Gravity's attraction and 2 ships attraction

[kanicbird]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

You haven’t provided any falsification for this hypothesis, i.e. any way to test it for disproof,

I thank you for this post (the entire part, not just his excerpt), and have to ask if graviton theory has provided any falsifications?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Lumpy

Regarding the whole “shape of the two ships” debate, I wonder how rigorously one of the tenets of Newtonian gravity has been tested: that the gravitational attraction of an object is the sum of all the spherical gravitational pulls of every particle the object is composed of, and that therefore it’s overall gravity acts as though it’s coming from the object’s center of mass. The only objects whose gravity we have readily observed up to now are all oblate spheroids. You could put a space probe in a slow orbit around an irregularly shaped asteroid, except that any anomalies observed would be attributed to density variations within the asteroid. Or is there some proof I’m unaware of that shows that gravity has to behave in the assumed way or some obvious deviation from theory would have been observed by now?

Satellites have been used to probe minute variations in the gravitational field of the Earth, Earth’s Moon, Mars, and Venus based upon predictions of Newtonian mechanics to a high degree of precision. GPS satellites actually incorporate corrections due to effects predicted from general relativity to obtain precise measurements. General relativity has been verified to about 10[sup]-9[/sup] for temporal differences, and about 10[sup]-3[/sup] for frame dragging effects (about the Earth, which has a very tiny field). Next to quantum electrodynamics, general relativity may be the most precisely verified physical theory currently in existence.

@kanicbird

I thank you for this post (the entire part, not just his excerpt), and have to ask if graviton theory has provided any falsifications?

The quantum theory of gravity is still nascent, owing to difficulties with renormalizing gravity. Nonetheless, a low energy effective field theory of gravity provides virtually the same predictions as general relativity (see above for the precision of this theory in prediction). Owing to reasons previously stated, measuring the effects of an individual graviton are effectively impossible, but a measurement of the effects of coherent gravitational waves, which gives rise to prediction of the properties of gravitons, is ongoing as described above. So yes, there is means of reduction and falsification of quantum gravity.

The “pushing gravity” theory described previously, on the other hand, appears to be little more than technobabble about “frame shifting”, “anti-gravitons”, “wormhole soup waves”, “cosmic zero velocity”, and “energy foam”, none of which have any technical meaning whatsoever.

Stranger

[Walther_Ego]

@kanicbird

You are looking at the effects of wind, I am looking at the effects of random wave actions (waves from all directions - and with no atmosphere,so no wind effect at all). Both will be attracted to each other due to the calmer water in-between them.

Nope. I’m saying that the wind and Bernoulli effect are way higher than the effect you are talking about. I’m also accepting that the wave drift “attraction” you are talking about kind of exists, but the smoke and mirrors were in focusing on this “calm” area and looking at attraction around it, while this calm area in normal circumstances moves along with waves, making your analogy even more meaningless for people who actually deal with ships. The attraction is real but is really a coordinate trick and small compared to anything else happening in any real waves.

I didn’t get earlier the waves coming from all sides uniformly. That changes everything as this is something no ship ever meets. If you haven’t lost the boating crowd before, this is where it will eventually happen. I think I’m getting your analogy now (while I have no idea if it has any merits for gravity), but it took a long time and it has nothing to do with actual sea. My advice to you would be to forget the analogy, as it is so abstract and unreal and yet demands understanding of large body diffraction, that it is unlikely to be understood by anybody who is not familiar with computational hydrodynamics at theoretical level. Concentrate on the theory itself. A wave is a wave, diffraction is diffraction, forget about the ships.

[kanicbird]

@Walther_Ego

My advice to you would be to forget the analogy, as it is so abstract and unreal and yet demands understanding of large body diffraction, that it is unlikely to be understood by anybody who is not familiar with computational hydrodynamics at theoretical level. Concentrate on the theory itself. A wave is a wave, diffraction is diffraction, forget about the ships.

The reason I did the comparison was because that’s where I saw the relationship myself, much like Isacc Newton had a apple drop on his head and came up with the theory of gravity, I never understood how he related the apple, but it worked for him. So yes I can see why the analogy would be hard to follow. thx

[kanicbird]

@Stranger_On_A_Train

The quantum theory of gravity is still nascent, owing to difficulties with renormalizing gravity. Nonetheless, a low energy effective field theory of gravity provides virtually the same predictions as general relativity (see above for the precision of this theory in prediction). Owing to reasons previously stated, measuring the effects of an individual graviton are effectively impossible, but a measurement of the effects of coherent gravitational waves, which gives rise to prediction of the properties of gravitons, is ongoing as described above. So yes, there is means of reduction and falsification of quantum gravity.

The “pushing gravity” theory described previously, on the other hand, appears to be little more than technobabble about “frame shifting”, “anti-gravitons”, “wormhole soup waves”, “cosmic zero velocity”, and “energy foam”, none of which have any technical meaning whatsoever.

Stranger

Basically what is described as a graviton would be a lack of, well lets call them gravity wave particles (hey at one point someone had to come up with the term graviton and that term had any technical meaning whatsoever). Graviton theory much like centrifugal force does not really exist, yet can be useful in solving equations.

One critical difference is in graviton theory gravity is a function of mass and 1 of 4 forces, in push gravity theory gravity is not a function of mass, and mass could be a function of gravity and therefore gravity may be the one and only force - mass and all other forces come from gravity waves, meaning re-normalizing gravity/ grand unified theory could be impossible.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@kanicbird

Basically what is described as a graviton would be a lack of, well lets call them gravity wave particles (hey at one point someone had to come up with the term graviton and that term had any technical meaning whatsoever). Graviton theory much like centrifugal force does not really exist, yet can be useful in solving equations.

One critical difference is in graviton theory gravity is a function of mass and 1 of 4 forces, in push gravity theory gravity is not a function of mass, and mass could be a function of gravity and therefore gravity may be the one and only force - mass and all other forces come from gravity waves, meaning re-normalizing gravity/ grand unified theory could be impossible.

Nearly everything in this entire post is gibberish.

Stranger

[Grey]

I think you’re being generous - must be the holiday spirit.