heres my theory on everything. enjoy

[Endy0816]

 

by field i mean the areas of space arround earth where objects fall to the ground

 

that would be essentially everywhere...

 

the basic equation is:

Force = (GMm)/r²

 

it doesn't say you go "X" distance out and the force produced cuts off to zero.

[anonymousone]

 

that would be essentially everywhere...

 

the basic equation is:

Force = (GMm)/r²

 

it doesn't say you go "X" distance out and the force produced cuts off to zero.

this is my equation so i determine how it works and this strategy is successful.

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Endy0816]

You are arguing against reality.

 

Give just one example of something that is not gravitationally attracted to the Earth.

[anonymousone]

You are arguing against reality.

 

Give just one example of something that is not gravitationally attracted to the Earth.

on the cosmological scale according to my dark energy mechanics which again is much different than mainstream sciences dark energy. my theory says that orbital dark energy can cause an orbital gravitational bond or antigravity forces. so if a star has alot of objects orbiting it then its peripheral orbital dark energy is being used more to make these bonds than it is being used to cause antigravity forces. so less objects orbiting a star results in more antigravity forces lightyears away from that star compared to a star with much more objects orbiting it. because if all of the peripheral orbital dark energy of a star was used to form orbital gravity bonds then none of this dark energy arround the star would be causing antigravity forces.

 

also more about defus... they are used to measure the crushing dark energy forces that occur on the atomic, and cosmological scale. i think its better to measure the size and intensity of these forces too.

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[swansont]

i have a much different oppinion about dark energy as everyone can tell.

 

We don't want opinions, we want science. That means models and making specific, testable predictions. It means real equations, where the units work and the variables have some kind of meaning.

[Bignose]

this is my equation so i determine how it works and this strategy is successful.

You don't get to say whether it is successful without comparing your predictions to known data. That hasn't shown up yet.

 

Furthermore, since you have a cutoff distance, it fails to take into account known measurements. Pluto affects the earth's trajectory. Albeit a small amount, but definitely not a zero amount. How can you claim that after a certain distance, gravity doesn't affect it anymore when the very, very, very well verified formula shows gravity extends an infinite distance?

 

Once again, THIS is how science works. The theory that makes the best predictions win. You have made very, very few predictions, and this one you just made about gravity is wrong based on known measurements. You need to modify your idea if you want to be taken seriously.

[anonymousone]

You don't get to say whether it is successful without comparing your predictions to known data. That hasn't shown up yet.

 

Furthermore, since you have a cutoff distance, it fails to take into account known measurements. Pluto affects the earth's trajectory. Albeit a small amount, but definitely not a zero amount. How can you claim that after a certain distance, gravity doesn't affect it anymore when the very, very, very well verified formula shows gravity extends an infinite distance?

 

Once again, THIS is how science works. The theory that makes the best predictions win. You have made very, very few predictions, and this one you just made about gravity is wrong based on known measurements. You need to modify your idea if you want to be taken seriously.

no i dont people need to understand what im saying better and it is that defus measure crushing dark energy forces nearby and throughout an object while peripheral dark energy forces like those caused by pluto that uve mentioned are related to how many defus an object has. the equations ive presented measured in defus focus on dar/k energy forces very close to the surface of objects and this doesnt mean dark energy forces dont exist very far away from objects relative to their defu value.

again just to be clear the defus ive used measure how large and intense the crushing gravity forces are, not the gravity forces that make objects orbit. although these orbital gravity forces are mathematically correlated to an objects defu value with an equation i think....

 

We don't want opinions, we want science. That means models and making specific, testable predictions. It means real equations, where the units work and the variables have some kind of meaning.

endy at least needs to know what i think dark energy does if he wants to debate about what i think about dark energy or pointless conversations will happen.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[swansont]

 

endy at least needs to know what i think dark energy does if he wants to debate about what i think about dark energy or pointless conversations will happen.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Let me rephrase this. Well, not so much a rephrasing as making this more than just my view:

 

We don't want opinions, we want science. That means models and making specific, testable predictions. It means real equations, where the units work and the variables have some kind of meaning.

