|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves
Groundhogs emerge at the transition between the day before Groundhog
Day and Groundhog day itself. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Gravitational Waves
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Top ten ways you know it's time to put the keyboard down...
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[sci.astro] Astrophysics (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (4/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 02:36 AM |
Gravitational Anisotropy | Fusioneer | Astronomy Misc | 72 | March 3rd 05 10:14 PM |
UK expert takes on bookies over Gravitational Waves (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 9th 04 04:50 AM |
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory | Br Dan Izzo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 31st 04 02:35 AM |
Einstein's Gravitational Waves May Set Speed Limit For Pulsar Spin | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | July 3rd 03 08:49 AM |