PDA

View Full Version : Shocking Truth: Gravity Really Does Not Exist



The One
15th March 2012, 22:32
Many people have heard the story of when Newton sat under an apple tree to think, and suddenly an apple fell on his head and he conceived the theory of gravity. But after a long time, physicists knew gravity was a very strange physical law. Compared to other basic interaction forces, gravity was very difficult to deal with. Now the reasons for this peculiarity may have been explained: gravity is not a fundamental interaction force, but instead may be the derivative of another more fundamental power.

Professor Eric Verlinde, age 48, a respected string theorist and a professor of physics at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam, proposed a new theory of gravity as reported by the New York Times on July 12, 2010. He argued in a recent paper, entitled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton” that gravity is a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. Reversing the logic of 300 years of science, his contention is that gravity is an illusion that has caused continued turmoil among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it.


http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000067982/images/Gravity-Probe-B-01-1024x754.jpg

For me, gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde. It’s not that he won’t fall to the ground, but Dr. Verlinde, along with some other physicists, thinks that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or how elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.

The core of the theory may be relevant to the lack of order in physical systems. His argument is something you could call the “bad hair day” theory of gravity. It goes like this: your hair frizzles in the heat and humidity because there are more ways for your hair to be curled than to be straight, and nature likes options. So it takes a force to pull hair straight and eliminate nature’s options. Forget curved space or the spooky attraction described by Isaac Newton’s equations. Dr. Verlinde postulates that the force we call gravity is simply a by-product of nature’s propensity to maximize disorder.

Professor Verlinde’s theory is that gravity is essentially an entropic force. An object moving around other small objects will change the disorder surrounding the objects and gravity will be felt. Based on this idea in the Holographic theory, he can derive Newton’s second law of mechanics. In addition, his theory on the physics of inertial mass is also a new understanding. His paper—“On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton”—can be found online at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.0785v1.pdf

Many physicists think that Dr. Verlinde's theory lacks persuasiveness. So what is gravity? Master Li Hongzhi, the founder of Falun Gong, said in “Teaching the Fa at the 2001 Canada Fa Conference”: http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/daohang_3.htm

“What's brought about this gravity phenomenon that people have described? It happens because all lives and all matter, including air and water, that are on Earth and within the Three Realms—all things that exist in the Three Realms—are composed of particles of all the different levels in the Three Realms, and different particles of different levels are interconnected. This interconnection can, when there's a pulling force, extend or move within the Three Realms. In other words, when you pull it, it can extend like a rubber band, and when you release it, it will go back. That is, there's a basic, stable form of existence among particles. This is why any object in this Earth's environment will come back to the ground after you move it.” (Guiding the Voyage)

Research on the universe in modern science is essentially based on the theory of gravity. If gravity does not exist, then our understanding of the galaxy and the universe’s structure could be wrong. This may be why astronomers often find it difficult to explain gravitational movement’s of distant celestial bodies and have to introduce the concept of “dark matter” to help balance the equations. A new theory of gravity could shed light on some of the vexing cosmic issues that physicists come across, like dark energy, a kind of anti-gravity that seems to be speeding up the expansion of the universe, or the dark matter that is supposedly needed to hold galaxies together. It may stimulate scientists to seek a new understanding of the universe.

“We’ve known for a long time gravity doesn’t exist,” Dr. Verlinde said, “It’s time to yell it.”


http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1895/351/Shocking_Truth:_Gravity_Really_Does_Not_Exist..html

NeverMind
15th March 2012, 22:37
Professor Verlinde may be very knowledgeable in physics, but I see he is, like many others, a prisoner of the verbal labyrinth. :-)

Semantic considerations are most definitely not irrelevant to this, or any other, discussion.

DreamsInDigital
15th March 2012, 22:44
I was taught that Gravity is a result of radiative waves from the Sun, and that anything with a minimal mass of 29 miles in diameter and in orbit of a star can have a Gravitational Field. Without having to generate one artificially. That's a very simple explanation, but it's the way I understand it anyway.

modwiz
15th March 2012, 23:13
Nature likes disorder? What a sick concept. He takes a right headed concept of options and diversity and distills that to disorder. Typical scientist who sees the Sun and Universe as violent and nature and their awesomeness always seen as some sort of malevolent intention to harm us, if their phrasing of things is any indication of their mindset.

