Gravitational Waves

wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi all

In what way do "gravitational waves" differ from the ordinary, everyday
changes in gravitational force experienced by a body, such as is felt
on earth as the moon orbits?

I assume there must be some very fundamental difference else there
would not be such a big deal made about the detection of gravity waves.
You would just go down to the beach and watch the tides.

A layman's explanation would be great as I doubt I would understand a
very technical one.

Thanks for any help you can offer,


I look at these questions from a complexity science perspective.
Which is a bit different from classical physics.

The physical universe is properly understood through the mathematics
of biological evolution. For example, the following sentence holds
within it the fundamental laws of quantum, classical and living order.


Self-organization spontaneously emerges when light and motion
are in an unstable equilibrium with each other.


Or in a less abstract way.

The dynamic attractor emerges at the transition between the chaotic and static.


Evolution resides at the phase transition between quantum and classical behavior.
Natural selection emerges at the transition between mutation and genetics.
Market forces emerge at the transition between freedom and control.
Light emerges at the transition between energy and matter.
Inertia emerges at the transition between cosmic expansion and gravity.
Ideas emerge at the transition between inspiration and knowledge.
Fluids emerge at the transition between gasses and solids.
Clouds emerge at the transition between air and water.
Wisdom emerges at the transition between religion and science.
Love emerges at the transition between emotions and instinct.

Notice the first terms of all these relationships have no precise
mathematical formulation, but only statistical methods apply.
Notice the second term of all these have randomness as a
basic characteristic.
Notice the last terms are all essentially fixed or unchanging.

What we truly wish to understand, the first terms, all have to
pass from our particle physics through a random interface
to arrive at our ultimate goals.

That's not possible to do in an 'objective' or deterministic way
Understanding the universe emerges at the transition between
our intellect and senses. We can only 'know' the truth of our
existence, it cannot be proved.

Gravity is the static attractor of the universe.
It is one of two basic preferred states of the universe.
To try to define gravity in isolation is a Dark Age desire
born of our instinctive need for simplicity and comfort.



"The aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity
imagine, but
the relations among things; outside these relations there is no reality knowable."

Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905



Nature emerges at the transition between harmony and simplicity.


"Nature is what we see,
The Hill, the Afternoon
Squirrel, Eclipse, the Bumble-bee,
Nay-Nature is Heaven.

Nature is what we hear,
The Bobolink, the Sea
Thunder, the Cricket
Nay,-Nature is Harmony.

Nature is what we know
But have no art to say,
So impotent our wisdom is
To Her simplicity"


By E Dickinson



Jonathan


http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...tigations.html
http://www.calresco.org/concept.htm




s






















Matt

jonathan wrote:

I look at these questions from a complexity science perspective.
Which is a bit different from classical physics.

The physical universe is properly understood through the mathematics
of biological evolution. For example, the following sentence holds
within it the fundamental laws of quantum, classical and living order.


Self-organization spontaneously emerges when light and motion
are in an unstable equilibrium with each other.


Or in a less abstract way.

The dynamic attractor emerges at the transition between the chaotic and static.


Evolution resides at the phase transition between quantum and classical behavior.
Natural selection emerges at the transition between mutation and genetics.
Market forces emerge at the transition between freedom and control.
Light emerges at the transition between energy and matter.
Inertia emerges at the transition between cosmic expansion and gravity.
Ideas emerge at the transition between inspiration and knowledge.
Fluids emerge at the transition between gasses and solids.
Clouds emerge at the transition between air and water.
Wisdom emerges at the transition between religion and science.
Love emerges at the transition between emotions and instinct.

Notice the first terms of all these relationships have no precise
mathematical formulation, but only statistical methods apply.
Notice the second term of all these have randomness as a
basic characteristic.
Notice the last terms are all essentially fixed or unchanging.

What we truly wish to understand, the first terms, all have to
pass from our particle physics through a random interface
to arrive at our ultimate goals.

That's not possible to do in an 'objective' or deterministic way
Understanding the universe emerges at the transition between
our intellect and senses. We can only 'know' the truth of our
existence, it cannot be proved.

Gravity is the static attractor of the universe.
It is one of two basic preferred states of the universe.
To try to define gravity in isolation is a Dark Age desire
born of our instinctive need for simplicity and comfort.



"The aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity
imagine, but
the relations among things; outside these relations there is no reality knowable."

Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1905



Nature emerges at the transition between harmony and simplicity.

Wordus saladus.

-Mark Martin

Groundhogs emerge at the transition between the day before Groundhog
Day and Groundhog day itself.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Groundhogs emerge at the transition between the day before Groundhog
Day and Groundhog day itself.



You're refutation is most convincing, you're ready to
move on to the next level with your education.
Let me supply the link, good luck!

http://pbskids.org/sesame/number/index.html



s

Mark Martin wrote:


Nature emerges at the transition between harmony and simplicity.



Wordus saladus.

