Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: My seamless transition theory

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15

    My seamless transition theory

    I've developed a theory that completely changes the way the universe is operating. I shall try to express my theory in a logical way but i must warn everyone that i have no scientific or mathematical training. My theory is based around my thought that the scientific community missed something very important when Galileo proved that objects with different masses when they are under the influence of a dominant but identical strength of gravity get moved at the same speed. What i believe everyone missed is that this means that if all the matter in the universe was under the influence of an identical strength of gravity that was moving us in one direction we wouldn't realise as we have no out of this universe reference point. This would make the universe a bit like travelling in a spaceship that is orbiting the earth with no windows. If you placed two balls near each other in the middle of the ship they would slowly come together and you would think that was the main event but really the dominant thing that is happening is that your spaceship is falling towards the earth. So by this I mean that the gravitational effects we observe in the universe represent the two balls moving together and are minor compared to all the matter in the universe moving in one direction.
    This is all I'm writing for now untill i make sure I have the go ahead to continue.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,986
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, soggy. Before undertaking your ATM topic, I do recommend that you read our rules and our advice to ATM proponents, if you haven't already. Both are linked in my signature line below.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15

    My seamless transition theory

    Thanks Peter I'll do my best to stick to the rules.

    So I've done my best to describe how all the matter in the universe could be being moved in one general direction by the force that causes gravity without us realising it and now I'd like to outlay the theory I've developed that hinges on the fact that this is actually happening.
    I start off with the rather outrageous hypotheses that there's an event happening well beyond our advent horizon (luckily for me as now I don't have to describe in a definite way what is causing this event just what it is producing) that is continually bathing us in an invisible form of energy which we have given the different names of dark energy, gravity, mass and maybe even dark matter without realising they are all different expressions of the one type of energy. Note that all those different energy's have in common that they are invisible to us we just observe their effects.
    In other words what I'm saying here is that (in my theory) the big bang isn't something that happened but something that IS HAPPENING. When that energy encounters the bonds that hold matter together it creates the mass in matter and pushes matter in the direction its travelling. The three dimensional effects of gravity we observe around us are caused by different concentrations and directions of the energy when it interacts with matter but I will describe the basic mechanics of how that works later.
    I'm next going to describe how in my theory the energy is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe we observe without space expanding but for now I got to see a man about a dog. I'm a stock farmer but that is still just mean't to be a joke

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,453
    Hi soggy.

    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    <snip>
    I start off with the rather outrageous hypotheses that there's an event happening well beyond our advent horizon (luckily for me as now I don't have to describe in a definite way what is causing this event just what it is producing) that is continually bathing us in an invisible form of energy which we have given the different names of dark energy, gravity, mass and maybe even dark matter without realising they are all different expressions of the one type of energy. Note that all those different energy's have in common that they are invisible to us we just observe their effects.
    What do you mean by "invisible" (as in "an invisible form of energy")? Do mean invisible to the naked eye or do mean completely unobservable or undetectable by any means?

    If your idea depends on an event we cannot see, and a form of energy we can't detect, than how can you possibly demonstrate your idea?

    What does your idea explain or predict that current theory cannot?
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    I've developed a theory that completely changes the way the universe is operating. ...
    Hi soggy and welcome to the forum.
    A problem with presenting a theory as a narrative is that you have to be quite precise with your language. For example what Galileo actually did was show that when objects rolled down a slope, their acceleration (not speed) was the same. He extrapolated this to freely falling objects under gravity. There is also the story of dropping spheres with different mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

    Gravity has an inverse square law. If there was a mass acting on all of the matter in the universe we would see a different force in different places. If somehow there was an identical gravitational force on all the mass in the universe then it would be basically irrelevant. In your example, the observer, spaceship and spheres will be accelerating in one direction but the observer cannot tell the difference between an acceleration from an engine or acceleration from gravity. You suggest that you know this with "without us realising it" comments.

