Big bang and bubbles: some philosophy

[Christ slave]

Well, it seems to me that it is only logical that all bodies are like bubbles. If you were to study bubbles more, you would probably learn about gravity and all sorts of things.

 

I also wonder if gravity is atmosphere and friction. Basically, if an object gets caught in with other elements, namely gaseous elements, it will begin to form planets and higher gravity depending on the element's weight. So, as an object move into earth's atmosphere, the elements then buildup--so, moving through the force of the weight of the elements, an object will simply be forced downward. The further down it moves, the more pressure there is (because the pressure of the elements above it reaching out to outerspace increases). So, gravity is simply pressure, not necessarily some mysterious force.

(TYPO FIXED: ORIGINALLY THE WORD "PLANETS" READ "PLANTS", WHICH MAY HAVE REALLY SKEWED MY COMMUNICATION)

 

Things are being mirrored (like karma). The sun, the earth, the moon, the stars, etc. They all appear like atoms. So, the big bang is basically God speaking, "let there be light" (and as the Bible says, it was all formed out of water). If somebody speaks in water, what does that do? It forms a bubble. Likewise, this is the prophet's way of explaining the bigbang. So, as a huge bubble forms, it eventually explodes (the big bang), and now you have lots of tinier bubbles--or, stars and the like. What then do bubble also do? They collect, like at the top of your glass of milk...or soap suds foaming in a bathtub or bubbles swirling in a glass of water after you pour out water from your sink into the cup.

 

Eventually, all light will surface uptop. How so? Well, if you shine a light on a piece of paper, the other side is dark and it casts a shadow. Up top is the light. Until the bubbles surface, we are swirling in the soda of darkness. Any star, planet, etc. can burst. The big bang did it, don't think it won't happen again. God separated light from darkness. Just wait until the light floats upward, like the daytime, leaving darkness like an ocean of black--as polar as the darkside of the moon or the night of the earth.

 

In fact, where bubbles join together, is there not a flatness or pressure between the two surfaces as they oppose each other? Likewise, the sun's light is opposed where it touches the surface of earth or something. Then, darkness is on the otherside. It's identical to the reaction of bubbles to each other...and even the tides are "pulled". However, I have a suspicion that this pull is similar to that of the pressure of two bubbles being married. Where they meet, there is a flat surface--this is what stops the moon from dissipating into the playing field of earth's bubble/body. Likewise, as the moon flattens out such as large area with its bubble/body, the oceans are forced as the tide being pulled.

 

Doesn't, if you add more to a body of water, the water rise? Doesn't the water, needing to maintain its amount of occupied space, move about? So, if you take for instance two bubbles whose surfaces are joined together and they become flattened, the huge body of water will notice this intense pressure of the bubble of the moon, and if you put a flattening force on a body of water, the body of water is going to be forced to flatten (expand and move out). Likewise, the tides appear to be "pulled", when in reality they are most likely being "pushed" if you equate the universe to that of bubbles.

 

Bubbles, bubbles, everywhere. What will we do when one bursts? Or, rather (and more applicably), why do we do since that one has?

 

The universe is a ocean of darkness. Whose breathe or voice has snuffed or spoken the stars? You decide...we are but small, tiny reflections of the entire cosmos, echoing in a forest of houses. Look up, for the bubble of the sun prepares to engulf us. The moon is too large to sink in, so it simply rolls about the surface as gravity pulls it. The moon is so big that is knows the earth is round, and as a large fraction on the field of its body, it rolls about as if a giant boulder. Notice the echo. I suppose it's possible that more bubbles can burst. If you need to know more, look at the tiny echoes, because you too are tiny.

 

Nobody listens to a song louder than they can bare, rather, they listen to the volume prepared for their ears (which can be equally as discerning).

[Bettina]

Well' date=' it seems to me that it is only logical that all bodies are like bubbles. If you were to study bubbles more, you would probably learn about gravity and all sorts of things.

