Gravity as the expansion of matter, and the smallness of the past.

[Neveos]

Gravity could be the interplay of the -expansion of matter- versus the expansion of space. More specifically, it is the expansion of "repulsive" activity (matter making contact with matter) and the amount of space expansion going on between them. More space expansion (greater the distance between the objects) = less gravitational effect (less "pull" between them)

 

A few weird things that this would mean:

 

--Things do not "pull" eachother, but they actually expand into eachother. So nothing really falls into something, it is actually growing to the point of bumping into something else.

 

--The past is very very small in comparison to the future, but we can't tell because we are growing at the same rate as all the rest of matter.

 

--Given that we cannot witness the expansion of matter, denser materials (more matter in an aggregate) will expand faster than lighter materials (less matter in an aggregate), but the result is that the denser materials will appear to "attract" a objects faster than the lighter materials.

 

Ok so imagine 2 expanding balloons, represented by "()":

 

(.)......(.)

 

Now over time, they expand:

 

(..)....(..)

 

(...)..(...)

 

(....)(....)

 

Boom they make contact. But when it comes to using this to explain gravity, it is important to note that we --do not witness this increase in size of object-- because we are also growing along with the objects, so they appear to remain the same size relative to everything else. Yet, such a phenomenon would appear -to us- like this:

 

(.)......(.)

 

.(.)....(.).

 

..(.)..(.)..

 

...(.)(.)...

 

^^^^^^^^^^

Gravitational "pull"

 

The earth is constantly pushing me with its expansion outwards at a constant rate of acceleration, and I am helping with my body's constant expansion into it. The denser materials towards the Earth's core causes the "acceleration" effect which is why I appear to be held in place. This relationship between acceleration and gravity is known to anyone who has seen or felt the effects of "G-Force", which is what happens when something is accelerating your body in a direction. When the car moves forward fast enough, you get pushed into your seat until your body matches its velocity, and if there is enough acceleration, you can achieve "G's" which are increments of the "pull" of Earth's gravity. 9 G's is a pull 9 times the gravity of the earth's pull.... But really "pull" is misleading, because it is a push in the car, and under my theory, it is a push on the surface of the Earth.

 

Now, why aren't we and the moon (or any other extra-planetary body) about to make contact if we are expanding at the same rate? This is because of either two reasons:

 

The obvious reason:

 

Orbital kinetics: Because the moon is kinetically moving away from the earth at a rate which is fast enough to keep the objects from expanding into eachother... and:

 

Space expansion: Which is the expansion of space itself, which is well known by the fact that the further two objects are away from eachother, the faster they become separated. Supposedly driven by "dark energy", which basically means they don't know how it is expanding exponentially.

 

Now, I actually think these two effects could be one and the same thing under this new theory, but for all purposes of making this simple for me, I have to relate this issue to why it appear to make a circular motion around the Earth in order to stay separated from it. This is probably the most difficult part of this explanation. and I will come back to it below.

 

Now on the subject of practical earthbound relationships between objects:

 

If my matter is technically expanding as fast as the earth (as well as all matter) is (which is why I'm being 'pushed' against it at a constant rate of acceleration), and the laptop I'm writing on is also expanding just as fast, why am I and the laptop -not- expanding into each other horizontally? Well, it is because we are both supported by an expanding object (the earth) which is pushing us apart faster than we can expand horizontally towards eachother. So it would be like a "V" shape.

 

_______________

...Laptop...Me....

........... V........

.........Earth......

_______________

 

Make sense? Now this brings up an important point, because it may be the case that all objects are becoming more and more diluted, right?, because that amount of earth between me and the laptop must be losing some degree of density of something-I-know-not-what, but in order for it to be conceivably "growing". Well this is conceivably consistent with the laws of thermodynamics which claim that everything is losing "order"... everything is spreading thin, so to speak. When you have the heater on in the car, and you open the window to the cold air, the hotness in your car expands out into the cold air, and the same can be said of matter itself... over time, all atoms decay.

 

--Smallness of the past and light--

Ok, you know how they say the sun is actually behind its "actual" position in the sky? That's because it takes light time to travel to the Earth, so the sun we see is some odd amount of minutes older than the sun in the present time. Anyway, the next subject is why wouldn't light travelling from a great distance away reveal an object which is incredibly small since the object we see, is technically representative of the past? And indeed this requires an extraordinary amount of abstraction on the part of whoever is reading this, as I'm having a hard time convincing myself of it:

 

Ask yourself the question:

 

Why is it that the farther the object is away from me, the smaller it is?

 

The practical response is, "Well, the closer objects are taking up more of your field of vision on your retina, the distant ones take up less."

 

Well this is not an answer to the question, because it doesn't explain why they are taking up more or less space on your retina. I actually believe that the further an object is away from your eye, the smaller it will appear, because the further away it is from the present moment. Specifically, the representations of the past appear smaller to the objects of the present, namely my perceptual apparatus: the eye.

 

This is pretty amazing stuff, and I'll keep writing as I come up with more of it, since there are a lot more things to cover.

 

-----------------Continuation:--------------------------

 

In order to account for why it appears that satellites (such as moons) must take on an elliptical orbit in order to avoid expanding into another object, I must appeal to the idea that rather than thinking of matter as expanding, perhaps it is better to think of it as 'space is shrinking'.

