Defying Gravity, and the laws of physics

Hi QQ. Still here. I was answering another post elsewhere and saw your reply before I went to log out.

A pleasure, mate! Anytime.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your further comments reminded me: There is 'chemistry' going on in space on minute dust particle surfaces and in molecular/atomic 'plasma and non-plasma clouds/gases. Some of the products are complex and organic and some not. IIRC, even some 'amino acid' species have been detected via their spectral analysis. In addition to CO, Ammonia and other useful 'further synthesis' species and charged 'intermediate products' in transition between the starting/final states.

I don't know whether any 'life as we know it' even at its most basic and simplistic 'level' is possible to arise transiently and be destroyed almost immediately in such free space weightless and highly charged/irradiated conditions which also has extremes of temps depending on whether in deep space or too near an active galactic/BH 'jet' etc. Your guess is as good as mine on that one, mate! Cheers and g'night again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

However one could conclude that it is indeed possible for life to form with out defying the laws of physics, especially regard to gravitational attraction when applied off world... thus as far as I can tell this thread has been resolved. Certainty in a way that is sufficient to cast doubt upon the question of life evolving in defiance of the laws of physics.
So as far as I am concerned the issue is resolved adequately enough to consider the OP put up by Sarkus as a non issue.. thanks everyone...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Einstein believed in the unification of the four forces. If this is true, one should be able to defy gravity by simply using another one of the four forces, in a certain way, since at some level that other force, although distinct, by tradition, is part of the same thing in reality.

For example, if we blow gas bubbles into water, these gas bubbles will float up in a direction opposite the pull of gravity. The logic for this is connected to principles of physical chemistry, which is connected to the EM force and entropy, not gravity. One can generated the same effect. even with zero gravity, by regulating the internal and external pressure exerted by only EM forces.

The connection between these two forces, EM and gravity is mediated by a pressure interface, with pressure defined as force/area. This pressure based force is interchangeable between the four forces allowing gravity to impact the EM force and vice versa.

Gravity, as defined by GR, is incomplete because it does not include the impact of this pressure that defines material phases. The pressure within the center of a star, due to gravity, will interface the phase changes caused by the weak and strong nuclear forces. This gravity based pressure also defines the EM based phases one will find along the radius of the star. That being said, if we lowered the pressure within the earth, via only EM considerations on material, using heat/expansion of the EM force, the earth would fluff and the gravity based space-time well would get shallower.

The traditions want to keep gravity separate, therefore the physics mind is not conditioned to see the unification of force via pressure. The pressure interface that unifies the four forces also unifies these four force with entropy. This is expressed in osmosis, where a purely entropy based potential can cause matter to move up the space-time well opposite gravity. See below.

The osmotic pressure is connected to a repulsive based entropic force. Cells are composed of selective membranes which are permeable to water but not much else, allowing the entropic force to appear. In the right side below, water is at equilibrium at the membrane, with the same force exerted on both directions at the membrane, even though gravity is higher in the right compartment; gravity is define by the amount of mass.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True: as far as we know, nothing defies gravity . . . other than a few misguided posters here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Physics says the acceleration of a beach ball at rest on the beach, towards the center of the earth, is 9.8 m/s^2.

In order to defy that you have to show that the ball accelerates at a different rate while at rest on the beach.

For example, you'd have to show that the velocity of the ball towards the center of the earth was changing at a rate other than 9.8m/s^2. If, for example, you showed how the distance between the ball and the center of the earth was not changing over time, then that would be a 0 m/s^2 acceleration, not a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration.

But, that would be absurd to think a ball wouldn't be getting closer to the center of the earth over time while it was on the beach. (rolls eyes)

 

Oh, please. Are you being serious here?
You think that life defies the laws of physics, and as an example that it does so every time someone stands up.
Now you're arguing that just because "one could conclude that it is indeed possible for life to form with out defying the laws of physics" that the issue has been somehow "resolved"???
OP
If you argue, as you have done, that life does (or at least can) defy the laws of gravity, you need to show that it does, not argue that you now think it possible that some does not.
The issue is that you think ANY life can/does.

Everyone here has told you in one way or another that life can NOT defy the laws of physics.
Yet you think that because you now think that some life may not, this "resolves" the issue?
I am simply baffled by your (il)logic.

If you think life CAN defy the laws of physics, the issue remains open.