 

I also wonder if gravity is atmosphere and friction. Basically, if an object gets caught in with other elements, namely gaseous elements, it will begin to form plants and higher gravity depending on the element's weight. So, as an object move into earth's atmosphere, the elements then buildup--so, moving through the force of the weight of the elements, an object will simply be forced downward. The further down it moves, the more pressure there is (because the pressure of the elements above it reaching out to outerspace increases). So, gravity is simply pressure, not necessarily some mysterious force.

 

Things are being mirrored (like karma). The sun, the earth, the moon, the stars, etc. They all appear like atoms. So, the big bang is basically God speaking, "let there be light" (and as the Bible says, it was all formed out of water). If somebody speaks in water, what does that do? It forms a bubble. Likewise, this is the prophet's way of explaining the bigbang. So, as a huge bubble forms, it eventually explodes (the big bang), and now you have lots of tinier bubbles--or, stars and the like. What then do bubble also do? They collect, like at the top of your glass of milk...or soap suds foaming in a bathtub or bubbles swirling in a glass of water after you pour out water from your sink into the cup.

 

Eventually, all light will surface uptop. How so? Well, if you shine a light on a piece of paper, the other side is dark and it casts a shadow. Up top is the light. Until the bubbles surface, we are swirling in the soda of darkness. Any star, planet, etc. can burst. The big bang did it, don't think it won't happen again. God separated light from darkness. Just wait until the light floats upward, like the daytime, leaving darkness like an ocean of black--as polar as the darkside of the moon or the night of the earth.

 

In fact, where bubbles join together, is there not a flatness or pressure between the two surfaces as they oppose each other? Likewise, the sun's light is opposed where it touches the surface of earth or something. Then, darkness is on the otherside. It's identical to the reaction of bubbles to each other...and even the tides are "pulled". However, I have a suspicion that this pull is similar to that of the pressure of two bubbles being married. Where they meet, there is a flat surface--this is what stops the moon from dissipating into the playing field of earth's bubble/body. Likewise, as the moon flattens out such as large area with its bubble/body, the oceans are forced as the tide being pulled.

 

Doesn't, if you add more to a body of water, the water rise? Doesn't the water, needing to maintain its amount of occupied space, move about? So, if you take for instance two bubbles whose surfaces are joined together and they become flattened, the huge body of water will notice this intense pressure of the bubble of the moon, and if you put a flattening force on a body of water, the body of water is going to be forced to flatten (expand and move out). Likewise, the tides appear to be "pulled", when in reality they are most likely being "pushed" if you equate the universe to that of bubbles.

 

Bubbles, bubbles, everywhere. What will we do when one bursts? Or, rather (and more applicably), why do we do since that one has?

 

The universe is a ocean of darkness. Whose breathe or voice has snuffed or spoken the stars? You decide...we are but small, tiny reflections of the entire cosmos, echoing in a forest of houses. Look up, for the bubble of the sun prepares to engulf us. The moon is too large to sink in, so it simply rolls about the surface as gravity pulls it. The moon is so big that is knows the earth is round, and as a large fraction on the field of its body, it rolls about as if a giant boulder. Notice the echo. I suppose it's possible that more bubbles can burst. If you need to know more, look at the tiny echoes, because you too are tiny.

 

Nobody listens to a song louder than they can bare, rather, they listen to the volume prepared for their ears (which can be equally as discerning).[/quote']

 

I read every word you wrote, but can't put it together. If I try to apply poetry, and I do write poetry, it doesn't click there either. Some parts start to, but then fail rapidly, as if you are copying sections from pages of different books.

 

You seem to have an imagination, I just wish I knew what you are trying to say. Try this again please.

 

Bettina

[Flareon]

ChristSlave, I'd suggest going easy on the hallucinogenics.

[Christ slave]

Essential reality echoes--in eternity. This is evolution, by the way. Echoes (ripples)--called children.

 

If you look at the earth or other bodies, you will see the sunlight atop them. The other half is dark, and it's equivelant to that of a bubble or ball floating in water. One half is submerged, the other half is outside the water. The darkness is like water. If you can use your imagination, perhaps you will begin to unwravel the mysteries of the universe.

