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

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…

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.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see…

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…