It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Few Thoughts on the Struggle With Quantum Gravity
page: 1share:
Just saw something about how a big problem with quantum gravity was high energies.
Hypothesis: Is it at all possible that, "whatever that which is called 'the gravity field/medium/material/substance/stuff,' is", is sufficiently altered (obviously locally) at high energies?
A very interesting question to consider when considering this topic of gravity (on small scales, maybe on all scales) (and I guess first I must better define my words (or actually first I will state the question:
Where in the universe does "gravity" not exist?
Now one way of considering that question would delve into the nature of 'field'.
What physical concepts exist in the word 'gravity'. What exactly does the word gravity refer to in the universe?
Does it only refer to the occurring act of a body acting on another body?
Or do we actually ""believe"" that the totality of universal space is 4d full of a material/substantial/medium that is what is necessary for any 'body (such as earth) acting on body (such as moon) to be called an act of gravity?
So back to the question:
Where in the universe does "gravity" not exist?
It depends how you define the word of course, and how we are presupposing and proving the Existence (real, existence...existing meaning actually existing... like a rock and tree and atoms and light actually exist, does a _____ actually exist that fills all space that is necessary for the moon to follow the earth)
I imagine one type of person saying gravity only exists relatively near massive bodies, the spatial volume of the universe being very very very large compared to the number of massive bodies in that volume, there will be 4d areas in that volume that do no contain the act of gravity, if the act of gravity is defined as an act between 2 bodies.
If we say, throughout the entire volume of the universe, there is volume (A) that contains massive bodies (such as protons, and neutrons, and quarks, and electrons, and stars and planets etc) and there is volume(B) that contains light, but there is volume (C) (Volume ABC together being the total volume of the universe) that contains no light and no massive bodies,
If is it agreed that: That which allows the moon to continuously follow the Earth, and the milky way to continuously spiral, is 'something beyond light and beyond electrons, protons, neutrons etc. That it is not only an aspect fundamental of the physical body of the earth and the physical body of the moon, that forces the moon to follow the earth, that there is 'something else' and that something else exists independently of those massive bodies but necessarily acts on them, and it is called gravity:
How much of volume C contains "gravity"?
Either 100% of Volume C contains "that 'stuff/material/energy/matter/medium/field' which allows massive body E to move massive body M continuously at a distance, or volume C does not contain 100% (this is also not taking into account I know, that there may be other categories besides: Light, and matter particles like protons, electrons etc. All those other categories would be lumped in with electrons and protons etc. because they would not be light, and they would not be gravity, so likely they would have more in common with the 'standard matter' category)
This also immediately brings to mind the possibility of open or closed universe whatever that can mean, well its quite obvious, but the reason for 'whatever that can mean' is because how many ways could we conceive of the universe being open and being closed.
For quick rough feelers analogy sake to get some bearing, closed would be like a pond with walls, closed is like the idea of walls, and edge, like cell membrane, where atoms and light and stuff is inside a volume, and there is an outside of that volume, then questions would arise what is the nature of that wall, and what is the nature of outside of that wall, and how much stuff leaks outside the wall in what way and what effects on the nature of the stuff occurs at the areas of leaking, if there is no leaking that still arises interestings about physically how that edge may be especially if one believes in real physical existing 'the volume of the universe is 100% full of some type of stuffness in one way or another' or if there are volumes/3d/4d spots in the universe that contain true pure absolute real nothingness, the type of nothingness one must assume is eventually beyond the universe/s.
It would be very very interesting to know, or even approach how to theorize on the idea of: If there is some % of actual real pure nothing that makes up the total 100% volume of the universe, what percent is that? (I am absolutely not interested in talking about word games, some of these words are defined very well, the word nothing might be one of the best defined words, I make it even harder for you to misunderstand by saying, absolutely, pure, really, truly, entirely, truly, really, absolutely, purely, only, nothing nothing nothing.
A volume of this concept must actually exist: word games include: how can you say "nothing exists". The same way there can be a field full of trees, and a field with no trees, and both of those take up volume, and volume is real and exists, and the universe of substance and matter and fields is like a field full of trees, that takes up a volume, and eventually there must be volume beyond all universe/s, and eventually in any/every direction there must be a volume that eventually contains absolutely no fields or material, because it is apriori and any other scientific way or mental or obvious way true that it is eternally impossible for at any given time, at any time, for an infinite quantity of things to exist (if you are one of those creatures that with little thought or no thought are possessed to have the knee jerk reaction to say 'thats not true' you obviously have not thought about it at all, and if you have, not enough), so the question is: the concept of real true pure actual 'nothing' must actually 'exist' as at least, volume beyond the universe/s, but if volume in the universe is taken up by 'nothing', approximately how much, and how might the differences between that answer effect the understanding of the behavior of how Gravity functions, as a mechanistic system, furthermore locally, and from locally gradiently away, under high energy collisions
Hypothesis: Is it at all possible that, "whatever that which is called 'the gravity field/medium/material/substance/stuff,' is", is sufficiently altered (obviously locally) at high energies?
A very interesting question to consider when considering this topic of gravity (on small scales, maybe on all scales) (and I guess first I must better define my words (or actually first I will state the question:
Where in the universe does "gravity" not exist?
Now one way of considering that question would delve into the nature of 'field'.
What physical concepts exist in the word 'gravity'. What exactly does the word gravity refer to in the universe?
Does it only refer to the occurring act of a body acting on another body?
Or do we actually ""believe"" that the totality of universal space is 4d full of a material/substantial/medium that is what is necessary for any 'body (such as earth) acting on body (such as moon) to be called an act of gravity?
So back to the question:
Where in the universe does "gravity" not exist?
It depends how you define the word of course, and how we are presupposing and proving the Existence (real, existence...existing meaning actually existing... like a rock and tree and atoms and light actually exist, does a _____ actually exist that fills all space that is necessary for the moon to follow the earth)
I imagine one type of person saying gravity only exists relatively near massive bodies, the spatial volume of the universe being very very very large compared to the number of massive bodies in that volume, there will be 4d areas in that volume that do no contain the act of gravity, if the act of gravity is defined as an act between 2 bodies.
If we say, throughout the entire volume of the universe, there is volume (A) that contains massive bodies (such as protons, and neutrons, and quarks, and electrons, and stars and planets etc) and there is volume(B) that contains light, but there is volume (C) (Volume ABC together being the total volume of the universe) that contains no light and no massive bodies,
If is it agreed that: That which allows the moon to continuously follow the Earth, and the milky way to continuously spiral, is 'something beyond light and beyond electrons, protons, neutrons etc. That it is not only an aspect fundamental of the physical body of the earth and the physical body of the moon, that forces the moon to follow the earth, that there is 'something else' and that something else exists independently of those massive bodies but necessarily acts on them, and it is called gravity:
How much of volume C contains "gravity"?
Either 100% of Volume C contains "that 'stuff/material/energy/matter/medium/field' which allows massive body E to move massive body M continuously at a distance, or volume C does not contain 100% (this is also not taking into account I know, that there may be other categories besides: Light, and matter particles like protons, electrons etc. All those other categories would be lumped in with electrons and protons etc. because they would not be light, and they would not be gravity, so likely they would have more in common with the 'standard matter' category)
This also immediately brings to mind the possibility of open or closed universe whatever that can mean, well its quite obvious, but the reason for 'whatever that can mean' is because how many ways could we conceive of the universe being open and being closed.
For quick rough feelers analogy sake to get some bearing, closed would be like a pond with walls, closed is like the idea of walls, and edge, like cell membrane, where atoms and light and stuff is inside a volume, and there is an outside of that volume, then questions would arise what is the nature of that wall, and what is the nature of outside of that wall, and how much stuff leaks outside the wall in what way and what effects on the nature of the stuff occurs at the areas of leaking, if there is no leaking that still arises interestings about physically how that edge may be especially if one believes in real physical existing 'the volume of the universe is 100% full of some type of stuffness in one way or another' or if there are volumes/3d/4d spots in the universe that contain true pure absolute real nothingness, the type of nothingness one must assume is eventually beyond the universe/s.
It would be very very interesting to know, or even approach how to theorize on the idea of: If there is some % of actual real pure nothing that makes up the total 100% volume of the universe, what percent is that? (I am absolutely not interested in talking about word games, some of these words are defined very well, the word nothing might be one of the best defined words, I make it even harder for you to misunderstand by saying, absolutely, pure, really, truly, entirely, truly, really, absolutely, purely, only, nothing nothing nothing.
A volume of this concept must actually exist: word games include: how can you say "nothing exists". The same way there can be a field full of trees, and a field with no trees, and both of those take up volume, and volume is real and exists, and the universe of substance and matter and fields is like a field full of trees, that takes up a volume, and eventually there must be volume beyond all universe/s, and eventually in any/every direction there must be a volume that eventually contains absolutely no fields or material, because it is apriori and any other scientific way or mental or obvious way true that it is eternally impossible for at any given time, at any time, for an infinite quantity of things to exist (if you are one of those creatures that with little thought or no thought are possessed to have the knee jerk reaction to say 'thats not true' you obviously have not thought about it at all, and if you have, not enough), so the question is: the concept of real true pure actual 'nothing' must actually 'exist' as at least, volume beyond the universe/s, but if volume in the universe is taken up by 'nothing', approximately how much, and how might the differences between that answer effect the understanding of the behavior of how Gravity functions, as a mechanistic system, furthermore locally, and from locally gradiently away, under high energy collisions
edit on 20-7-2020 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-7-2020 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason
given)
So, If we believe, as it appears we must, that what we refer to when we refer to the word 'gravity' and the possibility of its action: that massive
body Earth can move in direction X and speed Y and without touching the moon, the moon follows it: that the Earth must be continuously touching
'something' 'physical', which continuously touches the moon, which continuously forces the moon to follow, that the volume surrounding and between the
earth and moon must be full of 'somethingness', and theories of gravity and theories of quantum gravity are trying to comprehend the nature of that
somethingness:
That somethingness must take up volume, and if it does not take up absolutely exactly 100% of the remaining volume (leftover after all the 'stuff' that is not 'this gravity stuff' is considered to take up __% of the total universes volume) then it must take up some exact % of the remaining volume, and this seems like it must be relevant to this situation.
That which besides massive bodies, that is responsible for that which is called gravity, must exist in some density to itself.
Is that density alterable? I guess the obvious answer is it must be, as that is likely partly the very mechanism that is gravity, the idea of 'curvature', to make a curve in a substance the substance must be density altered/squished.
One interesting related question is what might the nature of this 'that which is responsible for the action called gravity' (I hope you have followed the reason I must present it that way is to avoid the first thing I discussed which is the possible misspeaking and mishandling of the term and what the more general and specific idea and mechanism refer to) be in intergalactic space: that is to say, is the gravity field/material/medium/substance/stuff/stuffness/thingness/nonnothingness (can I just call this Gravity? and the action of gravity, gravity?) in between galaxies different than inbetween planets or inbetween stars, the answer is likely, obviously, the question is, how much and in what ways:
It is possible the difference in the 'appearance/energy/density' of Gravity in between galaxies (compared to inside galaxies) may be responsible for concepts like dark energy.
The inner dynamics of the galaxy may force the Gravity (medium/material/stuff...responsible for gravity) to act a way, helping the galaxy sustain as a relative body, and the galaxy as a whole (all galaxies) may be acting on the Gravity surrounding the galaxy in a different way (for example inside the galaxy there may be many gravity waves self containing and pulling inward, while the total mass of the galaxy, itself moving through the intergalactic Gravity space, make outward intergalactic Gravity waves, and then these waves from neighboring galaxies may interact:
But thats a whole nother question, can Gravity interact with itself.
I think the answer at first glance (and I have not taken another one yet) must be, obviously, for the nature of the altering of the density, and maybe the idea of a Gravity wave at all, the nature of a bunching/squishing/the idea of something 3d/4d not curved becoming curved, is dependent on point 1a of Gravity "moving at all", when displaced by massive body, must move 1b, and 1 c, and 2a, and 2b must move as well, from the movement of 1a and 1b.
Anyway, I think thats a bit drifting, to bring it back to the Hypothesis:
At high energy experiments, where particles are collided:
Is it possible that the "stuffness, formation, structure, density" of Gravity/gravity is distorted/altered to a significant degree that this is why the equations are having trouble?
Gravity equations on large scales dont have much trouble because the big bodies are quite slow and stable.
Could it be possible that the high energy collisions locally alter the 'large scale constants' of gravity? Or alter the density or structure of the Gravity medium/material/field to the degree that it might be said the constant is still the same relatively in that local 'altered' volume, but it operates differently due to the alteration? Is this related to statements about tiny black holes, are large black holes a large scale example of this Gravity medium density/structure alteration?
Can the material of the Gravity medium be altered into other matters/substances? Does it have different states and or phases?
That somethingness must take up volume, and if it does not take up absolutely exactly 100% of the remaining volume (leftover after all the 'stuff' that is not 'this gravity stuff' is considered to take up __% of the total universes volume) then it must take up some exact % of the remaining volume, and this seems like it must be relevant to this situation.
That which besides massive bodies, that is responsible for that which is called gravity, must exist in some density to itself.
Is that density alterable? I guess the obvious answer is it must be, as that is likely partly the very mechanism that is gravity, the idea of 'curvature', to make a curve in a substance the substance must be density altered/squished.
One interesting related question is what might the nature of this 'that which is responsible for the action called gravity' (I hope you have followed the reason I must present it that way is to avoid the first thing I discussed which is the possible misspeaking and mishandling of the term and what the more general and specific idea and mechanism refer to) be in intergalactic space: that is to say, is the gravity field/material/medium/substance/stuff/stuffness/thingness/nonnothingness (can I just call this Gravity? and the action of gravity, gravity?) in between galaxies different than inbetween planets or inbetween stars, the answer is likely, obviously, the question is, how much and in what ways:
It is possible the difference in the 'appearance/energy/density' of Gravity in between galaxies (compared to inside galaxies) may be responsible for concepts like dark energy.
The inner dynamics of the galaxy may force the Gravity (medium/material/stuff...responsible for gravity) to act a way, helping the galaxy sustain as a relative body, and the galaxy as a whole (all galaxies) may be acting on the Gravity surrounding the galaxy in a different way (for example inside the galaxy there may be many gravity waves self containing and pulling inward, while the total mass of the galaxy, itself moving through the intergalactic Gravity space, make outward intergalactic Gravity waves, and then these waves from neighboring galaxies may interact:
But thats a whole nother question, can Gravity interact with itself.
I think the answer at first glance (and I have not taken another one yet) must be, obviously, for the nature of the altering of the density, and maybe the idea of a Gravity wave at all, the nature of a bunching/squishing/the idea of something 3d/4d not curved becoming curved, is dependent on point 1a of Gravity "moving at all", when displaced by massive body, must move 1b, and 1 c, and 2a, and 2b must move as well, from the movement of 1a and 1b.
Anyway, I think thats a bit drifting, to bring it back to the Hypothesis:
At high energy experiments, where particles are collided:
Is it possible that the "stuffness, formation, structure, density" of Gravity/gravity is distorted/altered to a significant degree that this is why the equations are having trouble?
Gravity equations on large scales dont have much trouble because the big bodies are quite slow and stable.
Could it be possible that the high energy collisions locally alter the 'large scale constants' of gravity? Or alter the density or structure of the Gravity medium/material/field to the degree that it might be said the constant is still the same relatively in that local 'altered' volume, but it operates differently due to the alteration? Is this related to statements about tiny black holes, are large black holes a large scale example of this Gravity medium density/structure alteration?
Can the material of the Gravity medium be altered into other matters/substances? Does it have different states and or phases?
edit on 20-7-2020 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)
a reply to: DanielKoenig
Scientists are not 100% sure on what gravity is.
In a side note, what is the great attractor that is pulling all of these galaxy's in our area of space towards it. I have always found that interesting.
Scientists are not 100% sure on what gravity is.
In a side note, what is the great attractor that is pulling all of these galaxy's in our area of space towards it. I have always found that interesting.
a reply to: DanielKoenig
Scale down or up and electricity and magnetism play a bigger role me thinks. Possible similar to nueron pulses and pathways. Then a cosmic scale berkland currents. I believe we will figure out the quantum and cosmic scales act very much the same. Entanglement also reminds me of positive and negative charge correlations.
Scale down or up and electricity and magnetism play a bigger role me thinks. Possible similar to nueron pulses and pathways. Then a cosmic scale berkland currents. I believe we will figure out the quantum and cosmic scales act very much the same. Entanglement also reminds me of positive and negative charge correlations.
The best advice I have force cracking gravity is understanding what the Higgs Boson is and how it constitutes mass. This is where the numbers are
pointing for a theory of mass. There is a strong, direct relationship between gravity and mass from what I understand.
If you could travel at the speed of light, you will be at a place without mass, like the photon. You will also be at a place without time, whatever that means?
If you could travel at the speed of light, you will be at a place without mass, like the photon. You will also be at a place without time, whatever that means?
I don't think nature has any problems with gravity. The problems are entirely with human-made equations trying to describe it.
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
At high energy experiments, where particles are collided:
Is it possible that the "stuffness, formation, structure, density" of Gravity/gravity is distorted/altered to a significant degree that this is why the equations are having trouble?
We see Newton's model of gravity held up for centuries. It was largely correct, at non-relativistic conditions, but needed some tweaking.
Then Einstein tweaked Newton's model, by introducing a model that is about the same at non-relativistic conditions, but allows for better descriptions in relativistic conditions.
So what we need is another tweak to the gravity model to come along. Both of the above models are still largely correct within their domains of applicability, but we just need a better model than relativity to solve the description in relativity of the density of the center of a black hole being "undefined", which is what relativity says. It's not "undefined" in nature. We may not know what it is, and that's part of the problem, but I'm pretty sure nature has no problem with black hole centers being undefined like our equations do. Current quantum theory can't handle gravity at high energies either, because it's "non-renormalizabe", unlike other interactions which use renormalization in the models.
I'm not a fan of string theory since it has failed to yield experimentally verifiable predictions so far, but I can see why it's being considered as a possible solution to the high energy gravity problem. Einstein's math shows the black hole singularity as infinitely small and that's what generates a math problem since dividing by zero gives nonsense answers. If tiny strings are involved, they may be really, really, really small, but they are not infinitely small so would not have the same dividing by zero problem as Einstein's math.
I like Sera Cremonini's mentioning "string theory or some suitable generalization" to solve our math problems, so the answer may not be with string theory, but it's still considered a possibility.
Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
The crucial point is that this approximate description of gravity will break down at some energy scale — or equivalently, below some length.
Above this energy scale, or below the associated length scale, we expect to find new degrees of freedom and new symmetries. To capture these features accurately we need a new theoretical framework. This is precisely where string theory or some suitable generalization comes in: According to string theory, at very short distances, we would see that gravitons and other particles are extended objects, called strings. Studying this possibility can teach us valuable lessons about the quantum behavior of gravity.
