Philosophy Now Forum

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.

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.

The problem with analogies is that they always break down under close examination or practice.
What happens is the sand is wet, or the grass has not been cut? How long is a piece of grass, anyway? What analogy for reality compares with a power cut and everyone immediately stops looking at the screen.
What work does your analogy do, where others have failed?

If it doesn't say so in the analogy, it's not part of the analogy, and introducing such conditions would stop making it the analogy I made, and instead be your analogy.

The Voice of Time wrote:...

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

But to explain what?

Gravity would have a nonlocal source or cause.gravity has to be a localised effect or expression of the nonlocality at the heart of bells 50-50 random outcomes.gravity is there for spooky.

Arising_uk wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:...

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

But to explain what?

If you think about space as consisting, like in computer graphics, of several squares of equal size. If you "curve space", you would get a hyperbolic surface that is in fact more "consisting of content" than what it seems from the 2D perspective or even 3D, because the surface would be smaller and per unit of normal space would contain more of the "actual space".

Now to gravity, if gravity was a 2D phenomena, it would look like a centre-piece slowly "swallowed" these square representatives of 2D space, turning them into black spots where the squares were simply not visible. In 3D space you'd have the same thing just in three dimensions, so black spots would appear in a 3D block fashion. In 4D, you'd have hyperbolic space, so even though 3D space would still apply and make blocks "disappear", you'd have the opportunity to "recover" 3D blocks from what is seemingly "nowhere" or "random space" in 3D space. Like a "spawn" of new space (could explain why the universe appears to becoming bigger).

What I'm saying, is that when gravity curves, what it does is "increase" its relations. Because consider this: any space trapped in hyperbolic space, would only be localized by its nearby apparent space in 3D or 2D. However, its "relations" consist to exist, it's only "invisible", not ceasing to exist. Like oxygen suddenly should stop appearing, we'd die of asphyxiation but we wouldn't "see" why, except for our thoughts or any measuring instruments. Had oxygen returned, we'd neither see it, but we would experience it. In the same way hyperbolic space would have multiplied gravity because the chain of events that leads one atom to pull at another in this huge lead back to some source (Earth centrifugal force for instance, or the supposed centrifugal force at the centre of the universe) is multiplied because of the "invisible" inhabitants in the hyperbolized space that also pull in this chain, or in other words the "density", but not so strictly physical as physics would have it.

My claim is that it's the number of relations that determine the gravitational force, but that relations aren't just a matter of physical proximity (which is why I said "relations" and not just said "density"). In the same way that just because you have few neighbours doesn't mean you have few relations and little power or influence. The power I may have on my close associates across time and space with just a few messages on facebook for instance is one such example, or the ability to create a mass-movement of people across the world over the internet and synchronize their actions from there. In a sense, it's the "density of relations" and not the "density of proximity" that matters: whether something will pull at some other thing.

You can have one single... let's call it an electron because of the electrons moving over the internet. This electron travels all of the world making all these kinds of relations, and together this electron can pull all those into one same place. Or multiple electrons perform different tasks part of the same whole purpose: to reach a certain destination for a certain amount of structures of molecules (people).

So, increase the number of relations: and you can cause a pull, or negative pull (push). In the same I think the centrifugal force of the Earth is just one such an example of gravity making relations and pulling/pushing things into a more dense (hyperbolized) natural state, that will increase the gravitational force further at the closer space while the increase in gravitational "strength" will still be not so much felt across far away space.

The rotation which presumably creates gravity, could be said to create gravity because a force field is created at the outer end of the atmosphere (some kind of sphere I forgot the name of) that is not so typical a force field but is more of a "clumsy old demented" force field, just to avoid making imagination mistakes, and which works as such: something once caused the Earth to be hit by a force around it, if it was in a perfect spherical-surface shape I don't know but I have my doubts, however, it somehow struck about the Earth (not necessarily an event but perhaps a long time process) and creates out of this a loosely connected field of atomic components that increase their relations rapidly. The relations have multiple choices, either they go "inwards" towards the earliest shape that could be called a precursor to Earth or outwards into space. If it is sent on a journey inwards, it will make new relations and those relations would further have to make an either/or. Everything that choose to stay will slowly "gravitate" into a lump of matter that would grow and grow and grow until you have the Earth. The force field, already loosely connected and not particularly coherent, could see itself turn into other kinds of forces, some of which escaped and some of which are today trapped on Earth, either pacified completely out of their distinguishable force-ness, or having turned time in and again into other natural phenomena on Earth.

This last bit is just an extra-piece of thought.

.




Here's an extra-piece of A Simple Example of Gravity:




.........................................................





.

That looks like elephant gravity to me billy. does that mean gravity to you.i mean if i said gravity the first thing you would think of is elephant right.

.




think it's a polar bear.



Remind me not to swim with them...especially right after lunch.





.

The Voice of Time wrote:If it doesn't say so in the analogy, it's not part of the analogy, and introducing such conditions would stop making it the analogy I made, and instead be your analogy.

All language is metaphor. This mis-match keeps us at arms length from full understanding.

The danger with extensive analogies is that they tend to imply things from the description that do not exist in reality.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




Here's an extra-piece of A Simple Example of Gravity:


.........................................................

.

I think this says more about buoyancy and diffusion.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




Here's an extra-piece of A Simple Example of Gravity:


.........................................................

.

I think this says more about buoyancy and diffusion.

Don't drink the water.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The problem with analogies is that they always break down under close examination or practice.
What happens is the sand is wet, or the grass has not been cut? How long is a piece of grass, anyway? What analogy for reality compares with a power cut and everyone immediately stops looking at the screen.
What work does your analogy do, where others have failed?

The Voice of Time wrote:If it doesn't say so in the analogy, it's not part of the analogy, and introducing such conditions would stop making it the analogy I made, and instead be your analogy.

Hobbe's is right, and very sharp in his critique, well put.

TVoT you have to clarify, else it's just random metaphors that has no value.

Besides, your anology would suggest that you have misunderstood the concept of gravity, as it will not explain anything about distortion of time, nor why the moon stays in orbit intead of being pulled towards Earth, etc.

HexHammer wrote:TVoT you have to clarify

I did, made a big post about it where I tried to show at length.

HexHammer wrote:else it's just random metaphors that has no value.

Random is the wrong word, it has no value if you do not comprehend it that's true, but that makes it unintelligible, but not random.

HexHammer wrote:Besides, your analogy would suggest that you have misunderstood the concept of gravity, as it will not explain anything about distortion of time, nor why the moon stays in orbit instead of being pulled towards Earth, etc.

Oh it does explain time distortion, it follows from the theory that more change would occur in hyperbolized space than elsewhere, and the reason why time moves slower outside of Earth is because space is less hyperbolized. It also predicts that time would speed up again as soon as you entered new more hyperbolized space.

The reason why the moon stays in orbit would require more astrophysical knowledge than I have, I'm not very knowledgeable in that field to make too specific predictions. I could make a few suggestions, but it would only look silly since they'd be based on assumptions that are too randomly picked from my memory and imagination. One thing my theory would predict though if you include the rather small thought-experiment at the bottom of my long post, and that is that the moon would stay intact and not be slowly drained (at any significant amount) by the Earth because of its own counter-field of inward-seeking atoms caused by relationship-forming of pull and push.

This all makes me ponder about how particles decide which one is gonna be subjected to the other one's will, or whether there exists compromises... it would be very interesting if I could ponder out a solution to that problem x)

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.