The Myth of Gravity

His idea sounds very much like a leSage ether theory.

Gravity can only ultimately enjoin electromagnetism and quantum mechanics when space is dynamic and yet highly ordered. Randomness, order, potentiality, actuality, visible, and invisible all are included.

"Quantum gravity" and electromagnetism/light require that the structure and form of sensory experience in general MORE CLOSELY resembles thought.

Gravity ultimately pertains to distance in space as a function of balanced attraction and repulsion.

Everyone seems to forget that, in terms of general relativity, gravity is not a fundamental force either. Technically it's a "fictitious" force (to use Tom Moore's terminology). That's part of the reason that there's a disconnect between quantum mechanics and GR.

From what I understand of the article, the new definition of gravity is NOT as a fundamental force in itself but rather as a side-effect of other fundamental forces. Gravity as a force still exists in this model, but it's not a fundamental quantum energy-exchange force like strong, weak, and electromagnetic.

I have a similarly-related theory I'm trying to put on paper that I believe is in sync with this new idea of gravity. I believe my theory may explain the dark matter and dark energy problems as an underestimation of empty space's quantum mass. The most appropriate name I can think of for this is "Spindle Theory". I'll be posting articles soon..

poxix.com

Jacob Munoz

Hello dear Jacod,

Nice to know you, could you tell us more please, it's interesting.

Best Regards

Steve

"Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)" -- to quote DiMeglio.

DiMeglio is defining the dream process/manifestation as the source of genius.

Quantum gravity occurs in dreams per DiMeglio. This statement links the union of gravity and electromagnetism to/with dreams: "The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense." DiMeglio has unified gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum gravity as dream experience.

Lightbringer, this might be of assistance/clarification to you in your understanding. I am most appreciative of your diligence, concern, and caring in this most important matter.

As DiMeglio wrote: "Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)"

Defining the THOUGHTFUL dream process/manifestation as the ULTIMATE source of the mathematical genius that constitutes the unification/inclusion of Maxwell's equations and Einstein's equations is awesome.

Quantum gravity occurs in dreams.

This statement links the thoughtful/theoretical union of gravity and electromagnetism to/with dreams: "The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense." Gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum gravity are unified in/as dream experience.

Accordingly, the [mathematical] union of gravity and electromagnetism is shown/demonstrated in dreams, as DiMeglio said. Moreover, it is clear that a (or ANY) unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE PLAINLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY APPARENT IN OUR EXPERIENCE. That is simple common sense.

Thanks again DiMeglio. We love you.

.

Dears,

All we know in fact about "gravity" is that it is an attractive force that works in our class of dimensions.

Einstein's idea of "space deformation" as explanation for gravity has been the most fake theory of all physics history...

Corpses are attracted, like they had a memory of an united state, nothing else is known...

Cheers,

Why would one think that the idea of physically real spacetime is "fake?"

Tom

All that tells me, Wilton, is that you don't know the principles of general relativity. Spacetime, in which neither space nor time are independent, is the "clear" physical reality in Einstein's theory.

Tom

TH RAY,

We can measure space with a ruler. We can measure time with a clock. These are "physical entities", the product of our direct physical interaction within our reality. Spacetime, on the other hand, is a (META=not or beyond) metaphysical entity created to stitched up measures within our reality and what (little) we know about the underlying reality or metaphysical universe. Spacetime is not physical. It is a product of physics and as such, it contains both physical and metaphysical components by requirement.

People do not understand where one ends and the other begins and believe that spacetime is true physics (not) or true metaphysics (not). Spacetime is a hybrid tool we invented in order to keep doing physics where physics means nothing. In order to understand what we are doing , we must respect the boundaries of each, physics and metaphysics.

If we can just understand that the universe is not the experience we have of it, but rather what we can deduce from that experience of it while removing our own transform we effect as observers, then, we have a chance to get it. Do you?

Marcel,

The continuum of spacetime is explicitly physical in general relativity: " ... by 'physically real' we mean 'independent in its properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions.'" (Einstein, 1956, The Meaning of Relativity)

General relativity is a physical theory, not a metaphysical proposition.

Tom

Tom,

Could you please explain the meaning of what is between the quote marks?

Thanks,

Marcel,

That covers a lot of physics, Marcel. I'll try to summarize as best I can. The quote is directly from Einstein, in his introduction to general relativity--following the explanation of special relativity. Special relativity is the "special case" of uniform motion; general relativity is the generalized case of accelerated motion.

To understand accelerated motion, we have to go back to Newton's theory of gravity. Newton had found that acceleration in a gravity field accounted for both the attraction of bodies toward the center of the Earth, and for celestial orbits.

In Newton, however, space is an absolutely smooth background and time is also absolute (i.e., clocks run at the same rate everywhere in the universe).

Einstein, with a deep background in classical mechanics, saw what Ernst Mach had done. By disregarding the role of space altogether, Mach had proposed that the motion of any body in the universe depends on the motion of every other body in the universe. That is, if one could determine the initial state (position and momentum) of all bodies at one moment, one could in principle predict future states in all other moments. In Mach, then, time is "physically real"--there is a non-arbitrary zero point of motion and space is just a convenient fiction. Of course, Mach's idea also depended on Newton's assumption of absolute time.

Einstein recognized that other than in a closed, isolated system, what he called "Mach's Principle" would be impossible to show experimentally valid. Like every good physicist (especially of the classical variety) Einstein was driven by the need to demonstrate correspondence between theory and physical result. And like almost every theorist of his era, he was troubled by Newton's theory that required "action at a distance"--the instantaneous influence of one body on another .