 

After looking up for other people's explanations as to why things appear to get smaller the further away they are, I ran into this forum's webpage:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=514827

 

(I joined in, recently, after it dies)

 

Just like all of us bright minds, the poster "Wierd Theory" was criticized as a result of proposing exactly along the same lines that I am proposing, but due to its speculative nature his point was thrown off. I will admit that his explanation helped me shed some light on this different perspective, albeit for another purpose. He believes, perhaps incorrectly, that the entire Universe is shrinking. His post is as follows:

 

Thread: Why do things get smaller as they get further away

Poster: Weird Theory

Title of response: Shrinking Universe:

Post:

 

"You are all wrong...Things do actually get smaller the further away from you they are...We are in a shrinking universe...The further things are from you in time the smaller they are.....That is why when you approach something,the time it takes to reach it means that it retuns back to it's "normal" size relative to you.If we could approach something in the distance at the speed of light ie in "no time" It would actually be dwarfed by us.This is why a laser beam diverges into the distance.... and why it doesn't follow the earths curve into the distance...because at the speed it travels the beam you perceive is actually travelling into the past and the earth would have been bigger then....It's difficult to explain.

The further away something is,the further it is into the future relative to you,and because of this "universal shrinkage " and the time difference the smaller it appears ."

 

This is perfect, but where we differ is that he believes that a light beam is revealing something about the future, and I disagree, since it is revealing something about the object's past. Although, I could be wrong in flux, so I'll have to think it over.

 

Technicalities aside, I wish I could find this guy because he is onto something when he says, "This is why a laser beam diverges into the distance.... and why it doesn't follow the earths curve into the distance...because at the speed it travels, the beam you perceive is actually travelling into the past and the earth would have been bigger then....It's difficult to explain."

 

In this line of reasoning, which is something I am trying to follow, probably lies the answer to why objects appear to take circular paths in order to avoid expanding into each other. He points out that a laser beam will diverge, and -not- converge into the distance. But I'll point out that any other object, say a spear thrown into the distance, or a city street, will appear to converge from base to tip.

 

Imagine putting a laser beam in front of you facing down a straight street. If that laser beam were making contract with the long road (lighting up a red line of laser light down the road), it would appear to diverge (spread apart), and the street would appear to converge (come together). Way ahead of this hypothetical street, the laser beam will be making contact with the entire street. So it isn't that the street was -bigger- as he suggests, but it is that it was --smaller-- in the past... allowing the beam at my feet to make contact with half an inch of street and the same beam to make contact with the entire street miles or something away from me.

 

As for what he says here, "and why it doesn't follow the earths curve into the distance...because at the speed it travels, the beam you perceive is actually travelling into the past and the earth would have been bigger then" No the reason why... oh my god I figured it out, thanks to this guy, the reader is witnessing epiphany

 

It doesn't follow the Earth's "curve" because the appearance of a "curve" is a result of the smallness of the Earth in the past. As we look down the surface of the Earth, the ground appears to converge, not only in a horizontal sense, but also in a vertical sense with the bottom of the Earth. Now, this would explain why the Laser beam gets further and further away from the Earth as it travels straight off the planet rather than curve along.

 

------------------Ok, now on the subject of the circularity of gravitational Orbits---------- (notes)

 

Curvature appears to be an illusion in which we perceive the light from objects so far in the past that they pinch into invisibility. I hate to even write this, but there are fruitcakes who refuse to believe that the Earth is round because it isn't Biblical, but I am afraid that this theory will understand everything as technically being a flat plane, by which denser materials will pinch the amount of space between two objects. This is why we believe wormholes will work for space travel, and (I know this sounds crazy), but why it would be faster to travel straight through a sphere to the other side, than to travel the whole way around (why it would be faster to get to China straight through the Earth if a hole were made). The moon only appears to go "around" the Earth, but it actually "pinches" off, since it isn't "disappearing behind" but rather "appearing in front of" objects which have been "pinched off" from view in the distance. The reason the moon appears to speed up the closer it gets to the Earth (called "gravitational slingshotting") is due to the fact that the denser materials (basically: areas of less space) have expanded so close to eachother that they shorten the amount of space that the moon is travelling horizontally across the sky... consequently the moon stays visible less while it orbits closer, and more while it orbits farther away. I may be reinventing Einstein's spacetime, but in such a way that I am explaining gravity as the acceleration against the expansion of matter, rather than the shortening of space, but both are true.

 

----------------------------------Light being bent by dense objects --------------------

 

Take 3 balls this time using the expansion explanation above where "()" represents an object:

 

(.)......(.)......(.)

 

If they are all the same density, the 2 on the outside ones will touch the middle one at the same time:

 

(..).....(..).....(..)

 

(...)....(...)...(...)

 

(....)..(....)..(....)

 

(.....)(......)(.....)

 

But if the first one is a greater density, the first object will now make contact with the second one before the second one contacts the last one:

 

(.)(.)......(.)......(.)

 

(..)(..)...(..)....(..)

 

(...)(...)(...)...(...)

 

(....)(....)(....)(....)

 

And since matter expansion cannot be detected due to it being in flux with our matter, we think we are experiencing a greater amount of "attractive force" from the denser aggregate (albeit appearing the same size), when we are really dealing with a mass which is expanding faster than another mass. For this reason, gravitational lensing occurs in which light will travel longer over a denser material (since it is larger than we can perceive it to be) which causes the light to "bend" around the object.

 

.....................................................................................

 

The following post shows a dialogue between me and one of the posters on the forum, and explains better the curvature of spacetime:

 

I write:

 

"Originally Posted by Neveos

 

But, herein is precisely the problem, and why this is just a restatement of the object in question:

 

Your answer is:

"If you move the object further away, this angle will decrease"

 

This doesn't answer the question: Why is this the case?

 

and to say it is a basic fact, while possibly true, still is not an answer to this question.

 

Your answer is of a geometrical nature that actually rests on another question:

 

Why does the "field of view" increase in the distance? But this is answered by:

 

All objects appear to decrease in size in the distance.

 

Which simply brings us back to the question at hand.

 

While I do have an answer to this phenomenon, and I am surprised a moderator did not know enough about space-time to understand this, Weird Theory actually puts the most valid answer to this question when he believes the distance from observation shows representations of a different state of the Universe. One which he believes is shrinking, but one which I believe is expanding since light in transit represents the past and not the future. Thus the claim that they actually "are smaller", is under my view, "were smaller", and the expansion is doing a lot more than just this phenomenon, but even causing the appearance of "curvature" and "gravitation". I would write more, but seeing as to how the moderator considers this to be outside of the focus of science, I don't think they will actually allow me."

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

He writes:

 

"Originally Posted by insane_alien

i suggest you look up triangles.

 

lets say you have 2 points 1 meter appart. your eye is 1 meter away from them in a manner so if you joined the dots with your eye and the two points so you form an isoceles triangle.

 

the distance from your eye to either of the two points would be 1.25 meters and you would observe an angle of 53.1 degrees. (inverse sine of 1/1.25).

 

now, lets say you moved back to ten meters. the distance to each point from your eye would be 10.25m and the angle between them would only be 5.6 degrees.

 

the distance between the two points hasn't changed (there is no change in size as weird theory is suggesting) but the angle has got MUCH smaller. this means it will appear smaller as the area of retina detecting the object is smaller."

_______________________________________________________________________

And I reply:

 

"Originally Posted by Neveos

 

You are restating the object in question again, and I sympathize because I know this is hard, but look at your conclusion:

 

"the angle has got MUCH smaller. this means it will appear smaller as the area of retina detecting the object is smaller."

 

You are answering by assuming this fact is unquestionable:

 

The field of view increases in the distance.

 

If asked why, the answer is the object in question:

 

"Objects appear smaller (appear to converge) in the distance" ("allowing us to see more objects as FoV is increased")

 

This is circular, and thus the fault in that reasoning.

 

The reason we have the ability to ask this question is due to the separability of the concepts of distancing and spread of FoV (convergence of objects).

 

Have you ever looked up a tall radio tower or looked straight down along a tall building? It may frighteningly appear bent away from you causing you to question its weight distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KL2006.jpg

 

Convergence of horizontal angles, alone, simply would not explain this phenomenon, but convergence of angles in a 3 dimensional space would. Which means it is appearing to pinch not only in a horizontal sense, but also from front to back (top to bottom)... we just do not think we tend to witness this other pinch, but this other pinch is considerably independant of our view of the object's backside. This is the entire reason we have a concept of curvature.

 

Point being, a simple explanation that distant objects take up less of our FoV triangle is just rebegging the question. Why is it doing that?

 

If the observer is a point, and the point orbits around a circle looking at it the whole way around, all that is happening is that the observer is getting closer to points that were once farther away, and relative to only the observer/circle system, the point is travelling consistently in one diagonal direction, thus making the circle's path a straight line to the observer, and the observer is travelling along that line. The points further around the bend are exactly the same thing as if they had simply been further along a straight line, they exhibit distance from observer albeit different distances:

 

Consequently there is a reduction in size of further points to the observer in both scenarios, and thus the points around the circle are simply farther away than the points along a straight line. This is why travelling in what is commonly known as "straight" is considered simpler than travelling in what is known as "around". And this is why travelling straight through a circle to the other side is faster ("less distant") than travelling around the circle to the other side. It is all considerably flat, and all of this begs the question:

 

Why is there an association between distance from observation and reduction in size? One which I have previously provided an answer."

__________________________________________________________________________

[D H]

Wall O' Nonsense.

 

In fact, multiple walls of nonsense.

[insane_alien]

and quotes and replies from a completely unrelated thread on why more distant objects appear smaller.

 

really, you are going to need to do better than this to convince even the most gullible.

[Klaynos]

Name a simple way this would be testabley different....

[Neveos]

Name a simple way this would be testabley different....

It's a model used for explaining physical phenomena? The only thing I can think to look for that we haven't looked for is to very quickly remove a very dense object from within a very light object, and to see if the lighter material will eject in the direction away from the created vacuum before it collapses. For instance, in zero G space, if we were to suspend a ball of liquid and then place a big ball of lead inside of it, and then quickly yank the lead out extremely quickly, whether lighter material would eject on the opposite side outwards away from where the lead ball was yanked. This would mean that the lighter liquid was being accelerated by the dense material, and when the lead ball was removed, it would have continued to move in that outward direction. I don't know what values would have to go into play with this.

