HOW GRAVITY IS CREATED

[pasala]

Dear friends,

 

First of all let me tell you that i did not study science in higher
studies and these are out of interest only.

Here i am starting one of the important basic principle "GRAVITY".
First of all let me tell you one simple incident that happened in my
early life which is base for this theory.

Ours is a tiles house. It is one of the severe winter day. Cold winds
started entering the house from the small holes. Actually i could not
sleep. Seeing at my suffering father called on me. He was sleeping near
to the kitchen. Infact total area is one hall only. It was dry and hot
at that place. Immediately i had asked my father why it is hot here, he
replied that fire wood used for cooking is still burning. I had removed
ashes and found that there is very small amount of fire.

Actually i did not slept on that night and started measuring area upto
which hot climate is prevailing and area upto cool climate is prevailing.
Recently when i started writing on gravity this incident came to my mind.

01 Ones our earth is also like firewood only. It burnt for lot of period
and cooled. But deep inside it is still burning.
02 Earth is releasing lot of energy into open area.
03 Firewood was used to cook food in the evening at about 7 '0' clock and
this incident happened at about 1'0' clock. Actually no firewood was
used later.
04 This very small amount of fire that too, deep inside the ashes was able
to protect so much area.

LET US COMPARE THIS INCIDENT TO OUR EARTH:
01 It is true that earth is still burning deep inside and releasing lot of
energy into open area.
02 suppose if earth stops burning and releasing energy what happens:
a) When firewood was burnt in the evening, it started developing strong
area upto certain place.
b) Later when fire extinguished, very small amount of energy that is
coming from ashes was able to keep up upto certain area.
c) Similarly ones our earth is also like a ball of fire only. It released lot
of energy into open area. when it started cooling, hydrosphere started
moving around it. It is nothing but ozone layer.
d) Incase if earth stops burning and releasing energy it will lose its area.
ozone layer will come down to earth.
CLIMATE ON EARTH:
01 In my view climate is nothing but hot, wet and dry weather being enjoyed by
us. Let us not go deep into the other things.
02 Energy released by any planet is the base for its climate. It is true that moon
is already cooled to a great extent and there fore weak climate.
03 As long as earth releases energy it will be able to keep up its area. This
area which i would like to term this as "BASE".

IF EARTH STOPS BURNING AND RELEASING ENERGY:
01 It will lose its "base". Ozone layer will come down to earth.
02 Sun rays starts reaching earth directly. Temparature raises upto +240 and during

night it will be -240

03 There is no scope for human existence on earth.

 

CLIMATE AND GRAVITY:

01 Base helps in creation of climate.

02 Climate in turn helps in development of gravity. If there is strong climate on any

planet means strong gravity and if weak climate means weak gravity.

03 In fact energy plays key role in gravity. OK, we shall discuss about gravity separately

in "About Gravity".

 

Friends, Let us think seperately. Present thinking about gravity is not at all correct.

If we start thinking in this angle, in future it paves way for further research in various

fields such as light, fire, electricity, explosions and various others.

 

IN FUTURE WE CAN EXPECT THINGS BEYOND IMAGINATION.

 

Anyway please give your opinions without hesitations.

 

Yours

Psreddy

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

Can you show, mathematically, using your idea how you would derive the altitude of a geostationary orbit for the earth?

 

There are lots of assumptions and assertions in your post that are just wrong. I'd strongly suggest going and doing some serious background research.

[pasala]

Mr klaynos

 

First of all thank you very much for giving your opinion,

 

When Newton said apple is pulled down to earth it is simply assumption only. In my view apple is not

being pulled down but pushed down towards earth. This is the basic theory. In my view there is huge

amount of energy on this earth and due to this every thing is happening. At present we are of the

opinion that there is only one route to washington and there is no other route leading to washington.

Here I am proposing that there is other route to washington which is main route. I am sure, it takes

lot of time to convince others. If we accept this theory, there are answers for number of unanswered

questions such as...

01 Why and how planets have got weightless condition and moving round sun.

02 What exactly fire is

03 What exactly light is and how it is created.

04 What exactly explosion is

 

If we know what exactly gravity is, we can start thinking in this angle and methods of overcoming it.