 

Noticing similarities is what sparks interest and discovery very often anyhow. Also notice how when bubbles are pressed against each other, their surfaces flatten--they prevent each other from moving past, and so pressure is applied to the surfaces which join. This is the same with the moon and sunlight. Outside of the earth is nothingness, because it is a bubble floating in darkness. Sure, a big scale, but as I said, reality echoes and then microcosms form. Atoms spin about as if tiny solar systems.

 

Galaxies go whirling about like celestial hurricanes--hurricanes, in a sea of darkness. Notice how the sunlight is blocked when it hits the earth. It has the appearance of a bubble's surface flattening as it touches another bubble. Like bubbles, too, the bodies orbit about each other...but, like bubbles, if their contents merge, they slip into one single body (a bubble can in essence merge with another bubble and give it its content to become a single larger bubble). Likewise, this is the moon. If the moon does not give earth it's content (its enclosed bubble air), it will simply be its own bubble...but, like bubbles which stick together (and where their surfaces meet, a flattened area is formed because bubbles can join like hand-in-hand without merging), the moon sticks to earth. So, like earth sticks to the sun, and the sunlight is then blocked as it strikes the earth's surface, don't stop there! No, physics and the laws are the same everywhere...rippling and echoing in a sea of unison (in a sea of darkness, mind you--and I suggest that darkness is really physically relative to that of a sea of gas or water or something else).

 

Everything, when you peer at it from a certain angle (be it size, distance, a duration of time, etc.) echoes as if they all are the same. If you put a sea of stone somewhere, eventually the stone will take on characteristics like that of a sea of water. Don't be fooled by anything, everything acts practically the same...be it a precious sphere called a planet who sticks to a moon like a bubble, or be it a planet whose gravitational pull is equivelant to a two bubbles with air merging together to form one single bubble.

 

If you seek the answers, don't be afraid to look...say...somewhere smaller, and less extraterrestrial.

[Bettina]

May I ask how old you are?

 

Bettina

[Ophiolite]

If you were to study bubbles more, you would probably learn about gravity and all sorts of things.

Why would you learn more about gravity? Logic would suggest that gravity is more readily studied via massive objects, not tiny wisps of matter?

I also wonder if gravity is atmosphere and friction. Basically, if an object gets caught in with other elements, namely gaseous elements, it will begin to form plants and higher gravity depending on the element's weight. So, as an object move into earth's atmosphere, the elements then buildup--so, moving through the force of the weight of the elements, an object will simply be forced downward. The further down it moves, the more pressure there is (because the pressure of the elements above it reaching out to outerspace increases). So, gravity is simply pressure, not necessarily some mysterious force.

With respect .... pause for a moment ... sorry, with no respect and a growing frustration....what you have written is pure rubbish. You have a potentially powerful poetic image, but as Bettina has pointed out it is not working. Answer this, if gravity is simply pressure, what holds the moon in the Earth's orbit?

[ed84c]

I think the point he was making is that we understand gravity on the macroscale, what we dont understand it gravity on the microscale, hense QM and GR not agreeing of sorts.

[Ophiolite]

ed I applaud your perception if that accurately reflects what he intended. I am afraid I found Cs's posts, in this thread, to be directionless mumbo-jumbo filled with comparisons that, if taken literally, were nonsense, or, if seen as analogy were unhelpful. I suspect that the intelligence and logic you have found in those posts originates in your own mind, provided by your own skill at condensing sense and structure from vapours.

[Anarchaus]

ed I applaud your perception if that accurately reflects what he intended. I am afraid I found Cs's posts, in this thread, to be directionless mumbo-jumbo filled with comparisons that, if taken literally, were nonsense, or, if seen as analogy were unhelpful. I suspect that the intelligence and logic you have found in those posts originates in your own mind, provided by your own skill at condensing sense and structure from vapours.

 

.......uh.. yes... I second that!

[Christ slave]

Why would you learn more about gravity? Logic would suggest that gravity is more readily studied via massive objects' date=' not tiny wisps of matter?

With respect .... pause for a moment ... sorry, with no respect and a growing frustration....what you have written is pure rubbish. You have a potentially powerful poetic image, but as Bettina has pointed out it is not working. Answer this, if gravity is [i']simply pressure, [/i]what holds the moon in the Earth's orbit?

