Reply
Tue 11 Sep, 2012 04:40 am
You may describe the expanding vacuum of space in many ways, but one way is that it is rapid motion,rapid accelerating motion,a motion to be reckoned with,especially that which is external to that motion,namely mass.Within the atom you could not find more stark contrasts,the central core of protons and neutrons being of infinite density and therefore external to that motion and must dance to its tune,a mathematical tune written for us by Newton and Einstein. Mass can be moved apart or squeezed together just by one expanding motion determined by how close or how far apart they are.The other part of the atom,the electrons,almost two thousand times smaller than a proton , with good reason,because unlike its partners in the central core external to the motion,this tiny particle functions entirely within the motion of space .Electrons are responceble for virtually everything in our world ,but its primary task is as a regulator of pressure ,you see ,the Earth and I are not pulled together,matter attracting matter,we are squeezed together,but our mass needs a particle small enough to operate within the vacuum to regulate how much we are squeezed ,in other words how much purchase the vacuum can apply to our mass.Gravity,a beutiful mathematical description,but an incorrect written description.Now there is an alternative.How say you?
@worbort,
I'm not sure, Bort, whether it qualifies under your concept, but I've always thought of gravity as a sort of compressed or "squeezed" space, "pushed aside" by the object it surrounds
@solipsister,
Bort is attempting a speculation beyond equations, important to intuition as an avenue of further exploration
Gravity is the culmination of the primal forces of attraction and repulsion refracting through each other to give us the opposing spectrums of matter and anti-matter which in turn refract to give us electromagnetism. (Primal Matrix) a guidebook to the universe for dumb scientists. (kindle)Read it and you will better understand, in fact more than the scientists writing these theories of our universe. Gravity is so elusive to quantum mechanics because scientists fail to see that gravity is what makes up the particles and therefore is not itself a particle of matter. Gravity is the energy of matter, not a particle of matter.
The main issue with the theory of space being a vacuum is that space is not a vacuum in fact it is zero atmospheres. Earth has atmospheric pressure in which leads to the conclusion that space must be a vacuum. Its not. So the use of the terms (vacuum of space) is a misnomer. If space is truly a vacuum then how would planets with atmospheric pressure maintain that pressure. Zero atmospheres does not constitute a vacuum. A true vacuum would have to be below zero atmospheres as in the case of a black-hole.
@stormcrows,
stormcrows wrote:
Gravity is the culmination of the primal forces of attraction and repulsion refracting through each other to give us the opposing spectrums of matter and anti-matter which in turn refract to give us electromagnetism.
What does "refracting through each other" mean?
@rosborne979,
Come on, it is the process:
Quote: that give[s] us the opposing spectrums of matter and anti-matter which in turn refract to give us electromagnetism.
It is apparently a part of Primal Matrix theory (which I believe was first proffered by Dr. Theodor Geisel in the last book he wrote before he died).
Honestly, if you are incapable of keeping up, why even enter the conversation. You are just ruining it for us who are trying to learn!
@Zarathustra,
Of course. How silly of me.
Would the mechanics of the orbital behavior of planets apply to the laws of physics being applied to quantum mechanics if Kepler’s law of two body motion was proven to be incorrect? If we discovered that the Sun is not an attractive force but instead a repelling force, would this change the mind set of scientists trying to unravel the mysteries of orbital behavior? If the Sun is a repelling force (anti-gravity) and the planets are attractive forces (gravity) would this not be self-evident that the planets would in fact be attracted to the Sun and the Sun would repel them and constitute the catalyst for motion, axial rotation and logically sustained orbits?
@stormcrows,
Orbital mechanics is already understood in excruciating detail. Why do you think we need to introduce a new variable into the system? What problem are you trying to solve?
@rosborne979,
The problem is our inability to reduce it into intuitional terms, common language suitable to the Average Clod (me). Though slightly OT, on a sliding scale gravity is much easier to "picture" than, say, the relativistic changes that a moving object undergoes
I've undertaken the latter but almost forcefully rejected by the A2k Participant At Large
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace