How Gravity Works ?

[Searcher08]

There is a wonderful book called 'The Path of Least Resistance' by Robert Fritz which looks at this from the point of view of artistic creation - how does one bring something into existence using the principle of least resistance?

There is a whole branch of mathematics which deals with this, called the Calculus of Variations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations

It deals with path of least resistance questions like...
Why do soap bubbles take the shape they do?

[Harvey]

Money has gravity. The more you amass in a given space and time, even just the idea of it, the more that will accrete around it, it begins to warp all other dynamics, even light bends around it, until eventually a singularity forms which no longer obeys any of the rules and well, it sucks. Even light cannot escape.

Or something like that.

: )

[slomo]

Money has gravity. The more you amass in a given space and time, even just the idea of it, the more that will accrete around it, it begins to warp all other dynamics, even light bends around it, until eventually a singularity forms which no longer obeys any of the rules and well, it sucks. Even light cannot escape.

Or something like that.

: )

You're closer than you think:

The Devil is the 15th card of the Major Arcana, and is associated with earth and Capricorn. Though many decks portray a stereotypical Satan figure for this card, it is more accurately represented by our bondage to material things rather than by any evil persona. It also indicates an obsession or addiction to fulfilling our own earthly base desires. Should the Devil represent a person, it will most likely be one of money and power, one who is persuasive, aggressive, and controlling. In any case, it is most important that the querent understands that the ties that bind are freely worn.

[Harvey]

The Walls

[slimmouse]

Well thanks for your replies everyone. Not quite where I intended the discussion to go, but this simple question is clearly more baffling than it appears anyone can quite get their head around, so guess its not to much of worry. More power to Cotterells arm I guess.

Im currently in discussion on another forum, with a scientist. Ive gotten to about my 4th set of very simple questions to him, and he's still no nearer any working explanation. Hes talking about the space time continuum and all sorts of stuff, the trampoline effect, how gravity is itself an effect rather than a force, but he cant explain simply how it works. I suspect thats going to be the eventual outcome. Tied himself up in a few knots already.

[slomo]

Well thanks for your replies everyone. Not quite where I intended the discussion to go, but this simple question is clearly more baffling than it appears anyone can quite get their head around, so guess its not to much of worry. More power to Cotterells arm I guess.

Im currently in discussion on another forum, with a scientist. Ive gotten to about my 4th set of very simple questions to him, and he's still no nearer any working explanation. Hes talking about the space time continuum and all sorts of stuff, the trampoline effect, how gravity is itself an effect rather than a force, but he cant explain simply how it works. I suspect thats going to be the eventual outcome. Tied himself up in a few knots already.

Slim, in order for him to answer as directly as possible, you'd have to have a pretty good understanding of differential geometry, in particular, Lie groups and algebras, under your belt. Without that, it's not so easy to comprehend general relativity. Some things are, in fact, very technical. As for the OP, I do not trust any physical model that does not at least recognize quantum effects at the atomic and subatomic levels. Applying macroscopic Newtonian principles at quantum scales is wholly inappropriate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the physical laws in operation in our universe, or our corner of the universe.

[slimmouse]

Well thanks for your replies everyone. Not quite where I intended the discussion to go, but this simple question is clearly more baffling than it appears anyone can quite get their head around, so guess its not to much of worry. More power to Cotterells arm I guess.

Im currently in discussion on another forum, with a scientist. Ive gotten to about my 4th set of very simple questions to him, and he's still no nearer any working explanation. Hes talking about the space time continuum and all sorts of stuff, the trampoline effect, how gravity is itself an effect rather than a force, but he cant explain simply how it works. I suspect thats going to be the eventual outcome. Tied himself up in a few knots already.

Slim, in order for him to answer as directly as possible, you'd have to have a pretty good understanding of differential geometry, in particular, Lie groups and algebras, under your belt. Without that, it's not so easy to comprehend general relativity. Some things are, in fact, very technical. As for the OP, I do not trust any physical model that does not at least recognize quantum effects at the atomic and subatomic levels. Applying macroscopic Newtonian principles at quantum scales is wholly inappropriate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the physical laws in operation in our universe, or our corner of the universe.

Oh well. I guess ordinary people arent meant to understand some things.

