joigus

Gravity is an inverse-square law only in the weak-field approximation.

Gravity is not a force (at least not on an equal status with the other forces): https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33875/gravitation-is-not-force https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-illusion-of-gravity-2007-04/ Gravity is dimensionally exceptional, which makes it unwieldy to quantisation. Gravity is entropic. Gravity can be coded into the geometric properties of space time so that it locally 'disappears'. I don't think it's the most primal of forces. It's a very different animal.

Any machine that handles the void variable 'I'?

We aren't. Civilisation is a moving standard. We will look uncivilised and barbaric to our offspring far down the line. Unless Mad Max was a prophecy.

I'm not sure your model explains Newtonian gravity either. You haven't told us much about it.

Again, I applaud your enthusiasm. But science is tightly constrained by observation. It's not just about opening your mind's eye. It's about doing that while keeping an eye on observational data. Here's a list of features you haven't contemplated (not meant to be complete): We know all massive particles to be chiral (they have handedness). All electrons in the universe are left handed. Composite particles are coupled by chromodynamic forces and decay by electroweak forces. Hadrons, e.g., (strongly interacting particles) cannot split apart into quarks, but by forming other hadrons. But they're free at short distances! This is due to forces that look nothing like gravity. On the other hand, your model doesn't even capture many of the properties of gravity that we know already, like gravitational lensing, or deviation from Newton's law at strong fields ('violation' of Newtonian centrifugal barriers), or black holes. All the features coming from GR.

LOL. Cm'on. No Inca monkey gods there. It's the standard model Lagrangian. And OP said he wanted his model to be the starting point to explain all of physics, including the standard model. Nature is messier than we sometimes want to believe.

Agreed.

I think religion came about from a deep instinct in humans to manage the land by trying to understand it in faltering steps and ill-conceived guesswork. But religion has a life of its own, and further evolves from that first drive into self-perpetuating structures that no longer have to do with their first raison d'être. Perhaps it played a role in the origins of civilization. But it no longer does.

One I can think of is getting hold of a vast library of nucleic acids and proteins. Biology is also a resource. Also, vast reservoirs of methane in oceanic bottoms, molecular oxygen, which is rare in the universe. Or simply ground to settle. Tidal and volcanic energy that maybe they --but not us-- can wield. Who knows. If you look back at the history of human exploration, the driving force was the acquisition of resources. Adding to knowledge for its own sake was kind of an afterthought.

I don't think civilization ever advances as a result of religious principles being applied. The iconic fantasy of an advanced civilization visiting us is very much a literary mechanism to evidence our own imperfections. But I don't think that any actual intelligent alien species that we may find some day will respond to any of our utopian dreams. Most likely --if that ever happens--, they will be looking for resources.

That assuming they don't see us as food, no matter how advanced they are. I can only hope they can't synthesize pepsin.

The hummingbird really gave it away! I wouldn't say a touch of genius, but definitely a clever one.

Funny, but I think you've misspelled 'melodious' rather than 'Byrds'.

It's audubon.org, @Sensei. Nevertheless, I see your point. I can't edit my post now. If admins think it'd better be deleted, it's OK with me. 🤣 I shudder to think of negative birds, if they don't pick the proper phase! Alfred Hitchcock gave us a preview of what that would be like.

I'm starting to think (as I learn more about it) it might just be a business idea that's somehow envisioned a pool of possible target customers in both idiotic conspiracy nuts and educated, if sarcastic, anti-conspiracy fellows alike. At this point, I just don't know. I strive to understand how much of these snowballing processes is intentional, and how much is just serendipity on the part of the person setting the merchandising business in motion. There is no doubt the potential (intentional or not) to manipulate people's minds for political reasons. But the business element is undeniable.

You'd think you'd heard the last word on ignorance gone beyond the pale (for beings claiming to be rational primates.) https://www.audubon.org/news/are-birds-actually-government-issued-drones-so-says-new-conspiracy-theory-making No rabbitholes barred! What's next?

Enceladus has been on the spotlight for quite some time now, as to possibilities of primitive life. Thanks for the update. The most exciting aspect for me is the possibility of tidal forces as mechanism of geothermal activity.

Highly advanced civilization, huh? That, no doubt, can only mean: Healthcare for everyone Education for everyone Opportunities for everyone Rational management of their planet's resources Not alienating those who are different (pun intended) An emphasis on prevention and correction of misbehaviour, rather than punishment I see no problem. Even monotheists and politicians would want to jump onboard once they see how it works.

It's only fair. I'll leave you with a picture of the recipe of known physics (except gravitation). It's the short version: Gravitation is the piece that's missing in there.

I think you're confusing torque with torsion. A two-body gravitationally-bound system has no torque, as the torque is the rate of change of angular momentum, and angular momentum is conserved in a gravitational problem --leaving aside tidal forces. Internal forces are collinear with distance between particles ==> no internal torque. There are no external torques either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

It is fair to say that this LHS of Einstein's eqs. is not all of the geometry, as @Eise justly said. All of the geometry is captured by an object called the Riemann tensor, which in dimension 4=1(time)+3(space) has 20 independent components. In a \( D \)-dimensional space-time, the Riemann would have \( \frac{1}{12}D^2\left( D^2-1 \right) \) independent components. The "geometry" on the LHS is only part of the geometry. The rest is the degrees of freedom contained in the so-called Weyl tensor. Those are the degrees of freedom carried by gravitational waves. Only in dimension 3=1(time)+2(space) specifying the Einstein tensor would be tantamount to specifying the Ricci tensor, which would be tantamount to specifying the Riemann tensor, because all of them would have 6 components. Gravity in 1+2 dimensions would have no gravitational waves.

(My emphasis.) Taking up on this, your idea; dear @Butch; should be able to mesh with (at the very least): 1) Quantum mechanics 2) General relativity as it's presented as a model for gravity at a more fundamental level than the one we have. None of these criteria seems to be met from what I've seen. (My emphasis.) It's the other way. The meshing point should be the starting point, which is at the core, I think, of Swansont's last statements here. It's definitely not: Hey, this looks right in my mind; somehow some day it will click with everything else. What are the chances of getting it right this way? It's the other way. And believe me I just want to be helpful. If you see someone starting out from an obvious mistake, you try to tell them.

Good luck with that: There are 19 free parameters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_of_the_Standard_Model_Lagrangian I applaud your optimism. PS: None of those include gravity, by the way. Plus the standing problem of hierarchies. Sounds like you have no idea what you're up against, honest. There's a (panoply of) reason(s) why revolutions in science are so hard to come by.

There is no torsion in 2D. You can only have 1 curvature, and no torsion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_of_a_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet–Serret_formulas In 4D you have even more.