With Mach, since space doesn't matter, invisible gears crank the universe and all action is local. This property--locality--is how Einstein arrived at the idea that if Mach's Principle holds, there is no nonlocal influence on the motion of bodies. So there must be some physical boundary that prevents action at a distance. Since special relativity had already incorporated the absolute speed of light, Einstein reasoned that not only did the speed of light limit uniform motion, but that it limits local action as well--because accelerated motion (i.e., motion in a curved path rather than a straight line) would be bounded by the curve. If you think of this in terms of geometry, and you know that a straight line is a special case of a curve, you see that while the line extends from minus infinity to plus infinity, the curve limits the path of the straight line so that the distance-time relation to the common coordinates of three dimensional space adjusts the coordinates so that a body in time is continuous with its position in space. The metric signature of general relativity is +++-, which means that the straight line (the three plus signs) is truncated by the minus sign, and this is a physical boundary. The derivation is x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (dt)^2. The xyz coordinates describe a body's position in space; dt is the distance-time term. At nonrelativistic distances and speeds, it doesn't mean much, but is significant otherwise. (All of this is experimentally validated.)

So. If all physical influences are local, there can't be a universal clock, because the measurement of local processes viewed by one observer at a relativistic distance (or speed) from another's locality differs from the measurement that the other makes. Every observer carries her own clock, in other words, which reads differently from one observer's state in relation to the other.

Not only is time physically real, as in Mach's mechanics--space is also physically real in general relativity. However, neither space nor time can be _independently_ real, because of the observer dependence. Time is treated as an extra dimension, a coordinate point continuous with space. In mathematics, this is called Minkowski space, or space-time. In explaining how this continuum acts on the apparent position and momentum of bodies, Einstein reminded us of what "physically real" means, in order to distinguish the true physics from the apparent: " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions." Time is not physically real. Space is not physically real. Spacetime is physically real.

Tom

Tom,

Thank you for taking the time to lay down your explanation. I learned much from your discourse. Here are a few comments.

- an action at a distance does not require to be instantaneous.

- "at non relativistic distances and speeds.." (Verlinde says the same on p2) There is no such thing! Relativity is always true in principle, even in the case where it is not measurable by the observer. If it is universal, the observer and its capacity of observation is not to be taken as a limit to Relativity. If I throw a ball in the air, the time within this ball, believe it, is relatively slower than mine, without any other proof than the fact that the equation shows no boundary. This case is where in fact it actually means the most, for understanding.

- It is strange, but consider that measuring a speed of zero is relative to the observer while the maximum of the scale is c, and this is relative .... to the universe! One end of the scale is relative to us (0) and the other end is absolute ( c) . Maybe we should use c as speed coordinate axis!

- The clock is universal because it runs everywhere ... it just doesn't run everywhere at the same rate...The passage of time is a universal process with a local value of its rate, just as in a gravitational field.

- "Time is not physically real". Time is by nature a dynamic process. We measure on a clock its first integral in a physical way. But this measurement and integration cannot exist without its first derivative i.e. the rate of passage of time. You see, time integrated as measurement on a clock is physical*. The underlying process, the rate of passage of time, is metaphysical. If we could "see" the rate of passage of time we would be technically as blind as a goldfish in a glass of milk. But we detect very short first derivative of the passage of time as photons, or gradient of it, as gravity. This is what I mean by "physical".

- But, my absolute partition of physics and metaphysics does not allow your explanation (last few sentences) of the content of the quote marks.

* The first function (and most basic one) of a clock is to show/detect the presence of the passage of time. It runs, then time is passing. The second function of a clock is to partition the local spontaneity of time into equal units used for measurement. The local rate of passage of time is an indication of the local rate of spontaneous processes, the clock being our standard spontaneous partitioned process used for measuring it.

Marcel,

Tom,

A quick tour on metaphysics 101. To help you understand where I am coming from..

Anything we call an experience (person or instrument) is a binary relationship between subject and observer. This experience (and all our knowledge) has meaning and exists only in this ephemeral relationship. Everything we know is about this experience, not about the universe itself. From this we understand that the universe as it is by itself is entirely metaphysical. Our job is to decode our experiences in order deduce what the subject matter really is by itself, starting by removing the transforms we effect on the data; integrations leading to the concepts of space and duration.

S___w the Copenhagen school! They said nothing worth our attention lied beyond the window.(underlying reality). In fact, everything that really exists is there.

With this tool you may dissect relativity into its physical and metaphysical components. You will understand that relativity is a bridge between our physical reality (what we can measure) and what little we know about the metaphysical universe. The theory itself is not wrong (it is physically proven!); only the metaphysics we deduced from it is wrong, mostly because we don't know or acknowledge the difference between the two; physics and metaphysics.

Marcel,

________________

Marcel,

How do you differentiate between your view of "metaphysics" and the philosophy of "solipsism," which has no objective value at all?

I have no aversion to metaphysical realism; however, I find no way to convert your view to objective knowledge.

Tom

Tom,

No solipsism here. Only a profound an honest pragmatism. We already know we create our whole reality from sensory experience. We make up colors, sounds, and space and our own version of time... There is no objective observer because we are part of the experience...

As for making something out of it, well. Look at all we could DO without understanding what we were doing. How much more could we DO if we actually understood what it is all about???

Marcel,