Source of gravity

visionarylink

Hi, I'm a newbie here, and it is very, very interesting to find a forum like this in the country (found one at last).

I would like to share what I'd term as one of my rocket philosophy. It was borne out from our discussion about gravity on a physics chat last 2000. Eventually my reply was this:

"Consciousness is the source of gravity."

It is my reaction to the conventional definition of gravity as "curvature in space" that seemed like a chicken-egg dilemma that doesn't really answer anything. Eventually I had it posted at a physics forums thread and see how the world's scientists reacted (2003). Nobody debunking as for the moment, and by the time I returned to that website years later (2006), the science folks were already talking about "Consicousness" as typically as a sip of morning coffee.

I am posting supporting idea regarding this:

Gravity is said to be caused by the curvature in
space. but it seemed like a chicken-egg dilemma.
In the theory it's squared the speed of light in mass and mass is present in the curvature. Among perceivers of eastern philosophy it’s been said that Consciousness is in the realm of C^2. The realm of matter cannot bound it for matter cannot reach lightspeed (I postulate it just duplicates, but that’s another story). It is not even enough to contain it just in a boundary of a space-time dimension or by limits of machinations. Consciousness can pierce the barrier beyond these, and beyond lightspeed. Consciousness is vital in space and time; the Observer.

There is the core source of Gravity. To
a profound degree Consciousness is within that core,
the source of curvature, mass created by it,
and gravity is the manifestation of the presence of Consciousness.


So I will be posting this statement here, to let the fellow citizens on this part of the planet know about it. I'm open for discussion about this, and see if it would withstand any fire from here for further refinement. Comments whether positive or negative reactions as long as it's from open minded individuals, are welcome.

micketymoc

Ummmmmmm... it doesn't make any sense.

Can this postulate be expressed mathematically?

havok47

visionarylink wrote: »

Hi, I'm a newbie here, and it is very, very interesting to find a forum like this in the country (found one at last).

Welcome and enjoy your stay!!!

"Consciousness is the source of gravity."

Gravity is said to be caused by the curvature in
space. but it seemed like a chicken-egg dilemma.

Chicken - Egg dilemma? How so?

According to General Relativity, the presence of matter bends space-time. A heavier mass will bend space-time more and hence will attract more objects towards it. Kinda like the 'trampoline universe' model. A basketball is placed on a certain location, a golf ball is placed 1m away from it. Since the basketball bends the trampoline, the golf ball will be 'attracted' towards it. If the golf ball is placed 20 km away from the basketball, the force of attraction will be negligible. The golf ball stays put. However, if one replaces the basketball with a planet, the golf ball will certainly move towards it. Place an infinitely heavy object and you will be creating the effect of a black hole, nothing escapes, everything will be sucked into it once the event horizon is crossed.

Where's the Chicken - Egg scenario?

In the theory it's squared the speed of light in mass and mass is present in the curvature.

What theory is this? Special relativity? Newton's law of Universal Gravitation? I'm interested to hear...and if you have supporting equations, I'd appreciated seeing them...

Among perceivers of eastern philosophy it’s been said that Consciousness is in the realm of C^2.

What about western philosophy? Do they say the same thing?

This is pure assumption right? And it boggles me how the speed of light equates with human consciousness. Kindly elucidate.

matter cannot reach lightspeed

I agree.

It is not even enough to contain it just in a boundary of a space-time dimension or by limits of machinations.

I think I am getting your previous post based on this statement.

You are saying that consciousness is in the realm of C^2.

What do you mean 'in the realm'?
Why C^2 and not C only?

C is finite. It is a measurable quantity. 186,000 miles per second. Consciousness (or the speed of thought, as I infer from your posts) is really a very gray area when it comes to measuring it. Can we measure consciousness, let alone its speed? Does it even have a speed in the first place?

and beyond lightspeed.

Have you measured the speed of consciousness?

There is the core source of Gravity. To
a profound degree Consciousness is within that core,
the source of curvature, mass created by it,
and gravity is the manifestation of the presence of Consciousness.

What?

How did you exactly arrive at consciousness being the source of gravity?

How about matter with no consciousness? Rocks, Planets, Buildings, etc? How can they be the source of gravity?

Will Consciousness also be the source of Electromagnetism? Strong Nuclear Force? Weak Nuclear Force?

gravity is the manifestation of the presence of Consciousness.

Realize that this is a unfounded assertion.

It is very tricky to equate something as absolute as mathematics and physics with metaphysical concepts such as consciousness and 'Mind-Body' problem.

I feel I can't really counter this proposal because of its absurdity (pardon). I have to wait for stronger proofs and assumptions grounded in physical principles since the speed of light, gravity, mass, matter are all within the realm of Physics (As you have used them in your arguments).

I await for your comments....;)

albert_sy2

Gravity is a consequence of mass. It is completely separate from your consciousness. That's it.

Frank_Mackey

There's a new and seemingly more elegant/more simple fundamental physics theory out there by Milo Wolff called "Standing Wave Structure" of matter.

It claims to unify relativity and quantum physics. Quite a bit of info on it on the web. You guys might want to check it out and discuss/evaluate.

visionarylink

Ummmmmmm... it doesn't make any sense.
Can this postulate be expressed mathematically?

I'm into art and I view physics visually rather than mathematically. However, my internet friend, a mathematically inclined inventor from Europe had dicussed this topic and he agreed with it. He's from Iceland and his perspective fuses with the ancient culture of his people, the olden Vikings. and there was this guy I met at the chatroom and he had written articles for the scientific american magazine, he also showed agreement regarding this. I think he was one of the proponents of M-Theory. However, we talk in such a way that we both understand by discussing the essence. it was like a discussion between visually (art), and mathematically (science) inclined individuals.

Chicken - Egg dilemma? How so?....A basketball is placed on a certain location, a golf ball is placed 1m away from it....

Trying to answer gravity with that statement would just be going in circles and doesn't answer anything. It doesn't answer what causes curvature because there had really been no answer to what gravity really was, until now.

Comparing the behavior of planetary bodies to balls doesn't really make an accurate view because the balls cannot innclude the bending of time with it. And things get more weird when seen at the smallest quantum level because smashed subparticles tend to behave as if 'attracted to 'nothing' as it moves in centripetal curls not towards any large object, but virtually towards 'nothingness'.

What theory is this?

How did you exactly arrive at consciousness being the source of gravity?

E=mc^2. But I disagree when Einstein said it's impossible to exceed lightspeed, though he may be right with the view that matter cannot exceed lightspeed (I postulate it duplicates instead, but that's another story).
In this reality there indeed existed a presence that is beyond lightspeed and that is Consciousness.
That's when I declared that Consciousness is the souce of gravity because it goes beyond any limiting manifestation of material dimensions of reality, in which all of these materiality are subject to the realm below lightspeed of this dimension. But not so with Consciousness.

And it boggles me how the speed of light equates with human consciousness.

Human Consciousness is beyond matter and speed of light, never below it. Therefore 'measuring' Consciousness based on the material limitations may not be relevant.

What about western philosophy? Do they say the same thing?

There's the big difference with most of western philosophy and eastern philosophy. Western views detaches science from the human phenomenon and tends to be logic biased especially in belief systems most of us are in. Eastern thought is more holistic as it fuses with science and the human phenomenon, and that made it profound. So profound that the masses ended up seeing these Eastern thoughts as religion instead of philosophy.

How about matter with no consciousness? Rocks, Planets, Buildings, etc? How can they be the source of gravity?
Will Consciousness also be the source of Electromagnetism? Strong Nuclear Force? Weak Nuclear Force?

This reminds me of the Hindu perspective about fields. There is said to be etheric field where inanimate objects like rocks belong. Then there's emotional feed where plants have it other than the basic etheric field. Then there's mental field where animals have it other than the previous two. Then there's the spiritual field, where humans have it other than the previous 3 fields.

At the basic level photon is said to be conscious but non thinking entity, for what enabled the photon to behave both like particle and wave. so is it with the other forces, why do these and all other things behave in such a way. So in a sense there is a certain degree of consciousness that govern these to act in such a way.

It is very tricky to equate something as absolute as mathematics and physics with metaphysical concepts such as consciousness and 'Mind-Body' problem.
I feel I can't really counter this proposal because of its absurdity (pardon).

