A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

[mantraphilter]

The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale.

Mass distorts the space around itself.

Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why?

I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a further distance away from it.

I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason.

When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other?

Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it. Having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced stacked space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. There for, a type of friction can be created as these “displaced stacked spaces around a mass” interact with each other.

At the quantum level, an atom also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same.

The very tiny bit of space that it displaces, gets stacked around the proton. When two protons are near each other they are repelled because there is more space stacked around each proton than in the space between them. Each proton (mass) is not going to move into a smaller space, (the space between each of their own “displaced stacked space”), again, the stacked space around the proton displaced by its own mass, may not be symmetrical, although it can be.

As two protons are forced closer to each other the “displaced stacked space” around them becomes equal at the point closest to each other, thereby forcing them together. This then combines the two protons into one nucleus and the displaced stacked space around two protons into one displaced stacked space around the mass of a “two proton nucleus”. Again, the “displaced stacked space” around these two protons is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. I believe this might be describing the strong nuclear force.

Imagine two hula hoops that represent two areas of “displaced stacked space”, the two hoops sit side by side with a visible space between them, this visible space is actually less space, (this space is not warped by the effect of being displaced by a proton). The hoops will not attract each other because there is nothing propelling them into the less space that is between them. As the two hula hoops (displaced stacked space’s) cross into each other’s territory, there becomes a point where the volume between where they overlap becomes greater than the volume that exists where they do not overlap, (a sort of equality in the two spaces) there by forcing the two “displaced stack space’s” together along with the now two protons in the middle. There now exists a “displaced stacked space” that resembles the shape of the two protons that are now touching each other. Kind of like a figure eight without the middle criss cross part, (this is where the two protons are at). Inside the displaced stacked space there is a potential for friction at the point where the two protons touch each other. As various outside forces (collisions, pressure, etc.) act upon the displaced stacked space, the two protons move, creating friction. the friction could then create a spark (electron), which could pop in and out of existence. I think this might explain the theory of quantum physics.

Furthermore, as more protons are added to the nucleus the “displaced stacked space” now has a three-proton nucleus in it, and now has three points of contact which could now create three points of friction, and three electrons popping in and out of existence, For each proton added to a nucleus, the “displaced stacked space” has to distort to represent the shape of the nucleus that is displacing it and, this is why we see different orbital shapes around the nucleus. As the nucleus gets larger and a proton gets buried in between other protons, this is what creates the onion effect of orbits around the nucleus. As for the neutron being the glue that holds the nucleus together, we don’t need that to be so anymore, or any other quantum glue for that matter.

So, what is a neutron?

I believe the neutron found in the parallel-oppositely charged electrified plate experiment, is a particle with the charge knocked out of it, or, maybe the protons inside a nucleus are not positively charged until the condition of friction occurs inside the nucleus and charges them, now that both protons are positively charged, an electron can now be created from the next instance of friction within the nucleus. A particle, be it a proton or neutron, creates a “displaced stacked space” around itself. This “displaced stacked space” is what holds the electron next to it. The electron doesn’t move into the less space farther from the “displaced stacked space” of the atoms nucleus

So how does a hydrogen atom have an electron floating around it if there is only 1 proton and no point of friction created by another proton within its own “displaced stacked space”?

I am not so sure that a hydrogen atom has an electron. But if I had to explain the single electron floating in the “displaced stacked space” of a single proton, I would have to say that an electron was stolen from an interaction with another atom and became trapped inside the “displaced stacked space” around its proton. Being that the proton already had a positive charge the electron has no place to go. The electron is not going to move into the less space that exists outside of the “displaced stack space”

I believe the “displaced stacked space” around the proton is kind of like a negative of a photograph, like a shadow created from the proton that occupies the area where the space has been displaced. The reason the atomic weight of an atom suggests there is more particles in its nucleus, is due to the stacked space around each proton distorting the space and there by effecting the mechanism by which the atom is weighed.

As you add protons to the nucleus, the new atom becomes more stable or less stable, depending on the symmetry of its mass and how tightly packed the spheres are. Again, depending on the shape of the protons packed in the nucleus and its relative symmetry, this has a direct effect on the symmetry of the “displaced stacked space” until, symmetrical or unsymmetrical atom nuclei can no longer be held together by the symmetrical or unsymmetrical stacked space around the nucleus. As the number of particles in the nucleus rises so do the number of friction points, and likewise the number of electrons possible being held in by the “displaced stacked space” until the “displaced stacked space” becomes so full of electrons that it becomes equal to the space outside the “displaced stacked space” and therefore an electron can move away into space farther away from the “displaced stacked space” around the nucleus that it came from. I think this might be describing the weak nuclear force. Once the electron leaves the displaced stacked space, this leaves more space for the remaining electrons and there for they will not enter the less space that is farther away. Why would they, there’s less space.