Even now we are not able to cross universe means it is due to our present theory only. In my view

there are exact solutions for this also.

 

Sir, what you are feeling is exactly correct and it is based on assumption and imagination only.

This is BASIC THEORY and further calculations will start.

 

Please remember we are in the NEWTON period and it takes time to come to ISAC INSTEIN period.

 

Thanking you

Yours

psreddy.

[Strange]

Present thinking about gravity is not at all correct.

 

Why do you think that? Can you show a single experiment which produces results not predicted by our current theories?

 

Why do you think your vague ramblings are an improvement on precise mathematical theories which have been extensively tested over hundreds of years?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

When Newton said apple is pulled down to earth it is simply assumption only.

When Newton first came up with that idea it was an assumption.

In particular, he assumed that all things attract all other things.

That effect was looked for, and it was found.

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

 

Can your strange idea explain this experiment too?

Can it explain the inverse square law behaviour of the force?

 

If so, please show us how. Until you can do that you are just making stuff up.

[Strange]

In my view apple is not

being pulled down but pushed down towards earth. This is the basic theory.

 

What is it being pushed by? I see you have avoided answering Klayno's question. I assume that is because you cannot?

 

I am sure, it takes

lot of time to convince others.

 

It would take a theory (i.e. mathematics) and experimental evidence to convince others. Do you have either of these?

 

If we accept this theory

 

Currently it is not a theory and there is no reason to accept it.

, there are answers for number of unanswered

questions such as...

01 Why and how planets have got weightless condition and moving round sun.

02 What exactly fire is

03 What exactly light is and how it is created.

04 What exactly explosion is

 

Why do you think these are unanswered questions? Is it just because you don't understand? Perhaps you should learn a little basic science first ("i did not study science in higher studies").

 

Please remember we are in the NEWTON period and it takes time to come to ISAC INSTEIN period.

 

We are in a post-Newton period and make extensive use of Einstein's theory (GPS, for example). Perhaps you need to catch up. After all, you are only 100 years behind the times.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations. Please read the guidelines and ensure your discussion adheres.

[Klaynos]

Newtons ideas were mathematical.

 

You've not answered my question at all.

 

All of your questions have well evidenced answers.

 

And if you're going to use a title for me (not that I insist on that in any way), it's Dr, not Mr.

[pasala]

mr john cuthber,

 

can anybody, including yourself tell:

 

01 What exactly fire is, without using words, may be, perhaps, chemical action.

02 what exactly explosion, whithout using words, may be, perhaps.

 

Friends including expert friends,

 

Please remember it is not yet tested and proved theory, if it so means it would have been different and it is facing

initial problems.

 

" Hereby, openely i appeal everyboldy to open up your mind, start thinking in this angle".

 

Well, i may be 100 years back but my theories are 200 years forward. No theory, as of now, has told you

that there is direct link between release of energy by earth and climate. This is the base for estimating exact life of a

planet also.

 

Once again, i appeal to all friends to share your ideas frankly, openly without advert comments and pave the

way for further research.

 

I will try to place other theories, which are linked to this, gravity, explosion, fire, light, and others in due course of

time.

 

Yours

psreddy

[Strange]

can anybody, including yourself tell:

 

01 What exactly fire is, without using words, may be, perhaps, chemical action.

02 what exactly explosion, whithout using words, may be, perhaps.

 

 

Of course. (Although why you say "without words" is beyond me. That is a stupid restriction.)

 

However, if you want to learn about fire or explosions, you should open a thread asking such questions in the appropriate part of the forum.

 

Here, you are required (by the rules you have agreed to) to answer questions and defend your theory.

 

Please remember it is not yet tested and proved theory

 

That is why it is not a theory. How would you test this idea? Please show, in suitable mathematical detail, what predictions it makes that would allow it to be distinguished from existing theories.

 

 

" Hereby, openely i appeal everyboldy to open up your mind, start thinking in this angle".

 

You can make that appeal but with no theory and no evidence, no one is going to take any notice.

 

Once again, i appeal to all friends to share your ideas frankly, openly without advert comments and pave the

way for further research.

 

 

 

Frankly and openly: it is unsupported nonsense.

