michel123456

So nobody here can answer ittiandro's question? (edit: I can't) Only give neg. rep?

Who are all these people? They come for the very first time, post a question and never post anything else. What is that all about?

You have to make the following syllogism: Gravitation comes from mass. Mass is a form of energy. Mass-energy follows a conservation law. Conservation law means "does not change as the system evolves"..."over time" So the clue is: time. If one can prove that mass is the source of time, then gravitation and time can be linked directly.

I am tired of that kind of answer. There is no harm to admit that "I don't know why does mass attract other things in the first place". Clever people don't dismiss the question, clever people investigate. That is not what Newton answered. ----------- And, ending the disgression, Chris is still waiting for clues. IIRC the current model says that gravitation originates from mass. (that is not metaphysics, isn't it?) Mass curves the "fabric of space" and "tells how mass must move" along geodesics.

I disagree. His answer was very bad. Newton's answer was "hypotheses non fingo". And that is a correct answer. ------------ Gravity is physics. Time is physics. No ontological question. The OP question is: (bolded mine) I gave a clue.

No. DH answer was accurate and yours is BS.

Gravity is metaphysics??????? --------------- If you are incapable to answer a question, simply admit it.

time

It depends whether you are talking about the Universe or the Observable Universe. I suppose if something is missing from the O.U., it can belong the the U., which means it is causaly connected but not detectable.

1.If so Andromeda should be accelerating. 2. And does that mean that the standard explanation should be that the Milky Way & Andromeda are orbiting each other? Instead of colliding?

Were you awake?

The original picture is this one: (credit NASA) Which is an Aitoff projection (from here) Copyright © 2008 C.A.Furuti - All rights reserved - www.progonos.com/furuti

(bolded mine) What "exists between the nucleous of an atom and the electron" is that we call "distance". So, IMHO the question is "what is distance?"

I have come to the conclusion that this must be wrong.

So

Now correct me if i understand badly: 1. you made the supposition that there is a radial acceleration and this supposition gives you the correct mathematical results. 2. You made the supposition that this radial acceleration is caused by rotation. Is that correct so far?

Looks very interesting. You should post a thread about that. It sounds good. I hope you will be able to put a name under "some physicist' some day. And you din't answer my question: I missed the explanation of why massive objects are attracted to each other (It was a question). M.

Not only sad. It is ugly & stupid.

Savita is dead.

Oh. did you pay 300$ to be published? in the Journal of Modern Physics of SCIRP See http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/charleston/chadv/2012/00000013/00000004/art00005?token=00481470d37539412f415d7670347070742b4542736a432530482972715a614f6d4e227a http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/charleston/15254011/v13n4/s5.pdf?expires=1352904789&id=71468144&titleid=75002231&accname=Guest+User&checksum=07526F85892CDC8A158053BD2FDDFA1C

This thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60400-unification-theory-draft-dft/page__pid__713112__st__20#entry713112 is not showing in "My content" Can that be fixed? thanks.

I hope you are correct. As much as I can understand you have expressed existing theory under some new POV, where time is not constant but under dilation (acceleration). IOW we are living in an accelerated world. Is that it? from your link. And I liked But I missed the explanation of why massive objects are attracted to each other. It's a bit over my head.

Prove it.

(bolded mine) No. The rate is the same (.000001 parsecs per year). and WE are expanding from them, not them from us.

Hi Arnaud. Welcome. very few here know French, so your post will be mostly ignored I am afraid. But even in French I understand nothing. It looks like word salad although it may not be. You must have a lot of things in mind that you must explain first, an introduction is missing and also what are you proposing in a few words (an abstract) is missing. And also you should be more careful about orthography, your text gives a very bad impression and ruins your point.