[area_51]

Gravity is the resultant dynamic of entropic field interaction(s). Energetic systems are propagated through space and time along entropic potential geodesics, energetically attracted to and falling into states of favorable higher entropy.

I have a field theory and everything.

[DrRocket]

area_51, on 3 February 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Gravity is the resultant dynamic of entropic field interaction(s). Energetic systems are propagated through space and time along entropic potential geodesics, energetically attracted to and falling into states of favorable higher entropy.

I have a field theory and everything.

gibberish

[area_51]

How many other names does this bird have? In any language?<br /><br />I only know of one other conceptual equivalence- acceleration. And it, thus far, has only been expressed as an effective field theory which becomes invalid at the edges.<br /><br />This does not become invalid at the edges.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

DrRocket, on 3 February 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

<br />gibberish<br />

[Amateur -1]

area_51, on 3 February 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Gravity is the resultant dynamic of entropic field interaction(s). Energetic systems are propagated through space and time along entropic potential geodesics, energetically attracted to and falling into states of favorable higher entropy.

I have a field theory and everything.

Have you ever seen, "Manmade Gravity" or / Gravity,s fingerprint in Nature?

Well, I have in broth cases!

This post has been edited by Amateur -1: 3 February 2012 - 07:02 AM

[Tres Juicy]

Amateur -1, on 3 February 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

Have you ever seen, "Manmade Gravity" or / Gravity,s fingerprint in Nature?

Well, I have in broth cases!

Doubtful at best

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Moving to speculations.

[ajb]

area_51, on 3 February 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Gravity is the resultant dynamic of entropic field interaction(s).

Are you talking about Erik Verlinde's idea [1]?

This has attracted some interest over the past few years. It has something like 229 citations!

There are of course some deep connections between thermodynamics and general relativity: black hole physics is probably the best place to see this. The idea is that gravity could be some kind of collective phenomena. This is interesting and gives possible links between condensed matter physics and quantum gravity.

From what I can gather, experts in the field of gravity, quantum gravity and similar are divided on this.

References

[1]Erik P. Verlinde. On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton. JHEP 1104:029,2011

[Amateur -1]

Tres Juicy, on 3 February 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Doubtful at best

So --you ---can ---See---for ---yourself.








This action is only momentary, just (A) Is a set of balance scales that are non-magnetic.

(a-1) This half is set over the (B) piece of iron

(a-2)This half is set out over free space

(B) Is a 1ft.x1ft.x1ft. piece of Iron at a temp as [Cold] as you can make it

© Is a high temp insulator

(D) Is a 1ft.x1ft.x 2ft piece of Iron at a temp as [Hot] as you make it

(E) Is a stand to hold the experiment.

(F) Is a glass pan filled with sand or any non-magnetic[ Mass] like pea

gravel.Once this is set up remove © the high temp insulator

(a-1) will lose gravitational pull on it making it rise and

(a-2) to lower and at the same time causing the non-magnetic

mass in (F) to be attracted to bottom of (D) thus we have man made gravity fields.

until the thermal differences equalizes.

This post has been edited by Amateur -1: 4 February 2012 - 06:00 AM

[Tres Juicy]

Amateur -1, on 4 February 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

So --you ---can ---See---for ---yourself.


EX-p2.jpg





This action is only momentary, just (A) Is a set of balance scales that are non-magnetic.

(a-1) This half is set over the (B) piece of iron

(a-2)This half is set out over free space

(B) Is a 1ft.x1ft.x1ft. piece of Iron at a temp as [Cold] as you can make it

© Is a high temp insulator

(D) Is a 1ft.x1ft.x 2ft piece of Iron at a temp as [Hot] as you make it

(E) Is a stand to hold the experiment.

(F) Is a glass pan filled with sand or any non-magnetic[ Mass] like pea

gravel.Once this is set up remove © the high temp insulator

(a-1) will lose gravitational pull on it making it rise and

(a-2) to lower and at the same time causing the non-magnetic

mass in (F) to be attracted to bottom of (D) thus we have man made gravity fields.

until the thermal differences equalizes.

HA! Rubbish

[area_51]

Thanks for a reply. I thought it presumptuous of the moderator to call my post baseless science and random speculation. I admit that I stated it according to my own understanding but the idea of gravitational attraction, expressed in thermal/entropic dynamics is not fringe. Call me an early adopter.

Anyhow, Verlinde's work in a number of different areas helped me along. A paper of his- "On the Origins of Gravity and the Laws of Newton" (early 90's?), was one of the first of which I am aware to give credible arguments regarding the thermal/entropic nature of gravity. I disagreed with his conclusions but liked his approach- associating mutual degrees of freedom between thermal processes and gravitational attraction.

Since the early-mid 90's there has been growing momentum (a sense, if I may wax philosophical) in the physical sciences to approach the laws of thermodynamics more pedantically. There does seem to be thermal/entropic dynamics tying all systems together. It may not be a G.U.T. (yet) but entropic dynamics can function as a Rosetta Stone, a framework- giving quantumists the ability to communicate with the relativists and the string people. Not trying to be funny, it's literally what I mean.

