Skip to main content

Is the theory of gravity just a "theory"?

3D Representation of mass curving spacetime
Did you know that there is no such thing as a gravitational force?  Nothing is "at rest" And nothing "attracts"  anything else as if it were a magnet,  everything simply moves through on a straight line on a geodesic.  Before this can be grasped you have to check out this super-cool video on frames of reference below,  made in 1960. The sound takes a few seconds to kick in.

It can be expanded upon in thought experiment.
If if there was only a single particle in a universe with no fields,  would it be still or moving?  The answer is that it's not knowable or relevant. The one particle universe has no space.  Movement t is not possible and time cannot pass because causality requires a sequence of particle events. 
Add another particle.  The two particle universe only allows the particles to move closer to each other or further apart.  Even if you imagine the space around them in your mind to be 3 Dimensional it is irrelevant,  that's just the way we think,  only the space between the particles matters,  other dimensions don't exist there.  Time can at least now pass.
In a three particle universe all the complexities of our universe emerge as per the above video.

But we still need to add fields! And we still need to add a fabric framework for spacetime. What is it?  It boils down to the path light takes travelling through spacetime,  but there is a massive difference (so to speak)  between trapping a moon into orbit and trapping a bean of light.

Hopefully you will be interested enough to watch the 5 series of clips below to resolve the finer points of this topic.

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

You Don't Know What Capitalism Is So Stop Using The Word!

I am writing this for one purpose, to be able to post it every time the issue comes up in conversation to prevent myself from dying of boredom on a few key issues with label intellectuals, you know, the sort who drop labels for the singular purpose of demonstrating their talent at dodging real issues by posing as someone who knows the definition of a word.

When it comes right down to it, I personally think most economic and, for that matter, socio-economic systems across the entire capitalism/ socialism spectrum could work if corruption could just be reasonably controlled.  Many forget that Socialism still runs on the capitalism economics system and the finer points actually come down to policy and regulations. This is often missed.  That being said, I am fairly sure that many of the criticisms of communism for example are valid, and views that it does not work especially well because it tends to kill the inventiveness and passion of the human spirit do stand, but not for the reasons…