This is basically a solid proof about the discrepancy between western and eastern viewpoints that I had mentioned before. Regarding metaphysics you should be aware that during the cold war behind the iron curtain, their scientists were highly advanced in metaphysics research while in the supposed 'free' world, it was regarded as taboo or 'evil'. Isn't that strange, no wonder the latter side call such as 'absurd'.

Gravity is a consequence of mass. It is completely separate from your consciousness. That's it.

Here's another proof to the deliberate detachment, separation of science to human phenomenon in the belief systems on people just as I had mentioned before.

Oneiros

albert_sy2 wrote: »

Gravity is a consequence of mass. It is completely separate from your consciousness. That's it.

Naive realism.

Pseudomystiphysics however, is not my forte.

But I do know that the invisible pink unicorn is pink. The same way that I know that "Consciousness" is "beyond" matter and that it exceeds lightspeed.

Elaboration on epistemological foundations of such "mystical physics" however, should prove interesting.

P.S.
Oooooh, Lucky post count... Looks like I won't be posting anything for the next few days...

havok47

It doesn't answer what causes curvature because there had really been no answer to what gravity really was, until now.

What do you mean it doesn't answer? GR does. Mass causes curvature in space-time, which in effect causes gravity.

Comparing the behavior of planetary bodies to balls doesn't really make an accurate view

Realize that you are contesting GR with this statement. I just want to put things in perspective.

the balls cannot innclude the bending of time with it

Yes it does, read Relativity.

E=mc^2.

This equation is a consequence of SR not GR. SR does not include Gravity in its equations. GR does. Why are you using SR to support your claims about Gravity????

In this reality there indeed existed a presence that is beyond lightspeed and that is Consciousness.

Inflation Theory - during the infancy stage of the Universe, it experience turbo-charged expansions faster than c. How do you put consciousness into this equation?

Human Consciousness is beyond matter and speed of light, never below it. Therefore 'measuring' Consciousness based on the material limitations may not be relevant.

How about dog consciousness?

At the basic level photon is said to be conscious but non thinking entity

Who said so?

Are you saying everything, living and non-living alike, are conscious?

________________________

Okay, Let us start all over again.

Honestly, I feel that you are just mixing whatever scientific concept you know to support whatever it is that you claim. I sense that you do not fully understand all these theories (i.e. Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.). I am not saying that you do not know anything about these theories, obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't incorporate them into your 'theory'.

What I propose is this.

State your theory once again in a more understandable manner (Enumeration of ideas would be a big help)

Then, state possible events / scenarios on how can we test it to be true or false?

A claim could either be true or false. If it can never be false, it can never be true as well.

Therefore, what would disprove your theory?


Oneiros: Woah!!! 666!!!

visionarylink

havok47 wrote: »

Welcome and enjoy your stay!!!

By the way, thanks havok and to folks here.

What do you mean it doesn't answer? GR does. Mass causes curvature in space-time, which in effect causes gravity.

The nature of gravity is still unanswered. There were attempts to theorize the existence of gravitons, but still this is unproven, and personally I don't believe that gravitons exist.

Yes it does, read Relativity.

hmm...right. but it seems too large a macrocosmic comparison with a planet, because planets may be capable, if given the right environment, of sustaining life. in this view comparing a ball with a life sustaining planet may not provide broader results. I do have another viewpoint that would make things more domestic as far as balls and planets are concerned, and that may pertain to their cores, but that would be another story and might take more space in this thread...and time too.

This equation is a consequence of SR not GR. SR does not include Gravity in its equations. GR does. Why are you using SR to support your claims about Gravity????

As you mentioned before...relatively. I use SR to support gravity obviously because of its Relativity
A good scenario would be a trivia I once read many years back. It's been said that it would take about 8 minutes for Earth to completely revolve (that means 24 hrs when Earth borne) when viewed by an astronaut from the moon. Now not only does that pertain to the relation of gravity of the astronaut, but to his conscious observation as well.

Inflation Theory - during the infancy stage of the Universe, it experience turbo-charged expansions faster than c. How do you put consciousness into this equation?

