A Scientist Takes On Gravity

"Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and
professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam,
whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion
has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists,
or at least among those who profess to understand it.
Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he
argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity
and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence
of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe
the behavior of heat and gases."

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...o_interstitial

wrote in
:

"Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and
professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam,
whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion
has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists,
or at least among those who profess to understand it.
Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he
argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity
and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence
of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe
the behavior of heat and gases."

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc..._r=1&no_inters
titial


Thermodynamics? Who knew?

Let's get Bcon1 and Hammy the Squirrel in on this and see what their
take is. Brad? You still out there? I mean, way, WAY out there?

When the going gets weirder, the weirder REALLY get going.

--Damon, up late and going on dark chocolate

Brad Guth wrote in news:6a2d42e6-e5e6-4c77-9cb1-
:

On Jul 14, 1:37*am, Damon Hill wrote:
wrote innews:d2758590-1d7f-4bf9-a9a5-fe4159da751c@m
35g2000prn.googlegroups.com:



"Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and
professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam,
whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion
has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists,
or at least among those who profess to understand it.
Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he
argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity
and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence
of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe
the behavior of heat and gases."

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...?_r=1&no_inter
s
titial

Thermodynamics? *Who knew?

Let's get Bcon1 and Hammy the Squirrel in on this and see what their
take is. *Brad? *You still out there? *I mean, way, WAY out there?

When the going gets weirder, the weirder REALLY get going.

--Damon, up late and going on dark chocolate

You just don''t like any ideas or interpretation that's not your own.

Oops, it seems you and other parrots don't have any original ideas,
and you can't interpret squat.

On the contrary; it takes a really original mind to look at things
from a fresh perspective. Given our poor understanding of gravity,
a better understanding might seem crazy or at least very difficult
to understand.

I'm way out of my depth here, but the results could be fun. If I
could understand it...

--Damon

On Jul 14, 12:23*pm, Damon Hill wrote:
Brad Guth wrote in news:6a2d42e6-e5e6-4c77-9cb1-
:



On Jul 14, 1:37*am, Damon Hill wrote:
wrote innews:d2758590-1d7f-4bf9-a9a5-fe4159da751c@m
35g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

"Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and
professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam,
whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion
has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists,
or at least among those who profess to understand it.
Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he
argued in a recent paper, titled “On the Origin of Gravity
and the Laws of Newton,” that gravity is a consequence
of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe
the behavior of heat and gases."

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...?_r=1&no_inter
s
titial

Thermodynamics? *Who knew?

Let's get Bcon1 and Hammy the Squirrel in on this and see what their
take is. *Brad? *You still out there? *I mean, way, WAY out there?

When the going gets weirder, the weirder REALLY get going.

--Damon, up late and going on dark chocolate

You just don''t like any ideas or interpretation that's not your own.

Oops, it seems you and other parrots don't have any original ideas,
and you can't interpret squat.

On the contrary; it takes a really original mind to look at things
from a fresh perspective. *Given our poor understanding of gravity,
a better understanding might seem crazy or at least very difficult
to understand.

I'm way out of my depth here, but the results could be fun. *If I
could understand it...

--Damon

What we know for certain is that our mainstream science and physics
hasn't an honest clue as to what makes gravity tick, at least there's
not any two wizards that'll agree, much less objectively prove their
interpretation is correct.

~ BG

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
...
Brad Guth wrote in news:6a2d42e6-e5e6-4c77-9cb1-
:

On Jul 14, 1:37 am, Damon Hill wrote:
wrote
innews:d2758590-1d7f-4bf9-a9a5-fe4159da751c@m
35g2000prn.googlegroups.com:



"Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and
professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam,
whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion
has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists,
or at least among those who profess to understand it.
Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, he
argued in a recent paper, titled "On the Origin of Gravity
and the Laws of Newton," that gravity is a consequence
of the venerable laws of thermodynamics, which describe
the behavior of heat and gases."

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/sc...?_r=1&no_inter
s
titial

Thermodynamics? Who knew?

