Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
StrictlyLogical

Gravity Threads are Real

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There are an infinite number of paths through the air above the Earth that objects can take (in free fall) depending upon a number of factors.  The discoveries of Galileo and others and subsequent experiment show that the paths are generally parabolic. 

What Galileo did not know, and scientists of today do not know, is that the parabolas are real... they ARE the fingerprints of Gravity Threads.

 

Gravity Threads - A Theory 

There exist an infinite number of Gravity Threads emerging from every point in space above the Earth and within the Earth's influence.  The Threads all follow parabolic arcs in an infinite number of directions all defined by the mass of the Earth and making possible it's so called "gravitational pull" on objects.

Whenever an object is thrown, absent other influence they attach themselves to the right Thread, based on their initial motion, in particular its magnitude and direction.  There is an infinity of these Threads passing through the same point and having the various tangents at that point, each specifically for a different magnitude of motion. The Thread specifically matching the magnitude of the motion, and whose curve has a tangent, at the exact same point as the object's center of mass, and which is in the same vector direction as the motion of the object, is the Thread the object attaches to.  The object's motion is thereafter guided, by the law of the Thread's Form to follow along its arc as the object "falls" through the air.  The exact speed along that Gravity Thread is also determined uniquely by that Gravity Thread which the object is attached to.

The above is in the absence of all external influence... the objects remain perfectly fixed to a single Gravity Thread throughout its fall, but in the presence of air resistance, and any other influences, objects can seem to fall through the air at different speeds and different trajectories than the Perfect Gravity Threads guiding them.  What is happening here is that the external influences change the movement of the object, making the magnitude or direction different from the Gravity Thread they were on, as a result, and as we have shown above, this means that the object must attach itself to a different Gravity Thread, the proper one, which is appropriate to the new varied (often slower) velocity of the object, and as described above, which has a tangent exactly matching the movement of the object and which is the one Thread appropriate to the magnitude of its velocity.  This can be happening continuously, an object constantly shifting from Gravity Thread to gravity thread while being influenced by air resistance or wind.  Here we see why feathers fall as they do...

Gravity Threads are created BY the Earth and they are what makes the so called "gravity", or "gravitation" possible.

 

The mistake Galileo and his ilk made was to assume things just fall "according" to parabolas without any real explanation as to why.  It just happened to turn out that the equations work, but what grasps at the objects to actually make them change direction?  How can the paths be of infinite variety (in any direction and magnitude) and yet all follow so similar a pattern (a parabola)?  How can something influence something else without actually reaching out to it... communicating with it somehow... it is as if Galileo were asking us to take on faith that the Earth, being so massive and important as it is, could simply wish from afar that things should move in certain ways... "and lo, they do".  And how preposterous would it be to try to claim that there is ONLY the Earth and the object together somehow behaving in an infinite number of possible ways?  How can there be such a complex relationship which is both nonlocal, infinitely different, and without explanation?

The fact that we can describe the relationship using mathematical curves is no coincidence.  SOMETHING out there needs to be guiding objects as they fall and the formulas tell us their Form.  They ARE exactly what the math tells us, they are parabolas, and there are an infinity of them: Gravity Threads permeating all of space (which is not empty but filled with innumerable other kinds of threads we wont discuss today), and influencing everything, attaching to and detaching from them. 

 

Like an infinity of breathless curtains, and like gossamer strings humming the tune of the cosmos, Gravity Threads ARE real, we need only reach out with our intuitions about abstraction to see them.

 

Comments?

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Comments?

This "theory" is a joke, sorry. E.g. “SOMETHING out there needs to be guiding objects as they fall…”

Are you the author of this "theory” ?

Besides, reminds me strongly of the disastrous Theory of Elementary Waves by Lewis D. Little, enthusiastically embraced, then abandoned, by some Objectivists. It assumed that “something” is guiding particles, namely mysterious but ubiquitous “elementary waves”.

So – here we go again…

Edited by AlexL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Excellent!

[...]

Again: Are YOU the author of this "theory”?

