Gravity question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Russ_Watters said:
Now you're belligerantly starting to push a crackpot theory of your own. So are you really here to learn or was this whole thread a setup for a pre-planned attack against mainstream physics? If so, you certinly posted it in the wrong forum because at best it is an alternative theory and should go in the alternative theories section. At worst it is a troll attack and may find its way to the cesspool.
.
Click to expand...


Well picked!
This is the same person, who sits there now, claiming he doesn't understand time, space, time dilation, length contraction, gravity etc, and yet in a thread that was justifiably moved to pseudoscience, he was claiming light as an illusion, and dark and shadows as real entities.
The question needs to be asked, can anyone really be that naive? Or are they purposely trolling.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Time is real, what does it look like? , what physical presence does it have?
Click to expand...
Time is not claimed to have physical substance.
Playing the troll, NO, science defines time as a thing, and it is not a thing, and things that are not a thing, can have effect on nothing.
Click to expand...
So you are admitting you are playing the troll? Because saying you are not playing the troll right before saying something you've been instructed is not true would certainly appear to be trolling. Again: no, science does not claim time is a "thing".
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Time is real, what does it look like? , what physical presence does it have? define time in observation terms, the counting of a repeat recurring process. Define time in reality, does not start, does not stop, and is not seen or does not have any effect or interactions throughout space.
Playing the troll, NO, science defines time as a thing, and it is not a thing, and things that are not a thing, can have effect on nothing.
Click to expand...

We don't know....It has no physical presence....It separates you from the BB by a measured amount of 13.83 billion Earth years.
And you certainly are not qualified or sensible enough to deride science for what it accepts, considering the nonsensical hypothesis you put recently that was moved to speudoscience.
Yes, the evidence points to you trolling in my opinion.
 
Russ_Watters said:
As already said, we do fly past the sun. We're in orbit, constantly circling it.

...unless you are not a native English speaker and when you say "fly past the sun", you really mean "escape orbit"...

There is a dent in space, but it is in (at least) 4 dimensions, not two like the rubber sheet analogy. That's why it's only an analogy.

That's just a limit of your imagination. To scientists, spacetime does not need physical substance to be curved, only geometry.

Now you're belligerantly starting to push a crackpot theory of your own. So are you really here to learn or was this whole thread a setup for a pre-planned attack against mainstream physics? If so, you certinly posted it in the wrong forum because at best it is an alternative theory and should go in the alternative theories section. At worst it is a troll attack and may find its way to the cesspool.

Anyway: as discussed in another thread recently: time is smiply the 4th dimension, with behavior similar to but not exactly the same as space. Like space, isn't a "thing" with physical substance, it is a coordinate system. Sort of like a blank sheet of paper.

That is merely an assumption on your part, and one that if turned into a theory wouldn't work. It would produce wrong results in experiments. Sorry, but the universe doesn't care if you like how it works or not. It works the same either way.
Click to expand...

I have threads in alternative theories, I attack mainstream Physics there. Time is not the dimension, that is timing of distance, measuring dimensions, no more than a glorified abacus.


Einstein's relativity is based on this curvature of space time, I have replies of distortion of space time, space and time have nothing to distort.
 
paddoboy said:
We don't know....It has no physical presence....It separates you from the BB by a measured amount of 13.83 billion Earth years.
And you certainly are not qualified or sensible enough to deride science for what it accepts, considering the nonsensical hypothesis you put recently that was moved to speudoscience.
Yes, the evidence points to you trolling in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Have you not seen my gravity alternative, it may shed some light on why I say there is no dent, one is not needed, and neither is time and space.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Time is not claimed to have physical substance.

So you are admitting you are playing the troll? Because saying you are not playing the troll right before saying something you've been instructed is not true would certainly appear to be trolling. Again: no, science does not claim time is a "thing".
Click to expand...
So if its not a thing, why does science persist on space time, and time and space being entangled? if its not a thing what's to entangle?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I have threads in alternative theories, I attack mainstream Physics there.
Click to expand...
Well, here's a catch-22 for you: Your descriptions of mainstream physics are wrong. So that means you must either:
1. Not understand mainstream physics and are accidentally describing it wrong.
2. Correctly understand mainstream physics and are describing it wrong for trolling.

So what is the purpose of this thread? To learn mainstream physics, teach mainstream physics or attack mainstream physics?
Time is not the dimension, that is timing of distance, measuring dimensions, no more than a glorified abacus.
Click to expand...
That is your non-mainstream theory. It has no place in the physics section of the forum.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Have you not seen my gravity alternative, it may shed some light on why I say there is no dent, one is not needed, and neither is time and space.
Click to expand...
I haven't read it, but based on your description here, it simply wouldn't work. The outcomes you describe for experiments simply aren't what actually happen.
 
Russ_Watters said:
Well, here's a catch-22 for you: Your descriptions of mainstream physics are wrong. So that means you must either:
1. Not understand mainstream physics and are accidentally describing it wrong.
2. Correctly understand mainstream physics and are describing it wrong for trolling.

So what is the purpose of this thread? To learn mainstream physics, teach mainstream physics or attack mainstream physics?

That is your non-mainstream theory. It has no place in the physics section of the forum.
Click to expand...
I did not change this thread from asking questions, I am simply not getting the answers of what I asked.

There is no medium in space, and time is not a thing, so what is this space time distortion suppose to be?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Physics explains the gravitational difference , a clock is not time. Time is not bothered what your timing devices are doing, time has an absolute value of zero. Science is defining the difference, when the only difference is timing , and not a difference in time.
On absolutely any relativity explanation, involving time dilation, if you add a 3 rd observer, instead of the 2 directional thought , a 3rd observer being time, an infinite horizontal linearity of time, you can clearly see no dilation of time, only a dilation of timing, and distance curvature displacement of timing.

Timing devices are not time, and timing devices are counting. Counting in space, is time and space.

The only distortion is from the Sun itself, space is not distorted, the distortion is the Suns output v planet output.
Click to expand...
Clearly you don't have a clue what the physics is supporting your argument [nada]. Clocks are a device for measuring the natural phenomena we label time. Just like a ruler is a device for measuring distance [length]. You should consider learning something rather than descending into irrelevance [crankdom]. Ignorance is a choice.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Yes geometry is more understandable, so why does science make it sound like something out of a sci fi movie, space time curvature, and dents in space? and persist that time changes?
Click to expand...
Because that is an accurate way of portraying it. You may not understand it; that's fine. A good approach would be to learn more about it so you can understand it, rather than try the classic "argument from ignorance" (i.e. "I do not understand it so it's not true.")

Again, your lack of understanding of any part of physics does not invalidate that part of physics; it merely means you do not understand.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I did not change this thread from asking questions, I am simply not getting the answers of what I asked.
Click to expand...
No, you are getting the answers to the questions you asked, just not the anwers you want. Sorry that you don't like reality and I sincerely hope you find a way to deal with that.
Yes geometry is more understandable, so why does science make it sound like something out of a sci fi movie, space time curvature, and dents in space?
Click to expand...
Because those are visualizations of geometry!
....and persist that time changes?
Click to expand...
Because experiments show that it does. Again, sorry you don't like reality and I sincerely hope you find a way to fix that before it becomes problematic for you.
 
brucep said:
Clearly you don't have a clue what the physics is supporting your argument [nada]. Clocks are a device for measuring the natural phenomena we label time. Just like a ruler is a device for measuring distance [length]. You should consider learning something rather than descending into irrelevance [crankdom]. Ignorance is a choice.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you measuring? answers in this thread already stated that time is not a thing, and do you not count time, time is not a distance. Clocks are devices for counting, , a natural phenomena humanity labelled time, which is timing. The whole model science has of the Universe, time and space, is based on timing.

And back to subject.


What exactly is a Gravitron?
 
The response (to the question asked at the beginning of this thread) is "YES", the Sun is falling AND all of the planets are falling. Their respective inertial masses interact this way in part due to the principle of equivalence.

Any satellite in orbit around a gravitating body can be considered to be in free fall, or equivalently, the other way around. However, the orbit "wobble" of the center of Sun (or equivalently, movement of solar tides with respect to the orbit of a planet even, one as large as Jupiter) is a very small ellipse by comparison.
 
billvon said:
Because that is an accurate way of portraying it. You may not understand it; that's fine. A good approach would be to learn more about it so you can understand it, rather than try the classic "argument from ignorance" (i.e. "I do not understand it so it's not true.")

Again, your lack of understanding of any part of physics does not invalidate that part of physics; it merely means you do not understand.
Click to expand...
It may be you not being objective to yourself. I am objective to myself, you presume I do not understand, several years of science telling me how wrong I am, I have learnt a vast amount of knowledge.

I have persisted, and I have persisted in learning. I had ended this question thread at about the third post, my apologies mods.
 
danshawen said:
The response (to the question asked at the beginning of this thread) is "YES", the Sun is falling AND all of the planets are falling. Their respective inertial masses interact this way in part due to the principle of equivalence.

Any satellite in orbit around a gravitating body can be considered to be in free fall, or equivalently, the other way around. However, the orbit "wobble" of the center of Sun (or equivalently, movement of solar tides with respect to the orbit of a planet even, one as large as Jupiter) is a very small ellipse by comparison.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the answer, and in what direction is the Sun falling exactly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top