 

I would ask you also, what holds bubbles together? They can stick as if they were the size of the sun pulling in an object. Gravity, as ed so inspired my terminology, on the macroscale is no different on the microscale.

 

Look at bubbles--if bubbles can stick together, then surely on the larger scale a moon can stick to a planet. It would be friction, or some other force. It is no secret that bubbles underwater react to each other, affect each other, and attract each other. To lack comparing (forming a helpful analogy) to further pursue and renew thoughts, which would make understanding things much more readily and simpler, is very foolish.

 

Look at things on the smaller scale, because they are echoed outward and repeated in design even as things get bigger. Why? Because the laws of physics are laws--they don't change for different degrees of size, but play out. We see things so much smaller here and quicker, but when they get bigger as we remain small, we then see things slowed down and in a slow-motion, detailed state. So, whereas before it took a few seconds for bubbles to merge or physics to take place, when you take these objects and magnify them, time is slowed down, because the measure of time is as physically applicable to any object as the third dimension matter itself. Both are magnified, so we see things on a large scale as if we were microscopic and looking, say, at a cat or something. We perceive things so much differently when we get to watch them on a large scale.

 

The more time something has in relation to you, the more prolonged it will be. So, we see a hurricane of stars and perceive it as a very long lasting galaxy...whereas if we were the size of, say, a star, perhaps it would be considerably quicker as if we were watching a tornado come and go here on earth in our lifetime.

 

Don't overthink things always.

[Ophiolite]

I would ask you also, what holds bubbles together?

Surface tension.

Look at bubbles--if bubbles can stick together, then surely on the larger scale a moon can stick to a planet.

Moons don't stick to planets: they orbit at some distance.

It would be friction, or some other force. .

It would not be friction. Friction arises when materials are in contact. The

'some other force' is gravity. Why are you re-inventing the wheel? A square one at that!

To lack comparing (forming a helpful analogy) to further pursue and renew thoughts, which would make understanding things much more readily and simpler, is very foolish.

In English if you please.

Because the laws of physics are laws--they don't change for different degrees of size, but play out.

Not true. Consider the Strong Force.

Don't overthink things always.

Overthinking is much less dangerous than underthinking.

[Christ slave]

It's a little extreme for scientists to claim not to understand certain things, particularly gravity, and yet people go around refusing anyone the right to pursue further analysis.

 

Yes, what if gravity is the same as surface tension?

[Bettina]

It's a little extreme for scientists to claim not to understand certain things, particularly gravity, and yet people go around refusing anyone the right to pursue further analysis.

 

I don't see that at all......We just want you to make sense. Try coming down to our level of thinking. I like what you say, but I can't understand it. I'm trying.

 

Bettina

[bascule]

Yes, what if gravity is the same as surface tension?

 

According to M-theory, gravity is manifested through the tension of the latticework of p-branes and d-branes that compose the universe, however the specific interactions are manifested as open strings/p-branes (bound to a d-brane) colliding with closed strings/p-branes (which can move freely between any "world sheet"). Thus the force of gravity isn't bound to any particular world sheet like the open strings which compose all ordinary matter and energy are, and instead its force is diluted across all of the world sheets which compose the universe. This explains why the force of gravity is so very, very weak compared to all the other forces, which are composed of open strings/p-branes which are localized to a particular world sheet.

[Ophiolite]

It's a little extreme for scientists to claim not to understand certain things' date=' particularly gravity, and yet people go around refusing anyone the right to pursue further analysis.

[/quote']Please cite a single example of anyone being refused the right to pursue further analysis of gravity. And please, this time, answer the question rather than spouting unintelligible 'thoughts'.

[Sayonara]

And make it really good, or face the wrath of the warning system.

[Christ slave]

Please cite a single example of anyone being refused the right to pursue further analysis of gravity. [/i']And please, this time, answer the question rather than spouting unintelligible 'thoughts'.

 

Ugh? What question(s)? I see only two questions, and if it the standard conduct of this forum that people answer any and every question regardless how petty and off-topic it is, then let me know and I will be more than happy to leave (as even the moderator seems to jump in with a rude two-cent warning for me for absolutely no reason).

