What is Gravity?

[Res Ipsa]

Valo, buddy, we've got to talk.

I asked the question about the aether because it was part of the Davidic Servant's explanation of gravity. Remember in another thread you talk about an engine and tracking all the parts that go into an engine? If somebody starts talking about bananas and chisels as components of a combustion engine, you might be interested in sorting out the understanding of the components required to build an engine before getting to the more complicated parts of how the components work together.

If light travels relative to aether, and aether is moving around like a wild snake in the grass, then what on earth is it moving relative to? The idea of aether is to provide a stable medium for light to travel through, just like water or air is the medium for sound. Aether would fill the whole universe like one big ocean. The problem is that light measures at a constant speed at every position of uniform motion it's ever been measured from. This results in space contraction and time dilation at relative observations, which if I recall, gave rise to speculation that aether squished together and contorted in order to stay compatible with the theory. I'm not sure aether was directly falsified by these experiments, it just becomes a pointless assumption that adds complexity, and now you have to explain the weirdness of light (something easily measured) by proxy of explaining the weirdness of aether (something that has never been measured). And now you want the aether, which was supposed to be a big stable pool of water, which now has to contort in possibly impossible ways to explain light, to zip in squiggles like a snake in the grass to explain a bunch of other stuff while still being compatible with precise and easy measurements to take of light at various inertial frames? It's madness, Valo.



Don't listen to me, Valo, listen to Physics Guy. You've got a great opportunity to ask whatever you want about physics and actually learn something. Maybe bring the Davidic Servant to this forum and you guys can learn together?

If you're in the world of aether under assumptions of uniform motion and already have an impossible mess to sort out, we can't move on to the general case where acceleration is allowed, and the assumption of a constant rate of motion is dropped. However, I can attempt to skip to the last chapter of the text and give it a shot:



So you've got the force of the elasticity of the balloon, the force of the air pressure, and forces of air and anti-air coming together, and this system of forces....creates all the forces?

Doesn't that strike you as circular?

Before you can talk about something you have to get edumacated. I recommend you go get edumacated.

Do you really think you're the first anti-science, anti-education, gadfly to wander in here. You're not just "talking." You're asserting straight up nonsense.

[Valo]

Before you can talk about something you have to get edumacated. I recommend you go get edumacated.

Do you really think you're the first anti-science, anti-education, gadfly to wander in here. You're not just "talking." You're asserting straight up nonsense.

Okay, how so?

[Res Ipsa]

Do you really think you're the first anti-science, anti-education, gadfly to wander in here. You're not just "talking." You're asserting straight up nonsense.

Okay, how so?

I don't know how. I think it has something to do with the arrogance of ignorance.

[Valo]

Okay, how so?

I don't know how. I think it has something to do with the arrogance of ignorance.

That's true.

[Valo]

https://slogbog.com/viewtopic.php?p=3014#p3014

Brave Sir Robin

[Valo]

Q: How did the Michelson-Morley experiment disprove the lumineferous ether concept in classical physics?

CHATGPT: The Michelson-Morley experiment aimed to detect the motion of the Earth through the luminiferous aether, which was thought to be the medium through which light waves propagated. The experiment involved splitting a beam of light and sending it in two perpendicular directions, then recombining the beams to see if there was any interference pattern caused by the Earth's motion through the aether. However, the results consistently showed no interference pattern, suggesting that the speed of light was constant regardless of the direction of motion through the supposed aether medium. This contradicted the prevailing theory at the time and ultimately led to the rejection of the idea of a luminiferous aether.

Q: But did it falsified the ether or just contradict a prevailing theory?

Chatgpt: The Michelson-Morley experiment didn't definitively falsify the existence of the aether, but it strongly contradicted the prevailing theory that there was a stationary medium through which light waves traveled. This contradiction played a significant role in the eventual abandonment of the aether theory in favor of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, which posits that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference, independent of the motion of the source or the observer. While the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't completely falsify the aether concept, it rendered it unnecessary for explaining the behavior of light and laid the groundwork for the development of modern physics.

Q: Does general relativity explain the behavior of light at all known levels of magnification or in all known context?