I have been working on this a long time. I have not been in a position in my life where I could settle in and really focus on it- work, rent, women, kids,etc. Now, at 51, I see a lot of the same ideas I have tinkered with for the last 30 years becoming others' ideas also.

Here's the fun part. If one can conceptually and mathematically defend the argument that gravitational attraction is the result of thermal/entropic dynamics, it is not much of a leap to hypothesize it as the fundamental nature of other interactions/phenomena that have been puzzling us. I've been working on using pedantic thermodynamic expressions to explain the nature of energy, motion, matter, quantum properties, string properties, the constancy of c, all sorts of phenomena. My own opinion is that it works. But that is fringe.

I put my gravity post up originally because it is, at the very least, a mainstream consideration in regard to the nature of gravity.

ajb, on 3 February 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Are you talking about Erik Verlinde's idea [1]?

This has attracted some interest over the past few years. It has something like 229 citations!

There are of course some deep connections between thermodynamics and general relativity: black hole physics is probably the best place to see this. The idea is that gravity could be some kind of collective phenomena. This is interesting and gives possible links between condensed matter physics and quantum gravity.

From what I can gather, experts in the field of gravity, quantum gravity and similar are divided on this.

References

[1]Erik P. Verlinde. On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton. JHEP 1104:029,2011

[ajb]

Erik Verlinde's preprint of this paper was put on the arXiv on Wednesday, 6th January 2010.

The general idea that gravity is a phenomenological force due to thermodynamics is older than that. Ted Jacobson in 1995 derived the field equations in a thermodynamic setting [1]. The seeds of these idea are probably much older and lie in black hole thermodynamics.

I don't think the jury is still out deliberating these ideas.


References

[1] Ted Jacobson. Thermodynamics of Spacetime: The Einstein Equation of State. Phys.Rev.Lett.75:1260-1263,1995. Also available as arXiv:gr-qc/9504004v2

[Amateur -1]

Tres Juicy, on 4 February 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

HA! Rubbish

Tres Juicy;

Evidently you do not like to learn for yourself by experimenting.

So there no for me to say.

BUT, I am not making this up.

[John Cuthber]

Have you done the experiment you propose in the diagram?
If so, what were the conditions and results (and how did you exclude things like convection currents)
If not then you are speculating and shouldn't complain when this is put in speculations.

Now, do you actually have any evidence?

[Tres Juicy]

Amateur -1, on 5 February 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Evidently you do not like to learn for yourself by experimenting.

It's all well and good experimenting but it is more important to properly understand and interpret the results of your experiments.

The chances are if your results say you've produced "man-made-gravity" you've misunderstood something...

[homie12]

John Cuthber, on 5 February 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Have you done the experiment you propose in the diagram?
If so, what were the conditions and results (and how did you exclude things like convection currents)
If not then you are speculating and shouldn't complain when this is put in speculations.

Now, do you actually have any evidence?

I like this point you are making. Just so you know, I will show you some experiments i have done when i figure out how to tape with a webcam. And thanks for bringing up experimentationActuality precedes potentiality.

[Amateur -1]

homie12, on 11 February 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

I like this point you are making. Just so you know, I will show you some experiments i have done when i figure out how to tape with a webcam. And thanks for bringing up experimentationActuality precedes potentiality.

To

Tres Juicy, John Cuthber, Homie12

Sorry that has taken so long for to get back to you for answers.

Yes I have done the experiment sixteen times at a cost of a little over $16,450.

with the same results, but I still have the question of, is it blocking gravity to the

mass hinging from the balance bar or is it repelling the mass.

[md65536]

Amateur -1, on 4 February 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

mass in (F) to be attracted to bottom of (D) thus we have man made gravity fields.

Curious... but what kind of numbers are we talking about here?

Mass in (F) will be gravitationally attracted to (D) anyway, but are you saying that (F) will actually levitate and be pulled upward by a force greater than g?

How hot is as [Hot] as you can make it and how cold is as [Cold] as you can make it?

Do you have photographic or video evidence of it? Thanks.

[The Observer]

Amateur -1, on 3 March 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

To

Tres Juicy, John Cuthber, Homie12

Sorry that has taken so long for to get back to you for answers.

Yes I have done the experiment sixteen times at a cost of a little over $16,450.

with the same results, but I still have the question of, is it blocking gravity to the

mass hinging from the balance bar or is it repelling the mass.

Do you have a link to your data?

[JohnStu]

I see gravity as a mechanical reaction, rather than some kind of mystical force.

[derek w]

What happens if you only have the very hot iron(d) without the very cold iron(b) in your experiment.What results do you get then.And vice versa cold without hot.
Also what is in a1 and a2 and how much does it weight before and during your experiment?

This post has been edited by derek w: 4 March 2012 - 01:12 PM