Saturday, July 15, 2000

Redefining Gravity

For the purposes of the following thought experiment, I ask that you let go of everything you have learned or taught about the force of gravity. (You can pick it all back up in a few minutes if you still wish.) I fully accept that questioning the law of gravity in the physics community is somewhat akin to walking into the Vatican spouting alternative explanations to God, but I humbly ask that you entertain this idea at least long enough to determine why the underlying hypothesis must be wrong, if indeed you believe it is.

I was recently on an airplane, and as it happened, I was mulling over a couple of questions that I've had about the "Big Bang" theory. Since the conception of "Big Bang", Science seems to have made the assumption that the expansion of our universe is occurring only on a cosmic scale -- that is to say that stars, solar systems, galaxies, etc. have been and continue to expand outward from a central point -- and recent observations have actually indicated that our universe is expanding at an increasing rate. The two questions puzzling me were:

1. How does one imagine all the particles in the known universe fitting into the size of a pin head to start with, unless those particles started out substantially compressed? And if they were compressed at one point, then doesn't that mean that they have since expanded?

2. If large masses are gravitationally attracted to one another, and there seems to be no shortage of large masses in our universe, then wouldn't the expansion of our universe at least be slowing down (if not coming back together to its originating point), rather than accelerating outward?

As I was stewing over these questions, my plane began its takeoff from the runway. As expected, I had the sensation of being pulled back into my seat. Since I was sitting in a rapidly-accelerating airplane, I knew that I was not being pulled backward, but rather being pushed forward -- a phenomenon commonly described as a "g(ravitational)-force" – a multiple of the earth's gravitational pull on an object.

At that moment, an idea entered my head that I have not been able to shake since: What if, from the moment of Big Bang onwards, all particles everywhere in our universe were expanding all the time at a uniform rate? In other words, rather than our universe expanding only at a cosmic scale, imagine if our universe were expanding at every scale, from the microscopic to the macroscopic. What would be the observable effects? Well, if we and everything around us are made up of expanding particles, then without a static (non-expanding) point of reference, we would never directly perceive this expansion. If you consider for a moment that we are spinning at roughly 1,000 miles per hour about the earth's axis, we only became aware of this by identifying a relatively static point of reference outside the system (i.e., the sun, planets, and distant stars). Since everything that surrounds us locally is moving at the same speed, we safely consider ourselves relatively stationary -- and in much the same manner, if everything around us were expanding at the same rate, we would consider ourselves relatively static in size (normal developmental growth aside). So it should not be terribly difficult to imagine why we would not perceive our own rapid growth -- if the rate of expansion of all building blocks were constant relative to one another, then in the absence of a static reference point, there would be no perceived size differential between physical objects as they grew.

The indirect effects of particle expansion, however, would be considerable. Imagine that you have two expanding balloons in a closet. As they inflate, they eventually touch, and begin pushing against one another, driving one another outward against the walls of the closet. Now consider that instead of closet walls, there are simply billions more of these rapidly inflating balloons. These balloons would push outward as they continued to inflate. In fact, at the macroscopic level, they would push outward at an increasing rate. If you were standing on the surface of one of those balloons, you might say, "Hey, that balloon is attracted to my balloon. Let's call it 'gravity'!". But the balloons are not being pulled together, they are being pushed apart. In the absence of recognizing that the balloons are expanding, though, that would not necessarily be obvious.

As I chased this idea, I became increasingly suspicious that gravity may not be a fundamental attractive force, but instead a mechanical side-effect of the expansion of matter and energy. Science recognizes the entropic tendency of mass and energy to move from states of high density to low density in a constant effort to evenly disperse. The evidence that our universe is expanding ever-faster gives us all the more impetus to believe that our universe is expanding along orders of magnitude -- in other words, our building blocks (quarks, atoms, etc.) are expanding, thereby driving the expansion of the universe on a cosmic scale.