So, how do covalent bonds hold atoms together?

Think of the two hula hoops overlapping each other. The space inside the overlap now has more space than the space just outside of it. Remember, the “displaced stacked space” is stacked just outside each of the two protons like a photographic negative. The closer you get to the proton the more space there is. The overlapped space in the two hula hoops has more space where it overlaps. So, let’s say an electron is in the overlapped space. The electron doesn’t move into the less space that is outside of the overlap. It will not find more space until it can get closer to the proton of either nucleus. It also will not move outside of the displaced stacked spaces that are around either proton because, there is less space there to.

As atoms become larger and collapse, they give their particles to other atoms and on and on it goes. As more matter collects, different densities are created and other outside forces effect it until enough mass is created with enough of a “displaced stacked space” around it as to create enough pressure from the less space farther out so that the mass becomes round, a planet.

So why is gravity so much weaker than the strong nuclear force.

A planet has different densities as you come closer to its core. The “displaced stacked space” that is created by each individual atom overlaps in some places and cancels itself out in others, (like the overlap in the hula hoops). On the astronomical scale, it appears weaker but in fact is the very same force. Remember- the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like the photographic negative of itself. Within the mass of a planet, although things appear to be solid, they may also contain space, including the “displaced stacked space”. This is why gravity appears so much weaker in the laboratory that we observe it from, (our planet). As mass is collected, the density that exist in the core is under more pressure, causing more friction between the protons creating more electrons and then, all the atoms exchange electrons in a sort of rebalancing act creating the wave effect you see in electricity and as in the case of our sun.

Now, Imagine a black hole. The “displaced stacked space” around it must be great, the spiral arms you see extending in a curve away from the black hole are not being spun out. They are moving into the greater amount of space that is being displaced by the great mass at the center. The common belief is that light cannot escape a black hole, I believe that there is so much space at the edge of its mass that it doesn’t need to. The mass of a black hole does confine the atoms into a smaller and smaller space but, this is not what attracts more mass. In the case of the black hole the matter has become so dense that the atoms do not have any room to move, no friction – no positive charged atoms – no light, Thus, a black hole. The space that is being displaced by the black hole’s mass is where the matter outside the black hole is moving into, - more space. Inside the black hole even the atoms are not round, even this space is taken up by the crunching force of its mass. When you smash a circle into the least amount of space what do you get? An octagon? Might this be the reason the spirals extending from the black hole appear to be arms? Again the displaced space is like the photographic negative of the mass that is displacing it.

In my model of the atom, all particles are either a charged particle (proton) or a not charged particle (neutron), and friction between two particles can either charge a particle, and that particle hold the charge, or the charge can move between atoms like a wave. It is the “displaced stacked space” that holds the atom together, and when the charge becomes stuck inside the “displaced stacked space” it becomes what we call an electron. After all, a magnet only has a positive and negative.

I believe this one Idea can describe the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity at both the astronomical and quantum level.

Send any comments to email address removed by moderator

Edited March 7, 2017 by Phi for All

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Moved to speculations. Please adhere to the guidelines

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

 

 

When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other?

They are falling toward each other. But they are also moving laterally, so they continually miss.

I am not so sure that a hydrogen atom has an electron.

You are a distinct minority here.

I believe this one Idea can describe the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity at both the astronomical and quantum level.

Without a model or a way to test this idea, it will remain a belief.

[Strange]

 

The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale.

 

 

Citation needed.

 

 

 

When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other?

 

They are:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cannonball

 

 

 

I believe the neutron found in the parallel-oppositely charged electrified plate experiment

 

What experiment is this? And how does a charged plate find uncharged neutrinos?

 

 

 

I believe this one Idea can describe the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity at both the astronomical and quantum level.

 

I will stick with science, if its all the same to you.