 

You were told as much earlier. This is a science site and the price of admission is that you engage in science.

[anonymousone]

dont get me wrong yall i expect my theory will be fairly tested first before its accepted. and if im wrong then math will show that too.

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Sensei]

dont get me wrong yall i expect my theory will be fairly tested first before its accepted. and if im wrong then math will show that too.

 

That's already done.

[anonymousone]

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Let me rephrase this. Well, not so much a rephrasing as making this more than just my view:

 

We don't want opinions, we want science. That means models and making specific, testable predictions. It means real equations, where the units work and the variables have some kind of meaning.

 

You were told as much earlier. This is a science site and the price of admission is that you engage in science.

ok

 

That's already done.

my estimations are that my equations work out but first to prove my theory correct or incorrect the total ammount of defus in the universe will have to be determined which is diffacult to do. so the point is to show that theres symetry between the universes size and defu value, and a neutrons size and defu value. to support my theory that particles are symetrical to the universe in complexity. i do hope i come across as clearer with my words to not be misinterpreted because its not easy to communicate my ideas to others. the simplest way for me to state this hypothesis is that the universes size and defu value are symetrical to a neutrons size and defu value. but it maybe that the universe is more symetrical in this way to an electron for example.

 

i also have to mention that when calculating x for defu values the size of the part of earths gravity field where objects fall down not where they orbit is x. and the suns x value is like a million times that of earth. this is to be clearer about how to calculate an objects defu value.

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Phi for All]

pointless conversations will happen.

 

!

Moderator Note

And this is why so many here are asking for the math, because none of THAT will be pointless.

 

Let me give you this perspective. Science, with all its fields and disciplines, attacks knowledge like an onion, peeling each layer back and trying to understand it as fully as possible before moving to the next layer. In fact, it's like a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skins of an onion, layered and interlocking all the way to the core. People spend their whole lives trying to methodically piece the whole thing together, looking for the most trustworthy explanations they can find.

 

You've only pulled away the papery outer layer of the onion and are now claiming you know how the whole thing is put together, something even the pros working most of their lives have never done. And you're trying to explain this to others using a foreign language (math is the language of physics). This is why you're getting so much push-back from the other members regarding the math.

 

Debate on this has passed. You're absolutely right, more conversation is pointless. Take the time to work on some calculations before you post again. This will keep the thread open. And thanks for understanding why we need to be rigorous about ideas.

[Bignose]

again just to be clear the defus ive used measure how large and intense the crushing gravity forces are, not the gravity forces that make objects orbit.

So now, in your model, there are 2 different types of gravity, too? Please add this to the growing pile of extraordinary claims that you need to provide extraordinary evidence to support. Because our current one type of gravity model makes pretty good predictions as is.

[anonymousone]

So now, in your model, there are 2 different types of gravity, too? Please add this to the growing pile of extraordinary claims that you need to provide extraordinary evidence to support. Because our current one type of gravity model makes pretty good predictions as is.

theres one type of gravity caused by dark energy i think and this is measured in defus. but orbital trajectories are effected differently by dark energy forces because different parts of dark energy configurations cause objects to orbit than what causes objects to fall down. the peripheral parts of a dark energy configuration dont cause the exact same forces as the center parts do. and this is all according to my dark energy force mechanics that im very familiar with. so if anyone has any question about this stuff ask. and ive only recently began to make maths for this stuff.

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Bignose]

theres one type of gravity caused by dark energy i think

Then why the word choice previously to distinguish between "crushing" gravity and "orbital" gravity? If they are the same thing, there was no reason to call them out separately, was there?

 

More to the point, in the future, please be more cognizant of your word choices. And maybe even more to the point, had you used an equation here, your word choices wouldn't be questioned like this.