 

So, let me appease you, sir:

 

Why would you learn more about gravity?

 

For the same reason that considering that the earth is round and orbits around the sun gives children (and everyone who can grasp it) a very educational and accurate imagination and awareness of the truth and reality--that of the solar system.

 

So, then, if the planets and gravity are very similar and analogical to that of bubbles, would it not be educational and make grasping the reality of the universe likewise more readily possible and much more friendly? I think so. If someone told me that at the center of the galaxy was a pyramid shaped object, I'd find that very educational and would consider that learning more.

 

How old are you?

 

I am over 18 years old (I will have 19 years at the end of August).

 

Please cite a single example of anyone being refused the right to pursue further analysis of gravity. [/i']And please, this time, answer the question rather than spouting unintelligible 'thoughts'.

 

When you remain closed-minded and constantly terrorize people with seeming high and mighty egos, degrading people, telling them they don't make sense, they're poetic morons (perhaps not in these precise and outright harsh wordings) without a point, they're irrational, they're wrong, etc., you are indeed refusing people the right to further analysis. It's called ignorance, and for the sake of one's own immediate reaction (as I have been suspended and warned on other forums before for calling people ignorant and/or hypocrites, as if these words are by nature profanity), I seem to have suppressed using such terminology so as not to offend anyone, and reverted to pointing out that people refuse the right to pursue further analysis (chauking things up to simply being nonsensical hog-wash and/or rubbish, and you will find the term rubbish in this thread if you indeed honestly do care to go judging people for whatever reason it is that you do so).

 

I am not here to cause problems, but I am not going to pretend the disrespect and oppressive stress here is constructive and anything other than stressfully unnecessary.

 

Let's be mature, please. Not everyone speaks alike, but if people suggest some analogies or comparisons, it is rude to tell them they're stupid. Are you trying to scare people, intimidate them? Are you trying to scare them into submission? Are most people here children or something? I am new, so let me know...as I see lots of immaturity and degradation.

[Bettina]

I ,for one, didn't mean any offense by asking you to make sense. I really wanted to know what your trying to tell me. Your thoughts sounded very interesting and intriquing, but I must be one of the ignorant ones you mentioned for not getting it.

 

I wish you well...

 

Bettina

[Christ slave]

Perhaps the universe itself is a bubble. We can use observation on a local level to figure out what's going on on the larger level. So, perhaps the universe itself a bubble--a bubble of light and whatnot.

 

The darkness and space is like the air...and the universe's light and mertial and whatnot continues to, like bubbles, float upward (or, as the model of things are spherical, then air would be floating outward to join with other lighter air molecules since a sphere's atmosphere is spherical, like the film around a bubble that confines the air). So, like bubbles in the ocean floating upward to join the other air, and then forming the bubbly atmosphere of the planet, the universe itself acts as such likewise...and you can see the universe doing so with blackholes as they twirl the stars around like giant hurricanes of light in an ocean of darkness.

 

So, essentially the universe is like a bubble, and it is subject to popping (the big bang or whatever). As the light and things collect, just like bubbles float up to the lighter atmosphere, so the light itself or whatever and the entire universe is separating like a single planet. As they all collect about, they, like an atmosphere, form a bubble--the heavier elements within, the lighter without. And...then, of course, the space. So, then, what is the space? Perhaps the space itself is attempting to float outward like the air moving to form an outward bubble-life atmosphere...and then as this happens, until everything is uniformly in place, the bubble will keep popping and reforming itself so that the inward content will drain outward and everything will be like a radiant ball of light (like one huge giant star or planet--the heaviest elements and things in the center, then the lighter outward until finally all things are physically uniform and the puzzle is complete).

 

So, imagine that the earth were finished. The heaviest elements would be within and the lightest elements outward...which is why the earth is so active as it is, shifting and reshaping itself until it can do so no more because the puzzle and composition is absolutely perfect (in-line with the laws).