[mantraphilter]

as you get closer to any mass that exits in time and space, the closer you get to the mass- the more space there is, due to it being stacked up like a photographic negative around the mass. if you need a model to prove this, look at how the suns rays expand as they get closer to the earth. the reason for this, is that the light is moving in to more space.

as for the charged plate experiment- it is a well known experiment where two parallel plates are charged one positive one negative. atoms are then smashed and the particles determined to be either positive or negative depending on which way they curve while passing between the plates. the neutrons were named as such because they were not effected by either plate- Neutral. When discovered they were called neutrons.

and just because you read something somewhere and you believed it does not make it true. people like to feel smart

[swansont]

as you get closer to any mass that exits in time and space, the closer you get to the mass- the more space there is, due to it being stacked up like a photographic negative around the mass. if you need a model to prove this, look at how the suns rays expand as they get closer to the earth. the reason for this, is that the light is moving in to more space.

 

The sun's rays also do that in regions where there is no mass. IOW, mass is not the reason for the behavior. There is just as much space near a mass as far away from it. You need some independent way of testing your hypothesis.

[mantraphilter]

I suppose Einstein's E=mc2 is wrong too and as starlight travels close to a large mass it doesn't bend either. This effect has been proven and is well known. It is because of the extra space it has to travel through that it bends.

displaced stacked space. the mass is not the reason for the behavior. again the "displaced stacked space" is

[Strange]

as for the charged plate experiment- it is a well known experiment where two parallel plates are charged one positive one negative. atoms are then smashed and the particles determined to be either positive or negative depending on which way they curve while passing between the plates. the neutrons were named as such because they were not effected by either plate- Neutral. When discovered they were called neutrons.

 

 

That does not appear to be how neutrons were discovered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron

 

 

and just because you read something somewhere and you believed it does not make it true. people like to feel smart

 

And just because you made something up and it makes sense to you, does not make it true. People like to feel smart.

[mantraphilter]

according to new theories in quantum physics and consciousness it could.

 

 

 

That does not appear to be how neutrons were discovered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron

 

 

And just because you made something up and it makes sense to you, does not make it true. People like to feel smart.

 

According to new theories of consciousness effect in the quantum world it could.

[swansont]

I suppose Einstein's E=mc2 is wrong too and as starlight travels close to a large mass it doesn't bend either. This effect has been proven and is well known. It is because of the extra space it has to travel through that it bends.

displaced stacked space. the mass is not the reason for the behavior. again the "displaced stacked space" is

 

 

The former is true — according to GR mass curves spacetime. It is the latter — your peculiar implementation of that, that there is extra space — that you are being asked to demonstrate.

 

How do you test for "extra" space vs curved space? If it's extra space, shouldn't that be true regardless of the frame of reference? That doesn't sound like it's a relative quantity. (of course, if we actually had a model, such questions might be moot, since the model could show this)

[Strange]

according to new theories in quantum physics and consciousness it could.

 

 

According to new theories of consciousness effect in the quantum world it could.

 

 

1. What new theories?

2. How would this make stuff you invent true?

[Lord Antares]

 

The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale.

Mass distorts the space around itself.

Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why?

I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a further distance away from it.

I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason.

When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other?

Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it. Having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced stacked space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. There for, a type of friction can be created as these “displaced stacked spaces around a mass” interact with each other.

At the quantum level, an atom also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same.

 

Hey Mantra, I want to let you know that I've had the exact same theory up to the end of the quote, although more in-depth.

It makes sense to us both and it would explain the behavior of black holes and some other things. It could also explain why there must be a singularity in a black hole without it causing problems in physics, which is why I stuck to this theory for some time (but eventually let it go).

 

But the major problem and reason I've never talked about it is because I don't have evidence or any sort of quantifiable model.

I don't share your beliefs about the atomic level of interaction for this, though.

 

I just want to let you know that I fully understand what you mean, but it is senseless to expect that anyone can be engaged in conversation about this if you cannot provide any models or evidence. It remains a belief until then.

That is why you should refrain from posting theories if you know you cannot answer the questions of peer review.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Lord Antares

[mantraphilter]

 

Hey Mantra, I want to let you know that I've had the exact same theory up to the end of the quote, although more in-depth.

It makes sense to us both and it would explain the behavior of black holes and some other things. It could also explain why there must be a singularity in a black hole without it causing problems in physics, which is why I stuck to this theory for some time (but eventually let it go).

 

But the major problem and reason I've never talked about it is because I don't have evidence or any sort of quantifiable model.

I don't share your beliefs about the atomic level of interaction for this, though.

 

I just want to let you know that I fully understand what you mean, but it is senseless to expect that anyone can be engaged in conversation about this if you cannot provide any models or evidence. It remains a belief until then.

That is why you should refrain from posting theories if you know you cannot answer the questions of peer review.