[D H]

You haven't done any math, how can you call this anything but hand waving?

 

My challenge to you:

• Specify the axioms of your model. No hand waving, please. Mathematics is the language of physics. You need to use math.
  
• Explain the phenomenon we call gravity using on these axioms. Once again, no waving. Please describe this phenomenon mathematically.

 

Now some questions:

• What is the motivation for these axioms?
  
• How would you test them?
  
• What experiment would falsify your model?

[Neveos]

You haven't done any math, how can you call this anything but hand waving?

 

My challenge to you:

• Specify the axioms of your model. No hand waving, please. Mathematics is the language of physics. You need to use math.
  
• Explain the phenomenon we call gravity using on these axioms. Once again, no waving. Please describe this phenomenon mathematically.

 

Now some questions:

• What is the motivation for these axioms?
  
• How would you test them?
  
• What experiment would falsify your model?

Actually, after reading that, do you have a rough idea of how my model works? Ok, now, all the mathematicians and all the physicists in the world, you claim, have never thought about this model? Ok, and if the model turns out to be correct in retrospect, and I were asked if I used any complex mathematical or physics language to come up with this model, will I say, "Yes, I had to use them, or I would have never come up with these correlations."?

 

No, I wouldn't.

 

I know its good for making it too complex for the majority of the world to understand. I know its good for chasing off people who threaten how intelligent you think you are. You understand what I am getting at. I understand what I am getting at. Why do you think we can use a balloon to understand many things like air pressure and space expansion? Is it magic, or are there correlations?

 

The reason you wrote that post is because you do not like me being right. Here is a good question. Why can't you see anything wrong with the idea of matter-expansion? Are you that ready to put it to the labs and the chalk boards. Is it really that well-thought out on my part? Did I actually look like I hit a nail on the head?

[mooeypoo]

Neveos, stop making things personal. The reason people criticize your work is because it lacks actual scientific evidence, not because they "don't like it".

 

You are AGAIN being given the chance to prove us all wrong. Use it wisely. You're not in a philosophy forum, you're in a science forum, where we require rigor in the scientific method.

 

Making personal attacks/claims about others who criticize your theory will NOT get your ideas to be any more scientific. It is also against our rules.

 

I recommend you go over our rules again, Neveos.

 

~moo

[D H]

The reason you wrote that post is because you do not like me being right.

The reason I wrote that post is because that is how science, and particularly so physics, works. I am not picking on your conjecture per se. This is exactly how physicists pick on each other.

 

Now I will pick on you: Your words are, to all appearances, utter nonsense. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are not nonsense.

 

Here is a good question. Why can't you see anything wrong with the idea of matter-expansion?

Because all that you have done is done is wave your hands. These is literally nothing to see here until you make your ideas a bit more concrete.

 

Are you that ready to put it to the labs and the chalk boards.

There is nothing here to put to the labs. It is not up to us to take your half-baked ideas from the realm of philosophical nonsense to the realm of physical reality. That burden falls upon you, the proponent of this new idea.

 

Is it really that well-thought out on my part?

No.

 

Did I actually look like I hit a nail on the head?

No.

[Neveos]

Neveos, stop making things personal. The reason people criticize your work is because it lacks actual scientific evidence, not because they "don't like it".

 

You are AGAIN being given the chance to prove us all wrong. Use it wisely. You're not in a philosophy forum, you're in a science forum, where we require rigor in the scientific method.

 

Making personal attacks/claims about others who criticize your theory will NOT get your ideas to be any more scientific. It is also against our rules.

 

I recommend you go over our rules again, Neveos.

 

~moo

You all do realize that mathematics is really just a case of logic, and so is dialog, right? Oh you don't, because that would mean that you would have to admit that I am doing science.

[mooeypoo]

Mathematics serve to give us predictability.

 

Don't give us math, neveos, that's fine, start with something simpler. Like physics that makes sense. Like experimental evidence. Like observational evidence.

 

Like an explanation of why the evidence CONTRADICT your theory.

 

Start there, hm? We can wait with the math, that can come later. Just stop beating around the bush. Seriously, we aren't going to be persuaded by repetitions, and neither is the scientific community.

 

Are you going to do science at all or are you just content to claim no one other than you understands physics?

 

~moo

[D H]

You all do realize that mathematics is really just a case of logic, and so is dialog, right?

In other words, because you can't do math you need to belittle it. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

 

Oh you don't, because that would mean that you would have to admit that I am doing science.

You are not doing science.

[Neveos]

The reason I wrote that post is because that is how science, and particularly so physics, works. I am not picking on your conjecture per se. This is exactly how physicists pick on each other.

 

Now I will pick on you: Your words are, to all appearances, utter nonsense. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are not nonsense.

To all appearances? My words? Really? To all appearances? Do you see how this is actually wrong, and thus, a lie? Now, what would drive you to do that? I don't even remember what that feels like to employ such a method in a scientific argument...

 

I am using what is claimed, by the mainstream, to be true to draw logical conclusions and making them known. This is called correlating:

 

Gravity exhibits the same effects on an object that acceleration would, but we do not know exactly how. Gravity is stronger the more matter is in an object, acceleration is stronger the more speed given to the accelerator, so, lo and behold, I suggest that all matter is expanding causing me to feel a "downward" force, and blimping objects in space, causing them to make contact. Why am I not witnessing the actual expansion? Oh, I'm made out of matter too, and that is why...

