a postule

[MrWrong]

I joined this forum just to post my theorem (or is it theorum)

 

Anywho, the Axiom is gravity makes things all "sticky". Some say it's clear evidence this planet sucks, in reality all planets do and their moons as well.

 

If the moon has a gravitational pull, and the earth does. And any other astrological body that its capable of detecting gravity on also does. One must assume, everything has a gravitational pull of some sort.

 

Which I believe negates any possibility of "Graviton's" It's is a logical postulate to assume that gravity is directly related to mass (not to be confused with weight). (m = W/g)

 

Sew.....one might deduce a theoretical (not to mention totally farce) relationship by this formula.

 

G= Sqrt(m)/De

 

Gravity is equal to the Square Root of Mass divided by the distance from the epicenter of said object.

 

This is an insanely BS formula, but nonetheless one can make a better formula from this base ideal.

 

Now if we assume, that all matter has mass (and I believe it does) and all mass has some gravitational pull (I also believe it does).

 

Why does all mass have a gravitational pull.

 

The answer is simple i believe.

 

The law of conservation of mass/matter, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system will remain constant over time, regardless of the processes acting inside the system.

 

We are in a limited mass universe. (also a postulate, but one a great many agree with). If we are in a limited mass universe, one might also assume we are in a limited space universe. Since mass takes up space. Therefore, every object takes up space, and space itself is confined to a limited agree, all objects by there very nature must attract one another.Whenever space itself is displaced, considering not only space but density (i.e mass) the amount of space displaced, naturally compels attraction.

 

Thus, gravity does not truly exist. It is an effect, of space itself. The same can be said of time, i theorize also can by effected the displacement of space.

 

Hence, what creates gravity can also slow down time. Since time itself also doesn't exist it's merely a measurement of travel.

 

Now I posed this, simple to enjoy a real physicist rip it to gravitons, and understand why I am wrong. Obviously I must be wrong somewhere because if I were right, I would be teaching QM at Princeton.

[Martin]

.....one might deduce a theoretical (not to mention totally farce) relationship by this formula.

 

G= Sqrt(m)/De

 

Gravity is equal to the Square Root of Mass divided by the distance from the epicenter of said object.

...

 

Any proposed law of gravity must pass the Iron Dwarf test.

 

You know those iron Gnomes, little men with beards and pointed hats, that people put in their yards as a garden ornament.

 

Imagine that you drop one off a cliff, and that it takes 4 seconds to hit the bottom of the canyon below. Your proposed formula must say how deep the canyon---how far did it drop?

 

If you are not familiar with iron yard ornaments you can imagine using an old computer monitor or television set.

[Mokele]

As a more minor development, I would also suggest renaming your "postule" to something that sounds less like the symptom of a bizarre tropical disease.

[MrWrong]

I just assumed postule would weed out all the English teachers immediately.

 

Apparently I was.....mistaken.

 

All right, I see this post was moved too, ridiculous notions of absurd and beyond reason idiocy.

 

All right aside from Mickey Mouse, and Donald Duck. Lets try this from a different angle.

 

The hypothesis that was given on gravity, aforementioned was simply "here's how, but we dont know why".

 

Aside from the pre-agreed ridiculous math, what was so horrible wrong about that theory?

 

Is it rather that we state since we cannot answer the question, we must assume any answer to the question must there fore be a childs imagination, overreacting, almost religious.

 

There is an argument over the Universe being of limited mass. I am not a physicist so I can't be specific, I figured, that one some or at least one of you could explain to me the parameters of why my conclusions were invalid, or illogical (obviously they must be since I got transfered to the kiddi pool outright).

 

Nonetheless, I respect that it must be so.

 

Back to the finite mass point.

"The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. It is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."

 

Energy is never created nor destroyed, it only changes form. The same must be also true of matter.

 

For this theory to be at all believable, at one point this universe must have been finite. Limited, in such a fashion. Is it a far stretch to presume space itself was also finite?

 

We define finite as having a limit. Now first I want a logical explanation why the Universe cannot be of Finite Mass?

 

Not "oh its not worth responding because you named your post postule", if your a braniac, use your brain to smash my theory. Obviously I named it postule for a reason, the desired effect was silliness, that doesnt mean there isnt any logic in my thought.

 

So slash me away with your mind.

 

Is the universe infinite or finite?

 

Is gravity related to mass in general, does everything create a gravitational field, or only certain kinds of mass containing gravitons?

 

Can gravity cause a time dilation effect?

