Rick Thielens theory on black holes,big bang&gravity

Rick thielen

Registered Member
Rick Thielen's Theory On Black Holes, The Big Bang, and Gravity
When I was young I asked my second grade teacher about gravity. I asked her if she would explain what gravity was and how it worked. The teacher explained that the rotation of the earth creates gravity. I questioned her explaination in my mind. I thought to myself if I took a ball and dipped it in water, then spun the ball the water would fly off. So I thought to myself what she told me didn't make sense at all. As the years past my thought process began to develop which would help me to understand the concept of gravity. Again when I was in the sixth grade I asked my teacher the same question about gravity. The teacher explained, put water in a bucket and hold the bucket in your hand and rotate your body extending your arm outward, you notice the water will remain in the bucket. I said to myself if it wasn't for the sides of the bucket the water would be gone. There are no walls holding the oceans back, so I really didn't accept her explaination. As I approached my fourties I still on many occasions philosophized about gravity. I continued to try to understand the concepts of gravity. At one time I thought gravity could be some type of magnetic attraction, but one day a thought came to me, gravity could possibly be a push instead of a pull. I continued to toy with this idea and this is what ultimately happened. I think that space as we know it and understand it is more than we imagined. To this point I have not heard any explainations about gravity that made any sense to me. Most of us know space as a cold empty vacuum. I believe space is more than that. If you could imagine a box filled with water, and all six sides were sealed. Now put a ball into the box directly in the center. There is an equal pressure on all the surfaces of the ball, disregarding the gravity of this planet. I believe space is similar to that water in the box theory. I believe our universe has restraints or space could be its own restraint. No one can be sure of the configuration of the restraints, box, ball, etc. When you add mass to the universe, the pressure of the space increases. The pressure of space is not thouroughly understood by myself or anyone. It's not exactly the same pressure as water. I feel that mass of any form displaces space. Laws of physics in this instance state that any mass, any size, diplaces space and space applies a force on all mass regardless of size. The larger the mass, the greater the force. The reason why objects and elements have different weights is because of the density of matter. Lead weighs more than aluminum because space can occupy the less dense material. The greatest amount of force (gravity) is at the point of convergance, in our case at the planets surface. That force has greater effect on the more dense matter and less effect on matter of less density. If our planet was larger in size everything on Earth would weigh more because as I mentioned before our planet in displacing space and space has a gravitational affect on everything on the planet. If you were able to place a golf ball into space it would have a very small amount of gravity because it is displacing space. The amount of gravity would be so little we could not measure it, but I am sure something would be attracted to it, maybe on a subatomic level. If you could hollow out the center of the Earth, say fifty feet in diameter, and you could go there, you would experience weightlessness exactly the same way as if you were in outter space. I believe the pressure of space is equal on all sides at the core of the Earth. There is a possibilty that sometime long ago, say around the time of the Big Bang, the restraints of space were much closer together. Imagine if the same amount of space that occupies our universe now was squeezed down trillions of times smaller, all the matter in the universe, because of the greater force of space, would compress into one very large mass. Than imagine what would happen if the restraints of space expanded outward in all directions, maybe even faster than the speed of light. If the restraint moved faster than the speed of light, it still may have taken eons for our universe to come to its completion. There are other ideas (theories) about how the restraints actually changed positions. Suppose the restraints of space expanded to only half its intended capacity until the smaller portions of matter reached to what seemed to be to us the extremities of space,then the restraints of space expanded even more. Many of the fragments from the Big Bang may have been spinning at that time and suddenly exploded because the restraints expanded even further which could explain spiral galaxies. It's a known fact that most galaxies have a black hole in the center of them. Some are active and some are inactive, no one knows the reason for the this as of yet. Scientists know of the black holes that are active, matter is being removed from space, there are many therories as to where that matter goes. If my theory is correct, this would reduce the amount of matter and space in the universe. Therfore if the matter and space consumed by black holes were not replenish the effects of gravity would progressively become less on all matter in the universe. Everything on planet Earth would progessively become lighter. There are two things that need to take place in order to keep the effect of gravity at a constant, something that would manufacture space and matter and dump it into the universe or the restraints of space are receding to compensate for the loss of space and matter. I think the second of the two is more acceptable. I know that it was said that our universe is expanding. I believe it's receding. Some persons would think, my goodness were being closed in, but the amount of the restraints have moved since the Big Bang is minimal. I don't believe all that I have described was a random act, but I display of unbelievable engineering.
R. A. Thielen

Supplement to Rick Thielen’
s theory on black holes, big bang, and gravity---------------------------------------------In the original article I mentioned how the fabric of space was not thoroughly understood by myself or anyone else. I failed to mention in the article that it is possible that there could be an alternate reality with dimensions similar to our own. It could be a possibility that there is another expanse the size of our universe in an alternate reality. It’s also a possibility that realities are defined by frequency. The alternate reality could have a frequency just under our own. Similar to radio frequency, if the alternate universe had a mass the size of our universe; nothing could exist in that universe except that mass. In other words, two automobiles could not occupy the same space. If they did we all know what would happen. But if you could alter the frequency of one of them there would not be a problem. It’s a possibility the mass that I mentioned in an alternate reality, could, if it had an altered frequency have an effect on an adjacent reality. If that mass was able to show its presence in our universe, but not to its full potential it would have an effect on all mater in a way I described in the original article. It’s also a possibility there could be an alternate reality with a frequency above ours. I often thought that our own sun required regulation. A way to do that according to my theory would be to place the sun partially in this reality and the remainder in the adjacent reality. As the sun looses energy its frequency can be altered so the amount of energy from the sun would remain at a constant. I also thought that the same theory that applies to the sun can also apply to the stars. I do know that our planet is bombarded with electromagnetic energy or information from the electromagnetic spectrum. This information in the form of light may be essential for life on our planet and may be regulated the same as our sun. Most of us are amazed at the size of our universe. Its mind boggling, but we compare our universe to things that we have learned in our lives. To us our universe is unbelievably enormous but, what we use as a reference to decide what is small or big may be logical to us and may not be accurate. The direction up to someone in North America is down to someone in China. I often thought our universe when compared to anything in it is the largest thing in existence. But what if we were viewed the way we view matter on a subatomic level!
 
Rick: GREAT Out-Of-the-Box (OOB) thinking!! . . . . we need more of such . . . . but get ready for a deriding onslaught from those Standard Model Sciforums enthusiasts who feel threatened by OOB and are bent on preserving their way of thinking!
 
Wrong sub-forum.
This should be in "Alternative Theories" (or the Cesspool).
What evidence do you have to support this "theory" (which isn't a theory at all)?


PS, you should have had better teachers (or listened to them properly - I have trouble believing any qualified physics teacher would claim that gravity is due to the rotation of the Earth).
 
Rick: . . . . see what I mean? (. . . . but get ready for a deriding onslaught from those Standard Model Sciforums enthusiasts who feel threatened by OOB and are bent on preserving their way of thinking! . . . )
 
This sounds an awful lot like the ideas of a banned user named mpc755. He had a thread in Alternative theories (where this should be) that was thoroughly shown to be completely without merit.

Sorry, but your idea is not a theory, it is a baseless conjecture.
 
Rick: . . . . see what I mean? (. . . . but get ready for a deriding onslaught from those Standard Model Sciforums enthusiasts who feel threatened by OOB and are bent on preserving their way of thinking! . . . )
For someone who supposedly is well educated in science you don't seem to understand the scientific method very well. The entire OP is just supposition based on nothing. No formal construction, no derivation of implications from postulates, no working models, nothing.

A simple test of how viable, even in principle, an idea is as 'scientific' is to ask yourself "If the author got hit by a bus tomorrow would I be able to continue his work?". Alternatively ask yourself whether two people read the work and then went to work on it separately from one another for months, even years, would they reach the same conclusions?

Certainly if two physicists today were given the postulates of say special relativity they would both, independently, (in principle) derive such things as Lorentz transform rules. Thus SR passes an important test. It's not a sufficient test for something to be viable but it's definitely necessary. If the answer to either question is "No" then it means you don't have some independent, precise idea, you have opinion and guesses based on your own preferences, and thus no one can continue your 'work' without you because the work is your opinion.

You need to get over yourself. You aren't told "Shut up" in the physics forum because people like myself have some sort of fear of you. Every single hack here is nothing but light amusement to me, none of you illicit any fear from me about you perhaps knocking over some part of the mainstream. Why? Because you, almost to a man, fail the above tests. If someone's work fails said tests it doesn't deserve to be discussed in the main maths & physics subforum.

Until you can offer something which passes those tests your work, and anyone else's work, has no place there. If you have a problem with that take it up with the scientific method and rationality. I know you aren't acquainted with them but they really are very nice.
 
For someone who supposedly is well educated in science...

Whatever gave you the idea that wlminex was educated in science? Certainly not his posts.
 
Rick: . . . . see what I mean!! . . . . 'bucking-the-SM establishment' with creative, intellectual, and original thought is kind of like OJ's lawyer . . . "If it don't fit . . . you must acquit!". I actually think that these SM yah-hoos seldom have an original creative thought of their own, but prefer to adhere to someone else's script! . . . I'm also reminded . . . ."Ah, that man's reach should exceed his grasp . . . .or, what's a heaven for?"
 
Last edited:
If there's a half-assed, incomprehensible, incomplete, ignorant idea posted, wlminex will champion it.

It's his way of 'thinking'.
 
AlexG: "Right-on"!! Someone has to protect the integrity of the Scientic Method and cogent discussion (rather than insult!) of new ideas.
 
Arghhh! My eyes! The glasses, they do nothing!

Please Rick, can you try using some paragraphs?
 
Whatever gave you the idea that wlminex was educated in science? Certainly not his posts.
Of course not but he's supposedly a doctor of some kind of geo.... something or other.

I actually think that these SM yah-hoos seldom have an original creative thought of their own, but prefer to adhere to someone else's script!
You have absolutely zero clue what us 'SM yah-hoos' do day to day and I'm certain even if you spent a day by my side you wouldn't understand what I do.
 
AN: . . . . you're beginning to sound a lot like AlexG . . . are you guys sock-puppets of each other? Evidently, 'SM yah-hoos' (if you really are one!) are quite afraid of being exposed to open and innovative thinking. Is "slamming" Sciform participants (see your prior post) your primary day-to-day activity? Such actions appear (to me, at least) to be "OFF-TOPIC" for the current OP!
 
Last edited:
Rick: GREAT Out-Of-the-Box (OOB) thinking!! . . . . we need more of such . . . . but get ready for a deriding onslaught from those Standard Model Sciforums enthusiasts who feel threatened by OOB and are bent on preserving their way of thinking!

You really think this is great out of the box thinking? Are you joking? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that because you are old you couldn't actually read the giant paragraph technique of writing.

The ideas presented in the mega paragraph are unevidenced, silly conjectures, that could not be mistaken for science with only the slightest glance.

Sorry Rick - that's just the way it looks.
 
wl likes it.

But wl likes anything as long as it's not current theory.
 
AN: . . . . you're beginning to sound a lot like AlexG . . . are you guys sock-puppets of each other?
What is it with you hacks in accepting that more than one person might see your claims are nonsense? Why do you always go to sock puppets? Are you so unwilling to accept more than one person might have a negative view of you?

Evidently, 'SM yah-hoos' (if you really are one!) are quite afraid of being exposed to open and innovative thinking. Is "slamming" Sciform participants (see your prior post) your primary day-to-day activity?
It is literally my job to solve formal mathematical physics problems pertaining to a wide range of industries in new ways. I spend my working week doing open and innovative thinking and I get rewarded for my capabilities.

Such actions appear (to me, at least) to be "OFF-TOPIC" for the current OP!
And you constantly complaining, incorrectly, you can't post your work anywhere isn't?
 
AN: . . . I hope you didn't get any of the "stimulus" $$$ to support your "work" . . . that would really P--- me off! I have posted references to my non-SM hypothesis . . . look it up! BTW . . . contrary to "SM yah-hoos" . . . I don't mind ANYONE refuting my hypothesis . . . I consider such as an opportunity to increase my (limited) knowledge while allowing others' to at least consider alternatives! (MODerator . . . sorry to be "off-topic" . . . just responding to others' insulting comments . . .)
 
I hope you didn't get any of the "stimulus" $$$ to support your "work"
I don't live in the US and I work for a private company. We get our contracts because we produce results. I earn my pay cheque by doing original novel work in technological areas of industry.

I have posted references to my non-SM hypothesis . . . look it up!
I know you have. But you complain you're somehow being suppressed or new ideas are knocked down here. No, it's just expected new ideas have justification and methodology behind them. I have to provide that in my work. I have to demonstrate my work solves, to some degree, the problem I was contracted for. We want repeat contracts so no results means no repeat contract. I'm not holding anyone else's work to a standard I wouldn't hold my own work to. Actually, the standards of this forum fall a long way short of anything considered decent in the research community.

BTW . . . contrary to "SM yah-hoos" . . . I don't mind ANYONE refuting my hypothesis .
Except you just have supposition and random cobbled together claims. There's no formal structure, no working models, no objective methodology, just your opinion. As my thread in the physics forum elaborates on, that falls a long way short of anything remotely worth looking at. If you're unable to get your own ideas beyond the "I have a random idea" stage how can anyone else? How can anyone develop your ideas if you can't even properly describe them in a clear and precise manner?

I consider such as an opportunity to increase my (limited) knowledge while allowing others' to at least consider alternatives!
Anyone can spew out an 'alternative' if they don't need to formalise anything. Magnetism is explained by polarised dipole fluxes through an axion field. Earthquakes are caused by vortex shedding in the Earth's biofield. The sky is blue due to decay of muons caused by invisible fairies. See, easy. Should I complain if someone doesn't give any of those 'alternatives' the time of day? Of course not, they are nothing but a mixture of buzzwords, opinion and unjustified supposition. Your claims and the claims of the OP are indistinguishable from longer versions of those. Now if you developed your work by giving it formal postulates and step by step deriving the implications then it'd be a lot closer to being an actual viable alternative to the mainstream. Until then it's indistinguishable from random nonsense and since infinitely many such 'alternatives' exist it's unscientific and not worth the time of day.

(MODerator . . . sorry to be "off-topic" . . . just responding to others' insulting comments . . .)
It's not off topic, I'm explaining why the original post, as well as your claims, deserves to be in the AT forum and why your comment about suppression of out of box thinking is a complete red herring.
 
Back
Top