 

Increase in distance of object IS (that word meaning "identical to") an increase in the amount time that has passed since I am what I am now. Furthering objects appear smaller and smaller. Therefore, the past always appears smaller and smaller, and the more present they become, the larger. Closer/newer/larger and farther/older/smaller.

 

Now, that was some of the thought processes using premises that mainstream claims to be true. Wow, if you honestly call that "hand waving", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, then by god you better get good at it.

[JillSwift]

So, how does this "model" explain orbits? Everything expanding at one another wouldn't accelerate mass already in motion away from more mass.

 

EDIT: Also, why do helium balloons float rather than expand 'till they touch the earth?

Edited October 11, 2009 by JillSwift

[Neveos]

In other words, because you can't do math you need to belittle it. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

 

You are not doing science.

Oh no, I like math, and I probably know quite a few theories about it that could teach you a thing or two. But, oh yes I am doing science, and philosophy is a much much older a practice that birthed science. But, let me make this clear, math is nothing more than logic, and so is all forms of reasoning. All forms. This theory, I have, is nothing but a model of how we can explain many of the phenomena we experience, much like how we never really saw the subatomic particles we reasoned were there, until we did. And so far, it became very clear to me how various phenomena could be explained by matter-expansion, and I'm very sure that other phenomena could be explained as well. Perhaps even the appearance of space-expansion, which I will think about regardless of whether or not I know its ins and outs, since it isn't hurting me not to, but will only benefit me as I do.

[iNow]

Is there anyone who remains uncertain whether or not this guy is just a stupid troll worthy of a smack from the ban hammer?

How about now?

[Neveos]

So, how does this "model" explain orbits? Everything expanding at one another wouldn't accelerate mass already in motion away from more mass.

Very good, I applaud the actual attempt to debate.

 

I actually think that gravitational slingshotting is a result of two dense objects coming so close together that the total amount of space in the area is shortened as a result of the total amount of mass. Thus they appear to cover more space in a shorter amount of time. The resulting distance gained is quickly lost by the satellite as the denser object expands too fast for it to escape.

 

EDIT: Also, why do helium balloons float rather than expand 'till they touch the earth?

Can you explain this phenomenon better? You mean why do they rise? I explained in the OP that denser materials, since they contain more matter and less space, will expand faster than lighter materials. This why we are feeling an "acceleration" effect on the surface of the planet, and also why these balloons will rise. Because the denser materials, expanding faster, will incrementally push/squeeze the lighter materials away.

[mooeypoo]

Very good, I applaud the actual attempt to debate.

There's been many attempts for a debate, Neveos. The problem seems to be your answers. See this:

 

I actually think that gravitational slingshotting is a result of two dense objects coming so close together that the total amount of space in the area is shortened as a result of the total amount of mass. Thus they appear to cover more space in a shorter amount of time. The resulting distance gained is quickly lost by the satellite as the denser object expands too fast for it to escape.

 

The problem with this answer is that you don't offer actual scientific explanation, but rather a story that has no bearing on reality. You need to give some evidence for this idea of yours, Neveos. If you don't have the math skills to build a mathematical model (which, you should know will be needed at some point) then at the very least a suggestion on how anyone can corroborate this theory with observation and experimentation, or some actual evidence.

 

You didn't supply any.. anyone can attempt to explain a phenomenon with imaginative stories - just read old scifi books and you'll encounter DOZENS of failed attempts to describe natural phenomena. The point is not to create a convincing story, but to show that story actually happens in reality. The only way to do THAT, is to supply evidence.

 

Can you explain this phenomenon better? You mean why do they rise? I explained in the OP that denser materials, since they contain more matter and less space, will expand faster than lighter materials. This why we are feeling an "acceleration" effect on the surface of the planet, and also why these balloons will rise. Because the denser materials, expanding faster, will incrementally push/squeeze the lighter materials away.

You mean can we explain orbits? Of course we can, very accurately, in fact. So accurately, that we can predict where an object will be years from now, minutes from now, decades from now. That accurate, yes.

 

Luckily, wikipedia is a good place to start with general explanation about orbits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

You can continue to a bit more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

 

Kepler's laws of planetary motions are EXTREMELY accurate, and allow us to explain the phenomena and predict future positions.

 

Not only does your story not allow us to do this, it also is shown to be untrue by current observations. Just read.

 

~moo

[JillSwift]

Very good, I applaud the actual attempt to debate.

 

I actually think that gravitational slingshotting is a result of two dense objects coming so close together that the total amount of space in the area is shortened as a result of the total amount of mass. Thus they appear to cover more space in a shorter amount of time. The resulting distance gained is quickly lost by the satellite as the denser object expands too fast for it to escape.

This does not explain the acceleration of the lesser mass toward the heavier mass when the lighter mass already has velocity tangential to the greater mass.

 

Can you explain this phenomenon better? You mean why do they rise? I explained in the OP that denser materials, since they contain more matter and less space, will expand faster than lighter materials. This why we are feeling an "acceleration" effect on the surface of the planet, and also why these balloons will rise. Because the denser materials, expanding faster, will incrementally push/squeeze the lighter materials away.