    A bigger problem is that even a narrative needs use scientific definitions correctly.
    • Energy is not a thing in itself - it is a property of a system.
      For example an object can have kinetic energy but we do not expect to have a spoonful of kinetic energy. If there is a transfer of energy, there is a physical object to transfer it. A microwave heats up food by emitting microwave photons.
    • Dark energy is not gravity by definition.
      Gravity is an attractive force between masses. Dark energy is whatever is causing the measured acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If we ignore GR (which is foolish), that acceleration has to be a repulsive force. GR has an elegant way of explaining dark energy as a non-zero cosmologic constant.
    • Mass is not "an invisible form of energy".
      Mass and energy do have an equivalence (E=mc^2)). Mass is a property of particles. Your story would have to explain why photons hove no mass, electrons all have the same mass, why nucleons have more mass than their quarks with more than unsupported assertions.
    • The Big Bang starts with the hot, dense conditions at the start of the universe which is definitely not the state of the universe today.
      The universe is still expanding so in that sense the Big Bang is still ongoing.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    I start off with the rather outrageous hypotheses that there's an event happening well beyond our advent horizon (luckily for me as now I don't have to describe in a definite way what is causing this event just what it is producing)
    First, it's "event" horizon. The reason it's called an "event" horizon is because it's defined as the "horizon" beyond which no "events" can effect us. So, if you say there is an event, happening beyond our event horizon, and this event is effecting us, then you have just state a contradiction. Either this event is not beyond our event horizon (so within the observable universe and therefore something we could see), or this event is not effecting us. Which is it?

    .....that is continually bathing us in an invisible form of energy......
    But if it's outside the observable universe, then there has not been enough time since the big bang for that energy to reach us. So even if there was some event occuring, and even if it was sending us this mysterious energy, it wouldn't matter because none of that energy would have reached us yet.

    which we have given the different names of dark energy, gravity, mass and maybe even dark matter without realising they are all different expressions of the one type of energy.
    Gravity is an attractive force.
    Dark energy is a repulsive force.
    Mass and dark matter are not forces at all.

    So clearly they can't be the same. 2 behave in opposite ways, and 2 other things aren't even forces.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Hi swift.
    By invisible I mean we just observe the effects the energy is having in our universe and not the energy itself. Dark energy being the classic example.
    My idea creates an an alternative reasoning for the events we observe around us so in away the universe is demonstrating my idea just as it does for current scientific theories. We can detect that the energy is there by observing the effects it is having on the universe around us.
    My idea turns gravity into push which may give gravitational waves an unthought of effect causing interference patterns for particles with small masses.( I'm referring to buckyballs through slits here)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Hi Reality Check
    I'm sorry that my language is inevitably not precise enough as i have no scientific background. The only way I can present my theory is by narrative and even if I was mathematical I don't think it could be expressed in a general sense that way. So please be patient with me I'm just trying to express an idea as best I can.
    Energy is not a thing in itself. Quote Stephen Hawking THE GRANDE DESIGN page 229 each particle of matter has a corresponding anti particle. If they meet they annihilate each other, leaving pure energy. Sounds like it could be a thing to me. My theory has gravity working in away that is not an attractive force and it does describe away that dark energy and gravity are caused by the same energy force. I think the fact that mass and energy have an equivalence hints that it is a form of energy.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Hi Dave241
    Sorry I meant event horizon. The event horizon is limited by the speed of light but whose to say the energy being produced by the event is limited by something as pathetically slow as the speed of light My theory stops gravity from being an attractive force and dark energy from being a repulsive force.
    I've decided not to defend my theory anymore until i've completely described it and then you can all give it a sound thrashing. I hope people don't mind it will only take about 4 more " advanced posts" but I don't want to get bogged down and not finish it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,986
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    I've decided not to defend my theory anymore until i've completely described it and then you can all give it a sound thrashing. I hope people don't mind it will only take about 4 more " advanced posts" but I don't want to get bogged down and not finish it.
    soggy,