[slomo]

Well thanks for your replies everyone. Not quite where I intended the discussion to go, but this simple question is clearly more baffling than it appears anyone can quite get their head around, so guess its not to much of worry. More power to Cotterells arm I guess.

Im currently in discussion on another forum, with a scientist. Ive gotten to about my 4th set of very simple questions to him, and he's still no nearer any working explanation. Hes talking about the space time continuum and all sorts of stuff, the trampoline effect, how gravity is itself an effect rather than a force, but he cant explain simply how it works. I suspect thats going to be the eventual outcome. Tied himself up in a few knots already.

Slim, in order for him to answer as directly as possible, you'd have to have a pretty good understanding of differential geometry, in particular, Lie groups and algebras, under your belt. Without that, it's not so easy to comprehend general relativity. Some things are, in fact, very technical. As for the OP, I do not trust any physical model that does not at least recognize quantum effects at the atomic and subatomic levels. Applying macroscopic Newtonian principles at quantum scales is wholly inappropriate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the physical laws in operation in our universe, or our corner of the universe.

Oh well. I guess ordinary people arent meant to understand some things.

I don't mean to be rude - it's just a fact that some things require considerable investment in time if you're going to understand them. Equally true of physics and magick. For the record, I don't personally understand general relativity, although I've tried very hard - and I have an undergraduate degree in pure mathematics and a PhD in an applied mathematical field.

Of course I understand all of the subtle issues of power and manipulation and authority and hierarchies, but it's also actually kind of insulting to approach somebody who has invested ten or more years of their life - often extremely difficult years - trying to understand some phenomenon and suggest to them that somebody who spent one or two orders of magnitude less effort on the subject knows more than they do.

This is one of the things that is wrong with modern-day America: the idea that you can achieve anything of value (including deep understanding and/or spiritual wisdom) without having to work very hard.

And also for the record: this is not an issue of intelligence, it's an issue of effort expended. Most "intelligent" and/or "talented" people are simply people who are curious about something and have worked very hard to satisfy their curiosity.

[slimmouse]

Well thanks for your replies everyone. Not quite where I intended the discussion to go, but this simple question is clearly more baffling than it appears anyone can quite get their head around, so guess its not to much of worry. More power to Cotterells arm I guess.

Im currently in discussion on another forum, with a scientist. Ive gotten to about my 4th set of very simple questions to him, and he's still no nearer any working explanation. Hes talking about the space time continuum and all sorts of stuff, the trampoline effect, how gravity is itself an effect rather than a force, but he cant explain simply how it works. I suspect thats going to be the eventual outcome. Tied himself up in a few knots already.

Slim, in order for him to answer as directly as possible, you'd have to have a pretty good understanding of differential geometry, in particular, Lie groups and algebras, under your belt. Without that, it's not so easy to comprehend general relativity. Some things are, in fact, very technical. As for the OP, I do not trust any physical model that does not at least recognize quantum effects at the atomic and subatomic levels. Applying macroscopic Newtonian principles at quantum scales is wholly inappropriate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the physical laws in operation in our universe, or our corner of the universe.

Oh well. I guess ordinary people arent meant to understand some things.

I don't mean to be rude - it's just a fact that some things require considerable investment in time if you're going to understand them. Equally true of physics and magick. For the record, I don't personally understand general relativity, although I've tried very hard - and I have an undergraduate degree in pure mathematics and a PhD in an applied mathematical field.

Of course I understand all of the subtle issues of power and manipulation and authority and hierarchies, but it's also actually kind of insulting to approach somebody who has invested ten or more years of their life - often extremely difficult years - trying to understand some phenomenon and suggest to them that somebody who spent one or two orders of magnitude less effort on the subject knows more than they do.

This is one of the things that is wrong with modern-day America: the idea that you can achieve anything of value (including deep understanding and/or spiritual wisdom) without having to work very hard.

I wouldnt suggest your being rude, rather fudging the issue. You say for instance that applying macroscopic principle at quantum scales is wholly innapropriate. Youre probably right, but you then go on to talk to me about how gravity works within the theory of general relativity.

I think we clearly both know that these fields are a bit like cheese and chalk at the moment.

So Does that mean its OK for Einstein to do that, but not Cotterell ? I mean, Im fully aware that Einsteins theory irons out some of the flaws in Newtonian mechanics, but as I understand it, General relativity is essentially a symbiosis of the two along with an essence of special relativity. And also , if im not mistaken, even that isnt the only game in town so to speak.

[slomo]

Well thanks for your replies everyone. Not quite where I intended the discussion to go, but this simple question is clearly more baffling than it appears anyone can quite get their head around, so guess its not to much of worry. More power to Cotterells arm I guess.

Im currently in discussion on another forum, with a scientist. Ive gotten to about my 4th set of very simple questions to him, and he's still no nearer any working explanation. Hes talking about the space time continuum and all sorts of stuff, the trampoline effect, how gravity is itself an effect rather than a force, but he cant explain simply how it works. I suspect thats going to be the eventual outcome. Tied himself up in a few knots already.

Slim, in order for him to answer as directly as possible, you'd have to have a pretty good understanding of differential geometry, in particular, Lie groups and algebras, under your belt. Without that, it's not so easy to comprehend general relativity. Some things are, in fact, very technical. As for the OP, I do not trust any physical model that does not at least recognize quantum effects at the atomic and subatomic levels. Applying macroscopic Newtonian principles at quantum scales is wholly inappropriate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the physical laws in operation in our universe, or our corner of the universe.

Oh well. I guess ordinary people arent meant to understand some things.

I don't mean to be rude - it's just a fact that some things require considerable investment in time if you're going to understand them. Equally true of physics and magick. For the record, I don't personally understand general relativity, although I've tried very hard - and I have an undergraduate degree in pure mathematics and a PhD in an applied mathematical field.

Of course I understand all of the subtle issues of power and manipulation and authority and hierarchies, but it's also actually kind of insulting to approach somebody who has invested ten or more years of their life - often extremely difficult years - trying to understand some phenomenon and suggest to them that somebody who spent one or two orders of magnitude less effort on the subject knows more than they do.

This is one of the things that is wrong with modern-day America: the idea that you can achieve anything of value (including deep understanding and/or spiritual wisdom) without having to work very hard.

I wouldnt suggest your being rude, rather fudging the issue. You say for instance that applying macroscopic principle at quantum scales is wholly innapropriate. Youre probably right, but you then go on to talk to me about how gravity works within the theory of general relativity.

I think we clearly both know that these fields are a bit like cheese and chalk at the moment.

So Does that mean its OK for Einstein to do that, but not Cotterell ? I mean, Im fully aware that Einsteins theory irons out some of the flaws in Newtonian mechanics, but as I understand it, General relativity is essentially a symbiosis of the two along with an essence of special relativity. And also , if im not mistaken, even that isnt the only game in town so to speak.

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist. General relativity is a mathematical theory extending the theory of special relativity to "curved" spaces. Here, "curved" means something very specific mathematically, but not easy to describe without using very technical language that would require about 4 or 5 years of training. Special relativity in turn describes the consequences of the observation that the speed of light is constant. The upshot of general relativity is that gravity can be described as an effect of curvature - specifically why, I can't say, because the mathematics gets too difficult for me personally (my graduate mathematical training is in probability and statistics, not differential topology and partial differential equations). General relativity predicts many things that have turned out to be observed, so on that basis it is a theory that is well-accepted. People on the fringe of physics have recently quibbled about whether the speed of light really is constant, and because I am a scientist who likes to explore fringe thought, I'm willing to go there.

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is a mathematical theory exploring the consequences of trying to observe small things. It turns out that at atomic and subatomic scales, the material world does not behave like billiard balls. Instead, it behaves like cloudy puffs of electric charge. The consequences are that under different circumstances the same underlying phenomenon can appear to behave like a wave or like a particle, depending upon how it is measured. Again, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is difficult (in this case consisting of advanced functional analysis and more partial differential equations). Again, its predictions are validated by numerous observations, including the fact that it almost fully explains the field of chemistry, i.e. why molecules form the way they do. It would be difficult to find any physicist, fringe or otherwise, who would be willing to suggest that QM was inadequate in any way other than the fact that it becomes computationally unwieldy very fast.

GR and QM have not been completely resolved to one another, which is one of the great current problems of physics. Both involve the solution of very difficult partial differential equations, something I was never very good at when I was trying to do physics as an undergrad. I'm willing to explore the idea that GR and QM can't be resolved, i.e. there is some fundamental indeterminacy in the universe that protects the Eternal Mind from being fully known by pesky humans. I'm also willing to explore different fundamental formulations of physics, e.g. process physics, which seems somewhat intellectually satisfying to me from a metaphysical perspective. Where I am personally unwilling to go is discussing concepts that are framed in terms of existing theories but clearly nonsense when considered from within those theories (e.g. theories of gravity that apply Newtonian physics at quantum scales). I doubt many other scientists (who are usually more intellectually conservative than I) would disagree with my position, other than to say that I am being too open minded by considering anything fringe at all.

[Wombaticus Rex]

If you're in a room that is rapidly expanding, you'll notice it immediately -- unless, of course, you're rapidly expanding, too. Understanding that the Big Bang is an ongoing process, not a comic book origin story, was very helpful for my understanding of the non-locational aspects of gravity. Everything from the planets above to the molecules in your arms are moving further apart and that growing gap is where all the magick sneaks in. Scientifically speaking, of course.

Anyways, some interesting thoughts via one of my favorite power weirdos ever, Paul Laffoley:

Via: http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/mephiticmodels.html

Robert Guffey: Did your dad have an alternate theory of gravity?

Paul Laffoley: Yes. In other words, he thought it was like a push, which is very similar to certain things that Descartes thought about, such as his vortex theory. My father would conclude his dissertations by saying, "Of course, Einstein never believed in gravity. It was a distortion of space." And so my father couldn't believe that an attraction at a distance was a reality.

RG: You know, Jonathan Swift didn't believe in gravity either. He said that Newton had discovered levity, not gravity.

PL: Yeah, all this stuff worked into the mix. You know, in the suburbs, most people believe in gravity, but they don't have much of a sense of humor.

RG: Of course.

PL: And so, to have that radical a mind in that bourgeois-looking body was really hard for a lot of people to take, because, when my mother would want to have people over she'd tell him, "Don't start with the gravity stuff." And then he would invariably do this and the guests would look at each other and say, "Well, I think it's time to go now."

RG: So was that the only taboo subject he was into?

PL: No, no, there were other things. But this was the big one. He felt passionately invested in the concept.

RG: Have you come to the conclusion that he was right?

PL: Well, I met a guy who had the same theory and wrote a book about it. His name is Walter C. Wright Jr. His book is called Gravity Is a Push. I wrote to him and told him about my father, and he said he wished he'd met him. My father died quite a while ago. This guy has a more cogent presentation than my father did about it being a push. But he had the same basic belief, that the idea of magnetism attracting something was not the reason why the effects of what we call gravity occur.

RG: There's this eccentric guy who used to be in Mensa. His name is Ralph René, and he wrote a book [The Last Skeptic of Science] that had a whole chapter on that exact theory. It's the kind of book that's bound with masking tape. But, you know, it seemed plausible.

PL: Yeah. My father was an extremely brilliant man. I consider him a genius, and so he probably could have joined Mensa. But why? I got in it with a 79 I.Q. and the first day I said, "I'm getting the hell out of here quick!" They're all losers. All they do is talk about their IQ. [Laughs]

RG: In your lecture you mentioned the medallion you were given as a child, the one with the swastika and the Star of David on it.

[In his essay "Disco Volante," Laffoley writes that he had been "regaled since 1947 by stories of riding in flying saucers by the man who came to cut our bushes at my family home in Belmont, Massachusetts" (Laffoley 24). This man was named Giuseppe Conti. On Laffoley's fifteenth birthday, Conti gave him a medallion composed of a swastika circumscribed by a Star of David. Conti claimed the medallion was extraterrestrial in origin. Ten years later, the medallion was stolen from Laffoley on the streets of Paris by a man who identified himself as "Claude Vorilhon." Laffoley wouldn't see the medallion again until the mid-'90s when he happened to come across a photograph of UFO cult leader Claude Vorilhon in a book entitled Kooks by Donna Kossy. In the photo, Vorilhon is wearing the very same medallion around his neck. Laffoley believed the medallion's symbol represented "the reconciliation of opposites."]