The interior of Earth is significantly denser than the material on its surface. If denser material expands faster, why has the crust not been broadly split?

 

What are the differences in rate of expansion, by mass?

 

Given the rate of expansion you claim through via "objects are smaller in the distance" idea, if there is a difference in rate of expansion by density, shouldn't we have already run out of atmosphere, and the vastly denser Earth has out-expanded it?

[D H]

Very good, I applaud the actual attempt to debate.

And what exactly do think I was doing in post #6? You ignored that post because you are trolling.

 

I actually think that gravitational slingshotting is a result of two dense objects coming so close together that the total amount of space in the area is shortened as a result of the total amount of mass.

Say it mathematically, please. Otherwise all you are doing is waving your hands.

 

Besides, this is not answering Jill's question.

 

Can you explain this phenomenon better? You mean why do they rise? I explained in the OP that denser materials, since they contain more matter and less space, will expand faster than lighter materials. This why we are feeling an "acceleration" effect on the surface of the planet, and also why these balloons will rise. Because the denser materials, expanding faster, will incrementally push/squeeze the lighter materials away.

More utter nonsense.

 

Do you have the foggiest idea what the expansion of space means? It is space itself that is expanding, not the material that occupies space. Besides, you have been told that the expansion of space at the scale of a balloon is immeasurably small. You need to address this fact.

 

 

Is there anyone who remains uncertain whether or not this guy is just a stupid troll worthy of a smack from the ban hammer?[/quote']How about now?

Seconded.

[Neveos]

There's been many attempts for a debate, Neveos. The problem seems to be your answers.

The problem, is that the posters are hostile rather than cooperative. To ask me questions about my reasoning is to admit I have any reasoning going on at all, and no one wanted to admit that, so they attacked my ability to reason first. People 101.

 

The problem with this answer is that you don't offer actual scientific explanation, but rather a story that has no bearing on reality. You need to give some evidence for this idea of yours, Neveos. If you don't have the math skills to build a mathematical model (which, you should know will be needed at some point) then at the very least a suggestion on how anyone can corroborate this theory with observation and experimentation, or some actual evidence.

You will one day understand that this is a dissuasive strategy, and one which, while true in some sense, is ultimately unproductive. I am very interested in carrying out other methods of logic than forcing very specific mathematical values together, as this would take longer and conjure less intuitions.

 

For instance, as I will soon explain to other people, I believe that light is incapable of escaping super-massive objects like black holes, because of a certain law I am laying down due to the observer being made out of the same matter that is expanding:

 

Some sort of law by which matter expansion is incapable of being detected by an apparatus made out of matter, thus the very concept of "density" means that there is more matter in a location than appears in size, thus there must be more unobservable space hosting that matter, by comparison to the amount of space hosting a less dense object. Thus gravitational lensing happens because the older light takes longer travelling over the top of all that matter and converges with newer light, as the object expands. Light does not escape black holes, because there is faarr too much unobservable space for it to traverse, and that's what I call orbit, it may even be expanding too fast for light to travel by it.

 

You didn't supply any.. anyone can attempt to explain a phenomenon with imaginative stories - just read old scifi books and you'll encounter DOZENS of failed attempts to describe natural phenomena. The point is not to create a convincing story, but to show that story actually happens in reality. The only way to do THAT, is to supply evidence.

Unfortunately, this is a model for understanding, and the evidence is going to be all the unexplainable events which gets a good correlative explanation. I'm doing a lot of that right now in thought experiment.

 

You mean can we explain orbits? Of course we can, very accurately, in fact. So accurately, that we can predict where an object will be years from now, minutes from now, decades from now. That accurate, yes.

What are you talking about? I asked her to re-ask the question. And she was talking about a rising helium balloon.

 

Luckily, wikipedia is a good place to start with general explanation about orbits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit

You can continue to a bit more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

 

Kepler's laws of planetary motions are EXTREMELY accurate, and allow us to explain the phenomena and predict future positions.

 

Not only does your story not allow us to do this, it also is shown to be untrue by current observations. Just read.

I'm sorry, you need to actually understand what's going on here. Do you know how many scientists since Newton have tried to understand what gravity is despite being able to predict it incredibly well?

[mooeypoo]

The problem, is that the posters are hostile rather than cooperative. To ask me questions about my reasoning is to admit I have any reasoning going on at all, and no one wanted to admit that, so they attacked my ability to reason first. People 101.

Let's move on from the accusation stage, please. Again you seem to resort to blame in an attempt to avoid an actual answer. Do you notice that you gave no actual evidence yet again, Neveos?

 

Don't claim we're shutting you up, please. We're still waiting for the actual science you so eloquently claim we are so afraid of.

 

You will one day understand that this is a dissuasive strategy, and one which, while true in some sense, is ultimately unproductive. I am very interested in carrying out other methods of logic than forcing very specific mathematical values together, as this would take longer and conjure less intuitions.

I might one day understand something different about today's physics. In fact, I hope so. As a physicist, there's nothing I want MORE than to rediscover physics. Or, for that matter, for anyone to rediscover physics. That means I have a VERY big possibility for unique research and - in turn - getting a Nobel prize myself for researching this "new" brand of science.