    You must provide direct, timely answers to the questions asked of you. It's fine to ask for time needed to formulate your answers but you may not defer answering questions about your claims, just to make additional claims. Please check your inbox for a PM from me.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. ó Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    Energy is not a thing in itself. Quote Stephen Hawking THE GRANDE DESIGN page 229 each particle of matter has a corresponding anti particle. If they meet they annihilate each other, leaving pure energy. Sounds like it could be a thing to me. My theory has gravity working in away that is not an attractive force and it does describe away that dark energy and gravity are caused by the same energy force. I think the fact that mass and energy have an equivalence hints that it is a form of energy.
    The "A bigger problem is that even a narrative needs use scientific definitions correctly" point remains a problem for your narrative.
    Read the Wikipedia article on energy and you will see that energy is a property, not a physical thing. Likewise consult a physics textbook in your local library or Google the definition of energy in physics. Energy is a property like mass, charge, or spin.
    E=mc^2 does not say that mass is energy. It says that mass and energy can be converted between each other. They are equivalent, thus mass-energy equivalence.
    Dark energy is an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Dark energy was named as an energy from the mainstream physics that you are arguing against. GR has a term called the cosmological constant. It is considered to be the energy cost of empty space - a vacuum energy. A positive cosmological constant produces a negative pressure that pushes spacetime apart and accelerates the existing expansion.

    Dark energy and gravity are different. Gravity is a force. Dark energy is not a force.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Dec-05 at 08:21 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Hi Reality Check
    Firstly thanks for taking the time to critique what I've written so far. I'm sure the the things you're saying are valid and probably true but in going against mainstream thinking I'm bound to be trying to make invalid some established ideas (I know you would call them known facts) so I'm hoping you'll cut me some slack and allow me to finish presenting my theory (idea, concept) so that you at least understand where i'm coming from before you no doubt demolishing it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15

    Universe expansion without space expansion

    So I've done my best to describe how in my theory an event is producing a type of energy that is pushing all matter (including blackholes) in generally speaking one direction but because it pushes all matter at the same speed we are unaware of it. Now I'll attempt to describe how if it were true it could cause the accelerating expansion of the universe we observe without any expansion of space.
    Energy if its allowed too always tries to dissipate and become less concentrated so its only logical that as my hypothetical energy is produced it will immediately start to spread as it travels out into space and this in turn means that when it encounters matter even though it will push all matter at the same speed it will push it at a slightly different angle and that angle will become more acute the greater the distance becomes between the pieces of matter (lets think in galaxies here). If you were a life form with powerful telescopes peering out into the universe you would observe that most galaxies are moving away from you and the further away the faster they are doing it but you would not be aware that at the same time all the matter in the universe is being moved in generally one direction by my invisible energy as you'd have no out of this universe reference point. Because you can tell matter is not expanding you could decide space must be expanding but under this scenario you'd be wrong. To try to clarify what I'm saying the universe is a bit like if you fired off two space rockets in space at 45 degree angle from each other at 10 ks an hour. As long as nothing interfered with their velocity or angle of velocity eventually they'd be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light but they'd still only be going 10 ks an hour.
    An interesting aside is that in theorising my invisible energy I've created a medium for the photon to conduct through space.
    In my next thread I'll describe how in my theory you can still have the three dimensional gravity effect we see around us even though we're basically travelling in one direction.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,906
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    So I've done my best to describe how in my theory an event is producing a type of energy that is pushing all matter (including blackholes) in generally speaking one direction but because it pushes all matter at the same speed we are unaware of it. Now I'll attempt to describe how if it were true it could cause the accelerating expansion of the universe we observe without any expansion of space.
    Energy if its allowed too always tries to dissipate and become less concentrated so its only logical that as my hypothetical energy is produced it will immediately start to spread as it travels out into space and this in turn means that when it encounters matter even though it will push all matter at the same speed it will push it at a slightly different angle and that angle will become more acute the greater the distance becomes between the pieces of matter (lets think in galaxies here). If you were a life form with powerful telescopes peering out into the universe you would observe that most galaxies are moving away from you and the further away the faster they are doing it but you would not be aware that at the same time all the matter in the universe is being moved in generally one direction by my invisible energy as you'd have no out of this universe reference point. Because you can tell matter is not expanding you could decide space must be expanding but under this scenario you'd be wrong. To try to clarify what I'm saying the universe is a bit like if you fired off two space rockets in space at 45 degree angle from each other at 10 ks an hour. As long as nothing interfered with their velocity or angle of velocity eventually they'd be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light but they'd still only be going 10 ks an hour.
    An interesting aside is that in theorising my invisible energy I've created a medium for the photon to conduct through space.
    In my next thread I'll describe how in my theory you can still have the three dimensional gravity effect we see around us even though we're basically travelling in one direction.
    First you say that your hypothetical action which you call energy is pushing objects in the same rate and direction everywhere, and then you say it is pushing in different directions at different locations. How can it do both simultaneously? If it is doing the latter the effects will be observable, at least in principle. If it is doing the former, how in principle do we tell whether or not it even exists?

    What does 10 ks stand for? Is ks a unit of distance (perhaps you meant km for kilometers) or is it a unit of speed?

    You acknowledge that you are not trained in mathematics. It appears that as a result you do not have the skill set needed to recognize the faults and inconsistencies in your presentation. That's OK for starters, as we all need to start somewhere. Perhaps you would do well to emulate Einstein and learn the necessary math for refining and fleshing out your ideas, and recognize errors after an initial burst of intuitive conjecture.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    The event horizon is limited by the speed of light.....
    Sort of. The event horizon is technically limited by the speed of events, which in our universe does correspond to the speed of light. So yes, it is correct to say that the event horizon is determined by the speed of light, however since you are proposing some mechanism that can travel faster then light, then that would also change where the event horizon is. This really is just a definition issue: If you are claiming that some "event" is able to effect us, then that by definition cannot be beyond our "event" horizon. You would simply be redefining the event horizon to no longer be determined by the speed of light, but instead determined by this other speed you are claiming exists.

    Speaking of which, do you know anything at all about your proposed new energy? What speed it travels at? How is it produced? What effect will it have on standard model particles when it interacts with them?

    Actually, for now if you could just answer "what speed does it travel at", that would be a GREAT start. Thanks.


    but whose to say the energy being produced by the event is limited by something as pathetically slow as the speed of light
    Relativity says, that's who. If you want to claim that something is able to exceed the speed of light, then you will also have to address the slew of causality issues that will arise as a result of this.


    My theory stops gravity from being an attractive force.....
    How? For instance, with Newtons law of gravity it says F=GMM/r^2.

    Mass of Earth: 6*10^24 kg
    Radius of Earth: 6.3*10^6 m
    G= 7*10^-11

    So for a 1kg test mass, my rough calculation shows it will experience a downward acceleration of about 10m/s^2, which is both an attractive force and is just what we measure. So, what is your formula for how we calculate the gravitational force on the surface of the Earth? And why does your theory show the opposite of what we measure?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    So I've done my best to describe ...
    Unfortunately, your rather vague story about what "energy" does is not science.
    Actual energy needs something to carry it. You have a vague story about what you expect to happen. I could write a story that it does not do that and be equally correct.

    You seem to misunderstand Hubble's law. It is not that we measure the speeds between galaxies. We measure the speeds (redshifts) between us and galaxies. The increasing redshift with distance then allows us to calculate that the galaxies are getting further away from each other as predicted by an expanding universe. To use your analogy : Two space rockets are traveling in space directly away from Earth. They have lights shining back at Earth and we have the same lights on Earth. We measure the Doppler shift of the lights on the rockets. The first space rocket is travelling at 10 km/s. The second space rocket is travelling at 20 km/s. The 2 space rockets are thus getting further apart at a rate of 10 km/s.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Dave The event horizon that we always refer to caused by the speed of light is only known because we can see (detect light) but as my energy is invisible it won't actually have an event horizon. Anyway we can't actually see the big bang because its outside our event horizon but that doesn't stop main stream belief from theorising it occurred so why can't I theorise that something is occurring outside our light speed restricted event horizon.
    No I don't know what speed the energy is travelling at how could I, but my guess is many times the speed of light. The speed of light in this theory is the speed a photon can conduct through space faster than matter is being pushed by the invisible energy and no I don't know how fast the matter in the universe is travelling just like you don't know if you're in a rocket with no windows how fast you're moving.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Hi Dave, In theorising a totally different type of energy that was always there but we haven't realised I guess i'm allowing all sorts of new possibility's such as it being able to move faster than the speed of light and therefore move matter if its pushing it faster than the speed of light. As for gravity please be patient I'm trying to get there.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    ...Anyway we can't actually see the big bang because its outside our event horizon but that doesn't stop main stream belief from theorising it occurred so why can't I theorise that something is occurring outside our light speed restricted event horizon.
    No, you can't get away with such nonsense. You are trying to place your "theory" on the same footing with mainstream theory by declaring both to be beliefs. That's absurd. Mainstream cosmology can explain the features of the cosmic microwave background. You can't. Mainstream cosmology can explain the relative abundance of light elements. You can't.

    In science, we go with the model that best fits the available evidence. Your narrative cannot begin to come close to the explanatory successes of mainstream cosmology. You simply cannot declare your belief to be as scientifically valid as the mainstream.

    It would appear that you only have a verbal story, and as such, it cannot be subjected to the ordinary scrutiny of the scientific method. Every objection is waived by fiat. That won't fly, I'm afraid.

    Quote Originally Posted by soggy
    No I don't know what speed the energy is travelling at how could I, but my guess is many times the speed of light. The speed of light in this theory is the speed a photon can conduct through space faster than matter is being pushed by the invisible energy and no I don't know how fast the matter in the universe is travelling just like you don't know if you're in a rocket with no windows how fast you're moving.
    Each new theory has tough hurdles to overcome: First, it must be able to reproduce all of the verified successes of the theory it seeks to displace. Second, it must make a falsifiable prediction that differs from that of the mainstream. Undetectable, vague, imaginary velocities in excess of c fall into the "fairytale" column of non-science. And not knowing physics or maths is pretty much fatal. Those tools are not luxuries; they are essential. If you've only read pop-sci articles you may have misled yourself into thinking that narratives suffice. To disabuse yourself of that misapprehension, you should look at some actual journal articles.

    The easy part of any theory is making up a story. Children can do that. The hard part is to show that the story leads to consequences that are concordant with observation and experiment. I see no evidence that you have even begun the hard part.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    Dave The event horizon that we always refer to caused by the speed of light is only known because we can see (detect light) ....
    An event horizon is has a size related to the speed of light c but is not caused by light itself. An event horizon is caused by the mass and energy inside it. What we can say is that everything that is inside an event horizon has an escape velocity of c and thus nothing can escape (the full explanation is a bit technical). That includes anything that is invisible.
    For a black hole the singularity is in the future of everything inside its event horizon. In the Big Bang, the singularity is in the past of everything inside its event horizon. The Big Bang is definitely inside its event horizon!
    We can see quite close to the Big Bang. There is a cosmic neutrino background emitted at t ~ 1 second that we have indirect evidence for.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Hi Reality Check, I imagine Einsteins thought that space could be curved was initially just a vague idea but that didn't make it wrong even though I think he might have been. Anyhow I'ii try to be less vague. I'm a bit confused by your second paragraph. Do you mean my whole idea about the different way the universe was expanding was not logical even if there was an invisible energy moving us or did you mean I had expressed the idea of life forms looking out into the universe poorly?
    " actual energy needs something to carry it" Thats really got me thinking because as I prepared to write how the three dimensional gravity we see would be operating in my theoretical scenario I realised (to my horror and its the reason why I've been slow to write more) that there's the possibility I could swap my invisible energy for the fabric of space itself and it would still work. My thought is that the energy is caused (carried)by an area of concentrated space dissipating into a less concentrated area. I hate this idea ( imagine saying dark energy, gravity and mass are different concentrations, movement directions and velocities of space fabric but it does give my energy something to carry it.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15

    Smile How gravity works in this theory

    Almost all the mass in an atom is in its nucleus and the nucleus is made of protons and neutrons which are made of quarks.The quarks are thought to have this interesting property called asymptomatic freedom . In Steven Hawkins book The Grand Design on page 141 he writes " asymptomatic freedom means the strong forces between quarks are small when the quarks are close together but increase if they are farther apart, rather as though they were joined by rubber bands". Thats a very interesting property. Imagine if you are my invisible energy or invisible space fabric moving through the universe and when you encounter the entwined quarks they prove to be an impediment there's no way you're going to smash them apart with that property. You might start to move the quarks apart but that will just make them an even greater impediment and there's another issue the nucleus and quarks are spinning and are positively charged could this allow the quarks to drag in or attract in (even if its ever so slightly) the energy or energised space fabric. It's actually essential to this theory that the quarks do drag it in as you'll see later. So now you've got this build up of slowed down concentrated space fabric (I've decide to go with space fabric because I'm coming around to the idea and it might get Reality Check off my case but i doubt it) This slowed down concentrated space fabric represents in this theory mass. The more concentrated the space fabric is on arrival the greater the amount of mass the nucleus will be forced to absorb but of course it must at some stage reach a state of equilibrium where as much space fabric is leaching out as is going in otherwise the nucleus would blow apart but the leached out space fabric would now be more concentrated but have less speed. This means it would have less push power and this is important because of course the SF (space fabric) is not only giving the nucleus its mass but pushing it.
    I've gotta rest now. please don't critique me until I finish or I'll never get there.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,946
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    Dave The event horizon that we always refer to caused by the speed of light
    Can you clarify what sort of event horizon you are referring to here. Are you talking about black holes or the cosmological event horizon? (Or something else?)

    Neither of those are "caused" by the speed of light although, inevitably, the speed of light plays a role. The first is caused by the curvature of spacetime the latter is caused by the expanding universe. So, again, which are you talking about?

    is only known because we can see (detect light) but as my energy is invisible it won't actually have an event horizon.
    An event horizon os not only to do with being visible. It prevents any causal connection. So you need to explain (using math and physics) how your energy avoids that.

    Anyway we can't actually see the big bang because its outside our event horizon
    No, that isn't the reason. The big bang happened everywhere. The reason we can't see further back than about 380,000 years after the big bang is because the universe was opaque before then. The earliest light we can see is the CMB. If we could detect low energy neutrinos we could see much further back.

    but that doesn't stop main stream belief from theorising it occurred so why can't I theorise that something is occurring outside our light speed restricted event horizon.
    You would need a mathematical model and evidence that supports it. That is how science works and how the big bang model came to replace previous ideas.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,946
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    It's actually essential to this theory that the quarks do drag it in as you'll see later.
    Then you will need evidence that this happens or else, as you admit, your theory is dead in the water.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    Hi Reality Check, I imagine Einsteins thought that space could be curved was initially just a vague idea....
    That is not what happened, soggy. Einstein started by going to school to learn math and physics. That is the first step for any scientific research. Learn the existing science so that obvious mistakes are not made. When Einstein wrote his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" that established special relativity, he used the skills he had learned and his knowledge of established science. From considering SR, that he developed the equivalence principle (the basis of GR) in a couple of papers. Einstein then consulted Marcel Grossmann who introduced him to mathematical spaces that included curvature and Tullio Levi-Civit who showed him the usefulness of tenors.