 

let me guess you are trying to discourage me so you can get time to write up your own version of this theory so you can take credit for it,

 

 

1. What new theories?

2. How would this make stuff you invent true?

 

don't expect another answer from me if you keep posting,

 

Hey Mantra, I want to let you know that I've had the exact same theory up to the end of the quote, although more in-depth.

It makes sense to us both and it would explain the behavior of black holes and some other things. It could also explain why there must be a singularity in a black hole without it causing problems in physics, which is why I stuck to this theory for some time (but eventually let it go).

 

But the major problem and reason I've never talked about it is because I don't have evidence or any sort of quantifiable model.

I don't share your beliefs about the atomic level of interaction for this, though.

 

I just want to let you know that I fully understand what you mean, but it is senseless to expect that anyone can be engaged in conversation about this if you cannot provide any models or evidence. It remains a belief until then.

That is why you should refrain from posting theories if you know you cannot answer the questions of peer review.

the models for proof are there. starlight bends as it gets closer to mass, but not when it is farther away. a ray of sunlight gets wider as it gets closer to the ground. Atoms give up electrons, it is hard to pull protons out of a nucleus without smashing it due to the strong nuclear force, black holes exist. and magnetism is a no brainer. "Displaced stacked space"

 

 

The former is true — according to GR mass curves spacetime. It is the latter — your peculiar implementation of that, that there is extra space — that you are being asked to demonstrate.

 

How do you test for "extra" space vs curved space? If it's extra space, shouldn't that be true regardless of the frame of reference? That doesn't sound like it's a relative quantity. (of course, if we actually had a model, such questions might be moot, since the model could show this)

 

space is a vacuum once you have broken free from the "extra space" this is why. the models for evidence are their, you just have to look.

there has to be some formula for the strength of the vacuum of space and the difference of the conditions at the planet surface, and the mass of the planet. I am not a mathematician so I have a hard time putting it together in the right order. lets use s for surface vacuum and v for space vacuum, U for universe and of course m for mass. something like s-v x m =u or maybe the other way around, S x V / M = U, I'm not sure.

I think it would be S / V x M = U, surface divided by vacuum times mass equals universe?

[swansont]

space is a vacuum once you have broken free from the "extra space" this is why.

That doesn't work. The moon has essentially no atmosphere and Mars has a thin one, not in proportion to their mass.

 

the models for evidence are their, you just have to look.

 

No, you have to show it.

 

there has to be some formula for the strength of the vacuum of space and the difference of the conditions at the planet surface, and the mass of the planet. I am not a mathematician so I have a hard time putting it together in the right order. lets use s for surface vacuum and v for space vacuum, U for universe and of course m for mass. something like s-v x m =u or maybe the other way around, S x V / M = U, I'm not sure.

 

I think it would be S / V x M = U, surface divided by vacuum times mass equals universe?

You can't just throw variables together — what are the units of these variables? How do we measure them? And without this equation, you have nothing. This is the hard part, but it's also where the science is.

[John Cuthber]

 

let me guess you are trying to discourage me so you can get time to write up your own version of this theory so you can take credit for it,

 

 

I think most of us would put some effort into not being associated with it because it is nonsense.

There's nothing creditworthy to take credit for.

[Strange]

It seems to be a common delusion amongst those who have come up with their own "theory" that others will want to steal it. They won't.

 

Because coming up with ideas is easy. The hard part is making them into testable hypotheses, and then testing them. (And it is nonsense.)

Edited March 12, 2017 by Strange

[mantraphilter]

That doesn't work. The moon has essentially no atmosphere and Mars has a thin one, not in proportion to their mass.

 

 

 

No, you have to show it.

 

 

You can't just throw variables together — what are the units of these variables? How do we measure them? And without this equation, you have nothing. This is the hard part, but it's also where the science is.

 

the atmosphere on earth is not made up of space. It is made up of atoms that exist in and are held by the extra space stacked up around the mass of our planet. the reason the atmosphere of the earth does not just float away is because the atoms do not move into the less space farther out. the moon lacks the type of atoms needed to make up an atmosphere but that does not mean there is not space being displaced by its mass. the reason the earth and moon do not come together is because of the less space between each of there" displaced stacked space". So can a vacuum be measured? because if it can you would have to measure it away from any displaced stacked space. and if that measurement is a constant. it could be used as a basis for a formula. Although the earths displaced stacked space would not be a constant number if you could measure it. I believe that the mass of the earth is known. if displaced stacked space is true, what would be the formula for measuring it.

