|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
24 April 2024 20:29
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Does Gyro-Propulsion compel unifying gravity? |
| Question: |
Hi Ravi,
The Unified Field Theory is something I too find compelling. It looks like we are both fascinated by similar challenges, so I hope we are able to stay in good terms. I think the key to harmony in these quests is to realize that attacking ideas, conjectures etc, on some rational basis (with explanation) is part of the quest.
The important thing is not to attack the individual, and to cool down when others have difficulty understanding the new concepts we explain, and when they claim that our valuable ideas are wrong without a rational explanation (especially when we have verified that we are correct).
Luis G |
| Date: |
4 January 2010
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 04/01/2010 21:24:14
| | | Ravi,
Your argument about classical mechanics’ inability to unify gravity’s force got me started once again in this aspect of the quest. Your argument about unifying gravity carries strength in so far as theories that unify gravity are more likely to be superior over theories that cannot. However this presumes that the successful theory is not just an infant conjecture, and that the theory that has up to now failed to unify gravity is completely out of bullets; no one has yet proven that any conjecture presented succeeds at unifying gravity, or that established science cannot eventually unify gravity.
Though accepted science is far from perfect, it is still the most examined and best tested because it still lends itself to grow and to gradual modifications, as it has throughout its history. Relativity and quantum mechanics have emerged from thinking about classical physics, and have been around long enough to fit in the same shelve as classical physics.
But Ravi, here is the big surprise:
I have a strong classical physics argument that goes perhaps beyond your conjecture toward unifying gravity. The argument accomplishes this lofty task by basically tweaking classical physics by more or less making slight modifications to 2 (two) classical perspectives; first it stays away from some items adopted conventionally for mathematical convenience (e.g. point-mass etc), and second it makes a small step toward answering the question “What is Gravity”.
Note that the question “What is Gravity” is a yet unanswered question. We can analyze the effects of gravity’s behavior thanks to Newton, and we can visualize gravity’s effects geometrically thanks to Einstein. However we do not have the slightest hint about WHAT GRAVITY IS! Nobody has defined why lumps of mass (such as planets or apples) produce an attraction to each other through what we call Gravity. In the current state we simply go straight from mass to gravity governed by a simple formula that uses a tiny multiplier constant (G) in order to make the magnitude correct. The “G” constant is the most significant part of the equation, as it brings meaningfulness to gravity, but no one can tell us how one may derive the value of “G” without conducting experiments to calculate it. In other words there is no theoretical means to derive “G” other than experimental observation. This indicates that the existing theory of gravity is not sufficiently mature or sophisticated even though it has been around longest and has served science very well for centuries. Perhaps its own success at being useful has prevented the theory of gravity from becoming more sophisticated; during its existence, the theory of graity has not had a need to evolve further (in a way it’s a victim of its own early success).
On a more personal note, I believe that the failure by science to unify gravity stems from the continued inability to more clearly define the very force that is to be unified, the force of gravity.
It’s obvious to me that science has failed to make a step-by-step procedural connection between mass and force, before attempting to include gravity in the Unified Field Theory and quantum mechanics.
It’s as if we are comfortable making a blind leap from “mass” to “gravity” and then expect to unify it into quantum mechanics, without first having analyzed the MECHANICS BEHIND gravity (or what makes it tick).
In their great wisdom, scientists have become entangled and wrapped around the axel of trivial conventionality because these conventions have been useful in unifying other forces before gravity. Such conventional tools include “point-masses” and the process of normalizing and de-normalizing mathematical equations to eliminate infinities that tend to creep in (we can expand on this later if it becomes important).
What if the most tested and celebrated theories (those of classical, relativity, and quantum physics) became capable of including gravity into the Unified Field Theory (through minor tweaking), then this evolution may make accepted science a stronger theory than any other new found conjectures, wouldn’t it?
Having said that, one should never discount even the most outlandish conjectures because they may arguably unify gravity and achieve great success; the product of intelligent minds is always worth exploring and worth discussing.
Ravi, the question now is where should we discuss these theories? Where should I present my findings and conjectures?
Email is not a good place because it is too private and does not demonstrate primacy.
Do you have any suggestions?
I hope to hear from you soon.
Please accept my Best Regards and best wishes for the New Year
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 13/01/2010 19:12:08
| | | Luis, I will reply in detail soon.
Excellent bird's eye view of the current situation!
Best Regards
Ravi
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Ravi - 20/01/2010 17:26:45
| | | Luis,
I suggest that you start a blog if you want to pursue it. Alternatively you can post here, if you dont need the aid of diagrams and formulas and such.
You say "however this presumes that the successful theory is not just an infant conjecture, and that the theory that has up to now failed to unify gravity is completely out of bullets"
Granted. But if the rel.machine flies, it means more than just another flying machine: It also means we have a serious new candidate theory for the unification of the forces. Do you agree to that?
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 21/01/2010 15:14:15
| | | Hi Ravi,
Yes, I agree with your last statement completely!
And will follow your advice on how to publish my ideas on gravity.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
