@ETpro – The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe 6,000 years ago from a left-over can of Chef Boyardee Spaghetti they are using the 7th meaning.
LMAO would that be like ‘God’s great banana skin :-) I just googled that spaghetti, have you got a tin in your cuboard?
We know how gravity acts via Einstein’s theory of General Relativity
Do we know, or is that just “1.—a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.”
Wouldn’t it be better to say that at this present time, that ‘Einstein’s theory of General Relativity’ is just a ‘best fit’ mathematical theory that best describes the observable phenomena of gravity as described in definition 1?
Doesn’t this theory state that space-time is a two dimensional plane, and doesn’t this explanation break down when you add a second object with an orbit that doesn’t reside on this plane?
Also doesn’t general relativity discard/ignore the posibility of the so called ‘zero point’ field? (personally, I can’t see how this field can’t exist).
Space wants to be space, and therefore pushes anything out of its openness into areas of higher density
I would have postulated that matter displaces space and creates an area of lower density space around it so that when another object of matter passes near by and the two areas of less dense space overlap, the higher density space on the opposite sides pushes the objects together. That is to say that matter repels space which could suggest why its somewhat intangible since everything we would use to detect it would be made from some form of matter and thus repel it.
Below is something I wrote whilst trying to get my head around gravity (bearing in mind I don’t know the language of mathematics or how to apply it)
“If you try to visualize a ball, and surrounding that ball is a field of energy which
stretches out enveloping the whole surface area of the ball, kind of like Earth’s atmosphere, closest to the ball the energy is at its thickest, and as you travel away from the balls surface the energy gets thinner and thinner just like the Earth’s atmosphere until eventually at its outer limit it is infinitely thin.
Now, drop the ball into the sea of energy in space as you would a ball into water, the ball now creates a pocket, a hole where is resides. Now imagine if you can the energy field around the ball also creating a pocket in space pushing the space further away from the surface of the ball, but as the energy field enveloping the ball becomes ever thinner, its ability to displace space diminishes, and in the thinner densities of the balls outer energy field space starts to creep in. To picture this concept, imagine when you run a bath of hot water, at the top of the bath the water is at its hottest, but as you push your hand deeper into the water it becomes cooler, but this cooling isn’t instantaneous, it is gradual. I suppose you could liken the energy field around the ball as the hot water, and the spacial energy field as the cold water, eventually you will reach a point where hot water is now at its coolest, so cool that it’s now the same temperature as the cold water. The only difference between the water analogy and the energy field analogy is that instead of temperature change, there would be pressure (or density) change.
Carrying this concept on further take two balls and drop them into the spacial energy field, where the two outer reaches of the balls energy fields lay is what science calls an ‘Event Horizon’, the point at which the densities of the spacial field and the balls energy field start to change. Now push the balls closer together until the two ‘Event Horizons’ touch. At this point if you left the balls alone, they would stay put and not move. However the instant you push the balls past each others ‘Event Horizon’ the spacial
field becomes less dense. The higher densities of space either side of the two balls now pushes them into the less dense space in the middle of the two balls creating an apparent attraction between the two objects. This apparent attraction becomes an acceleration as the ever decreasing density of space between the two balls is encroached upon until eventually the two balls collide, creating the visual effect of gravity.”
You could postulate that this is the reason why liquids seemingly get ‘sucked-up’ by pourous materials, or even what makes electricity flow from one point to another. It would also seemingly describe magnetism or lightning, or even why galaxies are accelerating away from each other (in my head at least).
So to summerise, this would be why I was saying the big bang theory isn’t a fact, its just the currently excepted belief backed up by the maths that would seem to explain it, that theory isn’t fact, and those seven definitions do not define theory as being synonymous with fact. So gravity is a fact but so far we only have theories to explain what causes it. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Einstein, and I know it sounds really really arrogant, but I like my theory better, it just makes more sense in my head, although I do see how I could also just as easily be insane or just plain old dilusional.
One other thing. The age of the Universe has been pinned down now to 13.7 billion years old. The wide range of estimates predated more soild evidence collected by orbiting telescopes in 2003.
I stand corrected (though thats not hard haha). Did this age come from observing a large quantity of red-shift’s over a large area and then averaging them out?
Anyway, to put this into context, I wonder what Pat Robertson would have to say about red-shift!........
@Ron_C – Thanks, point now understood :-)
Though I would add that what I was trying to get at was that although we can calculate, resistance etc, would it be fair to say we still don’t know why electrons travel around a circuit that is to say that although we know that EMF causes electrons to travel from poisitive to negative (or visa-versa, I can never remember) we don’t know what EMF is?
And would it also be fair to say that although it is a fact that we can measure and calculate this phenomenon, we can only postulate with current knowlege as to why we can create and manipulate said phenomenon?
hense my theory is not fact rant
Composing members:
0