-Mark Martin



"They who are called Jonathan, they get trapped in the house?" what does
that mean? ;-)

Naughtius Maximus

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Mark Martin wrote:


Nature emerges at the transition between harmony and simplicity.



Wordus saladus.

-Mark Martin



"They who are called Jonathan, they get trapped in the house?" what does
that mean? ;-)



I think it means they haven't a clue what I'm talking about and are
afraid to ask, what does that mean? I post these things for practice
but mostly to see if anyone can refute it. Even though they're usually
full of claims, that if true, contradict prevailing ideas to their core
few seem to even try. Such grandiose posts, if wrong, should be
trivial to contradict ...if they're wrong.

For the most part they're not wrong though. We happen to live
in a time where science is undergoing a sea-change even more
substantial then say, the first telescope, or the integral. And after
such, the world or science never quite looks the same again.
And entirely new worlds of discovery and ability suddenly open.

That's what is happening right now. What we've all been taught
and believe over the years is in fact Dark Age science. And right now
the ability to see truth and reality are at last becoming possible.

Complexity science is in the process of changing every single
discipline that exists, whether in science, the arts or philosophy.
All of them can now be dealt with using one supra-science.
A new science whose basic ideas are simple enough for
a child to understand.

We in fact live in a time where's it's now possible for one
science, one set of concepts, to teach us them all
.....at once. And this new ability for comparing them
brings with it a clarity and simplicity most think
impossible.

I can apply these concepts as easily with religion as
with the stock market. With writing poetry as easily
as getting a raise.

The post listed just a few paradigms it can be used for.
Just a few.

And the primary lesson of this new science is that if we are
truly curious about the world around us, if we wish to understand
the universe, we need to understand ourselves first.
These concepts make even that easy.

Ancient concepts are suddenly given new life. Poetry and prose
become the new scientific language of the future. And no one
is incapable of understanding them. Intelligence is not a prerequisite
for grasping them, only openness of mind.

If these claims are even five percent true, you'd think a curious mind
would check them out...just in case. Do a few internet searches
ask a few real questions. I can understand the rational reasons
to resist these new concepts as they shun objectivity for subjective
methods, as they embrace holistic or systemic frames of
reference. And assume no repeatability or precision can
be found. But I can't understand the instinctive fear of change
that is absolutely overwhelming for most.


Don't for a minute think that the modern science we've known
and loved in all it's glory is even close to representing the true nature
of reality or our place in it.

And these concepts are as comforting as they are universal.


Jonathan

s





Naughtius Maximus

jonathan wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Mark Martin wrote:


Nature emerges at the transition between harmony and simplicity.



Wordus saladus.

-Mark Martin



"They who are called Jonathan, they get trapped in the house?" what does
that mean? ;-)



I think it means they haven't a clue what I'm talking about and are
afraid to ask, what does that mean? I post these things for practice
but mostly to see if anyone can refute it. Even though they're usually
full of claims, that if true, contradict prevailing ideas to their core
few seem to even try. Such grandiose posts, if wrong, should be
trivial to contradict ...if they're wrong.

For the most part they're not wrong though. We happen to live
in a time where science is undergoing a sea-change even more
substantial then say, the first telescope, or the integral. And after
such, the world or science never quite looks the same again.
And entirely new worlds of discovery and ability suddenly open.

That's what is happening right now. What we've all been taught
and believe over the years is in fact Dark Age science. And right now
the ability to see truth and reality are at last becoming possible.

Complexity science is in the process of changing every single
discipline that exists, whether in science, the arts or philosophy.
All of them can now be dealt with using one supra-science.
A new science whose basic ideas are simple enough for
a child to understand.

We in fact live in a time where's it's now possible for one
science, one set of concepts, to teach us them all
....at once. And this new ability for comparing them
brings with it a clarity and simplicity most think
impossible.

I can apply these concepts as easily with religion as
with the stock market. With writing poetry as easily
as getting a raise.

The post listed just a few paradigms it can be used for.
Just a few.

And the primary lesson of this new science is that if we are
truly curious about the world around us, if we wish to understand
the universe, we need to understand ourselves first.
These concepts make even that easy.

Ancient concepts are suddenly given new life. Poetry and prose
become the new scientific language of the future. And no one
is incapable of understanding them. Intelligence is not a prerequisite
for grasping them, only openness of mind.

If these claims are even five percent true, you'd think a curious mind
would check them out...just in case. Do a few internet searches
ask a few real questions. I can understand the rational reasons
to resist these new concepts as they shun objectivity for subjective
methods, as they embrace holistic or systemic frames of
reference. And assume no repeatability or precision can
be found. But I can't understand the instinctive fear of change
that is absolutely overwhelming for most.


Don't for a minute think that the modern science we've known
and loved in all it's glory is even close to representing the true nature
of reality or our place in it.

And these concepts are as comforting as they are universal.


Jonathan

s





Naughtius Maximus

#3: you realize you spend 20 minutes responding to one line dismissals
on usenet.