So consider for a moment the possibility that as a result of the expansion at a microscopic level, the earth is rapidly-expanding, as are you and everything that surrounds you. The result of this expansion would be the earth pushing against you, and you against the earth (just like two inflating balloons). It would feel as though you were being pulled to the earth, much like it feels as though you are being pulled down to the floor of a quickly-rising elevator; but we know that when we are on an elevator, we are not experiencing additional gravitational "pull", we are in fact being pushed upward (or outward). Strangely, the semantic connection has already been made, since this mechanical effect is known as a "g(ravitational)-force." So in this model, if you were to jump up in the air, your rate of growth and that of the planet you just separated from would "catch up", and you and the earth would once again touch. The air that would momentarily separate you from the earth while you jumped would be expanding as well, but because air is less dense than either you or the earth, it would quickly give way to the more dense and massive objects that are growing back together. Since force equals mass times acceleration, if acceleration (describing the rate of expansion) is relatively constant within the known universe, the only variable which drives the force we describe as "gravity" is mass. Therefore the more massive an object, the more "gravitational push" its growth exerts on other masses, simply because objects which are more massive have more matter and energy to disperse through entropy.

For the hundreds of years that science has accepted gravity as a law, no one has been able to identify a "graviton", some specific particle associated with the force of gravity. In quantum theory, which is less than a hundred years old, we have quarks, leptons, and bosons, that accompany the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces. If I'm not mistaken, the math associated with the "law" of gravity has thrown a considerably large monkey wrench into the efforts to unify the observable forces in our universe. It seems to me that as long as we are entrenched in the framework of Newtonian Physics, we will continue to encounter horrendously difficult hurdles in our efforts to arrive at an elegant unifying theory. Science seems to be caught off guard by new discoveries far too frequently, and it seems to me that our best remedy may be to re-examine the basic principles that we've always taken for granted in order to create a paradigm where new discoveries and observations can simply snap into place like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

It may or may not be obvious to you by now that I am not a physicist. I studied Symbolic Systems (a compilation of philosophy, cognitive psychology, linguistics, computer science, and symbolic logic) at Stanford University, so generally speaking, I know just barely enough about a variety of different subjects to ask lots of questions that get me into trouble (such as, "Uh, what if there's no gravity?"). On the positive side, I'm usually able to approach conceptual issues without the standard boundaries of thought, but unfortunately, this is rarely sufficient to drive practical application of creative ideas.

I really don't know whether or not this hypothesis is testable, since I cannot think of a static, non-expanding point of reference within our universe we might use to measure the expansion of energy and matter along orders of magnitude. However, I do not believe that lack of direct testability is sufficient grounds to dismiss the hypothesis. Just about everything that we "know", we learn from perceptual experience followed by analogy and extrapolation. If the hardened scientist inside you is screaming that if a theory isn't testable then it can never be considered true, then I would like to share a straightforward example: I am quite certain that I have my own subjective sense of self ("I think, therefore I am"), and confident about this, I now take my sample size of one, and extrapolate to a population of six billion people, concluding that because they all seem to have a similar biological background to mine and behave more-or-less similarly under similar circumstances, that they also have their own subjective senses of selves that I have no way of directly experiencing. Now, this chain of evidence-to-conclusion is totally non-scientific and represents the worst kind of inductive reasoning, and yet, this type of analysis is at the very core of human cognitive processing. In fact, the conclusions arrived at through rigorous scientific testing are no less fallible, since science seems to continually prove that most everything known as fact up until about seventy-five years prior has turned out to be wrong. I truly believe this is a wonderful process which is responsible for human-kind's remarkable adaptability. As a species we have continually reinvented ourselves and the framework we use to interpret the environment with which we engage on every scale. I'm beginning to believe that we have that opportunity again.

Respectfully,
Cruz deWilde


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following thread is an email conversation I had with a friend of mine about a year and a half later.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Rodriguez
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2001 9:18 AM
To: Cruz deWilde
Subject: RE: Redefining Gravity

[Jeremy Rodriguez] My answer's below....

1. How does one imagine all the particles in the known
universe fitting into the size of a pin head to start with,
unless those particles started out substantially compressed?
And if they were highly compressed, then doesn't that mean
that they have since expanded?

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Big Bang is still a theory...Matter/reality at the time of the big bang is not yet explained. Particle physics has the best shot at explaining matter/reality at the time of the big bang and has somewhat so far for a proto-universe. The more we learn though is seems the less we know. How much of our perceptions are defining the reality of the big bang?