 

Fame an money, eh? Beyond the "small" result of understanding our universe better, rediscovering physics will give all physicist a new meaning for their research. You'll be hard pressed to find a physicist who won't be totally excited about that.

 

That said, logic on its own isn't a good method of describing reality. You need to make sure that reality fits your logic, not the other way around.

 

If I make the claim:

All animals with fur are mammals.

I can deduce, logically, that every time I see an animal with fur, it is a mammal. And I'd be right. Until we discovered the Platypus. Oops, now I'm wrong.

 

How do I know if my logic is true for reality? I make sure that the EVIDENCE fit reality. I can state taht all dogs are friendly, because all dogs i *MET* are friendly, but that doesn't mean that they really are.

 

If you give us a theory that relies on flawed logic, the theory is flawed.

If your theory cannot be used to describe reality in a useful way -- that is, we can't use it to, say, deduce how things behave, then your theory is useless.

 

You're supplying NOTHING scientific. Just empty claims that keep repeating themselves.

 

For instance, as I will soon explain to other people, I believe that light is incapable of escaping super-massive objects like black holes, because of a certain law I am laying down due to the observer being made out of the same matter that is expanding:

Okay, see, here's the problem. If you would have tried to describe something completely unknown, then MAYBE we could have been a bit more open minded and less rigorous with asking for evidence.

 

However, the phenomena you're trying to re-describe already have explanations. They have explanations that WORK. They have explanations that are supported by EVIDENCE. By repeated experimentation and mathematical modelling. Tehy're supported to the point of being 99% likely true.

 

You're essentially expecting us to drop the EVIDENCED theory for a theory that you just invented because you feel like it.

 

Give us something to work with, Neveos.

 

Some sort of law by which matter expansion is incapable of being detected by an apparatus made out of matter, thus the very concept of "density" means that there is more matter in a location than appears in size, thus there must be more unobservable space hosting that matter, by comparison to the amount of space hosting a less dense object.

Okay, I'll play. How *can* it be detected, then? If it can't be detected at all, then your theory is unfalsifiable, and hence nonscientific.

 

Further, you will now need to explain why this "expanding matter" that we can't detect does not cause other phenomena that are SUPPOSED to happen when matter expands; whether we can detect the increased density or not, gravity WILL increase.

 

If you claim that the density increases but we can't detect it, and gravity for some odd reason does NOT increase, then there's no difference between saying that and saying that the matter is effectively NOT expanding.

 

It's unfalsifiable, unrealistic, and uncorroborated. It also turns moot by observations.

 

Thus gravitational lensing happens because the older light takes longer travelling over the top of all that matter and converges with newer light, as the object expands. Light does not escape black holes, because there is faarr too much unobservable space for it to traverse, and that's what I call orbit, it may even be expanding too fast for light to travel by it.

We can explain gravitational lensing very well using a theory that was corroborated experimentally, mathematically and observationally. If you want anyone to replace current science with yours, you need to bring as strong evidence (AT LEAST as strong) or more. Otherwise, we're arguing empty claims here.

 

Unfortunately, this is a model for understanding, and the evidence is going to be all the unexplainable events which gets a good correlative explanation. I'm doing a lot of that right now in thought experiment.

So, anything and everything we can't explain supports your theory? That's unfalsifiable. It's like claiming "God works in mysterious ways" and "everything is god's plan" whether it's a dead baby or a saved baby.

 

It's not science.

 

What are you talking about? I asked her to re-ask the question. And she was talking about a rising helium balloon.

She asked you how your theory will affect orbits. Seeing as we understand how orbits are affected by INCREASED MATTER, and your theory claims that matter increases, the question is legitimate.

 

Your answer made it clear you don't quite understand how we knwo what we know about orbits; I gave you links to read about it.

 

I'm sorry, you need to actually understand what's going on here. Do you know how many scientists since Newton have tried to understand what gravity is despite being able to predict it incredibly well?

Okay, seriously now. What's the most advanced level of physics course that you took recently? ever? You're speaking as if you know everything while what you're *SAYING* is just simply wrong.

 

I gave you links that SHOW that you're wrong, Neveos. Ignoring them don't make you right.

 

I will not continue this if you insist on repeating your statements without respecting the members here enough to give proper responses to our questions.

 

Stop avoiding questions and start debating science or find yourself another forum to debate in. We're not a philosophy forum, we're a science forum, and YOU came to US.

 

Read our rules, that's not a request.

 

 

~moo

[KaiduOrkhon]

*"GRAVITY IS THE EXPANSION OF MATTER AND THE SMALLNESS OF THE PAST"

 

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-theory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html?ltr=T

Edited October 12, 2009 by KaiduOrkhon

[D H]

Some sort of law by which matter expansion is incapable of being detected by an apparatus made out of matter, thus the very concept of "density" means that there is more matter in a location than appears in size, thus there must be more unobservable space hosting that matter, by comparison to the amount of space hosting a less dense object. Thus gravitational lensing happens because the older light takes longer travelling over the top of all that matter and converges with newer light, as the object expands. Light does not escape black holes, because there is faarr too much unobservable space for it to traverse, and that's what I call orbit, it may even be expanding too fast for light to travel by it.

 

That is not an answer to Jill's question. She asked two very simple questions.