I will try to place other theories, which are linked to this, gravity, explosion, fire, light, and others in due course of

time.

 

You should start by providing some support for this one.

[pasala]

ok

we will meet later

 

yours

psreddy

[Phi for All]

First of all let me tell you that i did not study science in higher studies

 

Imagine you're a hunter. You've gone to hunting school, and you've learned the ways of the wild, how animals behave, what plants can kill you or sustain you. You've learned how to camouflage yourself so you can't be seen as you move in the wilderness. You're a highly trained, knowledgeable hunter who is very successful at what you do.

 

You're out in the wild, and you come across a different hunter, one with very different ideas. He tells you he quit hunter school, but has been studying hunting on his own as a hobby, out of interest only. He claims you should wear bright colors and make lots of weird noises when in the woods, because it confuses the animals who have never heard such sounds. The bright colors will paralyze them with fear, he claims, and you should be able to walk right up and kill them with your pocket knife.

 

You think about it. You try to see where he's coming from, try to wrap your brain around his idea. But what you KNOW about hunting, what all your training and knowledge tells you about it, tells you that his idea might seem like it would work (IF the colors really paralyzed), just because it makes sense that bright colors and weird lights can be confusing. But you know that animals are going to run from the sound first, before they see any colors. You know it's impractical to use a pocket knife on them, and you know a thousand other things that are wrong about this ideas.

 

Don't you wish you could tell this guy (who seems very smart, by the way) that he should go back to hunter school?

[John Cuthber]

mr john cuthber,

 

can anybody, including yourself tell:

 

01 What exactly fire is, without using words, may be, perhaps, chemical action.

02 what exactly explosion, whithout using words, may be, perhaps.

 

No, I can't. So what?

 

On the other hand, if I assume that you don't really mean without using words.

 

Fire is a process.

It's a term we use for oxidations that produce heat and light- the full definition is a bit more complicated than that but since I can't see what it has to do with anything (and in particular, what it has to do with gravity) I will stop there.

 

I suspect that the real problem is that you cant explain them and, because of that, you think that there are no explanations.

[Strange]

Dear friends,

 

First of all let me tell you that i did not study science in higher

studies and these are out of interest only.

 

Here i am starting one of the important basic principle "GRAVITY".

 

Dear psreddy,

 

I wonder if you could explain why you are presenting this idea. I am genuinely curious.

 

I assume that because you didn't study science you don't understand how scientific theories are developed. Is that correct?

 

Do you think, for example, that science consists of people (e.g. Newton, Einstein, etc) just making up nice ideas?

 

Or do you think that you have some special insight that others lack?

 

Do you know why Newton's and Einstein's theories are generally accepted?

[TheGeckomancer]

All of those questions have been answered. Well the ones that are proper questions to begin with.We know what light and fire are.

[pasala]

Dr Klaynos,

 

Goodevening,

 

Well sir, let me tell you and all other friends there, that i am a Govt. employee from India. Even though i did not

study science at higher level, i had started writing these theories out of interest only. In the theory 'Gravity', i had

focussed mainly "Creation and development of base". This "base" helps us to know;

 

01 There is huge amount of energy is already present on this earth. At present we are of the opinion that existing

things itself is base and our focuss on research is halted. For example Solar power, we are trying to catch extra

energy, due to sun rays.

a) If we know that there is huge energy is already present, our explorations will start in this angle also. Actually

i donot believe production of electricity at one place and transfer to other place. Electricity can be produced

as per our need at any place with simple instruments. If electricity is produced everywhere as per need, than

you can imagine change of world.

b) If we know how how gravity works, we can focus on developing instruments which works with much speed, and less

energy. Here i am not criticing newton or instein but what i want to say that time has come to review these theories.

Infact some of my theories have its base on inverse square law, which i will place in due course of time.

c) At present we know that an atom bomb explodes, but if we know how it explodes and what exactly explosion is, it

will pave the way for further reseach.

 

These are the main uses of theories/ideas proposed by me. Main idea behind bringing them to science forum is to make them open and to place them for discussion. This is not to criticise anybody.

 

If yourself and your friends feel that these theories affect reputation of your science forum, i will not proceed further.