2. If large masses are gravitationally attracted to one
another, and there seems to be no shortage of large masses in
our universe, then wouldn't the expansion of our universe at
least be slowing down (if not coming back together to its
originating point), rather than accelerating outward?

[Jeremy Rodriguez] The expansion of the universe (as we know it) is empirically shown through galaxies moving away from each other in a majority of cases (relativity!). Since astrophysicists have been studying this expansion it can generally be described from a central point (center of the universe) with little data to say that it is slowing down or changing...


As I was stewing over these questions, my plane began its
takeoff from the runway. As expected, I had the sensation of
being pulled back into my seat. Since I was sitting in a
rapidly-accelerating airplane, I knew that I was not being
pulled backward, but rather being pushed forward -- a
phenomenon commonly described as a "G(ravitational)-Force", a
multiple of the earth's gravitational pull on an object.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Big/capital G describes the constant of gravity between large bodies of mass (like planets). Lower case g (like in the fighter pilot felt x amount of g forces) is a measure of force from acceleration and is sorta slang. You were being pushed on by your seat due to the acceleration of the plane just like in a car...

Where to begin? Newtonian physics identified the gravitational constant (big G) but it was not explained as to why in existed until Einstein introduced relativity.

There are currently three main buckets in physics the particle physics bucket, Newtonian bucket, and relativity bucket.

Particle physics can be generalized to explain large bodies of particles an atom at a time but is very cumbersome since you are keeping track of each atom in a large mass. Newtonian physics simplifies this by generalizing the more cumbersome atom by atom explanation. Relativity is more about the exchange of matter and energy so can be applied to much of physics and is very handy to explain astronomical cosmic stuff.

Not sure if you have taken any physics classes or not...Newtonian physics will explain much of the gravity questions you have. You would also enjoy learning the conceptual (aka non mathematical) stuff about relativity, and it would help direct some of your more philosophical
questions to be better stated. Stephen Hawkins should also keep you busy for a while.

Me? 5 years chemistry, 3 quarters of physics, 1 quarter of quantum mechanics, math major as a best friend and housemate. I keep up on all the science news (or try to). Hope this
helps...



-----Original Message-----
From: Cruz deWilde
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 11:35 AM
To: Jeremy Rodriguez
Subject: RE: Redefining Gravity

[Cruz deWilde] Hi Jeremy,

I really appreciate your feedback on this (it is probably the most valuable response that I have received to date), but I'm still puzzled -- can you think of anything specific that falls apart in this hypothesis, or is invalidated by
observation? It seems to me that the equation in which Big G is used to describe the observable effects of gravity offers even yet still more support to the notion that gravity is an expansive phenomenon:

If the gravitational "attraction" between masses M1 and M2 equals

(10.67*10-11) * M1 * M2
----------------------,
d2

where d is the distance between M1 and M2, then gravity is effectively behaving exactly as any other radiant enegery - light, sound, heat, etc…', insofar as the strength of the effect is inversely dependent on the square of the distance between the two subjects. In other words, if you stand a foot away from a candle, you receive X amount of light, and at two feet, you receive 1/4th that amount, and at 3 feet, 1/9th, and so on. Gravity acts just the same way - on the surface of the earth, I weigh 200 lbs., but 4,000 miles off the surface of the earth, I weigh 25 lbs., etc…'

What I’m left wondering is: why is it that Science has assumed that our universe is expanding only at a cosmic level, rather than at every order of magnitude. And if we are expanding at every order of magnitude, then wouldn’t the expansion of our universe at a particle level account for all the observable effects that we currently attribute to “gravity”?

