Observations : indirectly leading to a possible insight into the Nature of Gravity.

[Ophiolite]

The only worthwhile response I can come up with is to quote Spike Milligan's version of the John Masefield poem:

 

I must go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky,

I left my shoes and socks there, I wonder if they're dry.

[Klaynos]

Coast is so far from a scientific source it's pretty laughable.

 

For sea waves you do not need to and its probably not physical to model the bonds forcing in the way you suggest.

 

This stuff really is quite well understood.

[Ophiolite]

Coast is so far from a scientific source it's pretty laughable.

1. Mike did not claim it was a scientific source.

2. It is a well produced program that celebrates nature and encourages viewers to pay more attention to their surroundings. They do not claim to be a science program, but I have not noticed any egregious scientific errors in it. Have you and if so, what?

3. Mike, it is not an English TV series, it is a British TV series. And you wonder why 45% of us want independence.

[Klaynos]

I accept I was too fast to be so disparaging towards coast.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The nature of sea water and probably any other water is that there is indeed a self levelling mechanism , made up of all the particles , atoms molecules basically by a balance between on the one hand Gravity . On the other hand all the bonding forces existing in the matrix that constitutes the liquid.

 

As wind,or human intervention, gently or otherwise blows across the surface raises parts of a wave as they begin to be generated that are balanced by the tensions induced in the liquid, which do not die down , due to being within the structure mainly . This push and pull sets up oscillations that we recognise as waves ( both up and down ) . Given prolonged exposure to wind these oscillations can build to 6 meters or more on high seas . We are working within the internal atomic structure and bonds mostly . Thus the oscillations do not die out easily . When they do , perfect flatness survives. This is unlike gases, ( where particles would just blow away) . ( or solids where issues of purity arise) .

 

By human intervention , eg doing experiments to raise water by setting up a large oscillation we are dealing DIRECTLY with internal forces of nature held within the structure of the matrix. Also Gravity has direct communication with the fundamental particles.

 

I would suggest that is this ' Easy' access to the internal matrix that is responsible for the initial (4) observations.

This is unlike the other fundamental forces which are not usually contacted other than through intermediate systems . The nature of liquids make this achievable . The experiment with the crockery (5) has a different activity yet still involving bonding , this time not because it is a liquid ,but because it is a ceramic , which has its own interesting vibrating matrix. ( eg Ceramics )

 

Either way , although all of this is ' common' phenomenon and experience , these examples demonstrates how we are able to approach this aspect of 'Nature ' , directly and in her pure form! I think !

 

Mike

Edited November 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

The nature of sea water and probably any other water is that there is indeed a self levelling mechanism , made up of all the particles , atoms molecules basically by a balance between on the one hand Gravity . On the other hand all the bonding forces existing in the matrix that constitutes the liquid.

Water is nothing special in this regard. It happens to all liquids. Water is not self-leveling. Leveling doesn't happen in a zero-g environment, for example.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Water is nothing special in this regard. It happens to all liquids. Water is not self-leveling. Leveling doesn't happen in a zero-g environment, for example.

Yes, I can see that . As water in the space station pictures shows water in Globules.

However ,

 

I do think it shows gravity along with bonding , to be a shaper of worlds , if not a shaper across the Whole Universe.

 

This picture of Gravity , in itself must be Wonderful , and possibly ' insightful .

Due to its 'external' expansive capability and its 'internal' delicacy .

 

Mike

 

Ps. I know you are going to say ( " but we already knew that ! " ) . To me, It is a wonderful insight .

Edited November 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

The earth is a sphere because gravity is spherically symmetric. There's nothing new or particularly interesting here.

[Ophiolite]

Due to its 'external' expansive capability and its 'internal' delicacy .

I do not understand what this means. Will you explain?

[geordief]

Is MSC just making a general observation (using a perhaps poor example) that the obvious and everyday can be hiding its secrets in the open?

 

Sometimes you may need to look at something with the eyes of a child.(I am no expert )

 

Perhaps , as the others are saying there is nothing to see here .(I crossed posted,Oph )

Edited November 7, 2015 by geordief

[Ophiolite]

I think, geordief, that you may be very close to it. Rather than the post I made, I was going to make this one:

 

Mike said:

This picture of Gravity , in itself must be Wonderful , and possibly ' insightful

Insight does not arise from a scenario, but from our perception of a scenario.

 

Is that another way of saying what you are suggesting?

[geordief]

Yes that is very close . I remember from the days I was interested in "alternative" philosophies there was something called Gestalt Therapy which seemed to be saying that depending on how you looked at something a hidden pattern would emerge ....

 

Perhaps MSC will let us know if we are on the right lines regarding his MO.

 

To follow on from Oph's post it might be that there are two processes ,one internal and subjective and the other external and objective that need to dovetail for new learning to be effective (statemement of the obvious perhaps)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, but there has been 60 posts and 4 Pages of very profound observations and comments here ,

 

This surely must amount to something " wonderful, profound , and insightful ? " No ?

 

My daughters thought it was about 20 odd years ago :-

 

 

Mike

 

Ps I have forgotten what I meant by that comment , about inside and outside .

I think I was meaning that gravity has an effect in the big wide world/universe , as well as inside the structure of water , with its electrons , atoms , molecules and the substance ( water) itself

Edited November 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

You have to convince your audience (and then judge that your audience is not gullible).

