What is Gravity?

[Gadianton]

say it ain't so!

It ain't so. Sorry.

[Physics Guy]

Current physics is not a "convoluted mess of models". It's a lean and elegant structure with few assumptions. It only seems convoluted if you don't know enough math. It does have a big problem reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. No mere phrases and images about aether annihilating will solve that problem.

Words and pictures are not theories. They are only crude descriptions of theories. You need to have equations. If you don't have equations, the problem is not that you're wrong. It's that you are not even saying anything. You are doodling spaceships with scribbly fire trails and thinking that this means you have a fleet of real rockets.

The equations of General Relativity can be solved to reveal concrete, numerically precise predictions. They say for example that planets will orbit the sun in ellipses that very slowly swivel around the sun, like a Spirograph drawing, at a rate that in the case of Mercury works out to 43 arc-seconds per century. And Mercury's orbit does do that. The tiny effect has been measured precisely.

The apparent position in the sky of a star will shift slightly over the course of a year as the path the star's light has to take to us passes closer or farther from the sun: General Relativity says exactly how much the star angles shift, and the Hipparcos satellite measured a whole bunch of such shifts and found agreement with GR to three decimal places.

The list is long. You Wicker Man fans are proud to claim a single prediction of a two-digit number; General Relativity has many much more precise predictions to its credit. Can your mumbo-jumbo about aether compete with that? Can it predict any observable effects to three-digit precision or more? Does it even reproduce the things we've known for centuries, like elliptical orbits under Kepler's Laws?

If you don't have equations then you do not have a theory. You just have fantasies about having a theory.

[Imwashingmypirate]

Valo, buddy, we've got to talk.

I asked the question about the aether because it was part of the Davidic Servant's explanation of gravity. Remember in another thread you talk about an engine and tracking all the parts that go into an engine? If somebody starts talking about bananas and chisels as components of a combustion engine, you might be interested in sorting out the understanding of the components required to build an engine before getting to the more complicated parts of how the components work together.

If light travels relative to aether, and aether is moving around like a wild snake in the grass, then what on earth is it moving relative to? The idea of aether is to provide a stable medium for light to travel through, just like water or air is the medium for sound. Aether would fill the whole universe like one big ocean. The problem is that light measures at a constant speed at every position of uniform motion it's ever been measured from. This results in space contraction and time dilation at relative observations, which if I recall, gave rise to speculation that aether squished together and contorted in order to stay compatible with the theory. I'm not sure aether was directly falsified by these experiments, it just becomes a pointless assumption that adds complexity, and now you have to explain the weirdness of light (something easily measured) by proxy of explaining the weirdness of aether (something that has never been measured). And now you want the aether, which was supposed to be a big stable pool of water, which now has to contort in possibly impossible ways to explain light, to zip in squiggles like a snake in the grass to explain a bunch of other stuff while still being compatible with precise and easy measurements to take of light at various inertial frames? It's madness, Valo.



Don't listen to me, Valo, listen to Physics Guy. You've got a great opportunity to ask whatever you want about physics and actually learn something. Maybe bring the Davidic Servant to this forum and you guys can learn together?

If you're in the world of aether under assumptions of uniform motion and already have an impossible mess to sort out, we can't move on to the general case where acceleration is allowed, and the assumption of a constant rate of motion is dropped. However, I can attempt to skip to the last chapter of the text and give it a shot:



So you've got the force of the elasticity of the balloon, the force of the air pressure, and forces of air and anti-air coming together, and this system of forces....creates all the forces?

Doesn't that strike you as circular?

Before you can talk about something you have to get edumacated. I recommend you go get edumacated.

Where does the word "edumacated" come from? I've only heard one other person use that word.