A multitude of thanks for your thoughts on this…'

-Cruz

P.S. Here is a link to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
article which describes the discovery that the universe is
expanding at an increasing rate...

www.lbl.gov/supernova/

Towards the bottom of the page, under the heading "A
Startling Discovery Confirmed" they discuss the confirmation
of the observation. The folks over at Berkeley labs were the
ones who made the initial discovery that universal expansion
is accelerating at a cosmic level. They can describe their
methodologies a whole lot better than I can :)




-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Rodriguez
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2001 10:12 AM
To: Cruz deWilde
Subject: RE: Redefining Gravity

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Einstein showed that matter and energy have a unique relationship. Things that radiate (X-rays, gamma rays, microwaves, infrared radiation, light) are better described as a transference of energy. Consider infrared radiation which is given from "hot" opbjects (candles, heating coils - which also consequently produce light). Energy is transfered from one place to another, absorbed by your hand, the atmosphere, and anything else around. The further you are from a transmitting object, the less you feel since it is being absorbed by other things. Think about X-rays and gamma rays and energy transferrence. Does gravity
really work this way? BTW the gravity equation above only works for massive objects (like planets). Einstein explains gravity better (and in fact derived the above equation from others mathematically).


What I’m left wondering is: why is it that Science has assumed that our universe is expanding only at a cosmic level, rather than at every order of magnitude. And if we are expanding at every order of magnitude, then wouldn’t the expansion of our universe at a particle level account for all the observable effects that we currently attribute to “gravity”?



[Jeremy Rodriguez] Science assumes nothing other than what can be proven. In fact, science attemps to describe reality. Most of the time we do this through mathematics. In the case of an expanding universe science is describing the rate of distance change between galaxies and groups of galaxies. All scientific observations require that we 1) define a point of reference (cosmic expansion would be this galaxy relative to that galaxy), 2) philisophically believe our perceptions.

Let's say everything was expanding? How could we prove it? Our point of reference would have to be another universe or the rate of change between objects would have to be observable...

BTW: Don't ask me to explain gravity, Einstein explained it with equations but not why it exsists or how we can create it or manipulate it. So far all we know is it requires mass to make gravity, the smaller the mass, the less gravity, and the more electrostatic forces prevail.




-----Original Message-----
From: Cruz deWilde
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2001 12:45 PM
To: Jeremy Rodriguez
Subject: RE: Redefining Gravity

[Cruz deWilde] The inverse-distance-squared principle is not really based on
absorption of energy or distance-dependent interference, it is really simply a factor of distance:




If the crosshairs represent the source of radiant energy, and the three blocks represent energy recipients at incremental distances from the source, then you can see that the energy absorption is inversely dependent on the distance. I
couldn't create a 3-D drawing of this, but when you factor in the third spatial dimension of depth, it becomes clear that based on distance alone, the energy absorption is dependent on the inverse square of the distance between recipent and source.

I have a hard time believing that Science only assumes that which can be proven. I believe that we are more flexible than that, and that even scientists begin to trust that which cannot be disproven if it creates a framework which more effectively supports and predicts observable phenomenon.

This is fun :)

-Cruz



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Rodriguez
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2001 1:29 PM
To: Cruz deWilde
Subject: RE: Redefining Gravity


[Jeremy Rodriguez] And thus it necessarily does not describe reality by defintion. To describe radiant energy you need to take into account temperature and medium. Any radiant energy will behave differently in a vaccum, in a cold room, in a hot room, in water, or in any combination of them.

If the crosshairs represent the source of radiant energy, and
the three blocks represent energy recipients at incremental
distances from the source, then you can see that the energy
absorption is inversely dependent on the distance. I
couldn't create a 3-D drawing of this, but when you factor in
the third spatial dimension of depth, it becomes clear that
based on distance alone, the energy absorption is dependent
on the inverse square of the distance between recipent and source.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] And that is is a mathematical generalization describing the concept. The physicist would also have specific heats of the medium, temperature, pressure, and any other way to measure energy in it's numerous forms.

I have a hard time believing that Science only assumes that
which can be proven. I believe that we are more flexible
than that, and that even scientists begin to trust that which
cannot be disproven if it creates a framework which more
effectively supports and predicts observable phenomenon.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] You are talking philisophy...What can be proven? How far do you have to go to prove that it can not be disproven? How much can you trust something that is proven?
Science often uses reproducablility as a proof. Scientists get very specific when describing new things that have not been discovered because it really isn't a discovery until it can be re-produced indefinately under the same conditions. Everything a scientists uses is based upon knowledge that has been proven, if it is not then you get yeah-haws (like you ;-P ) who come around the next day and say prove it, or worse yet show why you are wrong!

