Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:Sorry, didn't see that large post, skipped too much, my bad! ><

Edit: Just read large explenation post, it's more confusing than explanatory. The wiki answer and youtube vids are simpler and more to the point.

You are free to share examples such that I might develop my understanding for giving clear explanations.

Dear tVoT,

Two things, then questions. First:

I would like to present you with an even simpler theory of gravity. In fact, it's the simplest. It's the theory that every child discovers for themselves when they are sitting in the high chair at mealtime.

Lift something, let it go, and it falls.

If you can think of a simpler theory, I'd love to hear it.

Second:

There are a great many theories of gravity bouncing about in the world. The version that is taught to beginning physics students is usually called classical, or Newtonian. More sophisticated versions can become entwined in relativity and / or field theory. There is gravity at the cosmological scale, the global meteorological scale, and on the molecular scale. (They generally ignore it at smaller scales because it's almost insignificant.)

My question:

More importantly, though, why is it necessary for us, as philosophers, to worry at all about gravity? Why do you feel it necessary to reinvent such a theory? Shouldn't all theory, whether it belongs to a baby or a physicist, be subject to the same general philosophical rules?

Tusok

A good question Tusok.

My answers:

1) Because natural philosophy isn't entirely dead, it lives on in the philosophy of physics for instance.

2) Because I believe the foundations of the universe are foundations by which we base philosophical problem-solving as well. My theories for a science of needs is based on a natural philosophy about the workings of the universe and a peculiar axiology (philosophy of value). I'm very interested in how things are and knowing so is very good for my philosophical inquiries as they can take me further on my search, and looking at the world and figuring that out is one very good way for knowing how things are.

Ah, what you say in #1 is very interesting. Because I have not thought there could be a philosophy of physics. In fact, I always think of it the other way around - our physicists are basing their theories upon some philosophical foundation. I am curious as to what kind of philosophy physicists would embrace, especially if they are any different from any other hard science.

T

I don't think any of you understand the gravity of this situation.

General relativity explains gravity, not perfectly but better than our ability to measure. What's the problem then?

The Mighty Boosh wrote:I don't think any of you understand the gravity of this situation.

General relativity explains gravity, not perfectly but better than our ability to measure. What's the problem then?

It doesn't reconcile with quantum mechanics.

I Could explain why in detail but I feel it would be a waste of time unless you know complex geometry and Calculus and of course the history of this subject.

uhm... Boosh... do you have Multiple Personality Disorder? Because you just had a conversation with yourself ^^

um no but sometimes the only way to get an intelligent conversation is to talk to yourself.

Tusok wrote:Ah, what you say in #1 is very interesting. Because I have not thought there could be a philosophy of physics. In fact, I always think of it the other way around - our physicists are basing their theories upon some philosophical foundation. I am curious as to what kind of philosophy physicists would embrace, especially if they are any different from any other hard science.

T

See my thread on quantum mechanics interpretations.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=12088

Okay, that explained then ^^

The Voice of Time wrote:An idea that just occurred to me:

Gravitational curvature as being an increment of relations for one reference to more of other references. Like a basket ball rolling slowly from sand to grass and where each new grass piece touching it is a new relationship, or more literally, like a magazine with increasing amounts of article viewers who stay glued onto their screens, and each one with other people trying to get their attention and therefore creating a chain of focus where somebody focuses on the screen on the article and other people focus on them in turn, all relating through each other to the article and therefore being pushed towards it by increasing interest in the source of screen-glued people or the source of people trying to get in contact with screen-glued-people or the source of the source of people trying to get in contact with screen-glued-people.

It's not a very good explanation I know, but only what I could use to explain.

No that is good explanation;
Imagination is how Einstein came on relativity. in fact he said imagination is far more important than smarts in understanding reality.

gravity is one of my passions along with time and determinism .

I 'see' reality as a 3d grid. [2d rubber sheet explanations are worth only so much then they fall down] gravity pinches points in the grid.
if you pan and rotate view of grid you see mass is uniform in its effect called gravity.
gravity is the bending of space [yes space is a thing, for those who were wondering]
The grid is always bent
there is no place even a billion lightyears from nearest galaxy where it is not.
For. a perfect grid ceases to exist or was never. space is where the bent grid exists. gravity and mass 'make space'
The effect of mass creates the environment for the effect to exist in.

but, conservation of energy . a rock sailing through space turns towards a planet and falls into the pit of the 'pinch of 3d grid'
where does the energy come from to do this?
it does not require energy the rock slides like that basket ball down lines of least resistance.

what is gravity and how does it work?
dont believe any crap from scientists. they have no idea. humanity has no idea what gravity IS in relation to mass.
in fact humanity for all the BS is totally ignorant on the fundamental laws.
we are very good at exploiting the effects
just look at cray and sun super computers. Fission fusion fission warheads , hand held pc;s.
the bugati veyron

i think we should stick to poetry. A thing unknown to inverse square law of gravity.

-------------------------------------
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautifull, so new,

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help from pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Hjarloprillar wrote: To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautifull, so new,

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help from pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

I've come to think
that poetry without big words,
is no poetry,
but a deformation of ordinary language!

x)

The Voice of Time wrote:

Hjarloprillar wrote: To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautifull, so new,

Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help from pain;

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

I've come to think
that poetry without big words,
is no poetry,
but a deformation of ordinary language!

x)

sorry but you have lost me. what are 'big words' and 'ordinary language'

Im currently watching evolution of europe and the union post 1960
complaining Germany quibbles . as it should as it is the powerhouse of such a union. its the french. always whining.