PL: Yes, right.

RG: And you tied that into the reconciliation of opposites. It sounds like your father was a kind of yin-yang situation as well. He was working at Harvard, but meanwhile he was a medium. He was straddling two worlds.

PL: Yeah. He knew Gardner Murphy, who went to Topeka, Kansas to be the head of a psychical research thing. But at the time that he knew him he was a graduate student at both Columbia and Harvard and worked with the American Psychical Research Foundation in New York. And so they got together and put Troland's notes together [L.T. Troland, a Harvard psychology professor who performed a number of experiments involving telepathy in the 1920's]. He was doing four volumes. The final one was the ultimate theory of mind and matter, how they connected. And they took these notes and kind of buried them at the Harvard Graduate School of Design library. That's basically the only reason I wanted to go there. I really wanted to study with Bruce Goff [one of the masters of "organic architecture"] at the University of Oklahoma, but I said if I can find those notes I'd have a leg up on the future. I found shards of them, and people say that if they're not just dust, which could be by now, that they must be in Brockton, Massachusetss in a permanent archive someplace. It would take some doing to unravel what he was going to write. But my father said he did have the mathematics of mind physics, or the physics of consciousness.

RG: So when you grew up in this environment with your dad, you must have thought all this was normal.

PL: Yeah, that's the point.

RG: Was there a certain point when you realized it wasn't normal?

PL: I'd say it was the day at school when they asked me to talk about gravity.

RG: [Laughs] Oh, I see.

PL: And I said, "I don't have to do it because it doesn't exist."

[slimmouse]

Where I am personally unwilling to go is discussing concepts that are framed in terms of existing theories but clearly nonsense when considered from within those theories (e.g. theories of gravity that apply Newtonian physics at quantum scales). I doubt many other scientists (who are usually more intellectually conservative than I) would disagree with my position, other than to say that I am being too open minded by considering anything fringe at all.

Well I dont actually have a dog in this fight. I aint sold on it by any means - I just like it albeit for what you and the vast majority of scientists would appear to consider nonsensical reasons ,the worst of which being of course that otherwise, once again we appear to be left with the usual , "well we think we know how gravity works, we just cant explain it in any way that would make any sense to you ".

[Wombaticus Rex]

Love the topology material. One of my favorite recent discoveries:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... ly-colors/

Some butterflies get their fabulous colors from light refracted through membrane shapes that were first discovered by mathematicians and applied in space-age material science.

Using microscopes with three-dimensional nanoscale resolution, Yale University researchers found that shades of green in the wings of five butterfly species are produced by crystalline structures called gyroids.

The gyroid shape was conceived in 1970 by NASA physicist Alan Schoen in his theoretical search for ultra-light, ultra-strong materials for use in space. The new study describing the shape in butterflies is in the June 15 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Gyroids have what’s known as an “infinitely connected triply periodic minimal surface”: For a given set of boundaries, they have the smallest possible surface area.

These visible efficiencies have a great deal to teach on gravity and the mechanics of spacetime (and perhaps even timespace!) but I have faith that we homo sapient types will continue to mostly ignore all that. Higgs Boson, any day now.

[Wombaticus Rex]

On that same riff, I also highly recommend the work of Adrian Bejan on "Constructal Theory" -- which only sounds like a mouthful. It's basically an observation about efficiency and design in nature. I was often struck, reading over his work, how Taoist some of it felt. Then again, I also smoke a lot of marijuana. It certainly shares a lineage with Li...not the ritual aspects but the design through biomimicry & rigorous observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructal_theory

"For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it."

[bks]

elfi wrote:

If you think you might be dreaming, try raising both legs off the ground simultaneously ... if you float (defying gravity) you are probably dreaming.

I would say if you can tell yourself to "try" anything in order to determine whether you're dreaming, then you're not dreaming. Dreaming happens to you, kinda like gravity. It's precondition is its seeming reality at the time its occurring. Any awareness one has that one might be dreaming signals a state other than a dream state. Maybe you're lucid dreaming, but I think lucid dreaming is a misnomer. "Lucid dreaming" is a form of being awake [even though it is not defined as such]; dreaming is not.