# Thread: Gravity is Energy moving towards lower Energy

1. Originally Posted by Believe
To have a straw man I would actually have to attempt to answer your question, which I have not, you should maybe look up the definition before you speak or you risk looking stupid:

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

What is C&P's? If you use uncommon abbreviations you need to explain them.

You understand that occams razor involves compairing at least 2 things right? Occams razor states "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one". The key word here is OFTEN. This is not always the case. The current gravitational theory allows one to make PREDITIONS based on that theory. That is SCIENCE and, pinchos off shoot offers no math and nothing to make testable preditions with which is not science meaning that the other things that they speak of are not equal. What are these predications you may ask? Do you have a smart phone? Download google sky, that little program will allow you to look up the location of any constillation at any time of the year. It also includes the postioning of the planets and other celestial bodies. Do that with pinchos theory, go on I'll wait.

You can run the computer but you don't know the abreviation C&P? My dog probably knows C&P means "cut & paste."

We Are comparing 2 things. Gravity's direction of flow. An inbound force or an attractive force.

predition is not a word... That's okay dude... I understand

2. Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
You can run the computer but you don't know the abreviation C&P? My dog probably knows C&P means "cut & paste."

We Are comparing 2 things. Gravity's direction of flow. An inbound force or an attractive force.

predition is not a word... That's okay dude... I understand
Again calculate the orbit of earth, the moon, Jupiter, Halleys comet, sagettarius using pinchos no math theory instead of macking fuun of onee mispealling.

3. Originally Posted by AlexG
Occam's Razor is a principle, not a natural law. It simply says that 'entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity'. Another way to state it is that given competing theories, the simplest one which explains observation and experimentation is usually correct.

So yes, gravity conforms to Occam's Razor, because there is no competing theory which both accurately and completely explains the physical universe we observe, and which is simpler.

Certainly not the drivel that Pincho posted and you agree with.

What cause of gravity conforms to the path of least resistance? Inbound flow, mass attraction (aka quantum gravitational loops), or Newton's gravity that is "imparted by the Holy Spirit?"

4. What cause of gravity conforms to the path of least resistance?
Gravity is the geometry of space/time. The 'path of least resistance' will always be following the geodesic. The geodesic is the straight line. Gravity bends the geodesic by bending space/time.

5. Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
What cause of gravity conforms to the path of least resistance? Inbound flow, mass attraction (aka quantum gravitational loops), or Newton's gravity that is "imparted by the Holy Spirit?"
The path of least resistance explains itself honestly. It is the. path. of. least. resistance. which in this case is simply a straight line from the object being attracted to the object attracting. Heres a little occams razor for you, why would any other path be simplier or make more sense then this?

6. Originally Posted by Believe
The path of least resistance explains itself honestly. It is the. path. of. least. resistance. which in this case is simply a straight line from the object being attracted to the object attracting. Heres a little occams razor for you, why would any other path be simplier or make more sense then this?
Neither you or Alex geve a direct answer to that direct question.

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/po...post1273252993

The last post in this repository thread offers a thought experiment example of the answer.

As for the straight line vector: Of course, but even from the perspective of semantics, which is easiest to describe; attraction or impact? Is Newton correct? Attraction is imparted by the Holy Spirit? Is LeSage correct with what amounts to a repulsive force? I have yet to find anyone who can describe mass attraction effectively other than quantum gravitational loops and that explanation is contrary to the straight line you propose. As for geodesics? Go fish! Geodesics only describe the effect, not the cause and both are required for a complete theory.

7. Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
Neither you or Alex geve a direct answer to that direct question.

http://jootbox.websitetoolbox.com/po...post1273252993

The last post in this repository thread offers a thought experiment example of the answer.

As for the straight line vector: Of course, but even from the perspective of semantics, which is easiest to describe; attraction or impact? Is Newton correct? Attraction is imparted by the Holy Spirit? Is LeSage correct with what amounts to a repulsive force? I have yet to find anyone who can describe mass attraction effectively other than quantum gravitational loops and that explanation is contrary to the straight line you propose. As for geodesics? Go fish! Geodesics only describe the effect, not the cause and both are required for a complete theory.
No, Einstien is right. Gravity is the bending of space and time by massive objects:

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

8. You have to know at least something about General Relativity.

Here read Relativity, The Special and General Theory, specifically chapters 19, 23, 27, and 32.

When you have at least some idea of what Einstein is saying, there can be a meaningful discussion.

9. General relativity, by that token, states only the effect. The effect "bending of space and time by massive objects" is not, and cannot be, the cause if for no other reasoning than it is the effect. Dark matter sucks. BOTH of you appear to be about that dense. Relativity is not a complete theory. A complete theory includes BOTH cause and effect. Stop sidestepping that missing component.