 

If you are SO sure, my theory is nothing but a 6th grader's sad, pathetic attempt at trying to be intelligent, then explain to me your ascended intelligence by at least defacing my theory with some rational thought of your own.

 

wewt....thanks

[iNow]

Right... and erm... how deep is the canyon if it took the gnome 4 seconds to find bottom?

[UC]

I joined this forum just to post my theorem (or is it theorum)

 

Neither. At best, it's a hypothesis. The common definition of theory would apply to this, but as this is in a scientific context, theory or theorem means that you have a large body of supporting evidence and it is a generally accepted principle.

[swansont]

Energy is never created nor destroyed, it only changes form. The same must be also true of matter.

 

Why must it be true? Matter isn't the same as energy.

 

Conservation laws stem from continuous symmetries. Conservation of energy stems from time symmetry — the laws don't change in time.

[MrWrong]

ooh, i like, ok the lawn gnome sorry, ok the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters per second....

 

crap math isnt my strong point that's why i come up with insane theories, ok well here goes, (on Earth) 9.8 meters per second, and it takes 4 seconds to hit the bottom.

 

4 x 9.8 = 93.2 Meters, converted to feet 93.2 x 3.28 (1 meter is 3.28xxx ft) = 305.696

 

pewp, thats acceleration not speed.....

 

oh well, il readily admitted my proposed formula was BS (thats a term derived, from the Male of the bovine creature {commonly known as cattle} called a "bull", and the fecal matter that it produces as a result, the "S" part of word, is commonly used as a profane term, however the term BS is far less offensive in most situations, the overall term, meaning, untrue, garbage, or innacurate, usually used to describe a statement). Yea I made it up, im not good at math, but even when i run numbers through my head, I know thats not even close. I was hoping someone would fix it for me. (provide its even close to being on the right track)

 

 

 

The real question is, if we compare the mass of mars to the math of earth, with the acceleration of gravity be relative to the mass of the planet/ moon? If so, then a more realistic and not insanely bizarre formula can be made because there is a relationship between Gravity and Mass.

 

This proves only (if? and not sure) that gravity is related to mass.

 

OKies.....next.

 

And i digress to theory, there are ZERO facts that actually support my "Limited space" theory, its a possibility as much as the craters on the moon were caused by giant gophers. However....

 

Lets review...

 

The universe must be...

 

infinite....or...

finite....

 

it cant be both.

 

How can anything be infinite in quantity?

 

If space is infinite, then is time also? If time is infinite, does that mean it never had a beginning or an end?

 

I find it illogical to assume, for any reason on any terrestrial idea, that space or time are infinite, it only makes sence that everything must begin somewhere, and also end some where. We have infinite numbers in Mathematics, but who is still writing them out, if I were to calculate lets say Pi, and just keep writing forever and ever, well I don't live forever and ever, eventually I would die, and stop calculating pi, therefore in a practical sense the calculation ends. This is not to imply the calculation cannot be theoretically calculated even further. However, its reasonable to assume that eventually, Pi will no longer be calcuated, and rounded off. Even if we stop calculating Pi 14 billion years from now, regardless, the calculation was finite. Though the number appears infinate, it is made finite by our lack of desire to calculate it.

 

Is this how the universe is? Like Pi, infinitely expanding? Infinite Energy and infinite mass? No one has mentioned that yet, but I'd like to know what you think?

 

Matter isnt the same as energy? Really?

 

Whats in atom? Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons.

 

Well electrons are almost assuredly energy, they have little to no mass.

 

the real question lies in disproving that, protons and neutrons are in fact a form of energy themselves.

 

Honestly, I am unaware of any evidence that proves, protons and neutrons cannot be converted into energy, and vice or versa.

 

The reason why I digress to theory, is because my "idea" is a myriad of guesses. Based on the thought that mass is a form of energy, and that the law of conservation of mass and energy are one and the same.

 

Bah but who cares about that I should just answer that fairly....

rather than theorize the unkown variable. Laws of physics....

"Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter."

 

"The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form. "

 

"The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. "

 

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/Generalchemistry/Energy/LawofConservation/LawofConservation.htm

Booyah, score one for the kiddi pool!

 

If "The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. " the we are in a limited mass/ energy universe, if we are in a limited mass universe, I theorize were are also in a limited space universe. If we are in a limited space universe, then it is reasonable to think, that displacement of space could have an effect such as gravity.

