Popcorn Sutton

Although I do think that the whole probability thing could be an absurdity because if theres only a 30% chance of a unit being at a certain point, then G would be significantly lower but the point would still exert G. I don't know anything about vectors sorry Consider earth as a unit of measurement. How many earths is earth? 1 is the answer

See my most recent post for an update. I'm still working out the details. But in regards to your point about photons having no mass, thats off topic. The idea is that the mass (now updated to length) of a photon wrt a photon is 1. Same goes for anything. Earth wrt earth is 1 as well, but photon wrt earth is way less than 1. You can also use the equation for waves, it gives the same result. The probability is incorporated via shrodinger hypothesis. It affects the force exerted on the poi.

I don't know if I can. I can definitely draw it out and put it in my drive and link to it, but it's going to be sloppy. I also anticipate changes to the equation. I think that instead of using mass, I might just use length (because of my claim about the shielding effect). So right now, I think the equation will come out to something like this. G = P(u|o)*len(u)/.5(len(poi))^2 I'm almost certain it's going to give a constant force though. I might need to add a delta in there to measure the movement of the unit and use that to calculate the variable force. So something like this. G = (P(u|o)*len(u)/.5(len(poi))^2)*(len(poi+space+u)t1)-(len(poi+space+u)t2) This equation should provide a numerical value that would show whether the force is a push or a pull depending on it's movement wrt the poi(point of interest). Another problem is that the gravitational connection between the unit and the poi could be... dare I say... infinitesimally small, so G could only be affecting one neutrino or so depending on it's distance from the poi, but still G would be an accurate and constant numerical representation of the force, but the area affected on the poi might be the entire poi, or an extremely small point. So I'd have to come up with an equation to measure the area affected by G, unless someone else wants to beat me to it. And NB, this is completely 2 dimensional.

It's designed to show the linear tension between two points. If you look at it like this, it might make more sense. The question is about the tension caused on earth because of one photon coming from the sun. The probability if one photon is 1, and the mass of a photon relative to a photon is 1. So let me calculate really quick. If thr radius of the earth squared comes out to 10billion photons, then the gravitational tension between the earth and the sun because of one photon comes out to .0000000001G All calculations relative to the photon

Ok. But I feel I need to point a few things out. Relativity is assumed in the equation, meaning that the mass of the unit causing the tension between the two points is relative to a known unit. So if a baseball is measured, and the relative unit is a helium atom, then if the baseball is exactly the mass of 10 million helium atoms, then the mass of the baseball is 10 million [helium atoms].

Ophiolite, I haven't defined your specifics yet, but if my hypothesis is correct, then the object that impacted was just too solid to leave a trace, figuratively speaking. I will try to address the specifics asap though

I'm with you on that one mike.

It gets reduced, it merges, and/or it gets repelled.

You can't say something like that without justifying it. I troll because I'm a troll. It's not a bad thing though. I'm wrong when I'm wrong because that is what helps us reach a better understanding. I don't intentionally say things that are wrong. I provided an equation to put a numerical value on the tension between two points, thats a prediction there, and yet, no one had said a word about it. Isn't that against the rules? G = P(u|o)*m(u)/ir^2 I might want to change up a variable or two but there is your prediction guys. It does what GR does and more. Gravity is equal to the probability of a unit given the origin times the mass of the unit divided by the radius squared multiplied by the imaginary number to make it a negative tension between the two points.

Let me explain why I used the term membrane. I probably should've used the word parameter instead. It seems to me that usually the center of gravitation for all orbiting systems require a unit with more energy at the center, and if it has observable mass, then it is not the real center of gravitation. If you trace all these surreal centers of gravitation back to their origin, you'll find something so energetic that it can't have mass. This is basically necessity for something like recognition to occur. Furthermore, how could you recognize without having a substance that will react to the energetic fluctuations. There must be a substance, all known substances have a parameter. Usually the outermost parameter of the point of interest is the least observably energetic, which is often followed by at least one other unit with a separate point that has mass, but it doesn't take the form of a substance, and it's usually solid. This is the second parameter (and hence, part of the membrane), and it continues outward until the outermost ridge where one energetic point of interest is either matched or superseded by the energy of the next point of interest. Recognition occurs when the shape of these points are altered. If gravity is a pushing force, then there will be a noticeable change in the "gravitational" effects of the origin on the point of interest when the shape of the origin is altered. Furthermore, the most energetic and free unit in the system is absolute and necessary to convert minimal units to maximally recognizable occurrences. I call it the mind, among other things. Also, I don't know if I've proposed this in these forums yet, but the one thing that I can think of that travels faster than the speed of light is spatial vibrations. It moves everything between two points. So technically, under these assumptions, you can tell if something is going to hit the planet by watching the geological activity because the space would be pushing at that point. Taking it a step further, maybe all geological activity is actually a result of changes in position of material surrounding the planet. If something sudden was to happen, it would cause an earthquake or something along those lines. Tornados could be space twisting at those points.

I agree, john cuthber done several things to destroy an otherwise perfectly good conversation. I'm afraid that the admins are paying him to post, which is even worse than having him troll the way he does. It's disruptive and degrading especially when his attitude becomes contagious. They closed a separate thread of mine because he didn't see any value in discussing it. I thought the discussion could have been interesting.

There will be trolls. I try not to troll though, you can tell by all the falsifiers I've proposed.

Squishing the environment produces a gravity like effect in my opinion. My bet is that if we were full of helium instead of oxygen, we would weigh less and maybe float, but instead, we are stuck on the ground because we're not buoyant enough.

