My gravity theory
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I see exactly what you are saying.
This is what I see:
You know where that mass came from? The black hole at the center of our galaxy.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You see all that mass being forced out and the slippage that's occurring as it is being forced out? That mass came from the core and was forced out, and continues to be forced out at all times!
So you can call it what you want, but that galaxy (black hole) is getting less dense over a duration of time, as the same mass is increasing in volume. At EVERY scale this is happening. It is happening at the earth/moon scale, it is happening at the solar system scale, it is happening at the galactic scale, it is happening at the scale 10 times the higher order, in which the universe is simply a tiny spec in the big picture that is space.
So we should observe different behavior from the Moon, since it doesn't have an atmosphere.
See what happens when you have to pile up things to make your theory work. It breaks.
I call Poe. Still likely he believes the mess he posts, but I think he gets a kick out of making people chase him around either way.
Tell you what MD, I'll give you one more chance...never mind the accuracy of your idea. WHY would it be better to use your model than what's worked for centuries, and still works for cases that don't involve near light speeds or extreme gravitation? If it doesn't explain things better, predict things more accurately, and required more padding to make it work, then it's worthless as a replacement model.
So what benefit do you bring to the table?
See what happens when you have to pile up things to make your theory work. It breaks.
I call Poe. Still likely he believes the mess he posts, but I think he gets a kick out of making people chase him around either way.
Tell you what MD, I'll give you one more chance...never mind the accuracy of your idea. WHY would it be better to use your model than what's worked for centuries, and still works for cases that don't involve near light speeds or extreme gravitation? If it doesn't explain things better, predict things more accurately, and required more padding to make it work, then it's worthless as a replacement model.
So what benefit do you bring to the table?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Your model will never get you to the point of my understanding of the universe. My understanding of the universe is directly related to all my theories. They are all logically consistent with each other in the absolute frame. I am telling you how the universe works. Mass evolves to space! I gave you understanding of the absolute frame. I gave you understanding of gravity. I gave you understanding of where the planets came from and where they are headed. I give you the fact that it is not better to look for a place to live on Mars, it is better to look for a new place to live on Venus, in the future when it is where we are today and it is cool and has the same environment as we have today. I'm giving you direction, literally.
It looks to me like matter has been pulled in. You know like a hurricane is a low pressure area that pulls in the air an water vapror, or when you flush a turd (not unlike your goofball conjectures) down the toilet creating a vortex.
In general a 'looks like theory' is the same as an 'I ain't got a clue theory'.
Your understanding of the universe doesn't match observation. That's not much of a motivation there. Try again.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
A galaxy is not a low pressure area, it is a high pressure area!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
What you "observe" is relative motion. That is not the reality of motion. There is no "attraction." "Attraction" is an effect caused by your misunderstanding of the reality of the situation. The reality is that there is only force. There is not a "negative" force, which would be referred to as an attraction. Face it, mass does not attract each other, it is simply an illusion caused by your inability to see force and velocity in the absolute frame.
Golly! Is it really! Who needs evidence, when you can just make ignorant declarations!!
That's why weather is generally pretty good in galaxies.
Yeah, and in the picture of the galaxy it is even rotating in a clockwise direction just like a high pressure system should - assuming we looking down from above the galaxy and the galaxy is in the northern hemisphere of the universe.
That's where the Absolute Frame is, so that would make sense.
There's nothing in particular to understand, other than elementary definitions. Torque is "r cross F" (r x F) and power is "F dot v" (F ● v). Of course you would have to understand high school / freshman college concepts to know what this means. Newton is often called the Father of mechanics. These are mere trifling facts in consideration of the scope of his overall pioneering work. Einstein was all of that , advanced by the progress of Newton's scientific revolution - hundreds of years worth of advancement.
You actually have no theory, you're just reciting common errors among folks who never got anywhere in math or science, and are left calling anything a theory. Note the difference:
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.]
You have quite a threshold to cross before your ideas would qualify as theory. You can't cross it because you lack the requisite information and skills.
Not so. Spirals in galaxies are thought to be caused by density waves. In compute models such structures can spontaneously form, thus illustrating the plausibility of the model. Of course this doesn't mean the model is true but it means you cannot categorically assert you're right as there are viable alternatives. In fact in your case you have no working model of gravity to do simulations of your own so presently you have nothing but baseless assertions.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
This I deny. I know for a fact that Newton did not understand torque. I would venture to say that you have an excellent understanding of the way Newton understood torque, don't you? If you want we can have a little torque chat, with me using my world and you representing Newton's views on torque. What do you say, shall we?
I claim to be neither a mathematician or a physicist. I also claim to have never taken a physics class in my life. The highest grade level of math I completed is 10th grade. I completed 9th grade science. "Dat's it!" Call me stupid if you want to, it doesn't change the fact that I have shown you the absolute frame, and it is 100% accurate!!! Never fails, EVER!
Edit: As a matter of fact, when (not if) my theory is proven, it's just making every scientist and mathematician that ever lived look worse when you call me stupid, because it just shows the level to which BS can rise before it falls, and nobody figured it out, except a stupid HS grad.
Last edited:
And Einstein didn't understand you either. And both Michelson and Morley do not understand the issue well enough to do an experiment you would find easy to do.
No delusions of grandeur, you're just smarter than all of them.
Neither does the Green Hornet!
When you can demonstrate a working understanding and a quantitative model then sure. If you're willing to have such a discussion why have you been refusing to have the discussion up to this point? Are you willing to solve a simple kinematics problem to illustrate you have sufficient formalisation ability and knowledge to make such a discussion work? After all, as I said repeatedly to you in the last few days, I have never seen you do anything which would constitute solving a quantitative problem so we should establish that you can first. Shouldn't be too hard, if you know more than Newton.
Ah, you're one of those people. The people who were terrible at school, when they are required to demonstrate learning, but at soon as they are out of school, no longer required to actually show they have learnt any information or have any precise knowledge/understanding, then suddenly they become a genius.
Funny that.
I'm now seriously hoping if you're a Poe, ie someone trying to parody the delusional or ignorant behaviour of certain demographics (ie creationists) by acting as delusional and/or ignorant as they can. Poe's Law is that it isn't possible to distinguish between someone pretending to be ridiculously ignorant and delusional for the purposes of satire and someone who is just ridiculously ignorant and delusions. For example, there is no parody of creationists which can appear more delusional or ignorant than some actual creationists. With that last post you've now dialled up the 'batshit-o-meter' to an 11. The pot you just spouted is so dense a sequence of clichés that either you're acting like that for some reason or you're incapable of rational discourse.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Are you calling me a liar?