This IS important for me to know, because if it is yours, then:

 - you obviously agree with it

 - and you know everything about it and should be able to answer any questions.

If it is NOT yours and you are simply interested in collecting opinions about it, please specify the link where it is systematically developed - its object, motivation for a yet another theory (in addition to Newton’s), its assumptions, concepts, results, applications, etc.

Edited by AlexL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll begin with some specific items:

1. I am puzzled by the use of "infinite" to describe the threads. Do you mean they are "without a limit" or "impossible to count"? If they have a limit, perhaps using "innumerable" in the beginning would help. I notice you used that adjective in the end.

2. Why do gravity threads emerge from points in space? What causes them to emerge and how? You say Earth creates them, but how?

3. How does an object attach to a gravity thread? What does "attach" mean here?

4. When an object shifts from one thread to another, what is its thread status while in transition? Is it attached to a thread even while shifting from one to the other?

5. You say that "absent other influence" an object is attached to its "perfect gravity thread." But isn't an object always influenced by Earth's atmosphere, unless you place it in a vacuum? So, under normal circumstances, would the object ever be attached to its perfect gravity thread?

More generally, when I think of gravity, I think of Isaac Newton. What do you think he got wrong, if anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AlexL said:

Again: Are YOU the author of this "theory”?

This IS important for me to know, because if it is yours, then:

 - you obviously agree with it

 - and you know everything about it and should be able to answer any questions.

If it is NOT yours and you are simply interested in collecting opinions about it, please specify the link where it is systematically developed - its object, motivation for a yet another theory (in addition to Newton’s), its assumptions, concepts, results, applications, etc.

I’m not here to advocate from a position of ad hominem or act in defence against a position of ad hominem.

I am here to discuss ideas.  What I believe is irrelevant to such a discussion.

If that is a discussion you are interested in having, let’s begin!  

If not, no worries.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'll begin with some specific items:

1. I am puzzled by the use of "infinite" to describe the threads. Do you mean they are "without a limit" or "impossible to count"? If they have a limit, perhaps using "innumerable" in the beginning would help. I notice you used that adjective in the end.

2. Why do gravity threads emerge from points in space? What causes them to emerge and how? You say Earth creates them, but how?

3. How does an object attach to a gravity thread? What does "attach" mean here?

4. When an object shifts from one thread to another, what is its thread status while in transition? Is it attached to a thread even while shifting from one to the other?

5. You say that "absent other influence" an object is attached to its "perfect gravity thread." But isn't an object always influenced by Earth's atmosphere, unless you place it in a vacuum? So, under normal circumstances, would the object ever be attached to its perfect gravity thread?

More generally, when I think of gravity, I think of Isaac Newton. What do you think he got wrong, if anything?

Let the math guide you...

1.  The use of innumerable was with regard to the number of other kinds of threads.  There are as many Gravity Threads as there are possible paths (let the math guide) and there are an infinite number of them.

2.  Technically they emerge from the Earth, but they pass through every point in space near the Earth.  As to why or how the Earth does it, that has not been discovered.  The math tells us that they are there because of the way things move.

3.  Again how and why things attach to the threads is a mystery.  Experiment and the math tells us that they do. In fact an object is always attached to a thread.  This can be proven by observation.  If you quickly remove the external influence of a table down and out from under an object sitting on it. it will fall downwards on the Thread it was attached to along a path it was prevented from travelling on by virtue of the solidity of the  table top.

4.  As points along a line are continuous so too the attachments continually shift, but as any point on a line is only ever at one point, an object is attached only to one Thread at any one time.

5.  what you say is consistent with the theory.  If we create a vacuum in a jar falling things will follow single Threads in there.

Newton and Galileo... They all used the math without being struck by the insight that the math was literally describing something real.

 

A.  What’s wrong with the theory?

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with the theory?

