Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:39:10 +0000 (UTC),
carlip-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]
gravity is fascinating, from what I've been reading. The fact that
two stars appear to exert an instantaneous effect on each other, even
though they are millions of miles apart, would seem to indicate that
there is some force that is faster than light.

There is as yet no direct measurement of the "speed of gravity." But
all observations so far are consistent with general relativity, our
best current theory of gravity. If general relativity is correct,
gravity propagates at the speed of light, not instantaneously.

well, isn't general relativity correct only in its sphere, but when
checked against quantum mechanics, it appears to be not correct? And
vice versa, when quantum mechanics is studied in the context of
general relativity, it, too, encounters problems? Separate, they work
in their fields, but together, both theories cannot be correct?

That would leave the door open for gravity to not necessarily
propagate at the speed of light, but to propagate faster than c,
wouldn't it?

What about superstrings? I've read a little about them and the
question could be asked: What if the entire universe consists of and
is connected by a fabric of superstrings so that what we consider to
be empty space that needs to be traversed by gravitational
attractions, is, in fact, one continuous fabric with hills (i.e.,
stars and planets) and valleys (i.e., space) so that any change in the
positions of the stars would automatically and instantaneously be felt
by the others, without need to wait for gravity to travel from one
point to the next?

(If you want a technical discussion of this -- you probably don't --
see my paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087.)

I printed your paper to read in spare moments during my day. Frankly,
I don't understand the math, but I trust that it proves your point,
which is that the absence of gravitational aberration can be explained
by the fact that the aberration has been canceled by
velocity-dependent interactions.

It certainly is not for me to argue with someone as learned as you
are, but please allow me ask a few befuddled questions.

Van Flandern proposes that gravity propagates at a speed much greater
than c. What if the aberration that you say is canceled by
velocity-dependent interactions really doesn't exist after all? Would
that mean that the lack of aberration makes both you and Van Flandern
potentially correct? It makes you correct via your mathematical proof
and it makes Van Flandern correct via the possible reality that there
really is no aberration after all. If so, how can it be determined
who is really correct?

The cancellation that you prove through your mathematical equations is
one that is based on such precise conditions that it makes me wonder
about the chances of this kind of precision happening by chance. But
then, that is the forte of evolutionary theory. The lottery is won on
a consistent basis by the same person.

Also, back to the idea of travel being faster than light, is it
possible that at speeds nearing the speed of c, that the atoms,
quarks, charms, or whatever the particles are in the speeding mass,
will bounce around so violently, they would behave the way particles
do in a particle smasher, getting to a point where matter and
antimatter would annihilate each other, producing pure energy? And
could this energy then be pushed faster than the speed of light?


As to your statement that a cloud of hydrogen gas in space is subject
to its own gravity, are you saying that the more atoms or molecules
there are in a gas, the higher the chance is that the gas will become
dense and not spread out?

Yes, definitely.

is this based on Jeans mass, as some posters have mentioned? And if
so, what do you have to say about what some astrophysicists have
pointed out, that Jean's analysis was flawed? Do you agree that Jeans
was incorrect to assume that the area around the collapsing cloud was
surrounded by a static medium, which would mean that such a medium
would also collapse, leading to a slower growth rate than predicted by
Jeans?

Is there some law of physics that says that
the greater the volume of gas, the more prone are its particles to be
attracted to each other?

Each particle is attracted to *all* of the other particles in the gas.
So the more particles there are, the more attraction there is. There's
no mystery here -- you are attracted to the Earth more strongly than to,
say, your computer terminal because the Earth has "more particles" (more
mass).

if all the other particles in the gas cloud are attracted to all other
particles, then the "big bang" should have produced a single, giant
star, shouldn't it? What is the proposed mechanism for the separation
of the gas cloud into billions of stars and planets?

How does that work, especially if the gas is
spreading out, according to 2LoT (if such a law exists out there)? I
mean, gases on earth do not tend to pack more closely depending on the
quantity, do they?

You're mixing up things that happen on different scales. You need a *lot*
of gas before the gravitational attraction of the gas to itself is strong
enough to be very noticeable.

this seems to be similar to the requirement for evolution -- you need
a LOT of time before mutations will accumulate sufficiently and
fortuitously enough to produce the life forms we see today. Isn't
this all rather vague and unscientific? A lot of time will do it. A
lot of gas will do it. With no step-by-step description of how it is
done.

Are there instruments powerful enough to detect fractions of degrees
of difference in gravitation attraction between gas clouds of
different sizes here on earth?

And how does a star that starts out consisting of strictly hydrogen
and/or helium become the kind of world that we know today, with
minerals and rocks and dense masses that today are heavier than gases?

And does gas always have to go to liquid form before it becomes a
solid? Or can a gas go straight from gas to solid under certain
circumstances? Because if your hydrogen gas cloud goes through a
liquid phase, at -399.8 degree F, it would be so cold that you'll be
getting no sun out of that one.

Remember, a star like the Sun is hundreds
of thousands of times more massive than the whole Earth.

if the sun is composed of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, why has it not
coalesced into the kind of happily evolving stars of which you speak?
It is far bigger than the earth. Its gravitational attraction to
itself should have made it more advanced than the earth, if, as you
imply, the earth evolved to what it is through gravitational
attraction to itself.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... gravity propagates at the speed of light, ... checked against quantum mechanics, it appears to be not correct? ... stars and planets) and valleys so that any change in the ... there are in a gas, the higher the chance is that the gas will become ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... There is as yet no direct measurement of the "speed of gravity." ... stars and planets) and valleys so that any change in the ... particles seen in particle accelerator experiments, ... there are in a gas, the higher the chance is that the gas will become ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... There is as yet no direct measurement of the "speed of gravity." ... there are in a gas, the higher the chance is that the gas will become ... Each particle is attracted to *all* of the other particles in the gas. ... So the more particles there are, the more attraction there is. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Laws of Intelligence Examined
    ... possible that at speeds nearing the speed of c, that the atoms, ... they would behave the way particles ... Each particle is attracted to *all* of the other particles in the gas. ... over from the formation of young, hot stars. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Giant gas planets and how they gathered their gas at formation
    ... Gas by itself does not possess enough gravity. ... You have just "proved" that stars can't be made of mostly hydrogen and ... Get enough hydrogen and helium together and you get plenty of gravity, ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
Loading