Carmody
16th March 2012, 02:24
Nature likes disorder? What a sick concept. He takes a right headed concept of options and diversity and distills that to disorder. Typical scientist who sees the Sun and Universe as violent and nature and their awesomeness always seen as some sort of malevolent intention to harm us, if their phrasing of things is any indication of their mindset.

I don't disagree.... just adding some words in.

Regarding that sort of thing, we are at the point where the bucket of sand and water is locked and frozen. We need to get enough energy into it to cause the mess to begin flowing and moving, again.

It's not about that he has some semantic or other aspects not quite right, it's that his view challenged the locked dogma of current scientific theory. theory, for there are no laws in science. I keep mentioning that as not one of those creators of these formulas and thoughts ever called any of it a 'law'. Law is a human social structure term and has no place in science, since science is about theory. Theory that is subject to change, when new data comes along. Nothing, absolutely nothing in science, is settled. Nothing. Nor is it ever supposed to be. Question everything.

Alex Laker
16th March 2012, 03:25
Nature likes disorder? What a sick concept. He takes a right headed concept of options and diversity and distills that to disorder. Typical scientist who sees the Sun and Universe as violent and nature and their awesomeness always seen as some sort of malevolent intention to harm us, if their phrasing of things is any indication of their mindset.

I feel more is what he saying is that the universe tries its best to maximise order in the face of inevitable disorder. I do feel that there is inevitable disorder in the universe, although only disorder from our point of view. You cannot have a system with zero entropy, there is always some waste energy that is unusable. We see that everywhere. The universe is tending towards death.

For me, it's like the universe knows it has a finite life, and so it tries to make the most of it, by making the most energy efficient decisions. This is all humans as animals do. We are all universes, and equally the universe we live in a living, biological being. We are universes of hearts, bones and cells. On a cosmic level, we see galaxies, stars and planets. Eventually, our bodies fail us, and we wither and decay, reincorporated into other biological entities. This is also what I feel happens on a cosmic level. From a supernova are formed new stars, and from the binding of aimless rock and dust a planet. And in the end, when the universe really has exhausted all its options, and becomes pure isothermic heat, who knows what happens? I feel if we knew that, then we would know how the universe began, i.e. I believe there is a cycle. And there are probably higher realms which we can never perceive on this plane of existence.

But what is life in all this? For me, that is the soul. The soul inhabits a realm which is external to this infinity of infinitesimalnesses in which the cycles of birth and death are played out. But in order for the soul to learn, it needs a playground. Life needs a place to live.

I do believe that this 'entropy' we see causes our perception of time, which I believe is heavily interlinked with gravity and light. I also find the title of the article fairly ridiculous. Of course gravity exists. It is something we try to explain, and these scientists are just trying to explain it another way. All phenomena we see exist. It is not our human defintions of them which make them real. Reality is pure perception. I believe what we see is defined by how we perceive it to be, rather than how we talk about it. This perception goes right to the very core of how our brain is designed to function. Our soul can only perceive life within the limits of its container. And so it is a game, because there are boundaries and rules to how we may learn. And in any game, you are well within your rights to know the rules. It just seems that learning the rules is part of this particular game.

witchy1
16th March 2012, 11:08
Gravity is magnetism. (electromagentism) Simplistic that I am, but it fits. IMHO of course

Magnus
16th March 2012, 15:47
The similarities between gravity and magnetism is very interesting, yet so different.

Gravity probably attracts every known material there is, while the attracting force of magnetism depends on compatible materials.
It's like magnetism is a reduced derivative of gravity.

Electromagnets use an iron core, so does this planet.. could be a hint.

If gravity was magnetism, what degree of intensity would be necessary for the attracting force of magnetism to become compatible with the normally non magnetic materials such as wood?

Lets pretend that magnetism at a certain strength could equal gravitys attracting abilities, if they were the one and same, then the earths gravity would be the enemy of all magnetic storage methods e.g. magnet cards, magnetic tapes, hard drives, etc, but it just isn't.

It seems it's not that simple to overcome the actual difference of properties between magnetism and gravity, as to the cause of understanding the origin of gravity.

Professor Eric Verlinde has indeed entered a tough challenge, beating both the established paradigm and one of physics greatest enigmas at the same time.

The world needs to see a lot more of the kind of spirit and intentions he offer.

nearing
16th March 2012, 16:10
The similarities between gravity and magnetism is very interesting, yet so different.

Gravity probably attracts every known material there is, while the attracting force of magnetism depends on compatible materials.
Its like magnetism is a reduced derivative of gravity.

Electromagnets use an iron core, so does this planet.. could be a hint.

If gravity was magnetism, what degree of intensity would be necessary for the attracting force of magnetism to become compatible with non magnetic materials such as wood?

Lets pretend that magnetism at a certain strength could equal gravitys attracting abilities, if they were the one and same, then the earths gravity would be the enemy of all magnetic storage methods e.g. magnet cards, magnetic tapes, hard drives, etc, but it just isn't.

It seems it's not that simple to overcome the actual difference of properties between magnetism and gravity, as to the cause of understanding the origin of gravity.

Professor Eric Verlinde has indeed entered a tough challenge, beating both the established paradigm and one of physics greatest enigmas at the same time.

The world needs to see a lot more of the kind of spirit and intentions he offer.

Perhaps materials that we don't think of as having magnetic qualities actually do (we just haven't developed academically to the point of being able to measure it) and that is what gravity is.

Magnus
16th March 2012, 16:27
The similarities between gravity and magnetism is very interesting, yet so different.

Gravity probably attracts every known material there is, while the attracting force of magnetism depends on compatible materials.
Its like magnetism is a reduced derivative of gravity.

Electromagnets use an iron core, so does this planet.. could be a hint.

If gravity was magnetism, what degree of intensity would be necessary for the attracting force of magnetism to become compatible with non magnetic materials such as wood?

Lets pretend that magnetism at a certain strength could equal gravitys attracting abilities, if they were the one and same, then the earths gravity would be the enemy of all magnetic storage methods e.g. magnet cards, magnetic tapes, hard drives, etc, but it just isn't.

It seems it's not that simple to overcome the actual difference of properties between magnetism and gravity, as to the cause of understanding the origin of gravity.

Professor Eric Verlinde has indeed entered a tough challenge, beating both the established paradigm and one of physics greatest enigmas at the same time.

The world needs to see a lot more of the kind of spirit and intentions he offer.

Perhaps materials that we don't think of as having magnetic qualities actually do (we just haven't developed academically to the point of being able to measure it) and that is what gravity is.

Yes, the shortage of understanding definately lies with our development.

Another thought that hit me, is when we consider telekinesis, what force should we expect to be involved here?

It's true as it's been said, the more we understand the more questions we have.

Peace of Mind
16th March 2012, 17:14
I don’t really believe in the gravity theory either. My beliefs fall more in line with this explanation as well. We and everything we come into contact with is part of the Earth. We are all made of the same stuff…no matter if it’s rocks, iron, wood, flesh or blood…it’s all the same stuff.

To comprehend this you need to acknowledge the illusion of everything being separated. It only appears this way so it/we can learn more about itself through fragmenting itself….but it is still part of everything. When you know this to be true you’ll start understanding everything around you more on a deeper level, your senses will become stronger, your environments will become easier to manipulate, psychic abilities will start to reveal themselves in subtle and obvious ways….. like thinking about someone and that person will phone you or appear in your reality, Think about something and that something appears, You can hear/see someone hurting and you’ll start feeling some of their pain. Stare with admiring eyes at an inanimate object and it suddenly moves slightly. When sleeping (or in death) your body stays while the mind ventures off. Just a few examples...

We are part of this planet and affect it and everything on it with everything we do, that’s the sign of connection. I imagine an invisible tether keeping us and everything made of the Earth here. If it is not of the Earth…perhaps this will explain why a ufo defies gravity…could this simple explanation mean that it’s not of the Earth? I would say so…even though I already believe aliens are actually from different dimensions…which in a way may further strengthen my point.

Peace