ACG52

If it is an external force acting uniformly upon the universe, it would be subject to the shell theorem, and we'd never notice its effects. OTOH, we know that it is a 'force' (it isn't really) acting within the universe, generated by mass (end energy), and subject to the inverse square law. When you say 'suppose that ... rather', you're saying lets ignore the last 600 years of experimentation, observation and calculation. Any new idea you come up with must conform to what we know, OR provide a better explanation than current theory.

Can you quantifiy 'distant point' from the nucleus? The gravitational force between the two central neutrons and the neutron at the 'distant point' is not going to be significant. If the distant point is a nanometer (10-6 ) the gravitational acceleration between the three neutrons is about 3.72 x 10-54 m/sec2 . That's physically insignificant. Since a neutron is about 10-18 meters in radius, that's as close as they could get. Which would give a contact gravitational acceleration of 3.72 x 10-30 m/sec2. Again, not much there.

Just letting it sit on a counter works just the same.

A distant observer would see time flowing SLOWER closer in to the gravitational field, not faster. The observer in the gravitational field would see time flowing normally.

Well, don't keep this thread open on my account. If the above post is the best that we're going to get, shut it down.

You have yet to provide anything asked for.

You have yet to provide anything asked for. No I'm not a mod, if I was, this would have been shut down already.

These are simply meaningless numbers which you seem to have picked because you liked the way they looked, and you'd heard the number 186,000 as the approximate speed of light in miles per second. Your use of 'time dilation' seems to show you don't know what time dilation is. Anyway, you still haven't provided anything asked for.

I'm really not sure how to respond to this, so I guess I won't. Other to note that you have still substantiated anything. Still. You're not. You don't have a theory. Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

This is about the fact that there is no basis or substantiation for anything you've posted. You've simply made up everything, and somehow seem to feel that it has any legitimacy. You have no observational support, you have no calculations, simply a mish-mash of numbers plucked seemingly at random. "Lack of consideration of other members opinions"? Science isn't based on opinion, and neither is the speculation section. You've been asked time and again to support your ideas, (which don't come anywhere near being a theory) and consistently failed to do so. Your posts are so at odds with what is actually known as to comprise a total disconnect with reality.

This is just more meaningless fantasy.

Just more evasion and hand-waving. PG has never supplied ANYTHING in the way of support for his fantasies.

The problem with spellcheckers is that no one ever proof reads anymore.

You mean you dancing around declaring 'victory', while saying nothing?

A lawyer arguing physics. Right or wrong doesn't matter, just the words.

When dealing with the physics which actually describes the physical universe, then both time and space are very important. Time is not relegated to pure mathematics, it's an integral part of the working of the universe. Here you reveal a common misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory. There is no origin point of the BB. Things are not moving away from some central point. All points in space (outside of gravitationally bound entities) are expanding away from every other point. Here you show a basic ignorance of the laws of gravity, both in the limited Newtonian form and in the modern GR formulation. Have you ever heard of the inverse square law? And again, the BB was not an explosion, it is the metric scaling of space, and there is no origin point. There is no center of the universe. Because of the scaling factor, the further away something is (on the cosmological scale) the more space between us expands and the faster the object appears to receed. This apparent recession is not the result of the object moving through space, but the result of more space appearing between us. 1) There was no explosion. Nothing flew off in any directions. Every point in space expands away from every other point, in all directions (outside of gravitationally bound objects). For your reference, the limit of gravitational bounding for our local supergroup of galaxies is about 200 million light years. We see no spatial expansion until we get that far away. 2). No origin point. Or another way to look at it is that EVERY point in space was the origin. And matter is not expanding, the forces holding matter together, gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, so overwhelm the force of expansion that matter is totally unaffected by expansion. 3) Space expands. The universe expands. The universe is all there is, and requires no framework to exist in. 4) see 3 5) On the large scale, yes, as far as we can observe. 6) see 3 7) Space doesn't 'thin'. Present observation and calculation indicate that it will continue to expand indefinitely. Here is probably your most egregious error. You use your extremely limited range of perception, based in a very small, specialized subset of the universe, (low-energy, relatively slow, macro sized), coupled with misconceptions regarding what known physics tells us and has verified about the universe, and try to extrapolate this into generalizations which contradict what we see in the real world.

When lawyers believe they're arguing physics, there's seldom any sense being made.

I saw the constant display and passage of time. Besides that, it was simply a stream of electrons, giving the illusion of a three dimensional space.

Tell that to a muon. Maybe it won't decay.

You speak of cycles, motion, changes, all concepts which are derivatives of time, and yet you simply refuse to acknowledge it. You seem to think that by denying the concept exists, and basing your entire argument around your subjective impressions, you've made some kind of point. This is all about what you think you perceive. You say 'I can't see time, so it doesn't exist'. Not only do you confuse the map in your head for the territory, you deny the territory exists, and believe that your mental construct is the reality. Here's an experiment you can do. Find a tall building and jump off of it. Since velocity is a derivative of time, and you claim time doesn't exist, when you hit the pavement, you can't have any velocity, and so will have simply changed position in space with no ill effects. Let us know the results.

Show me your subjective experience. How can I know it even existed? On the basis of your statement?

Oh, no need to go that far.

Then you just haven't read enough. Swansont has corrected me more than once.

Swansont is the pro, not me. My physics degree is 40 years old and I've never worked as a physicist.

There is no concept of motion without the concept of time. If you can't grasp that, then the basic laws and operations of physics are beyond you. What you are doing is simply ignoring the idea of time and insisting because you don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist. That may work inside your head, but it doesn't in the physical universe.