And this thread should remain open, in this forum, so that one person after another can tell you that life does not defy the laws of physics, and not only that it does not but that it CAN NOT do so.

 

Physics says no such thing.
It says that gravity is exerting a force on the beachball equivalent to the mass of the beachball x g (which is 9.83 m/s^2)
When on the beach, the earth is applying an equal and opposite reaction on the ball, cancelling out the force of gravity.
The net effect is a zero net force on the beachball, and thus zero acceleration.

So where is the defiance of the laws of physics or gravity with a beachball on the beach?
Or am I being oblivious to your facetiousness when you stated what you did?

 

Where does the 9.8 m/s^2 come into play? You are saying the velocity changes at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2. How did you measure that while the ball was on the beach?

 

A body subjected to a force does not necessarily accelerate at all.

F=mg is the equation for force due to gravity. If the body is falling due to gravity then its acceleration is g. But if the body is standing on the Earth, then it has no acceleration. It has no velocity. Instead it experiences the static force F=mg. We call that static force weight. In this case g is the constant of proportionality between the mass and weight of the ball.

 

So zero gravity, right? There is no acceleration towards the center of the earth! Nor is the earth accelerating towards the sun! The earth is being FORCED AWAY! So is the beach ball!

 

The definition of the word "defy", is to openly resist or refuse to obey. We can defy gravity simply by resisting the force of gravity according to the first definition of the word defy. If I lift a ball upward, the net force on the ball is now in favor of the force I am exerting. The debate seems due to these two definitions of defy, with some daring to defy the status quo.

Then again, if you assume a Grand Unified Field theory, which includes gravity, one can defy gravity in both senses of defy, uses another force via a transformation via the unified force. If one assumes the laws of gravity can't be defied, than they also assume a grand unified theory is not possible. They would be assuming gravity is separate and a done deal in its final state, and will never change again in the history of mankind. That is a hard premise to prove.

 

We can not resist the "Law" of gravity, only gravitational forces.
This is the issue, not whether we can overcome a force, but whether we can defy the law itself.

Again, the issue is not with the term defy, but in what one is claiming to be able to defy: mere gravitational forces or the actual law of gravity itself.

 

Scrambled egg for breakfast Sarkus... yet again!

If all you are motivated to achieve is some sort of humiliation to counter the humiliation you have already self created for yourself, then you are in trouble yet again...

the laws of gravity are what precisely?:

there is no mention of the counter force required for life to be able to eventually a self animate and "stand up" against such forces therefore the laws of two bodies attracting each other constantly has been defied.
I have suggested earlier thanks to Undefined's input that a state of free fall for extended periods may provide a way for substance to combine to ultimately over eons evolve self animated life.. thus the question has been resolved due to it being unable to be concluded adequately [unfalsifiable]

However Sarkus if you wish to continue your vendetta due to the humiliation you self create, by all means let's hear it ...
I'll repeat the law of Gravity as per Newton.

Perhaps you could logically show how and organic self animated body can evolve to achieve the repulsive forces necessary to stand up against gravitational attraction at will?

Note: I have already conceded that the issue is unable to be concluded in a way that offers any definitive outcomes.

 

the law is pretty simple you know.. two bodies attract... blah blah blah...
so how does a body evolve the repulsive forces needed contrary to the laws of gravitational attraction to evolve the ability to defy those laws and ultimately get out of bed in the morning and have the scrambled egg breakfast that you seem to like so much?

 

well said...!

 

How absurd. Muscles evolved to enable movement. Plants evolved structures that grow upwards toward more light. And before that, cells evolved shapes that resist being squashed flat by their own weight. None of these "defy" gravity, any more than a mountain does by sticking up above sea level.

 

on the face of it yes it may appear to be absurd...
but to evolve to do so they would have had to defy the laws of gravitational attraction . [ or as Undefined suggested "not have to deal with them"]

and (states the obvious) how did they do that whilst maintaining the laws of gravity?

The law of gravity is absolute... no exceptions allowed.

 

The dumbest part about this whole line of argument is that it pretends gravity is the only force at work in the entire universe. In that case there should be no such thing as molecules, either.

 

not at all, no pretending or assumptions as you suggest. There is only a need to determine if the evolution of self animated life defies the law of gravity...

 

The whole BB is based on gravity , thats the problem with coming up with more advanced ideas

Gravity theory limits advanced thinking