[anonymousone]

Then why the word choice previously to distinguish between "crushing" gravity and "orbital" gravity? If they are the same thing, there was no reason to call them out separately, was there?

 

More to the point, in the future, please be more cognizant of your word choices. And maybe even more to the point, had you used an equation here, your word choices wouldn't be questioned like this.

because defus are a measurement of how much gravity forces a dark energy configuration has. and this value determines the orbital trajectories when plugged into an equation i havent written yet. and so this equations needed because dark energy exerts different ammounts of forces at different places. such as in the center where everything falls down(crushing gravity) and at the peripheral areas where the dark energy causes objects to orbit(orbital gravity) and not get crushed. im saying that there are different parts of a dark energy configuration that do different things. but they exert dark energy forces at all parts. im making sure my dark energy mechanics doesnt contradict itself.

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Bignose]

im making sure my dark energy mechanics doesnt contradict itself.

That's fine, just saying that it contradicts with what we know today about gravity where 'orbiting' and 'falling down' are both the same thing. As I wrote above, add it to the list of things you will need to provide extraordinary evidence to support.

[anonymousone]

my dark energy mechanics will have math to back it up

if my ideas dont die

Edited May 26, 2014 by anonymousone

[Bignose]

my dark energy mechanics will have math to back it up

if my ideas dont die

There aren't 'physics police' out there who are going to kill you because your idea is different. The only reason your idea would 'die' is if you fail to back it up with evidence. There is what happens to all ideas without supporting evidence. As I wrote above, it isn't personal. Science takes nothing simply at its word. Everything needs to be supported. And that's how we've gotten to the best ideas we have today -- they agree the most with the evidence.

 

If you are serious about this pursuit, then basically all of your effort should be going into showing how closely your idea's prediction agree with what is already known.

[swansont]

because defus are a measurement of how much gravity forces a dark energy configuration has. and this value determines the orbital trajectories when plugged into an equation i havent written yet.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

When you have the equations that can be used to predict trajectories (let's say, able to solve for the radius of a geostationary orbit), we will re-open the thread.

 

Until that time, though, this is quite enough.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

anonymousone claims to have the maths. If the next post doesn't allow for specific, testable predictions, such as the example I borrowed (above), it will be re-locked and I will throw away the key.

[anonymousone]

i use the same exact equations that are used today to calculate a geostationary orbit. what my ideas do is they say that dark energy forces generated by mass because the mass crushes itself which displaces dark energy in the matter so then it orbits the object as a whole i think. so when u all are looking for new math equations u wont find them because i use the same numbers and units of measurement.

 

so my idea predicts that a stars core will shrink very much over time as dark energy forces increase in ammount over time. which happens because my idea is that fusion releases dark energy which makes a stars dark energy configuration grow over time.

 

my idea predicts that over time as fusion continues to happen throughout the universe that this drives universal expansion which is a result of growing dark energy configurations that can repel galaxies away from galaxies.

 

my idea predicts that lights path will be distorted as it travels near a star. because the eye of a dark energy configuration where orbital d.e. converges from all angles generates dark energy forces that move matter and light. and the reason i think lights path is moved this way instead of an asteroid is because dark energy causes an bond to form that attracts asteroids to the surface which doesnt form with photons.

 

my idea predicts that there should be a galaxy rotational curve which is a result of antigravity dark energy forces that interfere with the orbital patterns there.

 

my idea predicts that a cosmological constant exists as a result of a combination of stars antigravity forces and supermassive blackholes gravity forces which keep the stars antigravity forces from repelling stars from each other.

 

my idea predicts that gravity anomalies like those attributed to planet x, the pioneer anomaly and the flyby anomally are all caused by orbital dark energy.

 

i think that dark energy orbits in a spherical array pattern which forms an eye at the core which generates crushing gravity forces there.

 

so these are just some predictions that my idea is generally in line with which current theories on gravity dont account for whatsoever. which is what makes dark energy mechanics worth investigating.

Edited May 27, 2014 by anonymousone