1. Can you explain orbits?
   
2. Can you explain how helium balloons rise?

 

You answered question 1 with gobbledygook about gravitational slingshots and now black holes. Your answer to question 2 is patently false.

 

I'll be more specific about orbits: Under what conditions do you recover Kepler's laws? Under what conditions does your model differ from Kepler's laws? Answer the same two questions for Newton's law of gravity and general relativity.

 

Kepler's laws are purely empirical laws that give a reasonably accurate (but not extremely accurate) description of planetary motion. It works very well for the inner planets, but not quite so well with respect to the gas giants, particularly Jupiter. Newtonian mechanics recovers Kepler's laws in the case of a planet with negligible mass. Newtonian mechanics predicts slightly different behavior for the gas giants because their mass compared to that of the Sun is not negligible. The predicted behaviors from Newtonian mechanics comes closer to matching observation than the predictions from Kepler's laws. General relativity similarly recovers Newtonian mechanics in the case of smallish masses, smallish velocities, and not so small distances. It differs from Newtonian gravity when masses or velocities become large or distances become small. General relativity predicts slightly different behavior for Mercury than does Newtonian mechanics. This predicted behavior from general relativity provides an even better match against observation compared to Newtonian mechanics.

 

Notice how each step along the way captured the basics of the previous model, differed in some detail with the previous model, and this difference represented an improvement over the previous model.

 

Unfortunately, this is a model for understanding, and the evidence is going to be all the unexplainable events which gets a good correlative explanation.

I suggest you start with the explainable events first.

 

I also suggest you answer the questions I asked in post #6.

• What are your axioms?
  
• How do you explain gravity, mathematically?
  
• What is the motivation for these axioms?
  
• How would you test them?
  
• What experiment would falsify your model?

 

The last question is not hostile. This question is at the very core of how science works, at the very core of why physicists are building the Large Hadron Collider, and at the very core of why string theory is not yet an accepted theory of physics. If you cannot envision an experiment that would falsify your model you do not have a scientific model.

[Neveos]

This does not explain the acceleration of the lesser mass toward the heavier mass when the lighter mass already has velocity tangential to the greater mass.

I don't know what "tangential" means in this sense, but I do know how I am conceiving this, so I'll clarify:

 

All objects and all space actually is different than it appears to be. The more dense mass simply has more matter and/in less observable space than a lesser density. Which means that the Earth is expanding faster than the moon, but remember we won't see this relationship because we cannot witness this expansion.

 

Earlier, in the last post, I misleadingly wrote that slingshotting was the result of dense masses indicating less space to traverse, but I meant less observable space, more unobservable space. This is why a spacecraft slows as it approaches a path over-the-top of the planet (it covers less observable space) than when it is being "thrown out". In the latter stage, it has a couple possibilities:

 

The fact that it could come out slower, or faster, are two of them. The reason the speed changes is due to its trajectory and how much of the kinetic energy was redirected in the same or different directions, and this "focusing" is probably similar to what happens in my explanation of gravitational lensing.

 

The expansion of matter makes it appear as though they are about to make contact, and passing by all the unobservable space causes it to appear to temporarily slow down as it passes by the massive object.

 

The spacecraft will appear to speed up when it exits the unobservable space only if it has traveled through enough unobservable space, which tends to happen by taking a trajectory as close to the planet as possible because of the greater amount of unobservable space (due to the proximity to denser materials) it will have to pass in order to miss the planet, and this is because unobservable space is actually straighter than observable space, consequently the space craft is actually redirecting from its original trajectory by staying its original course relative to observable space. By going along with the unobservable space in the appropriate manner, speed is retained if taken in a special way, and actually gained if taken as much as possible, because it is (and hard to even say this) more and more straight. More and more along what only appears to be curvature.

 

I also believe that this is why there is a time difference on the planet, as opposed to out in space. The transactions within a system will occur slower due to a need to pass through unobservable space, and less so out away from densities.

 

The interior of Earth is significantly denser than the material on its surface. If denser material expands faster, why has the crust not been broadly split?

Remember, it is all expanding at the same time, and as I mentioned earlier, it explains why I and the laptop are not being pulled together or (split apart) on the surface. Since it is ALL in flux, not many effects other than this appearance of gravity can be noticed because I am being spread away from my computer on the surface's expansion faster than I can expand into it, and the ground is expanding as fast as the core is, but the core has even more expansion taking place in unobservable space, causing there to be an acceleration effect coming from below.

 

Phew, I understand how this is hard to comprehend, but I'll be using this notion of "unobservable space" more often now. All matter is equal, and expanding equally, while objects are not. Objects can be denser or lighter, and the only difference is one of how much equal increments of matter is in how much observable space.

 

What are the differences in rate of expansion, by mass?

Denser objects expand faster, note the illustration of this above, simply because there is more matter expanding into eachother. All matter expands equally, and this results in the appearance of less dense objects having a stronger priority of attraction to the denser objects.

 

Given the rate of expansion you claim through via "objects are smaller in the distance" idea, if there is a difference in rate of expansion by density, shouldn't we have already run out of atmosphere, and the vastly denser Earth has out-expanded it?

No because of the above explanations. All matter expands equally. Not all objects expand equally.

 

I thank you very much for a very productive discussion.