Valo.... I know I lack confidence and I didn't retain a lot of education knowledge. I can tell you that I am however some what educated. I have a bachelors degree in Applied Physics. I know there are people in here far more educated than me on the matter (no pun intended ). Physics guy, well the clue is in his name. But his on hand knowledge far exceeds mine. I can tell you with a strong sense of assurance that the ether doesn't exist. If an ether existed, then what exactly would it be existing in? Light can travel independently because the electric waves and the magnetic waves propel each other along. The don't lose energy because they essentially have no mass and I guess you can visualise it as the electric creates the magnetic which creates the electric. Kind of like when we make motors or dynamos.

I think it is unfair to accuse people who are very clearly educated of not being educated. I do understand that the idea of an ether is pleasing. It doesn't really provide an answer it actually adds an extra variable into the maths of it all.

[High Spy]

The list is long. You Wicker Man fans are proud to claim a single prediction of a two-digit number;

https://ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1481834

Actually there were 5 demonstrations. Three were announced ahead of time. The M7.3, M8.1 and seeing if he could make a positive change to Lake Mead's water level were mentioned ahead of time. All three were fulfilled and in a timely manner. So I have to believe that the first two were also called for especially since the first one was M5.7 and all 4 quakes were equidistant on the number line 0.8M increase each time. That is even more amazing. So that is 5 out of 5. Where have you seen that kind of predictive accuracy before?

Edit: P.S. it is not like Mike frivolously just tossed out predictions willy nilly and just happened to get a few correct. What he did he did 5 times and had 5 successes! And 8 is said to be the number of Christ. 5.7 +0.8 = 6.5 + 0.8 = 7.3 + 0.8 = 8.1 which yields 888 which is the number of Christ.

Brett Ripley here discovered a key earthquake that opened my eyes to the fact that predicting stuff allows the adversary an opportunity. Brett found a 6.6, that was upgraded to a 6.7 as would be the case with 6.66 rounded to two significant digits. Again a predicted 8.1 was preceded closely by an 8.2. Lake Mead filling may have allowed the adversary an opportunity to eradicate many lives with devastating rains in California. Mike called off the 8.9, when his mighty demonstrations fell on deaf ears.

InTheKnow knows.

Re: Michael Sherwin invites a 7.3 magnitude earthquake

[Imwashingmypirate]

It does have a big problem reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

I have always wondered why scientists wish to reconcile the two. They are two different systems. It's like asking your ears and your eyes to follow the same rules. Yes, there are similarities but you'll never be able to hear with your eyes and see with your ears.

[Valo]

Before you can talk about something you have to get edumacated. I recommend you go get edumacated.

Where does the word "edumacated" come from? I've only heard one other person use that word.


Valo.... I know I lack confidence and I didn't retain a lot of education knowledge. I can tell you that I am however some what educated. I have a bachelors degree in Applied Physics. I know there are people in here far more educated than me on the matter (no pun intended ). Physics guy, well the clue is in his name. But his on hand knowledge far exceeds mine. I can tell you with a strong sense of assurance that the ether doesn't exist. If an ether existed, then what exactly would it be existing in? Light can travel independently because the electric waves and the magnetic waves propel each other along. The don't lose energy because they essentially have no mass and I guess you can visualise it as the electric creates the magnetic which creates the electric. Kind of like when we make motors or dynamos.

I think it is unfair to accuse people who are very clearly educated of not being educated. I do understand that the idea of an ether is pleasing. It doesn't really provide an answer it actually adds an extra variable into the maths of it all.

Being educated in Physics or knowing a physics guy doesn't mean you are speaking on topic or you know what you are saying, in context.

[Valo]

It does have a big problem reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

I have always wondered why scientists wish to reconcile the two. They are two different systems. It's like asking your ears and your eyes to follow the same rules. Yes, there are similarities but you'll never be able to hear with your eyes and see with your ears.

Because the "ear" and the "eye" are not two separate systems. They are the same system in different context.

[Valo]

General Relativity is not an elegant, beautiful thing.

It's only to people who haven't taken the time to look in to it.

[Valo]

Q1Where does the word "edumacated" come from? I've only heard one other person use that word.

Q2 If an ether existed, then what exactly would it be existing in?

It's a made up word as far as I know.