 

Anyway thanks to one of my friend who advised me to go to school. I am already 50 years, so please suggest which

school is best, ofcourse not hunting.

 

Thanking you

Yours

psreddy

[Phi for All]

Anyway thanks to one of my friend who advised me to go to school. I am already 50 years, so please suggest which

school is best, ofcourse not hunting.

 

I'm really pleased you took my suggestion in the spirit it was offered. The Khan Academy is a great place online to study the basics in subjects that interest you. Try them out first, see if you like the style they use.

 

I'm actually a lot like you. I didn't study STEM subjects when I had the chance in school, so I've had to learn in the same sort of piecework way. The problem is, science is best understood when you learn how it all connects, when you learn the processes involved, rather than individual bits of information. Reading popular science is fun, but without knowing how it relates to the rest (which is even more difficult if we don't understand the rest), we make far too many assumptions and mistakes.

 

Welcome, fellow student.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Your posts are not containing much in the way of science, as we expect for discussions in this forum. You have assertions and conjecture. That's not enough.

 

For example, we already now how gravity behaves. This is well-tested, and you present no alternative that can be evaluated. You assert that electricity can be easily generated in place with simple instruments, but give no details. You ask about atom bombs as if they have not been carefully studied, or that one could even build such devices without detailed understanding.

 

If you have questions you are free to start threads and ask them. But this is a science discussion board, not a blog for you to post empty assertions. Unless you address the shortcomings that have been pointed out to you, this will be closed. (and please don't go off-topic by discussing the requirement that you adhere to the rules)

 

[Strange]

 

c) At present we know that an atom bomb explodes, but if we know how it explodes and what exactly explosion is, it

will pave the way for further reseach.

 

We do know how it explodes. How do you think they were able to design it in the first place, if it wan't understood? It wasn't just random.

 

These are the main uses of theories/ideas proposed by me. Main idea behind bringing them to science forum is to make them open and to place them for discussion.

 

But you aren't discussing. you don't answer any of the objections. You just repeat the same thing. That is not discussion.

[Phi for All]

c) At present we know that an atom bomb explodes, but if we know how it explodes and what exactly explosion is, it

will pave the way for further reseach.

 

 

This is a great example of why formal study is necessary. You've lived for half a century thinking we don't know how a bomb explodes, or what exactly an explosion is. So of course you're going to think that's a big gap in our knowledge.

 

But it's a wrong assumption. We know a great deal and are always learning more. You can study the physics of it if you're interested, which is a LOT better than assuming that because you don't know it, nobody knows it.

 

Do you understand what I'm saying here? A bad assumption has led you to a false conclusion. Your reasoning has suffered from a lack of knowledge, and that happens to people all the time. You can fix that. It's now a decision. Is it better for you to keep guessing, or just easier? Is it better for you to study so the lack of knowledge gets fixed, and you can reason rather than guess?

[TJ McCaustland]

 

Why do you think that? Can you show a single experiment which produces results not predicted by our current theories?

 

Why do you think your vague ramblings are an improvement on precise mathematical theories which have been extensively tested over hundreds of years?

Because although these theories have been extensively tested he is like I used to be, He wants to reeinvent science instead of using it.

[Strange]

But you can't reinvent something you don't understand and are totally ignorant of. Can you?

[Phi for All]

But you can't reinvent something you don't understand and are totally ignorant of. Can you?

 

You can if your motive is to lure everyone away from the very complicated stuff you don't understand that would take a long time to learn, over to the easy-to-watch pseudovideoscience that kinda makes sense to you and takes fifteen minutes. I can't help but see most of these reinventions this way.

 

"Hey, you guys, you don't need to climb the mountain! Just hop across the lake on those chunks of ice! "

[TJ McCaustland]

 

You can if your motive is to lure everyone away from the very complicated stuff you don't understand that would take a long time to learn, over to the easy-to-watch pseudovideoscience that kinda makes sense to you and takes fifteen minutes. I can't help but see most of these reinventions this way.

 

"Hey, you guys, you don't need to climb the mountain! Just hop across the lake on those chunks of ice! "

Lol exactly how I used to be.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Tangent on push gravity has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92809-push-gravity-split-from-how-gravity-is-created/