Alex, when YOU decide to stop hitting and waving your hands in an otherwise peaceful persons' faces as though you are 3 years old, we can have a meaningful discussion. I'm sure its tough suffering from OCPD, but you can be cured, or at least managed. If you just listen to your psychiatrist, you'll possibly get better and they'll eventually get your meds adjusted right and maybe let you go back into society. You might actually be able to understand science and earn a paycheck by other means than working as a mental patient on work therapy in a kitchen.

Most shrinks won't try Nietzsche philosophy, but if you were obsessively toilet trained, it has an affect on you that will stay with you for life UNLESS you develop your second nature. Practice the opposite toilet habits you were forced into likely at age 1. After only a few months of rejecting what your parent shoved upon you, you'll be able to see the other person's perspective with a bit more imagination, as opposed to delusions of grandeur. I've seen people who have come out of mental institutions where the condescending staff convinced them they were very good at artistry. Anyone else could see that their "good art" is only scribbles and usually the product of a dark, unhappy mind. Get help, dude or learn to help yourself.

10. Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
General relativity, by that token, states only the effect. The effect "bending of space and time by massive objects" is not, and cannot be, the cause if for no other reasoning than it is the effect. Dark matter sucks. BOTH of you appear to be about that dense. Relativity is not a complete theory. A complete theory includes BOTH cause and effect. Stop sidestepping that missing component.

Alex, when YOU decide to stop hitting and waving your hands in an otherwise peaceful persons' faces as though you are 3 years old, we can have a meaningful discussion. I'm sure its tough suffering from OCPD, but you can be cured, or at least managed. If you just listen to your psychiatrist, you'll possibly get better and they'll eventually get your meds adjusted right and maybe let you go back into society. You might actually be able to understand science and earn a paycheck by other means than working as a mental patient on work therapy in a kitchen.

Most shrinks won't try Nietzsche philosophy, but if you were obsessively toilet trained, it has an affect on you that will stay with you for life UNLESS you develop your second nature. Practice the opposite toilet habits you were forced into likely at age 1. After only a few months of rejecting what your parent shoved upon you, you'll be able to see the other person's perspective with a bit more imagination, as opposed to delusions of grandeur. I've seen people who have come out of mental institutions where the condescending staff convinced them they were very good at artistry. Anyone else could see that their "good art" is only scribbles and usually the product of a dark, unhappy mind. Get help, dude or learn to help yourself.
Mass existing in space is the cause, the bending of space is the effect. What else is required?

11. Originally Posted by Believe
Mass existing in space is the cause, the bending of space is the effect. What else is required?
How the mass got there, for one. If mass is composed of primary particles, how did the primary particles accrete without gravity as the initiator?

12. Quantum fluctuations in the distribution of particles would lead to denser areas as the universe expanded, which would in turn accreate more matter.

All particles of matter, even 'primary particles' (whatever you mean by that) have inertial mass and bend space by their presense. (i.e. exhibit gravity).

As to where the particles originally come from, one theory is that when the inflaton field reached minimum at 10-33 seconds after the BB, the energy which had been contained in the field percipitated out as fermions and bosons.

13. Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
How the mass got there, for one. If mass is composed of primary particles, how did the primary particles accrete without gravity as the initiator?
Now you've gone and run into the realm of don't know. Feel free to run around in here for while, it's fun!!! Ask alphanumeric or promethius (spelled wrong I think) They may have more insite into this part. My knowledge stops at this point and speculation will get me no where fast.

I know that the attraction between small things (chemist talking now) is more due to electrostatic forces (way stronger then gravity but not as far acting) at this level but I have no idea how gravity or mass fits in. Charges attract atoms and molecules to one another and lock them together in different bonds (covelent, ionic, van der waals force, london dispersion forces, H-bonds, probably other more exotic stuff that I don't know about) and the strong nuclear force holds the nucleus together. Gravity doesn't have much to do with it at this level "as far as I know" .

If you don't believe me that these forces are stronger then gravity a simple experiment is in order. Tear a piece of paper up until you have pieces smaller then about a half inch. Now, rub a blown up balloon on your head (if you have no hair you will need someone elses head) and bring it close to the paper without touching it. It will pull the paper to the balloon. That is the electrostatic forces of one balloon (and one head) fighting and winning against the force of gravity for the entire earth.

14. Originally Posted by AlexG
Quantum fluctuations in the distribution of particles would lead to denser areas as the universe expanded, which would in turn accreate more matter.