 

But MrWrong has to be wrong anyway you look at it, because gravity "appears" to be related to density, and stuff like atomic mass etc, has notiong to do with "volume" the amount of space displaced, or does it. I dunno pick it up from here...

 

 

(by the way the lawn gnome becomes my new Av, ty)

Edited June 21, 2009 by MrWrong
Consecutive posts merged.

[Klaynos]

Theories in modern physics are mathematical in nature.

 

You claim (I think) to have a new theory of gravity?

 

Yet you use the 9.8m/s/s without derivation, how does that work? The number does not appear out of no where, it is a result of putting numbers into newtonian gravity...

[MrWrong]

ok, ill try again, the formula was a model, for another idea, the model formula was a test model like an idea, the formula has nothing to do with the theory, just an idea, the acceleration of gravity has really nothing to do with, my objective theory, the question was based on dropping a lawn gnome down a canyon, has no bearing on my "idea" simply put, because my "idea" AKA Theory was that gravity was relative to mass.

 

If the question was posed as, If I were to drop a lawn gnome on a planet of mass X, for X amount of seconds, how deep would the canyon be?

 

Since it's me believe that, gravity is related to mass.

 

I was simply asked how does that apply to "a" lawn gnome dropping down "a" canyon, if I thoerize correctly, that answer would be dependant on, the gravitational pull of the planet its on, which would be dependant on the mass of the planet.

 

But we keep getting stuck on the model. Spore (the videogame) is a model for evolution, not a mathematical representation.

 

Since this post has been put in pseudoscience why are we so "involved" in this, Model formula?

 

Here, let me put this clearly.

 

Hypothesis: Mass is related to gravitation pull.

 

Supporting arguments:

We are in a limited mass/energy universe:

"Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter."

 

"The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form. "

 

"The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. "

 

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/...nservation.htm

 

So I theorize if...mass/energy is limited so is space?

 

Lastly...since this is becoming a headache I already know gravity and mass is inter related, so ill skip the conjecture part.

 

"Gravity is the attraction between two objects. All objects that have mass have gravity. The larger the mass the more gravitational pull the object has. Even a tiny dust particle has gravity, but its gravitational pull is so small it doesn't compare to the earth's gravity.

 

You even have gravity!

 

The gravitational force between two objects depends on the masses of the objects and or the distance between them."

 

http://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us/Sciber01/8th/force/html/gravity1.htm

 

like pulling teeth,

 

now, I want to theorize, that this direct relation can be calculated. But im not too sure how, which is why I came up with the BS formula seeking revision.

 

this is the average, mass of the earth "mass of Earth = 5.9742 × 1024"

 

this is the acceleration of Gravity 9.81 meters per second(sqrd).

 

this is the mass of Mars, = 6.4191 × 1023 kilograms

 

this is the acceleration of gravity on mars = 3.7 meters per second (sqrd)

 

solve for x,

 

F = mg Force = Mass x Gravity "Newton's Universal Gravity Equation"

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_universal_equation.htm

 

"Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation states that two objects will attract each other with a force proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of distance between them. The Universal Gravity Equation is:"

 

"F = GMm/R²"

 

ok so, since I had to answer my own question ill move on to scientifically debunking my own hypothesis, or theorum ()

 

Gravitational pull is related to mass, D X V = M, Density times Volume = Mass.

 

(please dont make me cite that its elementary)

 

My theory stated that, Gravity was created by the displacement of space. Space would only be displaced in Volume. Therefore since gravity is directly related to mass, and displacement is related only to volume. My theory is incorrect.

 

I got this theory from an idea my dad told me, (is a physcist and he did tell me he believe this for all I know he was just messing with my head, *does that allot*)

 

He said, gravity is like dropping a bowling ball on a bed sheet full of marbles, all the marbles close in on the bowling ball.

 

The conclusion I came up with was that gravity must be caused by the displacement of space some how, as the bowling ball displaces space on my bed, and causes all the marbles to come to it. The concept are worlds apart, but nonetheless i think it may be a possibility.

 

Gravity I assume is a force like magnetism. Although magnetism only applies to certain this gravity applies to everything. I wonder if perhaps gravity is not a force at all but an effect. Like we see light is the effect, and the colors we see is the effect, but not the true nature of the scientific phenominon.

 

I was hoping some wizkid would tell me, everything I just told you, but have something enlightening to say about my idea, that either blows it out of the water, or makes some sence of it. So, I could finally tell me dad something, that (unless he told me it first) was "next to original thought".

 

anyway, thanks for all the enlightenment....