-Sera Cremonini, a theoretical physicist at Lehigh University
edit on 2020720 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
a reply to: cognizant420
Its likely a large group of galaxies.
what is the great attractor that is pulling all of these galaxy's in our area of space towards it. I have always found that interesting.
Its likely a large group of galaxies.
I've been struggling with gravity since i reached 280 pounds, lol
What I'm curious about is high-frequency gravity waves. I have to assume that like any EM wave, gravity can manifest in both very low frequencies as
well as very high frequencies, and I wonder if different frequencies can have different spacetime warping effects.
Gravitational waves (not gravity waves) cause space (and things in space, like the Earth) to jiggle like jello. The higher the frequency, the faster the jiggling. As two black holes do their merging spiral and dance closer and closer together, the frequency increases. Scientists have modeled the gravity wave frequency increase with audio representation, and we can hear a "chirp", but it's just an audio analog, there's not really a true audible chirp. However it gives us a way to try to try to imagine the frequency increase of the gravitational waves, by using our ears, so it may be helpful that way to listen to the chirp. You can see the frequency plots and hear the chirps here:
originally posted by: Blue Shift
What I'm curious about is high-frequency gravity waves. I have to assume that like any EM wave, gravity can manifest in both very low frequencies as well as very high frequencies, and I wonder if different frequencies can have different spacetime warping effects.
LIGO Gravitational Wave Chirp
Chirp pattern of gravitational waves detected by LIGO on September 14, 2015.
edit on 2020720 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Nowhere in the universe does gravity "not exist". An object with mass exerts gravity over an infinite distance with a fall off directly proportional
to the inverse of the square of its distance.
a reply to: DanielKoenig
a reply to: DanielKoenig
a reply to: DanielKoenig
Hi Daniel.
I will explain and show my model for gravity.
My model is geometric, quaternionic and octonionic (rotational).
The universe began as a 3d hyper-sphere of length, height and width dimensions/axis' of dark energy/light. Represented as 3 colours red/green/blue (i have also used light and dark shades of the colours again as representation dark for positive and light for negative aspects). The 3 dimensions/axis' are quaternions. They are a triality. Duality exists within it. In this case as opposite partner pair aspects of the dimensions/axis'. Length = (+ f/w, - b/w), height = (+up, - down) and width = (+right, - left).
As the hyper-sphere propagated and the dimensions/axis' rotated. When the vertical plane rotates through the horizontal plane. Entanglement occurs. New points are created. And the hyper-sphere is transformed into a cube (as the vertical returns to normal orientation),
The new points created form the eight corners of the cube by adding/creating another set of 4 axis'. These are octonions.
The diagram is a 2d representation of a 3d space/object. The near top and far bottom corners and their axis is hidden by the centre. I have tried to label the points and axis as clearly as i can. Labels in the diagram. V = vector, S + T = scalar and tensor, T = tensor at centre point, G = gravity (also same position as tensor points), purple W and Z bosons and purple ?'s. I am not sure if these axis' perform functions of their own. Or, if they are reflected/mirrored effects of the W and Z as in parity symmetry.
The next pic is apparently a recently found appendix to Einstein's 1930 Unified Theory.
And this is interesting about cubes.
phys.org...
Please take note. My model might be incorrect.
Hi Daniel.
I will explain and show my model for gravity.
My model is geometric, quaternionic and octonionic (rotational).
The universe began as a 3d hyper-sphere of length, height and width dimensions/axis' of dark energy/light. Represented as 3 colours red/green/blue (i have also used light and dark shades of the colours again as representation dark for positive and light for negative aspects). The 3 dimensions/axis' are quaternions. They are a triality. Duality exists within it. In this case as opposite partner pair aspects of the dimensions/axis'. Length = (+ f/w, - b/w), height = (+up, - down) and width = (+right, - left).
As the hyper-sphere propagated and the dimensions/axis' rotated. When the vertical plane rotates through the horizontal plane. Entanglement occurs. New points are created. And the hyper-sphere is transformed into a cube (as the vertical returns to normal orientation),
The new points created form the eight corners of the cube by adding/creating another set of 4 axis'. These are octonions.
The diagram is a 2d representation of a 3d space/object. The near top and far bottom corners and their axis is hidden by the centre. I have tried to label the points and axis as clearly as i can. Labels in the diagram. V = vector, S + T = scalar and tensor, T = tensor at centre point, G = gravity (also same position as tensor points), purple W and Z bosons and purple ?'s. I am not sure if these axis' perform functions of their own. Or, if they are reflected/mirrored effects of the W and Z as in parity symmetry.
The next pic is apparently a recently found appendix to Einstein's 1930 Unified Theory.
And this is interesting about cubes.
phys.org...
Please take note. My model might be incorrect.
a reply to: Arbitrageur
An experiment has never been taken out under the condition of a completely still Earth in the gravity field, all evidence of 'gravity' is of the Earth in movement, quite relatively extreme movement too, its not traveling 5 mph or 25 or 55 mph through the gravity field, this is just an interesting thought, I dont know if it is known if the Earth was completely still and you placed the still moon at the same distance it is from the earth now, what would happen.
Another interesting wondering, with no hidden agenda, pure thought for towards better absolute total understanding sake: If you took 1 spherical magnet, and scaled it up to the size of the earth, and took another spherical magnet and scaled it up the size of the moon, and placed them at a distance from one another, what would happen, and then the same thing what would happen if you placed them at the distance and at the presumed velocity of Earth through space and with rotation.
One of my main questions of interest in the op was: what percentage of the volume of the universe contains gravity.
This question can be scaled down to everything: what percentage of the Earths volume (taking into consideration an upper and lower bound to your atmosphere extent ambiguity) is gravity, what percentage of an oceans volume is gravity, what percentage of an apples volume is gravity, what percentage of an atoms volume is gravity.
There are solid items that you can place in water and the components of the water do not enter inside the solid item: how does gravity interact inside solid bodies like the earth, do the components of the gravity field flow freely, are they tightly bound to one another.
Does a bird flapping its wings flap its wings against the gravity medium? Does it locally move the gravity medium?
How many degrees of freedom does the gravity medium have locally?
How much further would the moon have to be from the earth for it to not circle it?
And what is the physical mechanical occurrence as to which at 1cm of that boundary line the moon is circling, and 1cm over it is no longer in the earths grasp.
You would agree that the way in which the moon circles the earth is closer to the way in which a surfer can steadily ride a wave, than for example the way in which a caterpillar scoochs along a branch. Interestingly enough those ocean waves are partially resulted from gravity?
We believe in physics do we not. We believe in something and nothing, do we not. We believe that that which is something results in physics. (I believe nothing could possibly play some role, maybe obviously because ultimately 'volume of nothing' is the 3d backdrop/foredrop' in which the many constituents of somethings interact.
We believe that the earth and moon are something.
We believe we have observed the Earth moving in a direction. We believe we have observed the moon moving in that same direction.
We believe the Earth is not tied to the moon with a rope. We believe the body of the earth is not touching the body of the moon.
We therefore must believe there is only one way for a body that is not attached to another body to make that other body move. And that way is mutual existence in medium.
The body of the Earth is touching/moving a medium, which the moon exists in and is moved by.
I absolutely hate the standard 2d depiction of 'spacetime curvature', because why not show the depiction in 3d, how it actually is, 4d actually, how much harder is that to depict. It is much more interesting I think, and not so straight forward, maybe.
Because of that previous wondering example I provided of the boundary between Moon being in Earths gravity and moon not. You must agree that eventually if you place moon further and further away from Earth in trials, 100 feet further, 100 feet further, still in, 100 feet further, still in, 10000 feet further, still in, eventually we would reach a point where 1 cm it is in, and a cm further it is not.
Of course that is likely wrong, or at least it can not be so small of a range of in or out, because of certain things about angular momentum and bumping and depending on the point in Earths revolution it might be different, but roughly, closer to finely than roughly, that idea is correct: So a 2d depicting of a half a sphere surrounding earth is not the correct concept, because it makes it appear as if the volume from the earth directly to the wall of the half (space time curved) sphere is empty, as if the moon were placed closer to the earth it would no longer be touching the walls of that half sphere curve, then how would gravity (a half sphere curve surrounding earth) act upon it.
I mean I have came to this realization a long time ago, said these over and over again, and if Einstein was alive and could discuss these with me he would come up with the solutions for another novel prize.
Physics, physics, physical, object, body, mediums. Physics. Physics.
In what physical medium, with what body, when a body is placed in what physical 3d medium, are other bodies attracted to it?
Conceptual, ideas, ideas, ideas, ideals, physics, ideas, physical ideas, large scale, large scale, large physical bodies, large physical volumes, large physical objects, ideas, physics, physical ideas, concepts, objects, physical objects, ideas about objects, ideas about volume, ideas about spatialness, ideas about interactions, ideas about possibilities. Truth, ignorance, incomplete truth, ideas about Truth, ideas about possible truth, Truth, Ignorance, some ideas that work, using ideas that work, using knowledge, use knowledge together, to have ideas, about what is missing from knowledge.
Have an idea. Conceive, conceptualize. Theorize, invent an idea, imagine. In what theoretical physical 3d (with 4d potential, meaning can move, and possibly result in novelty from its 3d abilities with its 4d action) medium, water, pudding, jello, metal, molten metal, snow, concrete, wet concrete, slinkies, springs, feathers, when a physical body is placed in the middle of the 3d medium, and another physical body is placed at a distance, in varying trials, xfeet away, x-100feet away, x-200feet away etc. will, at some non trivial distance, will the bodies begin to attract to one another?
An experiment has never been taken out under the condition of a completely still Earth in the gravity field, all evidence of 'gravity' is of the Earth in movement, quite relatively extreme movement too, its not traveling 5 mph or 25 or 55 mph through the gravity field, this is just an interesting thought, I dont know if it is known if the Earth was completely still and you placed the still moon at the same distance it is from the earth now, what would happen.
Another interesting wondering, with no hidden agenda, pure thought for towards better absolute total understanding sake: If you took 1 spherical magnet, and scaled it up to the size of the earth, and took another spherical magnet and scaled it up the size of the moon, and placed them at a distance from one another, what would happen, and then the same thing what would happen if you placed them at the distance and at the presumed velocity of Earth through space and with rotation.
One of my main questions of interest in the op was: what percentage of the volume of the universe contains gravity.
This question can be scaled down to everything: what percentage of the Earths volume (taking into consideration an upper and lower bound to your atmosphere extent ambiguity) is gravity, what percentage of an oceans volume is gravity, what percentage of an apples volume is gravity, what percentage of an atoms volume is gravity.
There are solid items that you can place in water and the components of the water do not enter inside the solid item: how does gravity interact inside solid bodies like the earth, do the components of the gravity field flow freely, are they tightly bound to one another.
Does a bird flapping its wings flap its wings against the gravity medium? Does it locally move the gravity medium?
How many degrees of freedom does the gravity medium have locally?
How much further would the moon have to be from the earth for it to not circle it?
And what is the physical mechanical occurrence as to which at 1cm of that boundary line the moon is circling, and 1cm over it is no longer in the earths grasp.
You would agree that the way in which the moon circles the earth is closer to the way in which a surfer can steadily ride a wave, than for example the way in which a caterpillar scoochs along a branch. Interestingly enough those ocean waves are partially resulted from gravity?
We believe in physics do we not. We believe in something and nothing, do we not. We believe that that which is something results in physics. (I believe nothing could possibly play some role, maybe obviously because ultimately 'volume of nothing' is the 3d backdrop/foredrop' in which the many constituents of somethings interact.
We believe that the earth and moon are something.
We believe we have observed the Earth moving in a direction. We believe we have observed the moon moving in that same direction.
We believe the Earth is not tied to the moon with a rope. We believe the body of the earth is not touching the body of the moon.
We therefore must believe there is only one way for a body that is not attached to another body to make that other body move. And that way is mutual existence in medium.
The body of the Earth is touching/moving a medium, which the moon exists in and is moved by.
I absolutely hate the standard 2d depiction of 'spacetime curvature', because why not show the depiction in 3d, how it actually is, 4d actually, how much harder is that to depict. It is much more interesting I think, and not so straight forward, maybe.
Because of that previous wondering example I provided of the boundary between Moon being in Earths gravity and moon not. You must agree that eventually if you place moon further and further away from Earth in trials, 100 feet further, 100 feet further, still in, 100 feet further, still in, 10000 feet further, still in, eventually we would reach a point where 1 cm it is in, and a cm further it is not.
Of course that is likely wrong, or at least it can not be so small of a range of in or out, because of certain things about angular momentum and bumping and depending on the point in Earths revolution it might be different, but roughly, closer to finely than roughly, that idea is correct: So a 2d depicting of a half a sphere surrounding earth is not the correct concept, because it makes it appear as if the volume from the earth directly to the wall of the half (space time curved) sphere is empty, as if the moon were placed closer to the earth it would no longer be touching the walls of that half sphere curve, then how would gravity (a half sphere curve surrounding earth) act upon it.
I mean I have came to this realization a long time ago, said these over and over again, and if Einstein was alive and could discuss these with me he would come up with the solutions for another novel prize.
Physics, physics, physical, object, body, mediums. Physics. Physics.
In what physical medium, with what body, when a body is placed in what physical 3d medium, are other bodies attracted to it?
Conceptual, ideas, ideas, ideas, ideals, physics, ideas, physical ideas, large scale, large scale, large physical bodies, large physical volumes, large physical objects, ideas, physics, physical ideas, concepts, objects, physical objects, ideas about objects, ideas about volume, ideas about spatialness, ideas about interactions, ideas about possibilities. Truth, ignorance, incomplete truth, ideas about Truth, ideas about possible truth, Truth, Ignorance, some ideas that work, using ideas that work, using knowledge, use knowledge together, to have ideas, about what is missing from knowledge.
Have an idea. Conceive, conceptualize. Theorize, invent an idea, imagine. In what theoretical physical 3d (with 4d potential, meaning can move, and possibly result in novelty from its 3d abilities with its 4d action) medium, water, pudding, jello, metal, molten metal, snow, concrete, wet concrete, slinkies, springs, feathers, when a physical body is placed in the middle of the 3d medium, and another physical body is placed at a distance, in varying trials, xfeet away, x-100feet away, x-200feet away etc. will, at some non trivial distance, will the bodies begin to attract to one another?
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Can you think of a theoretical conceptual way that any physical medium would physically react in that way? Or might we be (winkwink) forced to consider that the nature of the Earths generally forward motion and possibly even rotation may play a role in the moons following of it?
I am completely unbiased, if I could fathom in my head or see a drawing of the technique by which an object placed in the center of a 3d/4d medium would make another object at a non trivial distance travel towards it I would be entirely thrilled.
It is much easier to think of a most general way by considering the Earths movement as at least a partial cause of the moons following, I cant believe I have said these time and time again to you and it seems you have never attempted to think about it. Or exchange in honest dialogue about the ideas. If the physics, underlying physicality of gravity mechanism is not comprehended at the large scales, I only imagine that helps in it being hard to understand what is happening at the smallest scales.
I am not saying gravity medium is anything like water, but the gravity medium is a 4d medium and water is a 4d medium. What is the definition of a medium? a generally large amount of generally homogenous connected parts?
It is important to think about the nature of the gravity mediums parts and how they are connected.
Large scale gravity between earth and sun and moon etc. are like large scale detection of the movements of different boats and bouys and waves and ripples and undercurrent and wakes.. but hey thats the 2d model I dont like. How about submarines and fish and 4d waves under the surface. The trouble of quantum gravity is like the trouble of understanding what happens to water molecules, where do they go, what do they turn into, what is their spin and momentum and magnetic force when they are present at the location of a detonation, of this type and that type and other types at different velocities and speeds. How the molecules break down, how if a space absent of water is created if however small,
This is why it is important to think about how the gravity medium is constituted, it is physical, is it more likely it shares in common fundamental traits all physical objects share in common, that a large physical object is made up of smaller physical objects, or is it more likely it is the only thing known in the universe, and happens to be by far the largest object in the universe, that is made of no smaller parts, what is the conceptual, physical blue print idea about the theoretical possibility of such an object existing. It wouldnt bother me if you considered both possibilities and worked out the conceptual theoretical physical potentials of both.
I admit I have not looked deeply up to date on the latest quantum gravity research and theorization, it may be that gravity is entirely accurately conceptually comprehended, and that the struggle with quantum gravity is the struggle of equations of prediction, I just assumed this was not the case, because 1) I have not seen much about the physicality of the gravity medium and the nature of its constituents (how they are attached, with what strength they are attached) discussed, and because can it really be thought there could be equations of prediction of how the material of the gravity medium will react when a billion protons collide with a billion protons at the speed of light? Is the problem of quantum gravity, that under those particle collisions, gravities effect on those particles is different than theory? That is a sweet and juicy problem, and derives in all sorts of things about current understanding from about quarks to the nature of electro magnetism and how its medium works and light, how it relates to gravity even, etc. all sorts of, or possibly just a handful, of assumptions that may nearly perfectly work on large scales, but fuzzily show holes in the assumptions on smaller scales, or due to incomplete physical conceptual understanding of the actual physicality of the physical objects attempted to be physically described with mapping frameworks.
I guess part of an answer to something I said above is, there would be a rough theory about how, the limits of, water molecules would react at the location (and those just beyond the location, and just beyond) of a detonation, the physics of their physical limits is generally understood, it is known they could shoot in all directions, some would lose their electrons and stuff, molecular bonds would break locally, but to keep with the particle collision, the prediction equations would be about the material of whatever detonated, and measuring what direction these 1000 pieces would go and these 1000 pieces would go, and over time intervals how their movement would react?
So, is it possible the nature at the finest level of the gravity medium is such that, when a high enough energy collision occurs at a location, the gravity medium is altered in a fundamental way, and so part of the trouble with the measuring of the results of particle collisions may be, that the local gravity medium is disturbed possibly very complexly/chaotically ( as particles of an excited gas might, or particles flung from a thrown liquid magnet onto the floor: each particle might act differently each trial) and the constituents of the local gravity medium at ground zero of particle collision 'moves' differently each trial, and so each particle resulting from the particle collision has an extremely subtly different effect from local gravity? Yes, I think there is something to this all. I went on a field trip to a particle accelerator when I was like 12 years old maybe, and that really sparked my imagination.
The ideas stated in this post and the 2OP is enough to help improve the understanding of gravity, if these writings are used to win the nobel I do hope you are so noble as to give me $100. I just want to help and be helped, I want to solve mystery, I want to achieve excellence, I want to do things others cant, I have strongly striven toward that nature since I was young, and will continue to. Understanding of physics is incomplete, there is ignorance, there is mystery, if it was complete I would have no interest in these things, I mean to learn them would be interesting and to know facts would be interesting, but it is the sport that is most interesting to me, that however many of however many great intelligence, that the most intelligent humans that are living, that dedicate themselves to problems around the clock for life, that still there is mystery, still there is lacking, still there is incomplete, still there is limit in imagination, understanding, and thought. That I could possibly be the one to achieve what others couldnt, is exciting, do you understand that allure, that excitement? Partially the allure of great artistry, great works of art that no other human did or could have thought of, this is the allure of great cars and great architecture, and great inventions, to try to be special, to try to be great.
