First let me say I understand your reticence about any old thing. But I am not in the "believing" game. I don't trust anyone's word. But I do try to improve my naive understandings by listening and trying to understand what is posted by people when it interests me to follow closer. I make no beliefs or conclusions. I "soundboard back" as any scientist does with someone who brings an idea to discuss "over a cup of coffee". It doesn't hurt me or anyone else, does it to listen and check it out for oneself? About "quark-gluon plasma and "stuff" like that: In QM it is about "entanglement" and "collapse" of multiple state probabilities and all that kind of "background" processes which are eventually "decided" into a particular particle or state that we can observe. What we can't observe is all the underlying "bits and bobs" which may be "chaos" process creating patterns which only become observable if they form and persist as part of that background chaos which may involve myriad scales and kinds of "unknown" constituents of constituents, of constituents (like "turtles all the way down!", isn't it!). Who knows when "effective size or state "stops being effective" (cumulatively speaking) in finally constructing the phenomena constituents which we can detect or at least deduce relatively confidently? I don't think any of us has anything final or correct. We all get close but no closer until a true connection is made between all things we have to explain in more than just this one kind of theory about the smallest levels or scales and process. I would like very much to read an ideas you have had. Just for me to compare and not for me to "believe" or "trust blindly" mind you! Thankyou for taking time and trouble to explain where you coming from, Cheezle.
Quantifying gravity's mechanism
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
First let me say I understand your reticence about any old thing. But I am not in the "believing" game. I don't trust anyone's word. But I do try to improve my naive understandings by listening and trying to understand what is posted by people when it interests me to follow closer. I make no beliefs or conclusions. I "soundboard back" as any scientist does with someone who brings an idea to discuss "over a cup of coffee". It doesn't hurt me or anyone else, does it to listen and check it out for oneself? About "quark-gluon plasma and "stuff" like that: In QM it is about "entanglement" and "collapse" of multiple state probabilities and all that kind of "background" processes which are eventually "decided" into a particular particle or state that we can observe. What we can't observe is all the underlying "bits and bobs" which may be "chaos" process creating patterns which only become observable if they form and persist as part of that background chaos which may involve myriad scales and kinds of "unknown" constituents of constituents, of constituents (like "turtles all the way down!", isn't it!). Who knows when "effective size or state "stops being effective" (cumulatively speaking) in finally constructing the phenomena constituents which we can detect or at least deduce relatively confidently? I don't think any of us has anything final or correct. We all get close but no closer until a true connection is made between all things we have to explain in more than just this one kind of theory about the smallest levels or scales and process. I would like very much to read an ideas you have had. Just for me to compare and not for me to "believe" or "trust blindly" mind you! Thankyou for taking time and trouble to explain where you coming from, Cheezle.
I am doing what you are doing, looking, listening, and trying to understand. We are all in the same school, students of nature.
That's right, everything must work together, and it does. There will be people like us who think hard about the consistencies of nature and the inconsistencies of the generally accepted theories until the inconsistencies are resolved. When that happens, some of us will say ah ha, I thought so, or I was wrong about it, but we care enough to think and hypothesize, and to tolerate those who make fun of us along the way.
When a detractor comes along I always look to see if they have started any threads about ideas of their own or if they just like to go around acting smarter than me, knowing that if they had an idea that wasn't generally accepted, they would be subjected to the same hollow criticism that they offer.
(3235)
Yes, I will admit to being a detractor. But I think that your protest is unreasonable. By analogy you are the chef and I am the food critic. I come to your little chowder stand you have set up in the low rent district of town and I sample your chowder because I like a good chowder. But your chowder is horrible. And when I complain about the taste, you say to me, "so big shot, what chowder have you ever cooked?"
I do cook up a little chowder occasionally. But I am really bad at it. I always wind up throwing it out. I don't feed it to the public at large. I don't even feed it to my friends for fear of them avoiding me. Does that mean I don't know the difference between good and bad chowder? No. Bad chowder is bad. You claim to only to cook chowder as a hobby, but here you have set up your little stand across the tracks in the fringe district and are ladling it out to the general public. Dishing it up to any one who happens by. If you are going to dish it up in public, then I am going to warn people that it is a mistake to eat your chowder.
Is this "Cheezle Philosophy of Chowder Theory" your idea or did you borrow or paraphrase a pre-existing one for re-purposing on a science discussion? Funny. You post a lot of philosophical responses here though, that's for sure. But "taste" (whether chowder or tomato soup or fried chicken and such) is a subjective thing. The only "tasting" which a science discussion should involve is "logical testing to destruction or confirmation given all the relevant context old and new". No subjective philosophy or "tastings of Soup of the Day" is allowed in the science checking and "soundboarding" tests. Agreed? [Please no offense meant, just funny repartee like you have been making! ok?]
The analogy is not really about science. It is about whether a person has to put forward a theory before having the privilege or ability to comment on someone else's theory. I could have chosen anything. For instance, does judging a criminal require that the jurors all be criminals? Can a beauty pageant only be valid if judged by a other contestants? I could go on. And perhaps I strained the cooking analogy too far, I tend todo that. You like to use the term sounding board. A sounding board is meant to amplify or direct a speaker's voice. It is a useful thing to have in any auditorium and I think this discussion board can use the idea. But you have to make sure that you don't go overboard and construct a echo chamber. Echo chambers (in the sense of boosting ideas through positive remarks) are not of much use to anyone.
[video=youtube;3v0I4OQi7CQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v0I4OQi7CQ[/video]
Haha, I love Monty Python.
Anyway, what shall we discuss now?
Well, we are supposed to be discussing quantum_wave's theory. It's a great idea but has some problems, and I am not being indecisive .... splunge!
My only question is how his theory is able to explain the inverse square law. Other than that I don't have anything else to ask.
I haven't really questioned that in my so called model because it is observationally verified, but the energy density of the spherical gravitational out flowing wave energy supposedly determines the gravitational attraction between objects in space in my so called model. If the density declines inversely to the square of the radius, then the inverse square law is operative.
(3406)
Yes, that would be interesting to hear his explanation as long as he could be specific. For me, if I could ask him anything, it would be where this idea came from. He seems to have come up with a set of rules for how energy and space work. To me these rules seem arbitrary. So I would like to know the origin of the idea.
That's a good question. I'm curious too.
Lol, splunge.
Well, now I am really puzzled.
Hahaha.....GET OUT!!!
What's 3406?
Anyway, the observational verifications are Kepler's Laws. The inverse square law is inferred from those.
So your model need only explain Kepler's Laws I guess.
Oh, I thought Cavendish verified that, my mistake.
Cavendish was born a century after Kepler died. Newton was born 12 years after Kepler died.
Kepler came up with his laws, Newton followed suit. Cavendish measured G using an experiment devised by John Michell.
And what's 3406?
I can't take the suspense any more so I am going to jump in on eram's question. quantum_wave's wowion's energy density does not vary with the surface area of the sphere, it varies with the volume. That was verified in the swarm of gnats problem in Physics and Math. Volume and surface area ... big difference.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?134415-Two-swarms-of-gnats
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?134415-Two-swarms-of-gnats
So, are you saying that the inverse square law was verified observationally by Cavendish? That would mean I was right, wouldn't it. Why the history lesson?
(3464)