when the starlight passed by our sun and was seen in a different place during the lunar eclipse, the curvature of the suns space bent the starlight away from the mass. due to the space next to the sun being so full of electrons. I believe that if you use the technique and observed starlight as it passes by a planetary mass it would curve toward the mass that it moves by because there is more space for it to move into. if I'm right about the displaced stacked space being like a photographic negative, this would mean more space closer to the surface of the mass, There fore the starlight would have to move into the more space. and curve toward the mass instead of away from it.

when astronauts jumped up and down on the moon they didn't come down because the moons mass magically grabbed hold of them. they came back down because there was more space to move into, "displaced stacked space"

[Strange]

So, in summary, we have a choice between a scientific theory that is able to precisely (and correctly) calculate what happens versus a random guess from some guy on the Internet with no predictive power at all.

 

If it's all the same to you, I'll stick with the science. Thanks.

[swansont]

the atmosphere on earth is not made up of space. It is made up of atoms that exist in and are held by the extra space stacked up around the mass of our planet. the reason the atmosphere of the earth does not just float away is because the atoms do not move into the less space farther out. the moon lacks the type of atoms needed to make up an atmosphere but that does not mean there is not space being displaced by its mass. the reason the earth and moon do not come together is because of the less space between each of there" displaced stacked space".

So why did Mars lose its atmosphere if it has this extra space?

 

So can a vacuum be measured?

You can measure pressure.

 

because if it can you would have to measure it away from any displaced stacked space. and if that measurement is a constant. it could be used as a basis for a formula. Although the earths displaced stacked space would not be a constant number if you could measure it. I believe that the mass of the earth is known. if displaced stacked space is true, what would be the formula for measuring it.

That's what you need to determine.

 

when the starlight passed by our sun and was seen in a different place during the lunar eclipse, the curvature of the suns space bent the starlight away from the mass. due to the space next to the sun being so full of electrons. I believe that if you use the technique and observed starlight as it passes by a planetary mass it would curve toward the mass that it moves by because there is more space for it to move into. if I'm right about the displaced stacked space being like a photographic negative, this would mean more space closer to the surface of the mass, There fore the starlight would have to move into the more space. and curve toward the mass instead of away from it.

The light deflected toward the sun, not away from it. In accordance with relativity (which has an actual basis in physics, rather than being a random idea thrown together with a lame attempt at a formula with made-up variables

 

when astronauts jumped up and down on the moon they didn't come down because the moons mass magically grabbed hold of them. they came back down because there was more space to move into, "displaced stacked space"

Let's have the equation for the force on them because of this "displaced stacked space"

[mantraphilter]

So why did Mars lose its atmosphere if it has this extra space?

 

 

You can measure pressure.

 

 

That's what you need to determine.

 

 

The light deflected toward the sun, not away from it. In accordance with relativity (which has an actual basis in physics, rather than being a random idea thrown together with a lame attempt at a formula with made-up variables

 

 

Let's have the equation for the force on them because of this "displaced stacked space"

I disagree with the animations you typically see depicting the starlight being shown to bend toward the sun when Einstein's theory was proven. If you could see the light from stars that were behind the sun, that starlight would have to bend away from the sun in order for your eye to see it appear in a new location, not behind the sun, but visible to your eye. The animations are wrong because everyone believes in the standard model of gravity as being some sort of magical attraction between two masses that draws them together. Think about it - if the stars position is known to be behind the sun at the time of the lunar eclipse, but now appears further from the sun during the lunar eclipse, the light from that star would have to have bent away from the mass of the sun, not towards it in order for your eye to now see it at what appears to be a new location. The sun's electrons fill its "displaced stacked space" their for, the star light traveling near the sun's mass finds more space to move into in the vacuum. As do the electrons and the light being emitted from the sun. All the animations show the starlight bending around the curvature of the sun, but the sun's own light projecting away from it seems to follow a different rule than does the starlight traveling near it in all of these so called top physicists animation depictions, and they do not see the flaw in there models. According to them starlight and sunlight follow different laws of physics. I say - they are the crackpots with their heads in the sand ignoring the obvious in order not to violate their pea-brained college educated conformist view of the universe.

[Phi for All]

All the animations show the starlight bending around the curvature of the sun, but the sun's own light projecting away from it seems to follow a different rule than does the starlight traveling near it in all of these so called top physicists animation depictions, and they do not see the flaw in there models. According to them starlight and sunlight follow different laws of physics. I say - they are the crackpots with their heads in the sand ignoring the obvious in order not to violate their pea-brained college educated conformist view of the universe.

 

!

