Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: My seamless transition theory

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    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.
    Your (incorrect) recounting of the history of GR is irrelevant to your "theory", so please try to stick to the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by soggy
    I'm not presenting a scientific paper here I'm just casually trying to express an idea.
    We're expecting you to defend a theory. Are you prepared to do so, or not? That is a direct question.

    Quote Originally Posted by soggy
    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.
    Again, all you've done is present a series of speculations, without having bothered to check to see if observations are in accord with them. If you can't offer anything beyond "I think it could kinda go like this...", there's not much for the rest of us to go on, other than to point out that such unconstrained story-telling carries no more (and probably much less) weight than "I don't think it could kinda go like" you say. If you disagree, all you have to do is present a specific piece of evidence that supports your assertions. Can you do so? (That's another direct question.)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Again, all you've done is present a series of speculations, without having bothered to check to see if observations are in accord with them. If you can't offer anything beyond "I think it could kinda go like this...", there's not much for the rest of us to go on, other than to point out that such unconstrained story-telling carries no more (and probably much less) weight than "I don't think it could kinda go like" you say. If you disagree, all you have to do is present a specific piece of evidence that supports your assertions. Can you do so? (That's another direct question.)


    Okay, let me make that official, sogga, unless you have anything better than just a story about magical energy that we cannot see but that can do all kinds of stuff, this thread ends, and you will not be allowed to present it again here.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,918
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    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.
    Almost every part of this is wrong. And it is also totally irrelevant. (And comparing yourself to Einstein is just bizarre: he was a brilliant physicist and mathematician able to develop mathematical ideas to the point they could be tested.).

    You need to learn a little bit about how science works. It is not about making up nice little stories that make sense to you. It is about creating mathematical models and testing them.
    Last edited by Strange; 2019-Dec-10 at 10:20 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    15
    You're right John i'm just trying to express an idea really which if the idea had any credence (which I can already tell it won't) might have implications for buckyball interference patterns and even possibly photon wave particle duality.
    So i have my nucleus being pushed by the energy which might just be the fabric of space. The electrons and the photons will also be pushed because they are an impediment but this will hardly cause them to have any mass because they are so small and don't have the quarks asymptotic freedom. I know its a real stretch to say a photon has even the tiniest of mass but apparently its a slightly contentious issue and because i have to have matter accelerating in this theory to make gravity work i'm forced to go with the idea it has a slight mass or matter would leave the photons behind.
    Imagine you have two planets out in space far apart from each other so they're having no gravitational effect on each other. One is large and dense with a big mass and the other smaller and less dense with a relatively small mass compared to the other one. Let's say just to orientate you to my invisible energy flow direction in relation to the two planets its entering the planets from the south and exiting from the north. The large planet with all its quarks dragging in the energy (but not speeding it up) will start to concentrate the energy from a further distance out than the smaller planet and when it reaches the large planet it will be much more concentrated than when it reaches the small planet. What I've just described is my representation of two pieces of matter getting pushed by my theoretical energy force at the same speed.

    If however the smaller planet found itself in a position a bit south of the big planet it would be accelerated towards it as it would come under the influence of the larger planets more concentrated energy effect which is larger and more concentrated than its own.

    The concentration of the energy by the quarks sets off a chain reaction that influences the small planet if it happens to end up on the east or west side of the large planet. If you force an energy to be concentrated in one area you will be weakening its concentration in the area close to the concentrated area so the area next to that will automatically start to correct the imbalance because energy evens out if its allowed to. This evening out will change the push direction of the energy curving it towards the large planet so that it pushes the small planet once again toward the large planet

    If the small planet ends up on the northern side of the planet its a totally different scenario its still being accelerated by the energy but because the quarks in the big planet have slowed down some of the energy (gotta remember the nucleus is tiny so most of the energy is just passing through) the small planet isn't accelerating as much as the big planet so the big planet moves towards the small one.
    I have to have the energy continually accelerating matter as there is no friction in space and I can't have a large planet moving towards a small planet because the small planet slowed down as as once you achieve a velocity in space you don't lose it unless some other force changes it.

    Of course as you move from south to east etc you transition by combining the different scenarios I've described and this would have to be seamless (by seamless I mean smooth and unnoticeable ) as otherwise we'd realise.

    So there you have my incredibly unlikely to be reality seamless transition theory where by if it was reality gravity would operate without matter hav ing any attraction to matter and people on earth not realising that some of the day they'er being pushed towards the earth and at other times the earth being pushed into them and they just can't tell the difference.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,759
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    You're right John i'm just trying to express an idea really which if the idea had any credence (which I can already tell it won't) might have implications for buckyball interference patterns and even possibly photon wave particle duality. ...
    So, your response to a request to present evidence and to stop the storytelling is another wall-of-text "just so" fairy tale?

    Perhaps the problem is that you do not understand what a scientific theory is. Please provide a definition of a scientific theory, and use that definition to evaluate what you've presented thus far. (That's a direct request, btw.)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,389
    Quote Originally Posted by soggy View Post
    You're right John i'm just trying to express an idea really which if the idea had any credence (which I can already tell it won't) might have implications for buckyball interference patterns and even possibly photon wave particle duality.
    So i have my nucleus being pushed by the energy which might just be the fabric of space. The electrons and the photons will also be pushed because they are an impediment but this will hardly cause them to have any mass because they are so small and don't have the quarks asymptotic freedom. I know its a real stretch to say a photon has even the tiniest of mass but apparently its a slightly contentious issue and because i have to have matter accelerating in this theory to make gravity work i'm forced to go with the idea it has a slight mass or matter would leave the photons behind.
    Imagine you have two planets out in space far apart from each other so they're having no gravitational effect on each other. One is large and dense with a big mass and the other smaller and less dense with a relatively small mass compared to the other one. Let's say just to orientate you to my invisible energy flow direction in relation to the two planets its entering the planets from the south and exiting from the north. The large planet with all its quarks dragging in the energy (but not speeding it up) will start to concentrate the energy from a further distance out than the smaller planet and when it reaches the large planet it will be much more concentrated than when it reaches the small planet. What I've just described is my representation of two pieces of matter getting pushed by my theoretical energy force at the same speed.

    If however the smaller planet found itself in a position a bit south of the big planet it would be accelerated towards it as it would come under the influence of the larger planets more concentrated energy effect which is larger and more concentrated than its own.

    The concentration of the energy by the quarks sets off a chain reaction that influences the small planet if it happens to end up on the east or west side of the large planet. If you force an energy to be concentrated in one area you will be weakening its concentration in the area close to the concentrated area so the area next to that will automatically start to correct the imbalance because energy evens out if its allowed to. This evening out will change the push direction of the energy curving it towards the large planet so that it pushes the small planet once again toward the large planet

    If the small planet ends up on the northern side of the planet its a totally different scenario its still being accelerated by the energy but because the quarks in the big planet have slowed down some of the energy (gotta remember the nucleus is tiny so most of the energy is just passing through) the small planet isn't accelerating as much as the big planet so the big planet moves towards the small one.
    I have to have the energy continually accelerating matter as there is no friction in space and I can't have a large planet moving towards a small planet because the small planet slowed down as as once you achieve a velocity in space you don't lose it unless some other force changes it.

    Of course as you move from south to east etc you transition by combining the different scenarios I've described and this would have to be seamless (by seamless I mean smooth and unnoticeable ) as otherwise we'd realise.

    So there you have my incredibly unlikely to be reality seamless transition theory where by if it was reality gravity would operate without matter hav ing any attraction to matter and people on earth not realising that some of the day they'er being pushed towards the earth and at other times the earth being pushed into them and they just can't tell the difference.

    okay this is just more storytelling. you have no theory to defend.
    thread closed, if someone has some really good reason why this should remain open, report this message.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

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
  •