Can you think of a theoretical conceptual way that any physical medium would physically react in that way? Or might we be (winkwink) forced to consider that the nature of the Earths generally forward motion and possibly even rotation may play a role in the moons following of it?
I am completely unbiased, if I could fathom in my head or see a drawing of the technique by which an object placed in the center of a 3d/4d medium would make another object at a non trivial distance travel towards it I would be entirely thrilled.
It is much easier to think of a most general way by considering the Earths movement as at least a partial cause of the moons following, I cant believe I have said these time and time again to you and it seems you have never attempted to think about it. Or exchange in honest dialogue about the ideas. If the physics, underlying physicality of gravity mechanism is not comprehended at the large scales, I only imagine that helps in it being hard to understand what is happening at the smallest scales.
I am not saying gravity medium is anything like water, but the gravity medium is a 4d medium and water is a 4d medium. What is the definition of a medium? a generally large amount of generally homogenous connected parts?
It is important to think about the nature of the gravity mediums parts and how they are connected.
Large scale gravity between earth and sun and moon etc. are like large scale detection of the movements of different boats and bouys and waves and ripples and undercurrent and wakes.. but hey thats the 2d model I dont like. How about submarines and fish and 4d waves under the surface. The trouble of quantum gravity is like the trouble of understanding what happens to water molecules, where do they go, what do they turn into, what is their spin and momentum and magnetic force when they are present at the location of a detonation, of this type and that type and other types at different velocities and speeds. How the molecules break down, how if a space absent of water is created if however small,
This is why it is important to think about how the gravity medium is constituted, it is physical, is it more likely it shares in common fundamental traits all physical objects share in common, that a large physical object is made up of smaller physical objects, or is it more likely it is the only thing known in the universe, and happens to be by far the largest object in the universe, that is made of no smaller parts, what is the conceptual, physical blue print idea about the theoretical possibility of such an object existing. It wouldnt bother me if you considered both possibilities and worked out the conceptual theoretical physical potentials of both.
I admit I have not looked deeply up to date on the latest quantum gravity research and theorization, it may be that gravity is entirely accurately conceptually comprehended, and that the struggle with quantum gravity is the struggle of equations of prediction, I just assumed this was not the case, because 1) I have not seen much about the physicality of the gravity medium and the nature of its constituents (how they are attached, with what strength they are attached) discussed, and because can it really be thought there could be equations of prediction of how the material of the gravity medium will react when a billion protons collide with a billion protons at the speed of light? Is the problem of quantum gravity, that under those particle collisions, gravities effect on those particles is different than theory? That is a sweet and juicy problem, and derives in all sorts of things about current understanding from about quarks to the nature of electro magnetism and how its medium works and light, how it relates to gravity even, etc. all sorts of, or possibly just a handful, of assumptions that may nearly perfectly work on large scales, but fuzzily show holes in the assumptions on smaller scales, or due to incomplete physical conceptual understanding of the actual physicality of the physical objects attempted to be physically described with mapping frameworks.
I guess part of an answer to something I said above is, there would be a rough theory about how, the limits of, water molecules would react at the location (and those just beyond the location, and just beyond) of a detonation, the physics of their physical limits is generally understood, it is known they could shoot in all directions, some would lose their electrons and stuff, molecular bonds would break locally, but to keep with the particle collision, the prediction equations would be about the material of whatever detonated, and measuring what direction these 1000 pieces would go and these 1000 pieces would go, and over time intervals how their movement would react?
So, is it possible the nature at the finest level of the gravity medium is such that, when a high enough energy collision occurs at a location, the gravity medium is altered in a fundamental way, and so part of the trouble with the measuring of the results of particle collisions may be, that the local gravity medium is disturbed possibly very complexly/chaotically ( as particles of an excited gas might, or particles flung from a thrown liquid magnet onto the floor: each particle might act differently each trial) and the constituents of the local gravity medium at ground zero of particle collision 'moves' differently each trial, and so each particle resulting from the particle collision has an extremely subtly different effect from local gravity? Yes, I think there is something to this all. I went on a field trip to a particle accelerator when I was like 12 years old maybe, and that really sparked my imagination.
The ideas stated in this post and the 2OP is enough to help improve the understanding of gravity, if these writings are used to win the nobel I do hope you are so noble as to give me $100. I just want to help and be helped, I want to solve mystery, I want to achieve excellence, I want to do things others cant, I have strongly striven toward that nature since I was young, and will continue to. Understanding of physics is incomplete, there is ignorance, there is mystery, if it was complete I would have no interest in these things, I mean to learn them would be interesting and to know facts would be interesting, but it is the sport that is most interesting to me, that however many of however many great intelligence, that the most intelligent humans that are living, that dedicate themselves to problems around the clock for life, that still there is mystery, still there is lacking, still there is incomplete, still there is limit in imagination, understanding, and thought. That I could possibly be the one to achieve what others couldnt, is exciting, do you understand that allure, that excitement? Partially the allure of great artistry, great works of art that no other human did or could have thought of, this is the allure of great cars and great architecture, and great inventions, to try to be special, to try to be great.
a reply to: DanielKoenig
"Nothing" existing is not that far out. From an armchair physicist perspective. Pseudoscience likely:
1. Gravity is a b#@$&. It's minblowing weakness compared to all fundamental forces gave rise to concepts of "super-gravity" and "Super-symmetry", which is a technical thing concerning spin and opposite superpartners, but attempts to explain the dilution of gravity. (Spoiler: Goes through other dimensions)
2. The voids between gravitational attractors is not empty. There is no empty space, nowhere in the observerable universe contains "nothing". You will always have vacuum energy (Higgs Field) and all the diffuse cosmic things that fill the vacuum of space.
Concepts like nothingness come into play in certain multiverse theories. Bubbles of stuff separated by nothingness.
Increasingly though, concepts like vacuum genesis and M-theory give you this universe as a small insignificant marble or sheet-like membrane in multiverse or bulk. There is increasingly something else beyond or underlying.
Even a primordial scaler field in its superfluidity still has "something" in the form of potential energy to be unleashed. See cosmological constant.
Here is a really hard to understand Caltech explanation of said constant:
ned.ipac.caltech.edu...
In Sci-fi it earned the name subspace, but it could be the underlying field which all matter in our insignificant universe was unleashed.
And here is a cool link on voids within Hubble space, not empty, but it will paint you a picture of gravitational filaments, great attractors, and so forth.
en.m.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)
so the question is: the concept of real true pure actual 'nothing' must actually 'exist' as at least, volume beyond the universe/s, but if volume in the universe is taken up by 'nothing', approximately how much, and how might the differences between that answer effect the understanding of the behavior of how Gravity functions, as a mechanistic system, furthermore locally, and from locally gradiently away, under high energy collisions
"Nothing" existing is not that far out. From an armchair physicist perspective. Pseudoscience likely:
1. Gravity is a b#@$&. It's minblowing weakness compared to all fundamental forces gave rise to concepts of "super-gravity" and "Super-symmetry", which is a technical thing concerning spin and opposite superpartners, but attempts to explain the dilution of gravity. (Spoiler: Goes through other dimensions)
2. The voids between gravitational attractors is not empty. There is no empty space, nowhere in the observerable universe contains "nothing". You will always have vacuum energy (Higgs Field) and all the diffuse cosmic things that fill the vacuum of space.
Concepts like nothingness come into play in certain multiverse theories. Bubbles of stuff separated by nothingness.
Increasingly though, concepts like vacuum genesis and M-theory give you this universe as a small insignificant marble or sheet-like membrane in multiverse or bulk. There is increasingly something else beyond or underlying.
Even a primordial scaler field in its superfluidity still has "something" in the form of potential energy to be unleashed. See cosmological constant.
Here is a really hard to understand Caltech explanation of said constant:
ned.ipac.caltech.edu...
In Sci-fi it earned the name subspace, but it could be the underlying field which all matter in our insignificant universe was unleashed.
And here is a cool link on voids within Hubble space, not empty, but it will paint you a picture of gravitational filaments, great attractors, and so forth.
en.m.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)
edit on 25-7-2020 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)
I think I touched upon in the Op, do the constituents of the gravity medium have mass, and do they interact with each other?
Well the definition of mass is partly strange (especially when considering all the volume where the gravity medium exists, how light fits in there, if its believed the gravity medium moves at the speed of light, and light is very closely linked with this medium, but I seem to strongly suggest later in this post it seems the gravity medium must have mass, and it is said to move at speed of light, and light is closely linked to it, but light doesnt have mass, and I seem to agree with this, and I am writing this section after I have written the rest of this post and now considering that in some sense of the term the gravity medium does not have mass, possibly, in the sense of the concept that mass seems to be all about if a quanta of physicality can be halted, captured, remained, controlled, stabilized, or used to build, and because light cannot do this, it is defined as not being of the characteristic of mass, and because the gravity medium can not have this done to it, it is said to be not possessing the characteristic of mass: so this is my thoughts after further considering the rest of this post I just wrote, and so now I dont know where I am at with it) but anyway, logic on first glance says they must:
Firstly, Massive bodies interact with the constituents of the gravity medium, and well, a large number of this, a volume of the gravity medium must be massive enough (and according to the gravity in motion theory, energetic) to carry the mass of the moon: It would seem absurd to suggest the gravity medium is massless yet can hold and carry the weight of the moon at ___mph
Secondly, the Earth touches the gravity medium most immediately closest to it, and that part of the gravity medium effected by the Earths touch, touches the part of the gravity medium next to it, and it effects what it touches next to it, and this occurs all the way to and beyond the moon, so if the parts that make up the gravity medium did not interact with one another, how could the parts the Earth touches most near it, eventually result in the parts being touched most near the moon, if the parts between the Earth and Moon, did not interact with one another.
It is very strange, shocking, appalling to think about it may be this way. The number of atoms that compose the Earth is baffling enough, throw in the sun and you lose your mind, then consider the number of atoms in other planets we know and stars etc. this quantity of matter is ....speechless. To think that every cubed planck volume surrounding all massive bodies and galaxies, is composed of a medium with 'tightly?' connected parts, the parts likely being smaller than atoms... the number of them... its just.... the mind almost doesnt allow it to be accepted, but how does it accept 10,000 stars, or a billion more. alas
(and now the second edit, after writing the first post, and then writing the first (parenthesis second thoughts) rethought, a possible revision clarification: that being, and this where my confusion with the concept of the term mass, the physical meaning, and its relation to the physical definition and meaning of 'energy', and my intuitive assumption that the idea of mass, of matter, the core absolute idea of those terms, being of, physical items which exist, but it doesnt matter, if it is solely a manner of 'capturing, stability, and building blocks', it is made for convenience, well, this problem stems from my unwilling to believe in there existing "something" that is "only itself, only, energy"
This relating to the idea that: light can interact with massive objects but is not a massive object: and the possible belief by smart people (the smartest people ever can still have moments of wrongness) that gravity medium is not a massive object: making my above statements about the gravity medium being of mass because it interacts with itself and a massive body like the moon, incorrect.
I mean there must be some point however, on first glance could it be possible for a massless medium to carry the weight of the moon, how much power or force does a lot of light have, is that entirely irrelevant, a few of the only known cases of massless things existing, and we might not look for anything in common?
Would be interesting for how my statement about gravity medium parts interacting with them self, if that holds up, or if massless items of a class could possibly interact with one another.
In the end, if God exists is it foolish to want to know how it made the gravity medium and light, is it just silly, is it kind of creepy, clawing at the fundamental fabric of the cage, and making these words up for it. I believe God exists and it may be curious, it may be part of the purpose, to see how intelligent beings of different types on different planets handle the science, transhumanism, Ai, robots, space travel, histories, endless endlessly fascinating histories and cultures, beauties and joys and loves, asteroid mining and colonizing planets, but is it just stupid to want to know the nature of the gravity medium fundamentally, whether it possesses mass or not and its relation to light, oh I forgot I was spieling on 'energy' too: the existence of "energy" as "something", as "something which is not a thing, but an attribute of a thing, but does not "exist" but does "exist""
(Oh and earlier above mention that a big distinction between mass and not mass, seems to be stability if it can be used to build: quarks are mass, protons are mass, electrons are mass, because they can be slowed down and used to build things, and light cannot be slowed down as such, but! could those things stablely exist and be built, if it were not for light? were not for lights role in EM? )
A ball is mass, you take a ball of mass, and throw it, and all the sudden that ball is that mass, but also energy. What is energy, is energy a "thing" like a ball is a thing, like an electron is a thing:
A while ago I came to the conclusion that "energy" was movement, due to that ball example and others, and tried to think of an example of energy that was not related to movement and dont think I did: which is when I got unnerved when the area of light was brought up, and said to be only energy:
And how this related to the stopability of what is termed mass and matter (are quarks stoppable, are electrons stoppable? ) and how light was unstoppable, and so light was not mass or matter, and light only ever moves and moves, never slower or faster, so light is energy, because it has force, but is not matter, but light is something, light is 'substancey' life is closer to being 'stuffness' than 'pure nothingness', and all examples of 'energy' I know of is when stuffness or somethingness or itemness or thingness or matter or mass is moving, the moving is the energy, it takes movement to move mass, and it takes mass moving for the concept in action of 'movement to exist'.
Well the definition of mass is partly strange (especially when considering all the volume where the gravity medium exists, how light fits in there, if its believed the gravity medium moves at the speed of light, and light is very closely linked with this medium, but I seem to strongly suggest later in this post it seems the gravity medium must have mass, and it is said to move at speed of light, and light is closely linked to it, but light doesnt have mass, and I seem to agree with this, and I am writing this section after I have written the rest of this post and now considering that in some sense of the term the gravity medium does not have mass, possibly, in the sense of the concept that mass seems to be all about if a quanta of physicality can be halted, captured, remained, controlled, stabilized, or used to build, and because light cannot do this, it is defined as not being of the characteristic of mass, and because the gravity medium can not have this done to it, it is said to be not possessing the characteristic of mass: so this is my thoughts after further considering the rest of this post I just wrote, and so now I dont know where I am at with it) but anyway, logic on first glance says they must:
Firstly, Massive bodies interact with the constituents of the gravity medium, and well, a large number of this, a volume of the gravity medium must be massive enough (and according to the gravity in motion theory, energetic) to carry the mass of the moon: It would seem absurd to suggest the gravity medium is massless yet can hold and carry the weight of the moon at ___mph
Secondly, the Earth touches the gravity medium most immediately closest to it, and that part of the gravity medium effected by the Earths touch, touches the part of the gravity medium next to it, and it effects what it touches next to it, and this occurs all the way to and beyond the moon, so if the parts that make up the gravity medium did not interact with one another, how could the parts the Earth touches most near it, eventually result in the parts being touched most near the moon, if the parts between the Earth and Moon, did not interact with one another.
It is very strange, shocking, appalling to think about it may be this way. The number of atoms that compose the Earth is baffling enough, throw in the sun and you lose your mind, then consider the number of atoms in other planets we know and stars etc. this quantity of matter is ....speechless. To think that every cubed planck volume surrounding all massive bodies and galaxies, is composed of a medium with 'tightly?' connected parts, the parts likely being smaller than atoms... the number of them... its just.... the mind almost doesnt allow it to be accepted, but how does it accept 10,000 stars, or a billion more. alas
(and now the second edit, after writing the first post, and then writing the first (parenthesis second thoughts) rethought, a possible revision clarification: that being, and this where my confusion with the concept of the term mass, the physical meaning, and its relation to the physical definition and meaning of 'energy', and my intuitive assumption that the idea of mass, of matter, the core absolute idea of those terms, being of, physical items which exist, but it doesnt matter, if it is solely a manner of 'capturing, stability, and building blocks', it is made for convenience, well, this problem stems from my unwilling to believe in there existing "something" that is "only itself, only, energy"
This relating to the idea that: light can interact with massive objects but is not a massive object: and the possible belief by smart people (the smartest people ever can still have moments of wrongness) that gravity medium is not a massive object: making my above statements about the gravity medium being of mass because it interacts with itself and a massive body like the moon, incorrect.
I mean there must be some point however, on first glance could it be possible for a massless medium to carry the weight of the moon, how much power or force does a lot of light have, is that entirely irrelevant, a few of the only known cases of massless things existing, and we might not look for anything in common?
Would be interesting for how my statement about gravity medium parts interacting with them self, if that holds up, or if massless items of a class could possibly interact with one another.
In the end, if God exists is it foolish to want to know how it made the gravity medium and light, is it just silly, is it kind of creepy, clawing at the fundamental fabric of the cage, and making these words up for it. I believe God exists and it may be curious, it may be part of the purpose, to see how intelligent beings of different types on different planets handle the science, transhumanism, Ai, robots, space travel, histories, endless endlessly fascinating histories and cultures, beauties and joys and loves, asteroid mining and colonizing planets, but is it just stupid to want to know the nature of the gravity medium fundamentally, whether it possesses mass or not and its relation to light, oh I forgot I was spieling on 'energy' too: the existence of "energy" as "something", as "something which is not a thing, but an attribute of a thing, but does not "exist" but does "exist""
(Oh and earlier above mention that a big distinction between mass and not mass, seems to be stability if it can be used to build: quarks are mass, protons are mass, electrons are mass, because they can be slowed down and used to build things, and light cannot be slowed down as such, but! could those things stablely exist and be built, if it were not for light? were not for lights role in EM? )
A ball is mass, you take a ball of mass, and throw it, and all the sudden that ball is that mass, but also energy. What is energy, is energy a "thing" like a ball is a thing, like an electron is a thing:
A while ago I came to the conclusion that "energy" was movement, due to that ball example and others, and tried to think of an example of energy that was not related to movement and dont think I did: which is when I got unnerved when the area of light was brought up, and said to be only energy:
And how this related to the stopability of what is termed mass and matter (are quarks stoppable, are electrons stoppable? ) and how light was unstoppable, and so light was not mass or matter, and light only ever moves and moves, never slower or faster, so light is energy, because it has force, but is not matter, but light is something, light is 'substancey' life is closer to being 'stuffness' than 'pure nothingness', and all examples of 'energy' I know of is when stuffness or somethingness or itemness or thingness or matter or mass is moving, the moving is the energy, it takes movement to move mass, and it takes mass moving for the concept in action of 'movement to exist'.
edit on 25-7-2020 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)
1=1
0=0
1+1 = 1 and 1
1+1+1 = 1 and 1 and 1
stuff is real, thingness is real, somethingness is real, aspectness exists, items exist, aspects are real, things are real, substance is real, an amount of stuff exists.
Absolute nothing is not the only thing that exists. It is true that more than nothing exists. How much more than nothing exists. It seems like a lot. If all that existed in the totality of reality was 1 atom, than 1 atom more than nothing would exist.
And it would seem, from everything we know and believe, energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed.
that 1 atom would exist for eternity, it may decay, its parts may decay, but the non 0 that it is made of, the fact that stuffness would exist amidst the nothingness, would mean that stuffness would always exist:
if you took the stuffness, of the atom, the volume of the electron and quarks, and you divided them and divided them, you could divide them into the smallest divisions, but the same amount of stuff would always exist. There would be nowhere to get rid of the stuffness, nowhere to hide it, no way to disintegrate it, what would disintegrate it mean, if you could divide the electrons body by a quadrillion billion magillion, into that many parts, or part of this very idea is that eventually there is a physical limit on dividing,
It seems like more than 1 atom exists in reality, it seems like a lot more. It seems like a large amount of stuffness exists, and it seems like a large amount of movement exists.
Light is stuffness, because it is not nothing: but it does not possess massness, because it can not be slowed down (even though it can in relation to gravity, which is part of my interest in the fundamental nature of gravity and its connection to light/EM?) it is not matter, electron and quark are matter because they can be slowed down and build things up: light cannot be slowed down and cannot build things:
But electron and quark require light (require EM) to build things? And do the same photons bounce around in an atom or between? The quark stops moving long distance, contained in local balance with electron and in gravity field, but is it ever stopped, is it not always vibrating? So too if the same local light vibrating back and forth with the quarks and electrons, contained locally?
There is a lot of stuffness in/of the universe, there is a lot of movement of the stuff:
The total quantity of stuff cannot be created or destroyed? Movement cannot exist without stuff.
Energy is movement. Energy is also...?
0=0
1+1 = 1 and 1
1+1+1 = 1 and 1 and 1
stuff is real, thingness is real, somethingness is real, aspectness exists, items exist, aspects are real, things are real, substance is real, an amount of stuff exists.
Absolute nothing is not the only thing that exists. It is true that more than nothing exists. How much more than nothing exists. It seems like a lot. If all that existed in the totality of reality was 1 atom, than 1 atom more than nothing would exist.
And it would seem, from everything we know and believe, energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed.
that 1 atom would exist for eternity, it may decay, its parts may decay, but the non 0 that it is made of, the fact that stuffness would exist amidst the nothingness, would mean that stuffness would always exist:
if you took the stuffness, of the atom, the volume of the electron and quarks, and you divided them and divided them, you could divide them into the smallest divisions, but the same amount of stuff would always exist. There would be nowhere to get rid of the stuffness, nowhere to hide it, no way to disintegrate it, what would disintegrate it mean, if you could divide the electrons body by a quadrillion billion magillion, into that many parts, or part of this very idea is that eventually there is a physical limit on dividing,
It seems like more than 1 atom exists in reality, it seems like a lot more. It seems like a large amount of stuffness exists, and it seems like a large amount of movement exists.
Light is stuffness, because it is not nothing: but it does not possess massness, because it can not be slowed down (even though it can in relation to gravity, which is part of my interest in the fundamental nature of gravity and its connection to light/EM?) it is not matter, electron and quark are matter because they can be slowed down and build things up: light cannot be slowed down and cannot build things:
But electron and quark require light (require EM) to build things? And do the same photons bounce around in an atom or between? The quark stops moving long distance, contained in local balance with electron and in gravity field, but is it ever stopped, is it not always vibrating? So too if the same local light vibrating back and forth with the quarks and electrons, contained locally?
There is a lot of stuffness in/of the universe, there is a lot of movement of the stuff:
The total quantity of stuff cannot be created or destroyed? Movement cannot exist without stuff.
Energy is movement. Energy is also...?
a reply to: DanielKoenig
...split into types and equivalent to mass.
The "gravity medium" (like photons) do not need a "mass volume" to have an effect or interaction with massive bodies.
Let's do a technical answer.
Wikipedia is always more eloquent than I could be, and also a great semi-knowledable copout.
Mass(less) things is special relativity:
The hypothetical graviton. To which I will say, "The Higgs-Boson turned out to be real".
Explaining with string theory. Graviton as "closed loop string" requiring spin greater than 1.
Technically answered by more knowledgeable people.
...split into types and equivalent to mass.
Firstly, Massive bodies interact with the constituents of the gravity medium, and well, a large number of this, a volume of the gravity medium must be massive enough (and according to the gravity in motion theory, energetic) to carry the mass of the moon: It would seem absurd to suggest the gravity medium is massless yet can hold and carry the weight of the moon at ___mph
The "gravity medium" (like photons) do not need a "mass volume" to have an effect or interaction with massive bodies.
Let's do a technical answer.
Wikipedia is always more eloquent than I could be, and also a great semi-knowledable copout.
Mass(less) things is special relativity:
The word mass has two meanings in special relativity: rest mass or invariant mass is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames, while relativistic is dependent on the velocity of the observer. According to the concept of mass–energy equivalence, the rest mass and relativistic mass are equivalent to the rest energy and total energy of the body, respectively....
...The measurable inertia and gravitational attraction of a body in a given frame of reference is determined by its relativistic mass, not merely its rest mass. For example, photons have zero rest mass but contribute to the inertia (and weight in a gravitational field) of any system containing them.
The hypothetical graviton. To which I will say, "The Higgs-Boson turned out to be real".
If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force is very long range and appears to propagate at the speed of light. The graviton must be a spin-2 boson because the source of gravitation is the stress–energy tensor, a second-order tensor (compared with electromagnetism's spin-1 photon, the source of which is the four-current, a first-order tensor). Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field would couple to the stress–energy tensor in the same way that gravitational interactions do. This result suggests that, if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton.
Explaining with string theory. Graviton as "closed loop string" requiring spin greater than 1.
A feature of gravitons in string theory is that, as closed strings without endpoints, they would not be bound to branes and could move freely between them. If we live on a brane (as hypothesized by brane theories), this "leakage" of gravitons from the brane into higher-dimensional space could explain why gravitation is such a weak force, and gravitons from other branes adjacent to our own could provide a potential explanation for dark matter
Technically answered by more knowledgeable people.
edit on 25-7-2020 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Degradation33
All understanding of gravity, between star, planet, moon, is understood in-media-res, in specific and extreme movement.
A bowling ball may be heavy, a skyscraper may be heavy, think of how heavy the moon might be.
How fast is the Earth moving? again, a car may move fast, a plane may move fast, the earth and moon are said to move much faster? This is interesting, important, and relevant, to understanding the fundamental physical mechanics as to how:
What the sun does to the surrounding medium (but really starting, what the galaxy does, maybe in part with the supermassive black hole center of galaxy does to the surrounding medium, makes the sun do, which then the sun does to the surrounding medium) that causes the earth to move, and effect its local medium, which causes the moon to move.
The movement cannot be ignored, if one cares about reality, truth, physics, one cannot ignore an integral aspect of reality, truth, physics, in the description and attempted fundamental understanding of reality, truth, physics.
Well anyway, I guess my line of thought was that the gravity medium is something that exists, this is evidenced by the fact the moon follows the earth without grabbing onto it. That it exists even when massive bodies are not present in the area.
The distance between stars is nearly incomprehensible, the distance between towns seems far, furthermore, the distance between galaxies, there are large large large expanses of space between stars and between galaxies, full of gravity medium: It would be interesting to know the 4d topography of those volumes:
And away from massive bodies: is that gravity medium ever "relatively still"?
You cant have it both ways: you cant have gravity medium existing every cubic plank length in the universe where all other substance is not, and it always moves at the speed of light, and never 'rests'.
If it is a field that covers everywhere, there must be areas that are... well now I am seeing how difficult and interesting this topic is, but I am thinking, imagine a rectangular fish tank:
Imagine that was full of gravity medium, imagine a random place in the universe far from planets and stars, and not many atoms: mainly gravity medium:
And you could describe the topography, a cross section, of if you could press pause, would you be able to theoretically define (I avoid saying 'graviton' as that may have a very specific meaning that involves only directly after a massive body interacts with the gravity field, and so using words talking about things unknown, not clearly understood can be tricky and trappy) the substantial particulate/quanta of existent that makes up the gravity medium, all along the volume of the fish tank: A1, A2,A3,A4,A5,..... B1,B2,B3
As you could if you filled the tank with baseballs, or tennisballs, or golfballs, or marbles, or apples, or grapes, or grains of sand, or water: water molecule A1, A2, A3... etc.
And so you have your medium of water in the tank: and you have each quanta making up the total medium of substance labeled and plotted: and then you introduce mass into the system: and where you introduce the mass, with different spin and velocity into the tank of water, the labeled particles of water will respond differently: move and group differently:
So that A1 and A2 and A3 will not remain where they were, possibly, after the mass is tossed in.
Is it thought the gravity medium is similar? Is it thought that if 10 masses of different mass enter from different directions, at different velocities, into a test subject fish tank volume of gravity medium in intergalactic space far away from many material:
are different gravity medium pieces/parts/particles dragged into this fish tank volume by the traveling 10 masses, do the masses just push the medium out of the way with no resistance (I guess thats a big key!!! the gravity medium having natural intrinsic resistance, kind of the meaning of rest mass):
Are all particles that make up the gravity medium always constantly moving? And it is only different massive bodies that make them move different ways?
And it is thought 1 source of gravity medium movement is the beginning of the universe? however and whatever happened there set the gravity medium moving in a certain way: and then the creation of the galaxies locally made the gravity medium move a different way: sometimes, spiraling. or rotating
I think from everything I have seen, trying to put it all together and physically understand, the believed way that gravity works, the moon follows the earth, is that it is kind of like the earth (after the sun), it is like the gravity medium is so tightly compressed, and the earth zips through this, and the moon follows the path of this, and there is so much, call it what you will, energy, mass, of the surrounding gravity medium, that it constantly collapses back on itself, filling the hole the sun/earth makes, and the path of least resistance of the moon is to follow the tunnel the earth is making than to go against the grain of the totality of gravity medium that is surrounding all else.
But the revolution still is interesting, it would be one thing if the earth just traveled straight and the moon tailed it straight behind, then the physical mechanics I described, the earth making a tunnel in gravity medium, the moon being pushed by the gravity medium filling in the tunneled hole:
I dont know how much more the fact of moons revolving complicates the understanding of the underlying physical mechanism, I thought it might have some relation to earths rotation, once you consider that it is in fact the earths movement, that touches the gravity medium, that moves the gravity medium, that moves the moon, you consider the earth is spinning, and that maybe that causes the gravity medium to have a spin to it, as things spinning in water can cause the water to a certain distance away to spin
Anyway: I think maybe things could be calculated about the parts of the gravity medium: if you know about the mass of bowling balls, how they make splashes and move water depending on their force dropped, you can calculate aspects about water? Can you calculate aspects about the water molecules? their mass? Or you can only come up with a sliding scale: of : if water molecules are this size each, their mass would be this size each:
So to, calculating the mass and speed of the earth and moon, can you make a sliding scale about the nature of the gravity medium particulates, and then do other experiments to pinpoint what they actually might be?
Anyway the fishtank points are very interesting and something I want to know about, and last time I mentioned, relatable, how the medium might be held together: And how this likely plays a part in particle collisions: How the local gravity medium at the smallest scales could possibly be altered,
is it bonded to itself, like water is, can it be transformed into other substance, how it intimately relates to Em, etc.
All understanding of gravity, between star, planet, moon, is understood in-media-res, in specific and extreme movement.
A bowling ball may be heavy, a skyscraper may be heavy, think of how heavy the moon might be.
How fast is the Earth moving? again, a car may move fast, a plane may move fast, the earth and moon are said to move much faster? This is interesting, important, and relevant, to understanding the fundamental physical mechanics as to how:
What the sun does to the surrounding medium (but really starting, what the galaxy does, maybe in part with the supermassive black hole center of galaxy does to the surrounding medium, makes the sun do, which then the sun does to the surrounding medium) that causes the earth to move, and effect its local medium, which causes the moon to move.
The movement cannot be ignored, if one cares about reality, truth, physics, one cannot ignore an integral aspect of reality, truth, physics, in the description and attempted fundamental understanding of reality, truth, physics.
Well anyway, I guess my line of thought was that the gravity medium is something that exists, this is evidenced by the fact the moon follows the earth without grabbing onto it. That it exists even when massive bodies are not present in the area.
The distance between stars is nearly incomprehensible, the distance between towns seems far, furthermore, the distance between galaxies, there are large large large expanses of space between stars and between galaxies, full of gravity medium: It would be interesting to know the 4d topography of those volumes:
And away from massive bodies: is that gravity medium ever "relatively still"?
You cant have it both ways: you cant have gravity medium existing every cubic plank length in the universe where all other substance is not, and it always moves at the speed of light, and never 'rests'.
If it is a field that covers everywhere, there must be areas that are... well now I am seeing how difficult and interesting this topic is, but I am thinking, imagine a rectangular fish tank:
Imagine that was full of gravity medium, imagine a random place in the universe far from planets and stars, and not many atoms: mainly gravity medium:
And you could describe the topography, a cross section, of if you could press pause, would you be able to theoretically define (I avoid saying 'graviton' as that may have a very specific meaning that involves only directly after a massive body interacts with the gravity field, and so using words talking about things unknown, not clearly understood can be tricky and trappy) the substantial particulate/quanta of existent that makes up the gravity medium, all along the volume of the fish tank: A1, A2,A3,A4,A5,..... B1,B2,B3
As you could if you filled the tank with baseballs, or tennisballs, or golfballs, or marbles, or apples, or grapes, or grains of sand, or water: water molecule A1, A2, A3... etc.
And so you have your medium of water in the tank: and you have each quanta making up the total medium of substance labeled and plotted: and then you introduce mass into the system: and where you introduce the mass, with different spin and velocity into the tank of water, the labeled particles of water will respond differently: move and group differently:
So that A1 and A2 and A3 will not remain where they were, possibly, after the mass is tossed in.
Is it thought the gravity medium is similar? Is it thought that if 10 masses of different mass enter from different directions, at different velocities, into a test subject fish tank volume of gravity medium in intergalactic space far away from many material:
are different gravity medium pieces/parts/particles dragged into this fish tank volume by the traveling 10 masses, do the masses just push the medium out of the way with no resistance (I guess thats a big key!!! the gravity medium having natural intrinsic resistance, kind of the meaning of rest mass):
Are all particles that make up the gravity medium always constantly moving? And it is only different massive bodies that make them move different ways?
And it is thought 1 source of gravity medium movement is the beginning of the universe? however and whatever happened there set the gravity medium moving in a certain way: and then the creation of the galaxies locally made the gravity medium move a different way: sometimes, spiraling. or rotating
I think from everything I have seen, trying to put it all together and physically understand, the believed way that gravity works, the moon follows the earth, is that it is kind of like the earth (after the sun), it is like the gravity medium is so tightly compressed, and the earth zips through this, and the moon follows the path of this, and there is so much, call it what you will, energy, mass, of the surrounding gravity medium, that it constantly collapses back on itself, filling the hole the sun/earth makes, and the path of least resistance of the moon is to follow the tunnel the earth is making than to go against the grain of the totality of gravity medium that is surrounding all else.
But the revolution still is interesting, it would be one thing if the earth just traveled straight and the moon tailed it straight behind, then the physical mechanics I described, the earth making a tunnel in gravity medium, the moon being pushed by the gravity medium filling in the tunneled hole:
I dont know how much more the fact of moons revolving complicates the understanding of the underlying physical mechanism, I thought it might have some relation to earths rotation, once you consider that it is in fact the earths movement, that touches the gravity medium, that moves the gravity medium, that moves the moon, you consider the earth is spinning, and that maybe that causes the gravity medium to have a spin to it, as things spinning in water can cause the water to a certain distance away to spin
Anyway: I think maybe things could be calculated about the parts of the gravity medium: if you know about the mass of bowling balls, how they make splashes and move water depending on their force dropped, you can calculate aspects about water? Can you calculate aspects about the water molecules? their mass? Or you can only come up with a sliding scale: of : if water molecules are this size each, their mass would be this size each:
So to, calculating the mass and speed of the earth and moon, can you make a sliding scale about the nature of the gravity medium particulates, and then do other experiments to pinpoint what they actually might be?
Anyway the fishtank points are very interesting and something I want to know about, and last time I mentioned, relatable, how the medium might be held together: And how this likely plays a part in particle collisions: How the local gravity medium at the smallest scales could possibly be altered,
is it bonded to itself, like water is, can it be transformed into other substance, how it intimately relates to Em, etc.
new topics
-
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News: 11 minutes ago -
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Says The USA Will Be in Debt Default in Jan 2025 - Unless...
Mainstream News: 4 hours ago -
Trash To Treasure: Dumpster Diving With Mike The Scavenger
General Chit Chat: 4 hours ago -
Danish Prime Minister said to keep 3 days worth of canned goods on hand
World War Three: 5 hours ago -
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People: 8 hours ago -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News: 8 hours ago
top topics
-
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People: 8 hours ago, 19 flags -
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News: 13 hours ago, 17 flags -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News: 8 hours ago, 13 flags -
Kurakhove officially falls. Russia takes control of major logistics hub city in the southeast.
World War Three: 14 hours ago, 9 flags -
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Says The USA Will Be in Debt Default in Jan 2025 - Unless...
Mainstream News: 4 hours ago, 5 flags -
Danish Prime Minister said to keep 3 days worth of canned goods on hand
World War Three: 5 hours ago, 3 flags -
Trash To Treasure: Dumpster Diving With Mike The Scavenger
General Chit Chat: 4 hours ago, 3 flags -
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News: 11 minutes ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen Says The USA Will Be in Debt Default in Jan 2025 - Unless...
Mainstream News • 20 • : WeMustCare -
President-elect Trump asks the Supreme Court to Let Tik-Tok Continue Operating in the U.S..
Mainstream News • 0 • : WeMustCare -
The hunter has become the hunted
Politicians & People • 13 • : 777Vader -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 41 • : angelchemuel -
Encouraging News Media to be MAGA-PAF Should Be a Top Priority for Trump Admin 2025-2029.
Education and Media • 92 • : WeMustCare -
Trump to tackle homelessness
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 168 • : WeMustCare -
Danish Prime Minister said to keep 3 days worth of canned goods on hand
World War Three • 3 • : Loadandgo -
No Wonder We Are In Such INSANE Debt- Americans MUST Put a Stop to This
US Political Madness • 67 • : WeMustCare -
Liberal Madness and the Constitution of the United States
US Political Madness • 15 • : charlest2 -
Democrat Leaders Say Trump Supporters are DEPLORABLE - DREGS - GARBAGE. Which Label is The Worse?.
US Political Madness • 27 • : WeMustCare