We are yet to know what really happened before the big bang occured. Maybe there was a god out there who could only say "OOOPS" before the bang occured? And why do they want us to see it as big bang? why not big bloom or big poof?

How about dog consciousness?

Good thing you asked this question, because whether you believe it or not, I did have what seemed to be a ghost experience...with my lost dog. I myself was surprised with the experience, but I had it figured profoundly. It occured between sleeping-waking state but maybe this would take another thread to further discuss this, but all I can say is that my dog indeed loved me, very much.
Previously also I mentioned that animals belonged to a stage where they incorporate etheric, emotional and mental field. That experience though had somehow elevated my dog, good for her.

Are you saying everything, living and non-living alike, are conscious?

Yes, and more profound science will eventually justify animist belief systems. That wouldn't be surprising to the Japanese. We talk further about this and it will eventually lead us to politics.
Besides, review the Heisenberg Principle of Quantum Mechanics to give you further ideas to what I'm talking about.

I sense that you do not fully understand all these theories (i.e. Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc.). I am not saying that you do not know anything about these theories, obviously you do, otherwise you wouldn't incorporate them into your 'theory'.

Again, if you review the observer-observed phenomenon of Heisenberg, or Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics, you would have understood why I incorporate them in my theory.

State your theory once again in a more understandable manner (Enumeration of ideas would be a big help)

Then, state possible events / scenarios on how can we test it to be true or false?

You are a Conscious entity, er, is that enough?

micketymoc

Human Consciousness is beyond matter and speed of light, never below it. Therefore 'measuring' Consciousness based on the material limitations may not be relevant.

Yes, it is very relevant. How can you make your case if you don't define what consciousness is, or express it in quantifiable terms?

Better yet, is your theory falsifiable? Under what conditions would you say your theory might be wrong? (seconding havok47)

If "consciousness" is the basis for gravity, how do you account for the fact that gravity is a universal all across the universe... while we are on (as far as we know) the only known life-bearing planet in the universe? How can a non-ubiquitous "consciousness" be responsible for such a ubiquitous, universal force?

Try not to hide behind the false dichotomy of "eastern vs. western philosophy". For me, it's quite simple: either you can explain it systematically, or you just can't. Pseudoscientific mysticism isn't more true just because it's part of an "eastern way of knowing".

"The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is... the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time." Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)

Ischaramoochie

haven't you heard of Intelligent Falling Theory?

Lucca Yamazaki

If you try to suddenly fall onto the floor and at the same time forget everything you know about gravity (that it's making you fall), you'll learn how to fly... or at least that's how Douglas Adams has put it, if my memory serves me right...

gekokujo

if a tree falls in the forest...

visionarylink

Yes, it is very relevant. How can you make your case if you don't define what consciousness is, or express it in quantifiable terms?

What is more revelant is for you to be able to define it for yourself, because empirically you are a Conscious person; though I would rather say that it's not about defining, it is about experiencing it as a living entity rather than the limitations of quantifying it as one would with material objects.

Better yet, is your theory falsifiable? Under what conditions would you say your theory might be wrong? (seconding havok47)

This is basically the reason why I posted my view at forums, to observe whether others would find holes to make it falsifiable. So far no attempts are convincing enough to say it's wrong.

If "consciousness" is the basis for gravity, how do you account for the fact that gravity is a universal all across the universe... while we are on (as far as we know) the only known life-bearing planet in the universe? How can a non-ubiquitous "consciousness" be responsible for such a ubiquitous, universal force?

Well then, let Consciousness be Universal in scope. I suggest you ponder on Carl Jung's concept of Collective Unconscious. Jung's views are worth considering.

Try not to hide behind the false dichotomy of "eastern vs. western philosophy". For me, it's quite simple: either you can explain it systematically, or you just can't. Pseudoscientific mysticism isn't more true just because it's part of an "eastern way of knowing".