 

Life, likewise, is an expression or formation of this process...it's simply a pretension. The uniformity is God itself--the perfect unified puzzle. One cannot outbreak the laws, although forgiveness is an actual reality, whereby forgiveness itself is indeed a part of the puzzle and laws (so, if one forgives debts/energy and karma and whatnot, that does not upset the process of the puzzle coming together).

 

Like a person gaining knowledge and whatnot and putting their thoughts and mind in order until they can operate strongly enough that the confusion is gone or almost gone, so the universe is in confusion. It is all scattered about, and sooner or later, like our brains which are echoes of truth, reality, and the laws will become clearer and complete (because there is no chaos, there is simply evolution which is the graduation of the laws, and things will always become more unified and perfect because the laws force it to do so, so God is perfect, and we, as pieces of God, are certainly not the "whole", so don't reason that our suffering and the harsh conditions in this world are somehow justifications for chaos...because, one must get down and dirty before the room is cleaned. Likewise, the universe is getting down and dirty before the puzzle is complete).

 

See, a puzzle's fractions can be pieced together then they all collect and form the entire puzzle. So also the universe and its galaxies, big bang(s) and all this seeming "chaos" is not chaos at all. In fact, to me I see no chaos. Chaos is an illusion--just like some people are afraid of the dark and others are not (some people are afraid of spiders and others aren't). It's a phobia--and an unnecessary phobia as well. Sooner or later the puzzle, because the laws are perfect and irreversible will indeed become complete.

 

Don't think, however, that God is incomplete or a mess. No, God is perfect. A puzzle, regardless if it is broken apart or not, is still the same puzzle. So, as God collects, this is evolution. God is not incomplete, but order comes about. And we, as spark or fractions (pieces of the puzzle) all contract, fit-together, and come and form the puzzle. Now, a puzzle is always ugly and whatnot until it is finished and put together...although pieces that are collected (or, places where light/spirit is greater/greatest, and where peace, love, and order are in place) can give glimpses of beauty and whatnot. However, don't be fooled, the best is yet to come. The puzzle is not yet finished...so, wake up.

[Anarchaus]

This guy is whacked.

Dude, your not off by much when you say the universe can be a bubble, and your free to imagen how the solarsystem works, but experiments have shown that gravity is not surface tension, but the curvature of space time by any objects with mass, this idea of objects being held by surface tension is nonsense, considering that the surfaces(as told by others on this tread) of the earth and the moon are not touching,thus it cannot be "surface" as you described, and tension is the pulling of a object by internal and external forces, if you mean gravitational tension, you are correct, you can see this when the tides come in. That is gravitational "tension" if you will. You are not "far" off, but far enough. You obviously like to mix reality with imagination.

[Edisonian]

I don't understand the post either.

[Ophiolite]

Christ Slave, you appear to think one or more people have been rude to you.

When you remain closed-minded and constantly terrorize people with seeming high and mighty egos, degrading people, telling them they don't make sense, they're poetic morons (perhaps not in these precise and outright harsh wordings) without a point, they're irrational, they're wrong, etc.,

When was I closed-minded?

When (and more relevantly, how) did I terrorize you?

When did I degrade you?

I told you you did not make sense to me. Do you wish me to pretend that you do? How will that help you, or anyone?

Yes I have said, or certainly implied, that several of the things you have said are wrong. They are. Do you really wish me to pretend they are not?

I have attempted, by my questions and statements to you, to demonstrate where you are in error. To help you approach your own exploration of science from a more solid basis.

I could have ignored your posts as meaningless drivel. I have tried to provide a little guidance to let you rescue your imagination and apply it effectively. I guess that's just my "high and mighty ego" at work.

[Christ slave]

This guy is whacked.

Dude' date=' your not off by much when you say the universe can be a bubble, and your free to imagen how the solarsystem works, but experiments have shown that gravity is not surface tension, but the curvature of space time by any objects with mass, this idea of objects being held by surface tension is nonsense, considering that the surfaces(as told by others on this tread) of the earth and the moon are not touching,thus it cannot be "surface" as you described, and tension is the pulling of a object by internal and external forces, if you mean gravitational tension, you are correct, you can see this when the tides come in. That is gravitational "tension" if you will. You are not "far" off, but far enough. You obviously like to mix reality with imagination.[/quote']

 

And you don't? You don't use imagination to discover reality? Moreover, what if the larger things get, the more likely there is to be a distant form of friction? So, as it appears, some would claim it invisible--whereby you believe the rock-to-rock surfaces of earth and the moon can be all that exist. Have you ever stood next to someone and felt their presence...? What about their warmth?