So to keep to theme what can be classified as a scientist? Strictly chemists, physicsts and sub branches of (biologists, astrophysicsts). Professions that are mistaken for scientists - psychologist, mathemetition, some engineers...

Without being a scientist you may not be able to believe, you may have to prove it to yourself...Pick up a copy of Science magazine, read an article get the scientific paper the
article was based on, read the bibliography and pick one of the references from the list, repeat with the reference. You will get a long paper trail of scientific facts that points directly at the new discovery, where each step is reproducable.

Scientists are human and suffer with fraility as any human. When they don't do their job you get cold fusion, scientific blunders that only prove that humans are imperfect.

Your statement above sounds more like your mode of operation (no offense!). The universe is expanding at a constant rate which creates gravity, prove me wrong.

Hydrogen Chloride in the presence of Sodium hydroxide at room temperature (23C) at a constant pressure of 1 atm will produce water and sodium chloride, prove me wrong.


-----Original Message-----
From: Cruz deWilde
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 3:41 PM
To: Jeremy Rodriguez
Subject: RE: Redefining Gravity

[Cruz deWilde] Hmmmm... The traditional conception of gravity is at the heart of "hard science", but there is no observable intrinsic characteristic about mass that indicates that one clump of mass should be attracted to other clumps of mass.

Once again, I point to the conspicuous lack of a "graviton". So how is the traditional conception of gravity any more valid than the one that I propose? Right now, Science (with a capital "S") is simply inventing fudge factors (dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc...) to account for new observations that completely fly in the face of gravity as an attractive force. To propose a new
framework in which observable phenomena happily co-exist with expectations can only benefit scientific exploration. We hit a wall about a hundred years ago, when quantum physics proved that the forces as they had previously been known simply do not apply at the particle level. But if by redefining gravity, we are able to unify the laws of physics that we observe within quantum physics -- without compromising the consistency and predictability of these laws at a macroscopic level -- then why are we still imprisoned by a 500-year-old description of nature that was made by a man who had recently been struck on the head by an apple?

In 1492, Columbus proved that the world was round, but 2000 years before, Aristarchus had proposed that idea to the laughter of all who bothered to listen. Even after the Pythagoreans bought into it 50 years later, Science ignored the proposition until someone "proved" it. 2000 years worth of potential scientific discoveries were lost because people were too narrow-minded to think outside the proverbial box. Never mid that for 2000 years, the flat-landers couldn't explain why they first see the tip of a mast, then a sail, and then the hull as a ship approached shore from the distance...

I'm not questioning the force of gravity simply to be contrary -- I'm questioning the force of gravity because it doesn't make sense in light of recent scientific discoveries. And I'm not just bitching about it the fact that it doesn't make sense -- I'm actually going to the trouble of attempting to propose a framework that can account for the observations associated with gravity as well as the recent discoveries which make the traditional conception of gravity seem disturbingly wrong. So the question remains -- are there any observable effects of gravity that cannot be adequately, reproducibly explained by the proposed model involving the expansion of matter and energy?


-Cruz

P.S. If you want to see a very convincing argument that the earth has expanded substantially since its creation, pick up "A conversation between two guys in a bar" by comic book writer Neal Adams. He basically draws out the earth a few
billion years ago at about 1/3 its current size with a hard terrestrial shell, and then shows it at intervals through its expansion, demonstrating that the crust broke apart, leaving water to fill the massive valleys we now know as oceans -- this also explains the jigsaw-puzzle like appearance of the continents without the awkward image of a lopsided planet (with pangea on one side and water on the other) spinning around at 1,000 miles per hour...




-----Original Message-----
From: Cruz deWilde
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 3:41 PM
To: Jeremy Rodriguez
Subject: RE: Redefining Gravity


[Jeremy Rodriguez] Jeesk...did a science teacher bitch-slap you in class or something? Where does all your animosity towards science come from?

Hmmmm... The traditional conception of gravity is at the heart of "hard science", but there is no observable intrinsic characteristic about mass that indicates that one clump of mass should be attracted to other clumps of mass.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Really? What about magnets? Not only are they attracted to other matter but we have a scientific explaination that will always tell us why.