Chatgpt: General relativity provides a comprehensive framework for understanding gravity and the behavior of massive objects, including light, on large scales such as planetary motion, galaxy dynamics, and gravitational lensing. However, on very small scales, such as those encountered in quantum mechanics, general relativity breaks down and is incompatible with quantum mechanics. This is where a theory of quantum gravity is needed to describe the behavior of gravity and light at extremely small scales, such as those encountered near black holes or during the early moments of the universe. So while general relativity explains the behavior of light in many contexts, it is not the complete picture, and a unified theory that combines general relativity with quantum mechanics is still a topic of ongoing research.

[drumdude]

You’re working towards a more well rounded view of physics. You’ve discovered the disconnect between the scientific theories of the very large and the very small. The attempt to unify them into a single cohesive theory is a very exciting project that has been going on ever since these two theories came about.

You’ve probably heard of it, it’s called the “theory of everything.”

[Gadianton]

If I understand the thread you linked to, you asked the DS how he would respond to Michelson-Morley; which is pretty epic on your part. I mean, talk about exceeding expectations.

The universe is pressurized by the aether. The aether travels with respect to high pressure areas and low pressure areas, high to low. Low pressure areas are caused by aether moving into and through matter. Gravity is due to the aether imparting a momentum impulse to matter as it moves through matter. Electricity is aether moving down a wire. Magnetism are atoms spinning in a unified direction acting upon the aether.

This sounds like mumbo jumbo. There's a lot to ask about here, but how about electricity. Isn't electricity electrons flowing down a wire? If it's aether, then is he saying aether is moving down the wire, which in turn, moves electrons?

But why is wire so special? If aether moves through the mud and produces gravity, then why doesn't it produce gravity when moving through a wire also?

[Valo]

Q: There are many problems with General relativity and if we are trying to find a replacement hypothesis or theory, we can't use General relativity as the measure by which to judge the validity of the new idea, right?

ChatGPT: You're correct that if we're exploring alternative hypotheses or theories to replace or extend general relativity, it's important not to solely rely on general relativity itself as the standard by which to judge the validity of the new ideas. Here's why:

1. **Known Limitations of General Relativity:** General relativity is a highly successful theory that accurately describes gravity on large scales, such as those encountered in the solar system, galaxies, and the cosmos as a whole. However, it has known limitations, particularly when it comes to describing phenomena at very small scales (such as those encountered near the centers of black holes or during the early moments of the universe) or when gravity interacts with quantum mechanics.

2. **Need for Novel Approaches:** Given the limitations of general relativity, there is a need for novel approaches and alternative theories that can address these shortcomings and potentially provide a more complete description of gravity and the universe. Exploring such alternatives often involves departing from the framework of general relativity and considering new theoretical frameworks or ideas.

3. **Experimental and Observational Testing:** Alternative theories of gravity and cosmology should be judged based on their ability to make testable predictions and their consistency with empirical evidence from observational data and experiments. While general relativity has been extensively tested and confirmed in many scenarios, any new theory should be subjected to similar scrutiny to determine its validity and accuracy.

4. **Compatibility with Established Physics:** While it's important not to limit ourselves to the constraints of general relativity, any alternative theory should still be compatible with established principles of physics, including quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and the principles of conservation of energy and momentum.

In summary, while general relativity provides a valuable framework for understanding gravity, it's essential to explore alternative ideas and theories that can address its limitations and potentially provide a more complete understanding of the universe. However, any new theory should be assessed based on its own merits and its ability to make accurate predictions and explain empirical observations.

[Valo]

If I understand the thread you linked to, you asked the DS how he would respond to Michelson-Morley; which is pretty epic on your part. I mean, talk about exceeding expectations.

The universe is pressurized by the aether. The aether travels with respect to high pressure areas and low pressure areas, high to low. Low pressure areas are caused by aether moving into and through matter. Gravity is due to the aether imparting a momentum impulse to matter as it moves through matter. Electricity is aether moving down a wire. Magnetism are atoms spinning in a unified direction acting upon the aether.

This sounds like mumbo jumbo. There's a lot to ask about here, but how about electricity. Isn't electricity electrons flowing down a wire? If it's aether, then is he saying aether is moving down the wire, which in turn, moves electrons?

But why is wire so special? If aether moves through the mud and produces gravity, then why doesn't it produce gravity when moving through a wire also?

All very good and interesting questions. Would be fun and informative to see how the conversation plays out. Go ask! He said he is open to questions.

Don't be scared...