 

The larger you get, and the smaller something remains (such as a human to planet or moon ratio), the more likely you are to see things you cannot see with the naked eye on the smaller scale. So, to suggest that there are no friction between objects, and formalities based on the laws of physics and whatnot without simply instituting some theoretical word called "gravity" is a bit ignorant and foolish, I'd think, if you refuse to reason like a normal human being and look for the truth--as you, personally, YOU seem to constantly hound and degrade other people as if you yourself are some high and mighty all-knowing being. Notice I say, "as if", as I in no way wish to make you out to be egotistical, because I simply have better things to do than burden you. Rather, let me show you how your rude conduct appears to other people--and you yourself know it is rude and condescending, so don't attempt to make yourself out to be an idiot by playing stupid as if you aren't condescending...lest you fool yourself and later have to overcome.

 

Do not even scientists believe in some sort of quantum foam or space or whatever it is that exist between atoms? In fact, we see air molecules spaced further apart than liquid, and liquid than solid, and gaseous likewise to solid. Then, also, solid is grouped closer together. So, then, why is it so impossible to believe that friction may be gravity? Or, what causes water and gas to come together is the same thing that causes, on a more global and a more complete (already/more-played-out) scale, the planets to function as they do? Or, gravity.

 

If states of matter called liquid, solid, and gas can exist? Why then do you deny that the orbiting of a planet can be similar to that of things that happen on a smaller, more local scale? If states of matter can exist, surely the moon and the earth can orbit about and have friction without needing to be physically compressed together like a solid. You are thinking far too black and white! Other states of matter exist than solid.

[Christ slave]

Christ Slave' date=' you appear to think one or more people have been rude to you.

 

When was I closed-minded?

When (and more relevantly, how) did I terrorize you?

When did I degrade you?

I told you you did not make sense to me. Do you wish me to pretend that you do? How will that help you, or anyone?

Yes I have said, or certainly implied, that several of the things you have said are wrong. They are. Do you really wish me to pretend they are not?

I have attempted, by my questions and statements to you, to demonstrate where you are in error. To help you approach your own exploration of science from a more solid basis.

I could have ignored your posts as meaningless drivel. I have tried to provide a little guidance to let you rescue your imagination and apply it effectively. I guess that's just my "high and mighty ego" at work.[/quote']

 

Excuse me, but you asked me for references. Now all of a sudden you take them personally? Stop molesting my words! You asked for references to backup things I said, and even though it may or may not have involved you, I explained myself further...and now you take them personally? If you were not prepared to ask a or several questions pertaining to the environment of the thread (the energy), why then now do you all of a sudden turn them personal and make me out to be offensive and wrong? There are other people here. Either you yourself are wildly confused, for whatever reason, or you're determined to make me look bad...and no, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but what else am I led to assume?

 

You ask for things not necessarily personal, then when answered, you take them personal as a means of making me look bad yet again! Quit with it already.

[Ophiolite]

CS,

you placed a quote of mine in post #17. In this quote I asked a question. You followed the quote with three paragraphs of what I took to be a response to my question. In these you cleary said "When you remain closed-minded and constantly terrorize people .............". Naturally, I took the "you" in this case to be me. So I asked for examples.

So, yes, I did take the remarks personally, in the sense that I thought you were referring all of those characteristics to me. Personally, in the sense of 'offended' - No.

I did ask for references - examples of when people had been prevented from their right to pursue further analysis of gravity. It had never occured to me that:

a) You considered your poetic and flawed speculations about the nature of gravity to be analysis.

b) That the opinions of a few anonymous entities expressed on a public forum could ever prevent someone from pursuing what they thought worthwhile.

 

Clearly I am having as much difficulty making myself understood by you, as you have in making yourself understood by me.

[Your not my wife by chance?]