[Cruz deWilde] Agreed, and because we have an acceptable explanation as to why they are attracted to one another, I'm not arguing with magnetism. It's gravity that I'm worried about.

Once again, I point to the conspicuous lack of a "graviton". So how is the traditional conception of gravity any more valid than the one that I propose? Right now, Science (with a capital "S") is simply inventing fudge factors (dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc...) to account for new observations that completely fly in the face of gravity as an attractive force. To propose a new framework in which observable phenomena happily co-exist with expectations can only benefit scientific exploration. We hit a wall about a hundred years ago, when quantum physics proved that the forces as they had previously been known simply do not apply at the particle level. But if by redefining gravity, we are able to unify the laws of physics that we observe within quantum physics -- without compromising the consistency and predictability of these laws at a macroscopic level -- then why are we still imprisoned by a 500-year-old description of nature that was made by a man who had recently been struck on the head by an apple?

[Jeremy Rodriguez] What gravity at a particle level? there is none! As the mass of an object decreseases electrostatic forces become prevalent and gravity becomes trivial.

[Cruz deWilde] Trivial or nonexistent? If there is "no gravity" at a particle level, then what on earth makes Science believe that there is gravity when you put a whole bunch of these no-gravity particles together?

In 1492, Columbus proved that the world was round, but 2000 years before, Aristarchus had proposed that idea to the laughter of all who bothered to listen. Even after the Pythagoreans bought into it 50 years later, Science ignored the proposition until someone "proved" it. 2000 years worth of potential scientific discoveries were lost because people were too narrow-minded to think outside the proverbial box. Never mid that for 2000 years, the flat-landers couldn't explain why they first see the tip of a mast, then a sail, and then the hull as a ship approached shore from the distance...

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Hawkings, Einstein, those guys are idiots...not thinking out of the box.

[Cruz deWilde] I may be going out on a limb, here, but I think that Einstein might well have paid attention to Aristarchus had he been around 2,500 years ago... Hawkings, on the other hand, not only fails to think outside the box -- he is largely responsible for creating the box. (A monsterously smart guy, but nonetheless imprisoned by stale assumptions...)

I'm not questioning the force of gravity simply to be
contrary -- I'm questioning the force of gravity because it
doesn't make sense in light of recent scientific discoveries

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Which are?.

[Cruz deWilde] ...That the universe is expanding at an increasing rate; ...that over the past hundred years we have come up with direct particle-to-force correlations for every force but gravity (which we've accepted for 500+ years); ...that light seems to bend around points in space for reasons that can't be cleanly explained by gravity (so we invented black holes, which we also can't prove); ...that we were wildly off in our calculations of how much matter and energy there is in the universe (hence the invention of "dark matter" and "dark energy");

And I'm not just bitching about it the fact that it doesn't make sense -- I'm actually going to the trouble of attempting to propose a framework that can account for the observations associated with gravity as well as the recent discoveries which make the traditional conception of gravity seem disturbingly wrong. So the question remains -- are there any observable effects of gravity that cannot be adequately, reproducibly explained by the proposed model involving the expansion of matter and energy?

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Yes! Because we have no proof that your model exists, and I say we can not prove that your model is real because it would require a reference point outside of our universe. Tell me I am wrong! Tell me by what basis we could prove that all matter is expanding!

[Cruz deWilde] Tell me how you can prove that it's not. I can't prove that you have a subjective sense of self, but there is very likely not one respected scientist that would tell you that you don't. It can't be proven. It can only be inferred through indirect evidence. I believe there is sufficient indirect evidence to support the notion that matter and energy are expanding, and that the topic warrants serious investigation. Basically, it always comes down to Occam's Razor -- when posed with several alternative explanations for an observed phenomenon, if the explanations cannot be proven, then you tend to accept the simplest explanation in which all factors are accounted for. Gravity, as it is currently conceived, does not account for all the factors -- its most basic predictions are proving to be wrong (once again, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, not slowing or coming back together as gravity anticipated...).