All particles of matter, even 'primary particles' (whatever you mean by that) have inertial mass and bend space by their presense. (i.e. exhibit gravity).

As to where the particles originally come from, one theory is that when the inflaton field reached minimum at 10-33 seconds after the BB, the energy which had been contained in the field percipitated out as fermions and bosons.
By quantum fluctuations, you are referring to vacuum fluctuations?

By all particles of matter you are including neutrinos? Gravitons? Both are considered to have zero mass, save for speculation of morphose neutrinos.

As for BB, I think we shouldn't go that deeply into perspective tangents for now.

typo? You did mean precipitated?

15. Originally Posted by Believe

Now you've gone and run into the realm of don't know. Feel free to run around in here for while, it's fun!!! Ask alphanumeric or promethius (spelled wrong I think) They may have more insite into this part. My knowledge stops at this point and speculation will get me no where fast.

I know that the attraction between small things (chemist talking now) is more due to electrostatic forces (way stronger then gravity but not as far acting) at this level but I have no idea how gravity or mass fits in. Charges attract atoms and molecules to one another and lock them together in different bonds (covelent, ionic, van der waals force, london dispersion forces, H-bonds, probably other more exotic stuff that I don't know about) and the strong nuclear force holds the nucleus together. Gravity doesn't have much to do with it at this level "as far as I know" .

If you don't believe me that these forces are stronger then gravity a simple experiment is in order. Tear a piece of paper up until you have pieces smaller then about a half inch. Now, rub a blown up balloon on your head (if you have no hair you will need someone elses head) and bring it close to the paper without touching it. It will pull the paper to the balloon. That is the electrostatic forces of one balloon (and one head) fighting and winning against the force of gravity for the entire earth.
Chemist speaking? Are you familiar with lobelar "3d" orbital philosophy (theory)? If not, (back to the library) See "Organic Chemistry" by G. Marc Loudon 3d ed. Eventually we can readdress that earlier post I directed at Pincho concerning the fine structure constant from the aspect of figurate numeration, only using a complex modification to the tetrahedron variety. It actually balances the force with that particular wave-particle geometry by producing the imbalance in favor of mass instead of space, as conventional lobelar theory does.

16. Originally Posted by hectordecimal
chemist speaking? Are you familiar with lobelar "3d" orbital philosophy (theory)? If not, (back to the library) see "organic chemistry" by g. Marc loudon 3d ed. Eventually we can readdress that earlier post i directed at pincho concerning the fine structure constant from the aspect of figurate numeration, only using a complex modification to the tetrahedron variety. It actually balances the force with that particular wave-particle geometry by producing the imbalance in favor of mass instead of space, as conventional lobelar theory does.
show me the math!

17. Originally Posted by HectorDecimal
Chemist speaking? Are you familiar with lobelar "3d" orbital philosophy (theory)? If not, (back to the library) See "Organic Chemistry" by G. Marc Loudon 3d ed. Eventually we can readdress that earlier post I directed at Pincho concerning the fine structure constant from the aspect of figurate numeration, only using a complex modification to the tetrahedron variety. It actually balances the force with that particular wave-particle geometry by producing the imbalance in favor of mass instead of space, as conventional lobelar theory does.

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

Yes, I am familiar conceptually (sp hybredization orbitals and whatnot, usually demonstrated using carbon), but not mathmatically (I fucking hate Eigenvalues but I got an A in quantum anyway), which you would have to be to back up the claims you just made. Again, SHOW ME THE MATH!!!

18. Originally Posted by Believe
show me the math!
Before I show you the math, I'll show you an illustration. Unfortunately you'll have to wait a few days till I can get to have enough time to sit down and do a decent illustration, that's more presentable than a thumbnail sketch. I should have my scanner hooked up again tomorrow. If it turns out to be another friggin rainy day, it all could happen tomorrow.

In the meantime, orbital theory (I have that saved in one of these machines... somewhere..), I find fascinating when viewed as the grand scale result of a lower level fractal.

I'm watching a little bit of Letterman with my other half then hitting the hay. It'll be interesting to see Alex' response on the vacuum fluctuation question. Let's see if drawing tablet time presents itself tomorrow.

HAGN

19. Unfortunately, the concepts of which you are referring to are mathmatical concepts:

waveparticle geometry (math)
MO theory (math)
Fractals (math)

Without the math any picture you could draw or any paragraph you could write would be incomplete at best, and misleading at worst. The math is the only satisfactory explination for things you speak of. It is now time to put up or shut up, you need to put your math where your keyboard is.

20. Moderator note: HectorDecimal has been banned for 2 weeks for threatening, insulting and flaming other members.

Page 6 of 7 First 1234567 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•