| | The true nature of gravityPage 2 of 4 (1, 2, 3, 4) | I appreciate that, Earthling, thanks. It irks me, though, that people tell me, "you're stupid, the difference between law and theory is this, here's the definition of theory", and they don't give me the definition of law. If I ask, they ignore my request. They are idiots, basically, those people, who despite their superior education do not respect thought and ideas enough to follow through even on their own statements.
Then there is the thing that the guy who gave me a definition of what theory is, did not paraphrase at all the guy who gave me three necessary conditions that all theories must satisfy. The definition does not exclude the three necessary conditions, but it does not include them either. A theory, according to the definition, could be a theory while it does not (although it may) satisfy the three necessary conditions; and the three necessary conditions could be parts of other systems aside from theories and their relationships to other theories.
And everyone seems to be so smart!! That was a bit hurtful, reading things like "the babies are out, watch where you step", and "here's another idiot trying to reinvent theology as science." They were not these words, but they meant things similar to this. I could not fight back, because different rules of argument apply in science from philosophy. I don't know what applies in science, so maybe ad hominem is allowed. I heard from people that it is, famous scientists used to call each other bad names in public, and neither was scorned. So I just swallowed my pride when I was slung with mud.
But I was getting angry when the scientific community on PoF forums kept giving me either no support to my direct request (as when I asked where to go to publish something), and on the other hand kept giving me incongruent definitions of what makes a theory.
It's just that maybe there is no set definition of what a theory is. Then, guys, be a man. Say that. Just don't snowball me with calling me an idiot, and not supporting your statements.
I guess I am too much of a philosopher. Meh. Big furry deal. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 6/25/2009 12:52:21 PM | | any science textbook will define a scientific theory for you. You dont need us for that. It is the common usage of the word theory that has no rigorous definition. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 6/25/2009 6:14:50 PM | "any science textbook will define a scientific theory for you. You dont need us for that. It is the common usage of the word theory that has no rigorous definition."
That is simply not true. Several posters here told me I have no clue what a theory is. And two offered some sort of definition.
If I have no clue what a theory is, then it means there is something to know. You say that the thing to know is what I had proposed to know. Others say no, it is not.
Only one side can be right, and at this point I decided that no side can be right. That is within my rights.
You guys are so full of bs that if you stopped tilting your heads back, some brown smelly substance would come out of your mouts.
Hey... it already has. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 6/25/2009 10:39:01 PM | | Ive been thinking of space as a fluid for awhile to try and explain a few things.Its hard to think of space flowing into a mass(gravity) and at the same time outwards from the mass(anti-gravity?) I thaught if the mass somehow changed the form of space so it had more of a type of friction closs to the mass and the out flowing space had less friction closs but more far away .That could cause a form of inward and outward flow . | |
|
Riki19
| | Joined: 4/25/2009
Msg: 30 | |
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 6/27/2009 6:49:47 PM | | Gravity attracts because a massive object displaces the surrounding space, not because it is inherent in the mass itself. If I were to think about antigravity, I would think about how to essentially flood a small space with even more space, which would be the opposite of what is happening when a mass displaces space. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/14/2009 6:41:10 PM | I'm posting this link in response to the above and to message 10.
The article is from Scientific American titled 'Splitting Time from Space—New Quantum Theory Topples Einstein's Spacetime' http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space is about the Hořava gravity model.
Aside from the provocative title it sounds interesting but unfortunately, I've not been able to find much more information than this article. Does anyone have any more background on it. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/14/2009 7:59:49 PM | Re: desertrhino
Under no circumstances is any person regularly posting in this forum willing to LEARN what the word theory means in scientific discourse, unless they already know it.
Not true :)
I recently learned the difference between theory, and hypothesis, and you had a role in that insight... so never say never :) | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/14/2009 10:15:14 PM | | is it true that if the universe expanded much faster, it might be over and done, what ever that means, much slower and it wouldn't, expand? [no big bang, not even a poof] | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/14/2009 10:16:04 PM | is it true that if the universe expanded much faster, it might be over and done, what ever that means, much slower and it wouldn't, expand? [no big bang, not even a poof]
opps! | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/15/2009 10:24:37 AM | I started to read your post but something caught my eye.
"It would explain why objects close to each other pull towards each other, and why objects very far from each other push away from each other."
Objects that are far away do not push each other away.
Perhaps you can explain that further or give an example. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/15/2009 4:33:12 PM |
One question, guys: If someone comes up with a theory, what is a good venue to publish it? I know that theories are a dime a dozen, since most of them are not scientific. But if some new thought is not guaranteed to be seen, it can go unnoticed and then it is guaranteed to be lost. Which is not a big deal, like you guys said, for most of the theories, on PoF or elsewhere. But some dude who is not in the profession -- how would he get his word and his ideas out?
I will jump in and out of this discussion here.