If gravity is mostly a pushing force, then opening a sail as big as the moon at the distance of the moon from earth should have the same effect on the tides as the moon. And to john cuthberts point about gravity being a conservative field, you can say the same thing about buoyancy

Since I was 14, I found myself to be very interested in the science of attraction. Needless to say, that spark ignited the fuse, but by this point in my life, the fuse has died out. However, I have made a discovery. One discovery of mine was telepathy, and how it actually exists (you can't argue this with me, my mind is set, I've witnessed it many times). Well, taking it a step further, and applying it to my studies of attraction (mostly regarding NLProgramming and The Mystery Method, game theoretic ideas) I've experimented several times with telepathy and sexual attraction. Long story short, what I've done, and had positive results with, was literally having sex (or doing something sexual with someone) in my mind, in their presence, even if they were in the other room. The results are interesting. In every case that I performed this experiment, there was a heightened attraction between me and the person I focused on. In at least two of the cases, there was a noticeable moan on behalf of the participant. Two of the times I ended up in a relationship with that person. One time, I was sure that someone was doing it with me, and I felt a pretty good sensation in my penile region. I believe that this is the sensation someone feels when someone else performs a mental act on their body such as this. This sensation is a pleasant feeling, and I think that it is probably the strongest, most well established method with the most positive results I have ever experienced. I have at least 11 years of social experimentation regarding attraction, and if anything has been a sure fire method, it is the act of pleasing someone mentally. Thanks for reading and sorry for any troubles I may have/will cause by bestowing this information upon your being.

I havent observed or seen any evidence to the contrary of my claims, that is why I am making them. As far as I know, no one has even looked for an atmospheric ridge. On top of that, the tides are high on both sides of the planet. This doesn't prove my OP wrong. The only reason I am aware of that someone could accuse me of being wrong is that I am speaking out of my field of expertise. Even then, it's arguable. I research, think, and watch the science channel everyday. I let it run while I sleep. I could be an expert by hobby. I know that I've at least proposed hypotheses/theories that have become widely accepted and talked about amongst famous intellectuals. All I originally intended with this thread was to see the current nature of the hypothesis of gravity, the rest has been razzle dazzle (which is a fallacy more widely known as a red herring). So therefor, you are wrong, and for the moment, the claims I have made have suspended judgment at least. Show me visual evidence that proves me wrong and I will leave this hypothesis behind. Btw, no one commented on my equation.

Ok I was afraid I might be wrong. Or at least seem wrong. Or I might be using my words wrong. Maybe friction want the best word to use, but following the idea of this thread, I wanted to avoid the use of "gravity". Gravity can have a fricative effect on the surrounding environment. When something is within the gravitational force of jupiter, but moving away from it, it is being slowed down. We haven't made a bowling ball go the speed of light yet so technically I'm not wrong, the judgment is just suspended for now.

When you say "effects on time" I think that if c is actually the maximum speed for anything, then it would make more sense because of friction. I have to assume that space is fricative no matter how dense. If that is the case, then only certain things can exist at certain speeds or else they would be reduced depending on the fricativity of the substance surrounding them.

I do not purposely appeal to tradition. That is a fallacy. So gravity is neither a pushing not a pulling force. I'm not willing to accept that it's the curvature of spacetime, that is like saying that infinity exists. It cannot be observed that is and therefor will never be answered

The claims I make are interesting because they can be investigated, if I'm wrong then great, I don't care whether I'm right or wrong, but my mind, the way it is and has been, spends at least 50% of my waking time thinking about science. I got a new topic that might be controversial, I'll be publishing it soon in speculations so keep your eye out. As for the pushing or pulling argument, it seems that it is at a stalemate. I've presented using tides and atmospheric ridges to check either force, but in the end, it hasn't really led to a clear distinction of whether it is either. It wouldve been nice to make a conclusion, but at least I've made sn argument. I'm no longer worried about my academic standing, I just don't want to get banned and provide insight where I can. I also hope to learn sometimes so it's hard for me to refrain on certain things. I like what you said about the point in space pulling, I'm leaning towards gravity being both a push and a pull force, but more so a pushing force. I don't like spacetime curvature, but if space has a consistency like jello in some way, then I can accept it. Earlier, I was thinking that maybe the push is coming from above and below the solar system rather than from the edges, the pull-like effect may be coming from the linear edges of the solar system.

it could be bracing itself against the membrane of the galaxy or even the universe

Youre personifying it, what do you mean I'm not sure if the question is legit. I still think it's a pushing force mostly, part suction, but the tide thing threw me over. There could always be other variables involved. For the most part, because of the tide thing, I'm almost willing to concede, but it's not only because of the tide, it's also because of length contraction. I'm trying to see if there are other variables involved in the tide (like jupiter blocking some of the energy), but jupiter is so small I can't even accurately squeeze it with my fingers held at arms length from my eyes so I don't think it would be blocking too much force. The force, in my opinion, is expanding from a place very near the zero point of gravitation. I assume that the zero point is separate from the center of mass. It seems to be necessary for solidification, but I could be entirely wrong about that.

I didn't say that the tides wouldn't be high. Are the tides highest on the opposite side of the planet from the moon and the sun or on the same side? The answer to this question could indicate several different possibilities.

During a lunar eclipse we should be able to notice a strengthening of the push on the opposite side of the planet, so the atmosphere should be pretty thin compared to normal and the tides should be extra low, the atmospheric ridge should be larger on the side facing the sun. And I have to look into newtons third law to answer that question

If I'm right, it would seem that every point in space is radiating which would cause the push, but the push would vary on the amount if force exerted depending on whatever is blocking the push from different directions. I'm no math expert but I'll take a stab at the math. G = P(u|o)*m(u)/r^2 Gravity equals the probability of a unit given the origin times the mass of the unit divided by r^2 Or it might be -r^2 That should give you a measurable tension between two points of interest