Moderator Note

You need to support your ideas with evidence. These top physicists have plenty of it. You have nothing so far. Hand-waving and name-calling will not keep this thread open. Start answering the questions and provide links that support you. Without evidence, you're guessing and insisting you're right. The thread will be closed if you can't support it.

[mantraphilter]

If you took offense at my comment that's on you. So your the almighty moderator, the man behind the curtain threatening to close my thread because you don't like my theory. wah wah, close it, see if I care, I got nothing I need to prove to you or your silly science forum. Who wants to be part of a bunch of pompous science wannabees waving their PhD's and doctorate degrees and grandstanding about how smart they are while conforming to every accepted theory of what has not been proven in order to further their own ego's . you probably don't even have degrees anyways. STICK YOUR HEAD BACK IN THE SAND WHERE IT BELONGS. I'm done with you.

[swansont]

I disagree with the animations you typically see depicting the starlight being shown to bend toward the sun when Einstein's theory was proven. If you could see the light from stars that were behind the sun, that starlight would have to bend away from the sun in order for your eye to see it appear in a new location, not behind the sun, but visible to your eye.

That's not how it works. If the light bent away from the sun, it wouldn't reach earth, and we wouldn't see it at all.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-72nAH_YOhqk/VrCmKh6vnGI/AAAAAAAAHmA/GIyyxLhlKRg/s1600/AA1919%2BEclipse.JPG

[Pugdaddy]

I thought you guys were pretty lenient. Logic and nature are not the best of friends. You can use logic to dream up a theory, but you need observation to agree with it, all observation, to make it real. And you need some mathematical model that accurately predicts something that can be tested and also agrees with what is already observed. The questions posed to the idea presented are not done to make it look stupid. There are to help it make sense and point out areas of concern that need more rigor.

[Phi for All]

If you took offense at my comment that's on you. So your the almighty moderator, the man behind the curtain threatening to close my thread because you don't like my theory. wah wah, close it, see if I care, I got nothing I need to prove to you or your silly science forum. Who wants to be part of a bunch of pompous science wannabees waving their PhD's and doctorate degrees and grandstanding about how smart they are while conforming to every accepted theory of what has not been proven in order to further their own ego's . you probably don't even have degrees anyways. STICK YOUR HEAD BACK IN THE SAND WHERE IT BELONGS. I'm done with you.

 

!

Moderator Note

The only offense is you breaking the rules. That's what I'm here for. I have no opinion on your idea, other than it doesn't have anywhere near the rigor and acceptance to call it a theory.

 

But you aren't supporting your idea the way the rules say you need to. You're guessing and claiming it's true, and that won't fly here. Every site sets their own rules, and ours say we're not interested in your guesses, but if you care to support yourself with more than wavy hands, we're more than willing to listen.

 

So once again, I will ask you to provide some support with something, anything more than just your word, that can be analyzed using actual science. I don't know how to be more fair and still do my job as moderator. Last chance.

[mantraphilter]

The animation that was provided by swansnot, depicts two separate laws of the way light travels, one for our suns light radiating out through space away from the suns mass, and a separate rule for starlight traveling past the sun in which the starlight is attracted towards the mass. You can't have it both ways. Is our sun not a star? Are the properties of starlight and sunlight different? If the starlight moved away from the sun the same way as the suns light radiates from it, you would still be able to see it from earth, only its position would change. I'm not saying Einstein's theory was wrong, I'm just saying most animations are wrong about why this effect happens. I would have to concede that the electrons from the sun are maybe not filling the "displaced stacked space" created by its mass, but the sun light is definitely moving away from its mass and, there fore starlight as it travels past the sun, unless it has different properties, will move away from the suns mass also. If you can't agree with this your just in denial. Also my paper is titled A "logical" approach to gravity, I am what people would call a layman. I like simple common sense language, not big words that are used more for trying to impress people about how smart you are. I am also not the most computer literate person, I can find information that I am looking for, but how to link it to other things is not a skill I have acquired yet. My arguments are based on simple observation, If you want to categorize them as invalid because I do not provide the links showing the evidence that supports them, go ahead. If you want to provide links that show evidence that disproves them, I welcome them, as I am only interested in in advancing my own understanding of the universe based on observable evidence. not somebodies interpretation of the out come of an experiment. Only recently have I found out that their are electron microscopes that are able to pear into the world of the atom. Maybe in the future this will help to clear things up. As long as people don't try to confuse the results with complicated language because the results do not support whatever theory they have adopted as right, thereby, making them feel - not smart.