It appears to be missing a spool. For the thread to take the shape of a parabola, the spool would be needed to unwind the initial thread and provide the initial involute. If only a portion of the entire involute is considered, it might get conflated with a parabola. The more developed involutes more closely resemble a spiral. Rather than traveling along the thread, what is being described is the endpoint, and the course it makes as it becomes unraveled from the spool, where if properly wound, serves as an excellent example of a helical coil. The specific gravity, in this case, might be derived from the weight granted to the original development in the vacuum of having left out the spool around which the original thread was packaged and subsequently unraveled from thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

What's wrong with the theory?

It appears to be missing a spool. For the thread to take the shape of a parabola, the spool would be needed to unwind the initial thread and provide the initial involute. If only a portion of the entire involute is considered, it might get conflated with a parabola. The more developed involutes more closely resemble a spiral. Rather than traveling along the thread, what is being described is the endpoint, and the course it makes as it becomes unraveled from the spool, where if properly wound, serves as an excellent example of a helical coil. The specific gravity, in this case, might be derived from the weight granted to the original development in the vacuum of having left out the spool around which the original thread was packaged and subsequently unraveled from thereafter.

This seems like another theory.  I like it but  I am unsure about it because the parabola which we observe directly is a simple second order polynomial.  If other higher order terms were present in the math we might have seen evidence for the spool.  As it is, our direct evidence is of the form ax^2 + bx + c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ax^2+bx+c is the form Newton and Galileo used from the framework of the historical point in time which they made their observations.  According to a long lost ancient Pythagorean text, the exact shape of the gravitational threads would have also been dependent on whether they had been formed by being cut or being rolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

The ax^2+bx+c is the form Newton and Galileo used from the framework of the historical point in time which they made their observations.  According to a long lost ancient Pythagorean text, the exact shape of the gravitational threads would have also been dependent on whether they had been formed by being cut or being rolled.

I appreciate your input... but can we deal with one thing at a time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I appreciate your input... but can we deal with one thing at a time?

Right. We're not trying to cause waves here. The difference between internal versus external threads can wait for now.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What’s wrong with the theory?

A great mind once said: "Things having possible attributes or properties can always be mentally inverted with a background of attribute or property having a propensity to manifest as a thing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

A great mind once said: "Things having possible attributes or properties can always be mentally inverted with a background of attribute or property having a propensity to manifest as a thing."

Let’s have a self contained journey here... this hill I’ve set up needs a trailblazer who is not me...  it’s not meant for me to do solo... it’s more fun with more participants... what is wrong with my sandcastle if the math is “consistent” with it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I am here to discuss ideas.  What I believe is irrelevant to such a discussion.

To bounce off this... What is your educational background in physics? My main comment is I'm wondering about the foundation this is based on. I really am curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I’m not here to ... act in defence against a position of ad hominem.

My (preliminary) questions are perfectly legitimate, with no shade of ad hominem.

Now I know that the “theory” is YOURS and I understand that what you wrote under the title “Gravity Threads - A Theory” is ALL that is about this “theory”.

Edited by AlexL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Let the math guide you...

The math leads to Galileo's experiments with projectile motion, right? The parabola is therefore a relational existent between the object and its trajectory. A gravity thread represents the reification of a relational existent that has been separated from its object. Without the cannonball flying through the air, there is no objective basis for the parabola's existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

To bounce off this... What is your educational background in physics? My main comment is I'm wondering about the foundation this is based on. I really am curious.

I have two degrees in Physics from accredited universities. The Theory is not based on that knowledge as its foundation  neither is it based on what I know from Objectivism to be true about metaphysics and epistemology.

Again the point is not who is the author of the theory or whether anyone believes it but whether and why it is valid or invalid.

Knowing THAT something is invalid is impossible until you actually know WHY it is invalid, until then you can only merely suspect that something is invalid.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis for the involute is a spool (cylinder) from which an actual thread endpoint could be used to 'describe' an arc as it is unwound, shifting the 'gravitation thread' into a different context. It would take a pretty short portion of a parabola to superpose it on an involute and identify it as visually indistinguishable.

Math is derived from reality. And like many other concepts learned, having used them for many years without issue, the initial formation of one, two, three, is lost back in childhood, and even with the guidance of a Pat Corvini, can be difficult to reclaim a clear notion of the relationships involved, and more difficult to explain to others. As math moves beyond the measurement of straightforward counting, the 'what' gets harder to separate from the "how".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Again the point is not who is the author of the theory or whether anyone believes it but whether and why it is valid or invalid.

