Intrigued by the nature and possibilities of reality - General

Reality isn't as concrete as we sometimes feel it is. The human brain creates a model of a physical world with color, heat, mass, etc, when these are really all just types of data about the interactions elementary particles have with one another. Nothing is intrinsically bright, or heavy, or hot, they're just measures of what one object will make another do. Existence could just be here because of necessity - to balance some cosmic equation or whatever. Because 1=1 I guess and there was some deficit Like the theory that because gravity is negative energy, all other types of energy (including matter if it really is energy reduced to a slow vibration) exist to counteract it and balance the equation, and that's why universes come into being. So basically gravity is god, or everything else is "god" and gravity is the "devil" or some shit. So the only thing that can be said to truly "exist" in the most concrete form is that law, and we're just flitting little results. Most surprisingly is that if this is the case (makes more sense to me than most religions in terms of its consistency with what we've witnessed about the universe through cosmology and stuff) humans are so fucking cool. we're such an interesting little byproduct of this byproduct and we're able to recognize this. we're little sets self perpetuating interactions born from some impossible to comprehend imbalance that have developed the ability to recognize all this about themselves, and also feel emotions that seem to be beyond description by these terms. i fucking love drugs how is any of this shit illegal. i'm not even high right now (well, there's weed, but this is all born from other shit). i feel like one of those fucking shamans who insist that they only use peyote and ayahuasca and shit to train themselves to get in that kind of state of mind when they're sober. and it actually worked I guess. this might also be a sign of having permanently addled my brain with psylocibes and shit but I don't feel stupid. just a little unfocused at the minute.

Well, what you say is true. Our view of the world around us is all made by the human brain. In reality, everything is energy vibrating at different frequencies. It's really fascinating to think about this kind of shit, perhaps because it is so hard by our human brains to comprehend.

more: religion is a method to deal with the kind of senselessness implicit in any non-humancentric theory of existence. it's scary looking into a void where humans are just a byproduct of this cold series of rigid quantum laws. it means there's no objective morality, or good or evil, or anything, really - just the fact of existence. religion is a reaction to the fear this can induce. historically it's also been a method of control or blah blah but this is why i believe religion survives today, when scientific theories of creation are so much more likely based on observed facts. if the facts somehow pointed to an even more pleasant picture of reality for humans than the creation stories of christianity - for example if the discoveries of scientists fell in line, more or less, with buddhist philosophy - we would have left everything else behind long ago. it's just that the "truth" of reality is so much more base and unromantic and uncaring for humanity and our loves and fears and whatever else than we would like to believe [QUOTE=Mindtwistah;28046767]Well, what you say is true. Our view of the world around us is all made by the human brain. In reality, everything is energy vibrating at different frequencies. It's really fascinating to think about this kind of shit, perhaps because it is so hard by our human brains to comprehend.[/QUOTE] yeah man I personally love it. for awhile it scared the shit out of me but now I'm just choosing to feel lucky that I can experience everything this way and feel all this stuff that I feel and have these experiences that seem somehow grander and more important than the interaction of energies. it's neat that on a large enough scale, the chaos that gives rise to the universe eventually manifests in such an orderly way and produces beings that are able to comprehend what they're a part of. it does kind of suck that there's no "objective" way to experience reality. we wish we could comprehend it but I don't think anything that we could reasonably recognize as a "consciousness" would have the ability to truly comprehend everything that happens. the best you can do to comprehend it is to realize that reality is like, outside the realm of comprehension, maaaaan. [editline]14th February 2011[/editline] you know. because any manner you are able to interpret reality in will be any more inherently correct than another.

That seems pretty well thought out, but there's a problem. Gravity isn't energy. It's just (apparently) a graviton exchange event. It exerts a force at a point on a massive object, but gravity itself isn't energy. There's "Gravitational potential energy" (Which is identicle to every other kind of energy created by a field), but that's just the potential for energy change in an object affected by the field. Essentially, the energy change caused by a gravitational field is exactly the same as the energy change brought about by magnetic flux/emf. Not sure how that changes your theory, though. [editline]14th February 2011[/editline] Also, why would gravity be "negative" energy? Surely if you're going to assign a sign to it, it'd be positive since it's an attractive force between two massive objects?

You've caught me :/ my theory's still pretty rudimentary and mostly the result of nonformal personal education and reflection and shit. is gravity just an equalization of gravitons, then? because in that case it would eventually bring two bodies to rest, right? i have a bad understanding of forces still

Gravitons are just things that scientists have made up to explain something that they can't explain. Like neutrinos and dark matter. All we know for sure is that every massive object in the universe is exerting a force on every other massive object in the universe. Although, if you were to draw a graph of gravitational field strength against distance between objects, you'd get a y=1/x graph, so there'd be an asymptote. All this means is that as you get further and further away, gravitational field strength tends towards zero, but never reaches it. Which means over very large distances, most objects will only be exerting an infinitesimally small forces on one another. Also, in terms of "bringing two bodies to rest", gravity is almost never the only force acting on the objects. It's normally a centripetal force, since circular motion is unbelievably common throughout the universe.

unsnip: uh, if a massive object existed in a void without gravity and a much smaller object collided with it, would the larger mass begin to travel away at the same speed that the smaller object hit it with? basically, if the moon hit the earth in a void, both stayed structuraly intact but gravity didn't exist, at like 100km/h, would the earth then travel away at 100km/h a la poolballs or would there be a reduction in velocity due to other forces? which forces?

Depends, do the masses coalesce after the collision? That's more of a momentum question than a gravitational field strength question. I can tell you how you'd work it out, though? You'd use the conservation of momentum equation as the base of the calculation which is M1U1 + M2U2 = M1V1 + M2V2 Where M = mass, U = Initial velocity, V = final velocity, and the numbers correspond to the masses. If they coalesce, you'd simply have it equal MV, as it would be one mass with a single velocity. Then, you'd modify the equation to take account for the acceleration due to gravity. You'd do this by using Newton's law of universal gravitation, which is [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/f/3/0f36df929ac9d711a8ba8c5658c3bfee.png[/IMG]. Where F = force, G = gravitational constant, M = mass, and r = distance. Once you've worked out the force due to gravity, work out the acceleration due to gravity by using Newton's second law which is [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/2/8/a28d8d4e4a422c639a1d24d9ce9e3d8e.png[/img]. Which is just the differential of the massxvelocity. After you've subbed in all the data into the original momentum equation, you'll have a tiny tiny value for the momentum passed from the smaller mass to the larger mass. If they coalesce, it'd be a tiny bit bigger than if they didn't. I think. Why the fuck do I know all this? I hate my life. :smith: [editline]14th February 2011[/editline] Awww why would you snip that? I took the time to answer your question! Unsnip it! right now!

[url]http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm[/url] "stop" explains all of this better than I ever could