    What Einstein had was years of learning and experience that lead to a coherent idea that he could communicate clearly to his peers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You seem to misunderstand Hubble's law. It is not that we measure the speeds between galaxies. We measure the speeds (redshifts) between us and galaxies. The increasing redshift with distance then allows us to calculate that the galaxies are getting further away from each other as predicted by an expanding universe. To use your analogy : Two space rockets are traveling in space directly away from Earth. They have lights shining back at Earth and we have the same lights on Earth. We measure the Doppler shift of the lights on the rockets. The first space rocket is travelling at 10 km/s. The second space rocket is travelling at 20 km/s. The 2 space rockets are thus getting further apart at a rate of 10 km/s.
    is clear and not to do with the nonsense about energy.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,359
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    Almost all the mass in an atom is in its nucleus ...
    This is not "How gravity works in this theory", it is how your imagination works. The asymptomatic freedom of quarks followed by what you imagine about it, quarks, your imaginary "energy" and a "concentrated space fabric" fantasy.

    This is a scientific theory, which you do not have.
    This is a quark which has intrinsic spin, positive or negative charge as well as other properties. I can take your story and predict that neutrons with no charge must have no mass. But they do!

    The signs are that we are gong to get more vague stories with no or invalid physics.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    Dave The event horizon that we always refer to caused by the speed of light is only known because we can see (detect light) but as my energy is invisible it won't actually have an event horizon.
    Then how do you know it exists? For instance, I have a bag of invisible immaterial priceless gems that I would like to sell you. You will never be able to detect their existence, but don't worry because you can take my word that they are actually there. Deal?

    No I don't know what speed the energy is travelling at how could I
    How could you? Seriously? Well, because this is your own theory, that's how. It's starting to sound like you don't know anything about this mysterious energy and are just making things up. A direct question for you: What properties of your mysterious energy can you tell us about? Keep in mind that you CANNOT tell us that it goes faster then the speed of light since you just declared that you have no idea what speed it actually travels at.

    but my guess is many times the speed of light.
    But you already said you don't know what speed it travels at and have no clue how you could ever determine what speed it travels at. So, it could just as likely move at half the speed of light. Right? Please consider that a direct question.

    The speed of light in this theory is the speed a photon can conduct through space faster than matter is being pushed by the invisible energy
    Wait wait......light goes FASTER then your mysterious energy? You just said it goes slower. Can you please clear up this contradiction?


    Also, I gave you an example of Newtons law of gravity. You will notice it uses formulas and math and uses those formulas to make predictions. You are claiming to have a superior theory of gravity (that is also somehow not an attractive force?), so I am asking for your equations that can give the same predictions as Newtons laws. Do you have any? Again, a direct question.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    Hi Dave, In theorising a totally different type of energy that was always there but we haven't realised I guess i'm allowing all sorts of new possibility's such as it being able to move faster than the speed of light and therefore move matter if its pushing it faster than the speed of light. As for gravity please be patient I'm trying to get there.
    You first need equations before you can theorize about anything. Also, those equations have to give correct predictions for all current experiments and observations without contradicting any of them. From what I have seen so far, I don't think you've gotten even close to this. So unless you are talking about a science fiction story you are writing, no you haven't allowed any new possibilities.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,803

    Supporting Observations ?

    You have presented no, nada, zilch, zero evidence to support your idea. You need such evidence. Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    Einstein thought of the idea that space might be curved before he got help to worked out any maths to back it up and then it was years before it was completely vindicated by the observation that light was bent more than expected around a large mass. I'm not presenting a scientific paper here I'm just casually trying to express an idea. Dave I don't know my energy exists but I have tried to explain why it could be there but we haven't realised and now I'm just trying to express ways that if it was there it could be operating. I didn't say faster than my energy I said faster than matter is being pushed by my energy. For gravity to operate as it appears to us in this theory matter has to be in a constant state of acceleration which is why I think the energy would have to be moving really fast. According to physics though if you're travelling around in a circle even if your velocity isn't changing you're in a constant state of acceleration so maybe the matter in the universe could be revolving around as well as being moved just like dirt in a big twister. Easy to believe with all those black holes. I don't know how fast my energy would be travelling I'm just saying it would probably be going far faster than the speed of light. I guess in speculating that my energy is moving faster than the speed of light i'm saying that our event horizon might be far bigger than we think it is and we haven't realised.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •