Good job responding to a perceived ill-founded, assumption based conclusion jump with another. |
|
I don't believe in the theory of gravity. Or rather, I have serious doubts. Now let me be clear: I know gravity as a phenomenon exists. That's plain. I simply have issues with the explanation. I don't believe gravity is a force. I don't think matter exerts a pull on other matter. And I have reasons. |
|
Good job responding to a perceived ill-founded, assumption based conclusion jump with another. |
|
Yep. The last bit of that is assumption based and roughly put together. But I stand by the fact that gravity is misunderstood and soon to be replaced by another theory. |
|
All science has uncertainties. Although it's true that the uncertainty there is very high. |
|
Think about this. Language provides names. Names are manipulated in accordance with that which is named. |
|
Last edited by Philosopher8659; 07-28-2010 at 06:55 PM.
Again: it's not a crock theory. It's an observation. |
|
One of the obvious signs that the basic Newtonian system wasn't sufficient was the orbit of Mercury. Rather than being a pretty stable orbit, it moves around kind of like a spirograph. Einstein's theory of general relativity actually accounts for that, but for it to work, there MUST be such a thing as "gravitational waves" - the source of the "force" known as gravity. Basically, as the theory goes (cause it's still a theory), when two LARGE masses spin around each other, it generates "gravitational waves," which can be thought of as longitudinal waves that compress space itself. |
|
Newton was debunked 70 years ago, you're way way way behind the times. Read up on a guy named Albert Einstien. He proved that gravity is a bending of space and time. |
|
More like 100 years ago... unless maybe you're talking about some kind of empirical evidence, though I don't see how that'd work either as GR's explanation of Mercury's idiosyncrasy is still the most convincing and that was evidence available at the time. |
|
I don't consider relativity to be valid until there is evidence. For 30 years it was entirely theory until a solar eclipse proved it. In fact, for 15 years, what Einstein had published had been wrong, he went back and revised it when he realized it. |
|
The evidence for GR was Mercury's orbit which Einstein showed was consistent with GR, unlike Newtonian dynamics; that's still the most potent evidence. The experiment with the eclipse was only 4 years later. How was what Einstein published wrong? He added the cosmological constant afterwards and of course later removed that, but I don't know of the main theory being wrong... |
|
You are correct. Gravity or its explanation is flawed. Gravity can only be explained in terms that it is a pushing force from without instead of a pulling force from within. All matter within the universe exhibits a pushing or repulsive force. When two objects approach one another they act as shields, blocking this repulsive force. Since the repulsive or pushing force has been blocked by the two objects there is less repulsive force between th eobjects and they move in the direction of least repulsive force. |
|
What is your evidence that gravity can't be described as a 'pulling force'? |
|
My empiracal evidence is the rotational speeds of stars within galaxies. And quite frankly the pulling force or rather Einsteins's and Newton's models don't make sense. Actually Einstein's model does make sense when examined from a different perspective. We've all seen the curving fabric model when used to explain the gravity of mass. The heavier the mass the more the fabric curves. Well if you picture a person riding a bicycle on this curved fabric orbiting a large mass. The model suggests that the fabric is either pulling the bicycle towards the large mass or it is pushing the bicycle. Since the fabric is doing the work it can be explained that either space is curved or there exists a force from withou pushong the bicycle towards the large mass. |
|
This is just a statement, it's not an argument. |
|
Since space, according to my definition, has no properties similar to mass and energy, space cannot be doing the work. Empty space does not contain mass nor energy and therefore the equation E=mc2 is not valid in describing the forces of empty space. So either E=mc2 is incorrect or its correct. Unless it is proven that empty space contains mass or energy, space cannot be doing the work. |
|
Last edited by anderj101; 03-20-2013 at 04:17 AM. Reason: Merged 3 posts
Do you have any formal physics education? Have you ever actually studied general relativity? I'm not asking if you've read some pop sci books about it, I'm asking if you've looked at the mathematics. Do you know what differential geometry is? Could you do some calculations involving differential geometry? |
|
I consider it a blessing and a curse that I have never had any formal physics education past high school. However, after my breakthrough and after 20 or so years of dabbling in cosmology and astrophysics I really do think that I could further my theory with some formal ecucation. Unfortunately, I think after listening to professors and after reading those, in my opinion, erronious text books that I would have to "bite my tounge" in a few situations. But that shouldn't detract from the validity of my arguement. Its just that I dont have the ability to prove it in mathmatical terms yet. |
|
Last edited by anderj101; 03-20-2013 at 04:17 AM. Reason: Merged
1. Your professors? If you have not had any formal education in science beyond high school, then who are "your professors"? |
|
^ Mhm, heard 'dat.
Bookmarks