[Jeremy Rodriguez] Gravitons, dark matter/energy are both based on what we understand as reality (particle, energy, matter) and while they may not be correct they give us a foundation by which we can include the description of gravity into what we already know and adjust for what we have missed. It's not the all encompassing answer in 1 shot (nothing could ever be), only a start.

[Cruz deWilde] If they "may not be correct" as you say, then they certainly should not become the foundation we use to rescue our fallacious conception of "gravity".


[Jeremy Rodriguez] Earth being round was wrong, we didn't know this until we started measuring light.

[Cruz deWilde] Ummm, perhaps someone forgot to tell you, but the earth is round.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] We didn't prove it without a doubt that it wasn't round until we got data from orbit that showed it was in fact oval, or not a perfect sphere.

[Cruz deWilde] "Round" does not mean "spherical" -- perhaps this is just a trivial semantic issue.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] We wouldn't have gotten to the right answer without first working with an
answer that was close but still not right. At the time, though, it was as right as we could make it with the data we had so we did not have another option.

[Cruz deWilde] I agree wholeheartedly -- now that we have new data, we should start exploring alternative explanations without the boudaries imposed by Newton half a millennium ago...


[Jeremy Rodriguez] So I think out debate boils down somewhat to opinions, so here are my opinions and observations. They are not meant to be slights or critisizms of character but rather suggestions for how to improve your theory for the next time. I have had to many debates that have turned into arguments...your my buddy so no arguments just debates!


[Cruz deWilde] I'm still having fun! None of this is meant to come off as hostile -- just spirited : )

[Jeremy Rodriguez] My problems so far:* Your arguments are backed by a lot of Newtonian physics and general math concepts, the more specific the more creditable or harder to dispute

[Cruz deWilde] You will not find me caliming to be a mathematician or a physicist. I am neither. The only thing that I really have to offer the world of physics is the perspective of an outsider looking in at a whole bunch of hardened scientist who can no longer see the forest for the trees. If I "knew" more about physics coming in, then I would be trapped in the same conceptual box that I'm hoping to reach into and pull people out of (if only one by one).

[Jeremy Rodriguez] * You are not as familiar with quantum concepts, or Einstein's theories to help support your arguments

[Cruz deWilde] I don't think that Einstein's theories would help me much even if I were familiar with them.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] * You and me both are not familiar with Hawkings writings (which deal a lot with what we are talking about)

[Cruz deWilde] I read "A Brief History of Time" twice, but I've never read any of his super-technical papers or books...

[Jeremy Rodriguez] * There has been an underlying opinion in your arguments that scientists, in general, don't know what they are doing as demonstrated by history, yet examples are from times where there were not really scientists, pointing out that your reality/opinion of modern scientists is askew. (mine probably is too)

[Cruz deWilde] It's not that I don't think that scientists know what they're doing -- it's that we've hit another wall, and we need to accept that our underlying assumptions are wrong before we can make the next revolutionary breakthrough which will carry science through its next Renaissance.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] * Answers to fairly specific questions I have asked are general

[Cruz deWilde] Which?

[Jeremy Rodriguez] * If you are going to re-define reality for everyone you better have some good supporting data, more than just a theory.

[Cruz deWilde] Newton redefined my reality (without even asking first!) and he had nothing but a bump on his head from an apple.

[Jeremy Rodriguez] If you fix these things, the next time your bring up your theory it will be you and me that is wrong, not just you....

[Cruz deWilde] I fully accept that I haven't done all the math on this, but that's why I introduced it as a thought experiment rather than a fact. As a thought experiment, I can't see how it could be considered wrong

[Jeremy Rodriguez] I also feel that neither of us know enough to get to much farther in educating either of us, so the debate is kinda ending up no where, we either are or will be spnning our wheels, stuck on things that we are ignorant of (sound familiar?)

[Cruz deWilde] You clearly know enough to make me think, and right now, that's really all I'm looking for. I don't know if you've gotten anything out of this exchange (I hope you have), but I;m quite enthralled...

[Jeremy Rodriguez] So not sure if I have helped anything at all...
Jeremyr

[Cruz deWilde] Most definitely. I'm glad to have you force me to defend my ideas. And if I can't, then it can only mean that at last I will know where I went wrong with this idea...

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home