Let's get Bcon1 and Hammy the Squirrel in on this and see what their
take is. Brad? You still out there? I mean, way, WAY out there?

When the going gets weirder, the weirder REALLY get going.

--Damon, up late and going on dark chocolate

You just don''t like any ideas or interpretation that's not your own.

Oops, it seems you and other parrots don't have any original ideas,
and you can't interpret squat.

On the contrary; it takes a really original mind to look at things
from a fresh perspective. Given our poor understanding of gravity,
a better understanding might seem crazy or at least very difficult
to understand.

I'm way out of my depth here, but the results could be fun. If I
could understand it...


Does anyone really believe in the concept of a force at a distance?
A force which acts instantaneously everywhere? A 'field' which
can't be blocked, or directly detected as can a magnetic field?

If you believe in the common notion of gravity, then the Earth should
....fly off into space during each lunar eclipse! Not to mention the
fact that since the discovery of dark energy and matter, it's now
considered fact that most of the matter in the universe is self-repulsive.
Not attractive. How does one go about detecting matter that
tends to spread itself out as thinly as possible?

We still live in the Dark Ages!

Where all the basic questions, and meaningful ones, remained
unanswered or unsatisfactory. Most religion still can't pass a
laugh test, while science just tosses it's hands in the air claiming
all is at best uncertain. We're a fluke! Soon this generation
will be looked at in the same bemused way we look at the
last generation which still believed the Earth was flat.

This is because we will be the last generation to believe the
fundamental laws of the universe are found by detailing the
simplest objects and forces the universe has to offer.
Just the reverse is true, the most complex the universe has
to offer is the source of understanding. Just as the larger
statistical sample better shows the underlying patterns.

But that leads to a conclusion most will find hard to accept.
As the most complex the universe has to offer is
life and intelligence. How can biology explain physical
laws?

In the physical universe, the most complex is of course
....thermodynamics. From which the living world emerges.
But we must learn to crawl first, so we begin with clouds
and fluids. Then later we can see how emotions and ideas
emerge in the same universal way. As a result of the
most complex state any specific system has to offer.

But what is meant by 'complex'?

In the new view it no longer is analogous to complicated.
Which is a linear concept spanning from zero to infinite.
Complex now means something entirely different, and if
we're to grasp how this 'complexity' leads to fundamental law
then the non-linear definition of complexity /must/ be understood.

There are three great realms of behavior in the universe.
Classical motion, quantum motion and where the two
are entangled.

Classical motion defines simplicity as it only takes classical
mechanics to model.

Quantum motion also defines simplicity as it only takes
quantum mechanics to model.

However, where the two are entangled, /both/ classical and
quantum fields of science are required at once to model.
Hence the entangled state defines the highest level of complexity
since it requires both fields, not one /or/ the other.

Linear view of complexity

Zero Infinity

Non-linear view of complexity

Classical motion Complex motion Quantum motion
Particle Physics Thermodynamics Quantum mechanics
(simple) (complex)
(simple)


Or in the abstract


Static Dynamic Chaotic
Solid Liquid Gas
Subcritical Critical Superciritcal
Gravity Space-Time Cosmic Expansion
Condensation Clouds Evaporation
Genetics Selection Mutation
Instincts Emotions Senses

So why again can it be possible for life to explain the physical laws
of the universe? Because life and intelligence best displays these
universal patterns of behavior. We've been looking through telescopes
and microscopes all this time for the answers.

We should be looking squarely in the mirror.
The answers are only found within. As only our minds
of capable of ...abstractly...entangling the classical
and quantum concepts.

Life emerges when classical and quantum realms are entangled.
The complex realm of clouds, fluids, markets and emotions.


Jonathan


"O Nature, and O soul of man! how far beyond all utterance
are your linked analogies! Not the smallest atom stirs or lives
on matter, but has its cunning duplicate in mind."

... Captain Ahab


Self Organizing Faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Calresco.org
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

Dynamics of Complex Systems
Full online text
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/





s





--Damon