Subtitled: Gravity Sucks
On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton
Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton’s law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton’s law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.
Note the end of the abstract. Where it says “The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.”
I have always hated the non-explanation of inertia. To me it makes no sense to not explain why something tends to move the way it does. Every other thing in the universe tends towards entropy, why is the movement of a mass not behaving similarly?
I’m only ten pages into the paper but I’m having a blast reading it.
The reality? Awful lots of “if we assume” arguments get used to build up to “first principles” and so I find my self at 11 pages saying to myself that while it’s fun and all it’s probably mostly B.S. But I’ll finish it out anyway. If nothing else it’s fun to entertain different ideas.
“If this is all about surviving politically, then we’re missing the whole purpose of what we’re supposed to be doing… - Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd
In this case “surviving politically” entails doing the will of your constituents. It entails trusting that the constituents are big boys and girls and can be allowed self-determination. But apparently the elite of the elected aristocracy (no one else wants the damn job) don’t feel that voters should be allowed to have a say in matters. That’s the lesson we take home from Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, who are content to keep the legislation from being open and transparent.
The Rev. Al Sharpton on Monday said he was disturbed by condescending remarks reportedly made by former President Bill Clinton about Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.
Sharpton was referring to a passage in the new book, “Game Change,” which recounts the conversation Clinton had with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy when he was trying to convince the liberal lion of the Senate to endorse his wife for president.
“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” Clinton told Kennedy, according to the book — a comment that angered Kennedy, who later endorsed Obama.
Sharpton, speaking on Fox News, defended Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over a passage in the book in which he said Obama doesn’t have a “Negro dialect” unless he wants one. But the reverend would not give Clinton such a pass for his remark.
“I think that’s far more disturbing because this is someone seeking to stop Mr. Obama’s campaign and making a direct reference — I don’t know the context in which he said it — but that is far more disturbing to me than even the comments that were made by Mr. Reid,” Sharpton said.
But it’s ok for the first black president to say such things, right? It’s only the first black president talking about the not-quite-but-soon second black president, right?
Sharpton admits he doesn’t know the context but opens his mouth anyway. Will someone just shut the man up?
This guy needs to get a date. Oh, that’s right, he couldn’t get one so he made one.
Cherry 3000. Ok, Cherry 2462. Ok, Kiwi 2300… no? Kumquat 2100? Uh…. Jackfruit 2020. Running out of models we can drop down to here, folks. Cherry 3000 she ain’t, is my point.