No, it is not similar to Pacquiao vs. Morales. You have a point, so I would have said it in more intricate way. I would have identified the materialistic infiiltration on some western philosophies as the culprit. I define logic as a tool, not an insitution. Aristotle reminded humanity about it. Marx for one, merely infiltrated the utopian ideals of other philosphers with his brand of historical materialism that stated the inevitability of economics. But even that I prefer to express an alternative, and it is the inevitability of Culture (I also made writings on this, which I might post). I believe that modern communism capitulated because their science discovered that materialism is an erroneous ideology as they were advanced in metaphysics research behind the iron curtain (they intended it for weaponry purposes, but they failed), and may partly explain the reason why communism capitulated in the west because they're mostly into Marxism, but not so with the east. Even an encyclopedia stated that in the light of Hindu philosophy, materialism simply "whithers away". now let me declare this statement: "Materialism is the opium of Science", let Marx get back the karma when he said "Religion is the opium of the masses". I'm not religious, but believes in spirituality.

"The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is... the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time." Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)

That would agree with a statement I once posted years ago in a forum: Objectivity is merely used for subjective purposes. With that, materialism should be considered the malicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism...
Let me reiterate that the view I'm posting here is not subjective, but rather the relativity of Consciousness to gravity. I did not say Consciousness is gravity, but rather Consciousness is the source of gravity. Gravity is the manifestation of Consciousness. It is fact and evident that I am a Conscious Entity. As a Conscious Entity, I am Mystery.

If you try to suddenly fall onto the floor and at the same time forget everything you know about gravity (that it's making you fall), you'll learn how to fly... or at least that's how Douglas Adams has put it, if my memory serves me right...

This is Intelligent Falling Theory also? Interesting. Got no literal experience on that, but I did experience cloud forming.

if a tree falls in the forest...

That's an interesting topic, you might like to post new thread regarding that.

Oneiros

visionarylink wrote: »

This is basically the reason why I posted my view at forums, to observe whether others would find holes to make it falsifiable. So far no attempts are convincing enough to say it's wrong.

Hint: Falsifiable, not falsified[/url].

micketymoc

coughcoughsokalhoaxcoughcoughcough

Frank_Mackey

^ You mean this paper?

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/~as2/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

Lol. I can understand why people can't stand highfalutin journals like "Social Text" and thus the reason Sokal would want to expose it for the purveyor of BS that it probably is...

But the truly, truly ironic thing here of course is that even if he claims that his piece was bull$hit that he made up, it seems that Sokal tried much harder than most people who submit to "Social Text" (I suppose) to make his paper understandable and have sense!!! He can't help it... he's a geek.

Frank_Mackey

Lucca Yamazaki wrote: »

If you try to suddenly fall onto the floor and at the same time forget everything you know about gravity (that it's making you fall), you'll learn how to fly... or at least that's how Douglas Adams has put it, if my memory serves me right...

One might say that this is BS, because babies do fall even if they have not 'learned' about gravity.

But this would be wrong. Babies do come into the world with pre-knowledge. This is the consequence of our consciousnesses being incarnated and reincarnated in the 'gross physical form' (this is what Theosophy more or less hints at...)

Remember, to be enlightened is to liberate consciousness. From the law of karma, for one... but even though Gautama did not mention the law of gravity, (because Newton hadn't brought us that law yet) I'm pretty sure it would have been included...

And yes, I'm just rambling and BS-ing here...

Frank_Mackey

visionarylink wrote: »

his is basically the reason why I posted my view at forums, to observe whether others would find holes to make it falsifiable. So far no attempts are convincing enough to say it's wrong.

No one can say it's 'wrong', because no one can understand what the heck you are trying to say in the first place.

micketymoc

Of course he's wrong. It's hot bunny sex that's the source of gravity. So far, no attempts are convincing enough to prove I'm wrong.

visionarylink

Frank where's your other post? needs to scrutinize my reply about falsifiable-falsified thing, but I see the difference between the two. I was probably being considerate in not saying that the previous views on gravity, including gravitons will be falsiable as theories. I may not say with this view.
If there are falsifiable aspect to it, then it can be relative to one's level of awareness as a Conscious individual, and having opened up this topic on gravity for dicussion, saying otherwise may not be considered an excuse for limiting one's conscious awareness.

Perhaps if none can prove its falsifiability, then let it transcend beyond science...and perhaps that's the reason why I'm into art.

As you said, it's about liberating consciousness. The topic remains in comfortable Mystery. Let gravity remain a shadow to the reality of its truth.