Even if everything in your original post here were found out to be true you would not be credited with it - not even a name mention. Not because of the obscurity of the medium - a science/philosophy forum at plentyofffish - but because of the vagueness of your postulates among other things. At one point near the beginning of your original post you state quite incorrectly that gravitional attraction INCREASES by the inverse of the square of the distance between two bodies. That mistake alone would render your 'theory' a mere coincidence, much like an infinite amount of monkeys typing would have stumbled upon it also
What you're saying is 'matter repels matter by the force of antigravity which increases with the square of the distance between bodies of matter'. If thats true, you wont get credit. I wouldnt sweat trying to find a 'good venue to publish it'.
When Einstein formulated his theories for Special Relativity and General Relativity he used the ideas of others such as Lorenz, but did so in such a way that none of his contemporaries at the time were able to do. Others had already come up with the most famous equation in science history - E = mc^2 - but no one until Einstein was able to see what that equation really meant, ie. the power source of stars, why radioactive isotopes could continually expel high energy particles etc etc.
Although its part of history - not many people can name the guy who first wrote that E = mc^2, but just about everyone knows of Einstein. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/16/2009 6:32:16 PM | Anyone here know anything about this Galaxy Clock theory I keep hearing about? I saw some stuff online, but nothing concrete and no experiments. I mean, it sounds plausible but I get lost when concept turns into numbers and formulae. There was some anthropological research involved in one presentation of the Galaxy Clock, but I couldn't tell by the presentation whether that was the guy who coneived the idea.
I ran across the theory doing some UFO phenomena research and it piqued my interest. I study UFOs as a social phenomon, not event phenomenon, so it's sorta rare that I stop on anything actually dealing with the UFOs themselves... but Dan Akroyd was there... what can I say, I liked "Spies Like Us."
 | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 12/16/2009 9:11:52 PM | Here's my take on it, senor... and I assume you mean the propulsion method
First off, the limited amount of material online implies no peer review, and the lack of scientific analysis or calculation makes it seem silly. Also, the stuff I found claims to show proof of this propulsion system in NASA-built UFOs. I don't think I need to comment on that humdinger.
But let's say it's possible for fun. Can a physics major here please explain how such a thing would -or would not- work? | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 5:39:46 AM | I have a theory, a notion, an idea  Gravity doesn't exist. There is no such thing......all we see are the effects of 'something'
This is my idea as to what causes these 'effects' based on the theories of particle physics.
Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. There are 6 kind of quarks: Up, down, charm, strange, top & bottom.
Up, charm and top have +2/3 charge. Down, strange and bottom have -1/3 charge.
Only 2 quarks, UP and DOWN are stable and they make up all normal matter....Protons & Neutrons.
A Proton is made up of 2 up and 1 down quark, total charge = +1
A Neutron is made up of 1 up and 2 down quarks, total charge = 0
An electron is a lepton and has -1 negative charge.
Soooo, if we take an atom of Helium with 1 proton, 1 neutron and 1 electron all the charges cancel each other out. In fact most atoms work on this principle.....The positive charge from the nucleus is cancelled out by a corresponding number of electrons.
Here's the but What if these particles aren't perfect? What if the charge on an UP quark is slightly(infinitesimally) less than +2/3 or the charge of an electron is slightly more than -1.
The fact that we have 3 positive particles against 4 negative would stack the odds that all atoms would hold a slightly negative bias.
As any good electrician will tell you, electrons flows from negative to positive so this would make all atoms have a net attractive force.
The accumulative effect of a lot of atoms together would increase their attractive force.
These 'imperfections', been so small are almost immeasurable which is why they can be discounted on the small, quantum level yet add them all together and we get 'gravity'.
My idea actually discounts the need for a unification theory as there isn't some mysterious force called gravity at all. The effects we see are just a variation on a theme of electromagnetism. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 11:10:28 AM | | I think if you ask a physicist about the "true nature" of anything, he will direct you towards a philosopher and tell you he doesn't think about such things. Physics is about categorising, measuring and defining the regularities of experience. "What" it is is always left undefined, but is usually informed by the currently dominant paradigm. At the moment that paradigm is "information" but it seems to me that defining it thus gives you no new insight, so like much of philosophy it's kind-of pointless! | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 12:01:37 PM | PhiloSophically speaking; I'd say INFINITY is often underestimated in both Space and Time.
Let's travel a mere 14 + Billion Light Years in any direction...---> X
Are you there yet?
Standing on the outer Edge of our known Universe (not visible from Earth).
A spherical Shock Wave of Dark Matter encapsulates our little bubble, imso
Now, Beam me back Scotty!
Scotty?
Spock?
{Delayed reply}
Ey Capn, I thought your Information got lost in space; but Captain Spock says we never captured it due to
the Electron position unpredictability theories of Quantuum Mechanics. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 12:24:07 PM | | The mathematical concepts, infinity and nothingness, describe the same phenomenon, it is just measured in diferent directions - by humans - through our universe. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 1:19:20 PM | Math is a man made invention used to approximate Nature, imo.