First you have to accept that General Relativity is not a God, not even close. It does not explain light, for instance, at quantum levels. It falls apart.

Question:
What are all the issues with General relativity that are not backed by empirical observation or are just "created" to explain a gap in the theory?

General relativity, while a highly successful and widely accepted theory, is not without its challenges and unresolved issues. Some of these issues include:

1. **Dark Matter and Dark Energy:** General relativity alone cannot explain the observed gravitational effects at cosmological scales, such as the rotational velocities of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. To account for these phenomena, scientists have proposed the existence of dark matter and dark energy, which make up the majority of the universe's mass-energy content but have not been directly detected.

2. **Quantum Gravity:** General relativity and quantum mechanics, the two pillars of modern physics, are not fully compatible with each other. At the smallest scales, such as those near black hole singularities or during the early moments of the universe's history, both theories break down. The quest for a theory of quantum gravity that unifies these two frameworks remains a major challenge in theoretical physics.

3. **Singularities:** General relativity predicts the existence of singularities, points of infinite curvature where the laws of physics break down, such as at the center of black holes and at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang). These singularities represent a breakdown of the theory and are often seen as indicators that a more complete theory of gravity is needed.

4. **Black Hole Information Paradox:** The phenomenon of black holes poses theoretical challenges, particularly regarding the fate of information that falls into them. Theoretical considerations, such as the no-hair theorem, suggest that all information about infalling matter is lost beyond the event horizon, leading to the so-called black hole information paradox.

5. **Cosmic Censorship Conjecture:** The cosmic censorship conjecture, proposed by physicist Roger Penrose, suggests that singularities are always hidden within black holes and are not visible to distant observers. However, this conjecture remains unproven and is a subject of ongoing research.

6. **Gravitational Waves and Quantum Gravity:** While general relativity predicts the existence of gravitational waves, the quantum nature of gravity suggests that gravitational interactions should be quantized, leading to the concept of gravitons. Integrating gravitational waves into a quantum framework poses theoretical challenges and remains an active area of research.

7. **Hierarchy Problem:** General relativity does not explain why the gravitational force is so much weaker than other fundamental forces, such as electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. This discrepancy, known as the hierarchy problem, is an open question in theoretical physics.

These issues highlight areas where general relativity encounters theoretical or observational challenges, suggesting that there may be limitations to its applicability in certain regimes or that it may be incomplete as a fundamental theory of gravity. Addressing these challenges requires further theoretical developments, experimental tests, and potentially the formulation of new theories beyond general relativity.

[Valo]

Current physics is not a "convoluted mess of models". It's a lean and elegant structure with few assumptions. It only seems convoluted if you don't know enough math. It does have a big problem reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. No mere phrases and images about aether annihilating will solve that problem.

Words and pictures are not theories. They are only crude descriptions of theories. You need to have equations. If you don't have equations, the problem is not that you're wrong. It's that you are not even saying anything. You are doodling spaceships with scribbly fire trails and thinking that this means you have a fleet of real rockets.

The equations of General Relativity can be solved to reveal concrete, numerically precise predictions. They say for example that planets will orbit the sun in ellipses that very slowly swivel around the sun, like a Spirograph drawing, at a rate that in the case of Mercury works out to 43 arc-seconds per century. And Mercury's orbit does do that. The tiny effect has been measured precisely.

The apparent position in the sky of a star will shift slightly over the course of a year as the path the star's light has to take to us passes closer or farther from the sun: General Relativity says exactly how much the star angles shift, and the Hipparcos satellite measured a whole bunch of such shifts and found agreement with GR to three decimal places.

The list is long. You Wicker Man fans are proud to claim a single prediction of a two-digit number; General Relativity has many much more precise predictions to its credit. Can your mumbo-jumbo about aether compete with that? Can it predict any observable effects to three-digit precision or more? Does it even reproduce the things we've known for centuries, like elliptical orbits under Kepler's Laws?

If you don't have equations then you do not have a theory. You just have fantasies about having a theory.

Stay stuck in your bubble. Has it stopped me?