Physics

There is suddenly a great excitement over Einstein’s thought on gravity, since a gravitational wave from the collision of two black holes some fifteen billion years ago was just now detected, as a little bleep. Early in the history of this webpage, we tried to set out some thoughts on physics, just common sense thoughts, though one or two special ones seem to have escaped notice.

We left off on Galileo, and the question of causes by noting that he does not wonder what makes the ball one, one thing a ball, or what6 makes all these molecules stick together into one ball, but only assumes the beings, their form and function, and then continues on in pursuit of his material and efficient causers, useful in the enterprise of mastering and possessing nature or trying to impress one’s patron.

The thought on gravity has helped me to further the common sense physics along this line. Natural objects are more a wonder than artificial as to what makes, say a rock, to be one thing, or a river, and we suspect that these are often just piles of stuff given significance by our perspective. But living things are quite obviously single beings, demarcated from their world as “subject” and “object.” Artificial things, like our round balls for rolling, imitate the unity not of non-living beings like crystals and rocks, but of living beings.

So, gravity is said to be not a wave but a curve in space. We wondered for a long time if this “curved” did not assume a “straight.” In the Euclidean cosmos, Geometry is the measure of space. Curved, I thought, would assume a “straight”, and so space could not be “curved” in every sense. Then we realized that it is curved relative to the matter of the planet that has gravity, or even relative to the space taken up by the matter that has gravity. The objects on the earth have weight because their mass is effected by gravity, less the further out they are. In order to weigh the dirt that is part of the earth, one may have to separate it from the earth and raise it up a bit, to get the scale under it. Now, one only feels acceleration and deceleration, not motion. Yet one feels gravity as kinetic or built up energy especially when separated from the rest of the ball that is the earth. Lying down on it, we feel our own weight.

So our gravity experienced as weight seems due to being an object on the earth that is not quite attached. We used to wonder why a fly in a school bus does not smash against the back if it gets up to fly around: it is not just the wind, but the momentum. And would the fly slow down when out of contact with the energy of the gas being added to keep the school bus moving?

The big mystery is order, shape, meaning, logos, and it is here we must seek a unified field theory, considering natural and living things, or the milieu of these, as the basis of analogy, and the consideration of the cosmos in terms of “copy and shadow,” as St. Paul says. Physics and metaphysice, not Big and small physics, are what need be joined to have a theory of the whole, but no one can even think, let alone believe, that this is so, or that it is more important than Big and small in Physics. But we have now a thought that what makes the molecules of Galileo’s ball to be one thing is that they too have their own gravity, attracting them together like piss bubbles in the toilet water (though that is likely a force, static-electrical, and not literally gravity). We used to marvel at this too, and unlike the question of where the bubbles come from when one boils water, we do not quite yet have a sure answer for this either.

The objects on the earth that are not attached to the earth have their own gravity too, so space would be curved by these as well as by the earth. Gravity is said to be a very weak force, noticeable only for huge objects. But does it not act on objects because the curved space made by these is curved opposite to the curved space made by the earth? We’ll have to work on that one, in our common sense physics program. We also want to think more about the space that matter takes up, especially compared to space without matter, and guess that one is this “curved” while the other, well, that would be “straight.” I am still pissed that no one realized the brilliance of my thought that it is theoretically possible to literally see into our own past, if we could find a reflector or two a few light years out in space and catch the light that left us long ago. No one noticed either the thought that for all we know there could have been 16 Big Bangs, or that to say the least this Big Bang theory does not give us a geeks version of Genesis. A Russian physicist also noticed this, so it is not just me doing common sense physics

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s