not ours. Aristotle is not Lebel. Forget about Aristotle.

Secondly, the ontology of the universe is that of a universe made of a single substance, all over! So, your argument about absolute space is not founded. We make up space as a conceptual tool! This natural metaphysics is not science! This is Metaphysics, more specifically ontology. It is everything science want to know but can`t ask. Stuff that a proper metaphysics can ask and answer. This natural metaphysics has nothing to do with church, religion, creationism and the likes that you use for lack of understanding and arguments. "Rest frame" just like space is part of empirical science and has nothing to do with metaphysics. You are not even in the right ball game.

And sixth graders will get it. They will understand logically what it is all about. Then, in order to DO something with this universe, they will move to physics and engineering, never asking back for the how's or why's of the causal type.

Just close your eyes. Realize the whole universe has to be made of a single substance and be driven by a single type of cause because it operates (exists and evolves by itself) in a logical way.....

Marcel,

Tom,

Thank you for sticking around for so long and asking questions,

and not getting ruffled up by my rhetoric. Really, you have built-in barriers that prevent you from growing out of your comfort zone ..

Take care my friend, amd may your own quest be fruitful.

Marcel,

Marcel, Einstein's theory of gravity does not even allow for distance in space.

The relative constancy of electromagnetic energy/light balances attraction and repulsion, and this gives us distance in space. Einstein's collapsing OR expanding space isn't cutting it.

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is proven by balancing scale (i.e., demonstrating what is BOTH a larger and smaller space, invisible AND visible) by making gravity attractive and repulsive as electromagnetic energy/light.

A space that is BOTH invisible and visible demonstrates wave-particle duality necessarily.

This...

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is proven by balancing scale (i.e., demonstrating what is BOTH a larger and smaller space, invisible AND visible) by making gravity attractive and repulsive as electromagnetic energy/light.

...demonstrates particle-wave.

Observer, particle/wave, gravity, electromagnetism/light, balanced/truly extended scale, visible/invisible -- Dreams include all of this.

Great point Superman. Real "Quantum gravity" demands a union of gravity and electro. to go with it.

"Who is the master who makes the grass green?"

I'm just a composer but I've enjoyed this exchange very much. I've always pondered the mathematical significance of the natural harmonic. Could the resulting tones be mapped a some sort of universal reference point?

We just need a really really really long string.

How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? -- Albert Einstein

small minds

Scientists depend on experiments, analyses, inferences, logics, etc., to formulate any of their theories. Unfortunately, the very tools that are used are defective, in the sense that they cannot help one to find the underlying Great Force governing all components of the world. As long as these defective tools are not dispensed with, one will only conclude that there is some unknown Force governing all cosmic laws. That is, whatever law is made or discovered, it can only be a pointer to the secondary cause at the most. The cause for all secondary causes is the Primary Cause which should be independent of all factors. This Primary Cause is Brahman and is beyond all known and unknown things. It is beyond the reach of human mind and speech. However, It reveals Itself to one who is able to keep his mind free of all impurities. It will be futile to find a cause for this Primary cause, for it will only lead to infinite regress. Only the admission of such a causeless Cause can avoid an infinite regress in our search for an ultimate cause.

There are indeed some experimental hints that gravity is not fundamental.

The physicist Francis Farley well-known by his ultra precise measurements of the muon has published a paper that does strengthen this view:

Does gravity operate between galaxies? Observational evidence re-examined

Authors: Francis J. M. Farley

(Submitted on 27 May 2010)

Abstract: The redshifts and luminosities of Type 1A supernovae are conventionally fitted with the current paradigm, which holds that the galaxies are locally stationary in an expanding metric. The fit fails unless the expansion is accelerating; driven perhaps by "dark energy". Is the recession of the galaxies slowed down by gravity or speeded up by some repulsive force? To shed light on this question the redshifts and apparent magnitudes of type 1A supernovae are re-analysed in a cartesian frame of reference omitting gravitational effects. The redshift is ascribed to the relativistic Doppler effect which gives the recession velocity when the light was emitted; if this has not changed, the distance reached and the luminosity follow immediately. This simple concept fits the observations surprisingly well. It appears that the galaxies recede at unchanging velocities, so on the largest scale there is no significant intergalactic force. Reasons for the apparent absence of an intergalactic force are discussed.

Regards

Helmut

The idea that there is an accelerating expansion of the universe is based on faulty reasoning due to confusion of relative time with time as a dimension. With relative time distant events are considered to occur at the time the affect earth. Any attempt to explain something like the current location of objects in the universe must look at time as a dimension.

If we do this then it is apparent that if the red shift indicates motion away from earth, rather than something like a change in wavelength due to passage through a transparent aether, then any expansion slowed over time.

To plot the rate of explosion: at time T objects were moving away at velocity V; At T 1(billion years) light left closer objects that were moving away at V - x; At T 2 light left still closer objects at V - x - y... From this example we can conclude that if the red shift does indicate movement of objects away from earth, then at T velocity of expansion was V, at T 1 velocity was V - x, at T 2 velocity was V - x - y, etc. This information would indicate that any expansion of the universe slowed over time rather than increased.

Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos

Stars' energy fuels the cosmos expansion

All spin arrays fuel the cosmos expansion

Gravity Simplified

Gravity Is The Other Side Of Inflation

Again: Dark Energy And Dark Matter YOK

A. E=Total[m(1 D)]

Is the relationship between the cosmic energy(E), mass(m), and spatial expansion distance(D) of travel of the galactic clusters since the cataclysmic E/m superposition resolution.

At singularity all cosmic energy was in mass format. The Big Bang was the start of reconversion of mass into energy. At 10^-35 seconds since big bang, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance started the energy space texture, the straining of space texture, and started the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate impansion back to singularity, again.

The clusters of galaxies behave as accelerating classical Newtonian bodies. Their motion is fueled with energy from myriads of mass-to-energy reconversions, in intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters.

B. The mass-to-energy reconversions continuously diminish m, as D continuously increases

The energy spent on increasing D, the clusters expansion, becomes the potential impansion energy that will eventually re-form singularity. This is gravity. This is the striving of the resolved-from-energy mass to return to its singularity wholeness.

m are ALL cosmic formats of mass, regardless of size and complexity, including astronomic-to-smallest-particle bodies and all energy-mass organizations such as black holes environs, biospheres-lifes, all sizes and varieties of spin-arrays.

"No Dark Matter, No Maybe"

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4545

C. Mass is destined to dis-exist. It attempts to postpone-survive this by ingesting of energy

The cosmic expansion will eventually nearly run out of fuel-energy m, when at some value of D it will be overcome by gravity and impansion will thus set in. The universe will then revert towards singularity. D will go on a diminishing course and m will enter a growing course of evolution, very different from the present cosmic evolution course.

D. Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos

The present universe came into being with inflation, with the onset of gravity. Gravity has been setting the course and nature of all the aspects of its evolution. Gravity will eventually terminate cosmic expansion and reverse the course of cosmic evolution.

Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos

Dov Henis

(Comments From The 22nd Century)

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/user/profile/1655.page

28Dec09 Implications Of E=Total[m(1 D)]

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#4587

Cosmic Evolution Simplified

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427