F = MA is a pretty good fit till you hit Light speed )
Duality from Nothing
0 = -1 + 1
Infinity
1/o = ?
The Center Point of the Yen/Yang symbol is a portal to the Infinitly Small on one side and Infinity on the other side of this Coin that we can perceive.
Thanks to Electron MicroScopes & Advanced Telescopes we can see more of reality than ever before; but there is alot more out there that remains 'occult' or hidden from our perceptions according to my wizard. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 2:34:22 PM | lookingforsophia:
Minor math correction:
Infinity = beyond finite
Nothingness = beyond finite
Cancel like terms
Infinity = nothingness
:) | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 3:59:48 PM | Yes Cress, perhaps that's what Einstein was trying to imply when he said [;o)>
'You can believe Nothing is a miracle or Everthing is a miracle'
0 = +1 -1
I still think this TriVial equation may lead us to revelations concerning Matter and AntiMatter
creation during close encounters with Black Hole event horizons when massive Galaxies collide.
If this proves true in the future; for the record I want my horse Tarzan to get the credit. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/10/2012 11:12:05 PM | lookingforsophia:
I still think this TriVial equation may lead us to revelations concerning Matter and AntiMatter
creation during close encounters with Black Hole event horizons when massive Galaxies collide.
Well, I cannot speak to matter/antimatter but this little concept has led me to some emensly ground braking revelations in dimensional mathematic. I wish I could discuss it further here - the equations are a thing of beauty - but ,unfortunately, the model pertains to a set of my personal, and as of yet, unpublished theories, and as such, are highly sensitive. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/11/2012 5:21:26 AM | Sounds good Cress. Hawkins discussed how Black Holes can theoretically Create new Matter/Antimatter along the perimeter of Event Horizons.
This Quantuum level explanation was beyond my comprehension; but it reminded me of another phenomenon you might find interesting to explore.
Consider 2 Stars, RAPIDLY orbiting each other's G Fields as they spiral into a BH Event Horizon.
Like 2 Ice Skaters held together by a Rope as they Spin, orbit each other and their Combined Orbit degrades down a frozen whirlpool. Both seem doomed, with no way to escape.
Then our hero Tarzan at just the right moment; Cracks the Whip, flinging his partner Jane into an Escape Velocity and Trajectory. The complex Centrifigal Forces involved make it difficult for Tarzan to calculate the exact Time to let go of the Rope; fortunately for Jane the G-Rope is not strong enough to hold her at some point. She is Slung to safety.
A similar phenomenon may occur at a subatomic level. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/11/2012 5:56:56 AM | Cress, another thang to consider in your Model is 'perspective'. From 'where' are you looking at the 'problem' to be solved?
Historically, personkinds' perspective was Earth Centric. Eventually we shifted to a Solar System approach.
Then a Galactic, Milky Way centric.
Now we seem Universe centric; looking Backwards against the Arrow of Time to where 'The BIG Bang' began.
I believe we must go a BIG Step beyond even that point of view.
What we call 'THE BIG Bang' should be called 'BIG Bang W' in my World.
Keep in mind that you are at liberty to assign a Value of Zero where ever you want to Start.
Example: Sea Level is arbitrarily assigned a value of Zero.
Finding the most appropriate Starting Point for Model development will help simplyfy the Math, imo.
So for the 11 Dimensions of M-Theory ;)
you need to determine where to place
0,0,0
0,0,0
0,0,0
along with T and the MythicalMadnessMagicMemBrain displacement Parameter???? | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/11/2012 9:59:38 AM | Lookingforsophia:
Example: Sea Level is arbitrarily assigned a value of Zero.
Finding the most appropriate Starting Point for Model development will help simplyfy the Math, imo.
So for the 11 Dimensions of M-Theory ;)
you need to determine where to place
It's not based in string theory, I was unsatisfied with the currently accepted model for dimensions. So, I started all over, from scratch. My starting values were zero and infinity. I completely reworked the X,Y,Z model, reassigning new values for each dimension based on Einstein's curved universe. The result was breath taking in its ability to predict observable phenomenon. As I said, I wish I could discuss it further, but I simply can't. | |
|
| The true nature of gravity
Posted: 5/11/2012 10:28:13 AM | I'd wish you the best of Luck with your project; but being a Mathematician you probably don't believe in Luck ;)
I would be interested in your answer to this question.
Suppose I imagined an Imaginary Box.
Level, Plum and Square on all sides.
This hypothetical box is purely a Mathmatical framework and unaffected by Gravitational Warping.
Einstein walks in and says the walls are Curved.
My reply, 'No, your Laser Level is jest bent." | |
|
Home
login 