Well, the provenance of a theory helps a lot. It helps to trace where the ideas come from, which people influenced its development, and how much theoretical development it has gone through. I agree, knowing why something is invalid is important. But it is much easier to evaluate someone's reasoning if they can discuss their inspirations and foundations. And even to think about how much evidence is available. 

Just on a meta level about theories, the validity and support for any theory is improved when there are people who stand before you. But even the newest theories will in some way refer to previous thinkers. At the very least, you would be countering the claims of some theorist by addressing explicit shortcomings of another theory. Even Aristotle did that. Speaking of which, these gravity threads simply sound like a reformulation of Aristotle's impetus idea. Certainly, Galileo made mistakes. Doesn't mean that we have to revert back to Aristotle to talk about physics.

So, it's not so much that what you said is invalid, it's that it sounds way too thin when you haven't stated any modern theories that are insufficient, or when you haven't mentioned empirical evidence that calls previous theories into question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

The math leads to Galileo's experiments with projectile motion, right? The parabola is therefore a relational existent between the object and its trajectory. A gravity thread represents the reification of a relational existent that has been separated from its object. Without the cannonball flying through the air, there is no objective basis for the parabola's existence.

Why?  Isn’t it possible the Gravity Threads are real?  I mean they match exactly what the paths are...?  Isn’t it valid to conclude the paths exist as existents?  Why should one refrain from taking that next simple step... formula of the path -> real thing being the path?

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

So, it's not so much that what you said is invalid, it's that it sounds way too thin when you haven't stated any modern theories that are insufficient, or when you haven't mentioned empirical evidence that calls previous theories into question.

Way too thin for what? If it doesn’t fall short of the standard for validity what other standard does it fall short of?

What do you mean by “valid” if a theory can be valid but also way too thin?

Also, why should the fact that the theory does not contradict the math be seen as a flaw?  Shouldn’t consistency with existing knowledge be counted in the theory’s favour rather than it’s not calling other theory into question, counted against it?  The adds to the knowledge of how things fall by explaining why things fall by positing the existence of new things responsible for it?

What errors  of logic or errors  of conceptualization are involved here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

The basis for the involute is a spool (cylinder) from which an actual thread endpoint could be used to 'describe' an arc as it is unwound, shifting the 'gravitation thread' into a different context. It would take a pretty short portion of a parabola to superpose it on an involute and identify it as visually indistinguishable.

Math is derived from reality. And like many other concepts learned, having used them for many years without issue, the initial formation of one, two, three, is lost back in childhood, and even with the guidance of a Pat Corvini, can be difficult to reclaim a clear notion of the relationships involved, and more difficult to explain to others. As math moves beyond the measurement of straightforward counting, the 'what' gets harder to separate from the "how".

Pat Corvini... interesting.  Might I suggest Robert E Knapp as well.

Neither platonic forms of platonism nor the symbolic games of nominalism leads one to an objective view of math.  One must reject tendencies toward all of concrete boundedness, rationalism (which Peikoff identifies as the most problematic of pitfalls for earnest thinkers), and subjectivism.  Understanding objectivity, is not easy... abstractions are not out there but they are about what is out there.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Why?  Isn’t it possible the Gravity Threads are real?  I mean they match exactly what the paths are...?

To say something is possible means that you have some evidence for its existence. I don't see any evidence for gravity threads. There is clear observational evidence of various individual falling objects creating parabolic paths through the air. And the fact that everything free falls back to Earth suggests a force coming from the Earth. But where is the evidence that Earth creates gravity threads? When I asked about this, you said it hasn't been discovered how Earth creates them, but we know about them because of the way things move. Isn't this arbitrary? Why not imagine projectile elves that live in every object and guide it according to elven magic, which happens to make parabolas that fit with the math? That seems just as possible as gravity threads which mysteriously emerge from the Earth.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...