 

Are Ophiolite and myself on the right lines as regards your perhaps "shoehorning" your perception of reality into what would be a more scientific method of learning things ( one big step rather than lots of little baby steps)?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Perhaps MSC will let us know if we are on the right lines regarding his MO.

perhaps)

Well I was trying to explore the effect generally of Gravity on seawater/water . And it seems to have come out of the discussion , that whereas it would normally be imagined that with big things like haulage trucks , people , worlds, lumps of iron . Etc. That gravity is working on the whole Mass , as an object. And they either fall down a cliff, spin round a sun, with Gravity pulling them as a whole . I was rather categorising sea and seawater , as one of these large objects. But with this discussion we have reached the idea that gravity is working on all the internal particles( electrons, protons, molecules etc) . As well as large items , like trucks and seas. But maybe gravity does NOT work on large objects as a whole , but only on the Aggregate of all the little particles?

 

It was these individual particles that I was meaning as internal . Perhaps I should not separate them into , inside and outside , as this is of course only as we see them . Really everything is in a continuum from electrons to worlds, or from whatever is the smallest , to whatever is the largest .

 

Mike

Edited November 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

I think you may have edited out your answer to the question "Perhaps MSC will let us know if we are on the right lines regarding his MO."

 

It was "perhaps" wasn't it ? -or was that a typo?

Edited November 7, 2015 by geordief

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think you may have edited out your answer to the question "Perhaps MSC will let us know if we are on the right lines regarding his MO."

 

It was "perhaps" wasn't it ? -or was that a typo?

I think we are cross posting somehow . Sorry it's my fault for going back editing , which does not come out your end until you refresh your examination of a thread . Either that or I am going completely balmy .?

 

Mike

Edited November 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[geordief]

In order not to cross post ,you need to work with 2 pages . With the first you check for the freshest content and with the second you write your post.

 

I do this some of the time, not always.

[swansont]

Yes, but there has been 60 posts and 4 Pages of very profound observations and comments here ,

 

This surely must amount to something " wonderful, profound , and insightful ? " No ?

 

Profound perhaps, but nothing new. Nothing that's not taught in many places every year, and nothing that should be particularly befuddling to anyone who has studied physics.

[geordief]

Really everything is in a continuum from electrons to worlds, or from whatever is the smallest , to whatever is the largest .

 

Mike

I doubt that.Quantum theory doesn't seem to require "continuums" and that is how the smallest domains are explained at the moment

Edited November 7, 2015 by geordief

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Profound perhaps, but nothing new. Nothing that's not taught in many places every year, and nothing that should be particularly befuddling to anyone who has studied physics.

Yes but surely some things , sometimes, must ' excite ' you. Where you want to jump up and down , and say " hey look what I just worked out , or thought ? "

 

Mike

I doubt that.Quantum theory doesn't seem to require "continuums" and that is how the smallest domains are explained at the moment

Yes , I understand that . I was probably using the wrong word. Not continuum . But more everything from small to large should be treated the same , with respect to gravity . Unless of course , somehow gravity is quantised, then we really are in trouble from an understanding point of view .

 

( Hey ho ! Maybe there is a value of gravity that is quantum like a ' gravity-plank'. Or ' Plank-Gravity' , below which things weigh nothing , above which they weigh in ' nplank-gravities' )

 

Now that's enough of that !

 

Mike

Edited November 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I doubt that.Quantum theory doesn't seem to require "continuums" and that is how the smallest domains are explained at the moment

Perhaps we are looking at a junction where QUANTUM meets GRAVITY . That is profound

 

Mike

[geordief]

Perhaps we are looking at a junction where QUANTUM meets GRAVITY . That is profound

Mike

I think I have heard that that is one of the main areas of present enquiry.

[swansont]

Yes but surely some things , sometimes, must ' excite ' you. Where you want to jump up and down , and say " hey look what I just worked out , or thought ? "

 

 

Yes, but I don't announce that I have some special knowledge or insight. Learning new things is fun, but most of it is catching up to where many have gone before.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Yes, but I don't announce that I have some special knowledge or insight. Learning new things is fun, but most of it is catching up to where many have gone before.

 

.

But in this case it is YOU that has prompted the insight , by drawing my attention to the fact that Gravity , which I saw having contact with the Water molecules and their link outward to waves at sea and boats in deep ocean , and columns of water being raised by me to the wonder of my children. You went on to tell me that gravity will interact with the electrons of the molecules .

 

Here you pointed the way to the insight . To the electron ( A Quantum Particle ) !

 

I think I have heard that that is one of the main areas of present enquiry.

.

I think we are homing in on the area , you speak of ( QUANTUM GRAVITY ) .

 

The electron is the very root of quantum . It was first perceived by Niels Bohr to exist in association with the atom in only specific energy levels with associated frequencies . Max Plank went on to associate a certain ' Constant ' . Planks constant (h. ) with these set ( energy e and frequency f ) . Thus was born the QUANTUM era . Link See planks constant Wikipedia :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

 

The value of Planck's constant is h = 6.626070040 x 10to-34 joules seconds

. . Or 4.135667662x 10 to-15 electro volt seconds

 

We have GRAVITY coming in from the sea to this very spot by the way this thread has developed .

 

If that is not exciting , inspirational , warranting an insight , I do not know what is .

 

Mike

Edited November 7, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos