Other universes?

Well, if you think you know better, then explain, I'm all ears. . .

Joe Republican wrote:

Well, if you think you know better, then explain, I'm all ears. . .

Infinity is a difficult concept and one that modern science has yet to come to grips with. I am hoping that once someone much more mathematically inclined then I am is able to formulate the proper mathematical equations to fully unify all the four accepted forces of nature in a single equation it will become self evident that the universe truly exists in an infinite direction outwards and an infinite direction inwards. The key to this equation is Aetheric Density as I have stated and I have been working on the proof for a while with no success. I doubt there exists a particle such as a graviton and some paradigm may have you believe. The forces related to gravitons are in fact internal to every particle of matter be it a muon, tau, quark, or electron. We already recognize the terms center of mass and center of gravity as entities we can utilize in equations. Well I submit that the inverse square law is biased and quite probably the constant called the acceleration due to gravity. Both are terms that we equate with constants because of the environment we live in. In another section of our Universe where the density of free particles in space is much denser I would submit that it would require greater angular momentum for a moon with the mass of ours to retain the same diameter orbit around a planet with similar mass to our Earth. I am sure there must be ways for scientists to perform some experiments that can make sense of all this.

Studying the atmosphere on different planets and the effect of gravity on each planet should have been a smack in the face simple clue that our current paradigm is flawed. There is currently a gap that Quantum Physics and General Relativity are unable to overcome that seems to me to be solved once we accept the Aether and throw out point particles, multiple dimensions, virtual particles, and a host of other mystical entities.

First, you say that the graviton doesn't exist, then you say the forces related to gravitons are muons, quarks, tau et all.

Then you say that acceleration, which can be derived now from Newtons laws, is in fact an invesre square law?

but you are also claiming, that somewhere in the universe empty space has more mass then the current situation.

Nipok, your example is slightly flawed. Supposing you filled a sphere with O2 you would eventually create enough pressure to liquify the O2.

let's remember that the planets remain in orbit due to the warping of space around the sun, due to its mass/density.

The addition of a gas into a closed system would not negate the effect the sun has on the fluid of space anymore than the atmosphere of earth dissintegrates the orbit of the moon.

I've read quite a bit on String Theory and it does make sense to me. It is not a bandage someone pulled out of the cabinet. It is a theory based on observation and math. I dare not speculate of what a "string" is composed, but I definitely agree with their existance.

As for this "aether" being the key. You stated you cannot produce a proof of this so it seems odd to make such a statement... And I fail to see what the atmosphere of a planet has to do with its gravity. The two are not related. Gravity is a function of mass. This is known and proven beyond a doubt through both quantum and relativistic physics.

I fail to see what the atmosphere of a planet has to do with its gravity.

I've read quite a bit on String Theory and it does make sense to me. It is not a bandage someone pulled out of the cabinet. It is a theory based on observation and math. I dare not speculate of what a "string" is composed, but I definitely agree with their existance.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Nipok, your example is slightly flawed. Supposing you filled a sphere with O2 you would eventually create enough pressure to liquify the O2.

USA, sorry but your response is slightly flawed. Long before the density of the gas would become a liquid all three orbits mentioned would have long since disintegrated and the planets would have collapsed into the sun. Throw a baseball as hard as you can on the Earth 25 times and mark the distance the ball travels before it lands. Gravity causes the ball to fall to the earth. Perform the same experiment on any other planet with an atmosphere and the denser the atmosphere the shorter distance the ball will travel. On something like the moon where there is almost no atmosphere at all and the ball will travel farther. Mark my words this will be proven someday. Labs and vacuums have not done us justice because the mass of the Earth can not be removed from the picture.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

let's remember that the planets remain in orbit due to the warping of space around the sun, due to its mass/density.

Actually they don't. The angular momentum, centripetal forces, and gravity are what lets satellites like our planet maintain their orbit. The warping of space and time is another construct built with plastic bricks. The effects of gravity on the particles that carry light waves are not mystical warpings of space and time. Time can be affected by velocity but time and space do not warp. They are relative to each observer so two observers may observe things differently from each other so to one observer the others observations may appear "warped" but from a non-stationary observer there is no warp taking place. This is another flawed misnomer holding the failing paradigm together.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

The addition of a gas into a closed system would not negate the effect the sun has on the fluid of space anymore than the atmosphere of earth dissintegrates the orbit of the moon.

Perfect example, add an unlimited supply of oxygen to our own atmosphere at a rate that would expand our atmosphere to reach the diameter of the moon's orbit and before the atmosphere was the diameter of the moon the moon would have crashed to the earth. The quicker the rate of oxygen was added the faster the moon would fall into the earth thus the acceleration due to gravity is wrong.

Gravity is a function of mass. I do not deny that. Gravitons are not what help carry gravity waves however. Lets say you have ball A at 100 pounds 2 feet away from ball B that is 90 pounds which is 2 feet away from ball C which is 95 pounds which is 2 feet away from ball D at 225 pounds. All this is in a pure vacuum. Ball A attracts Ball B. Ball B is attracted by both A and C. etc. etc. etc. Ball D with the greatest mass would exert a stronger pull on ball C then B would on C. Ball A would pull at B but since C is also pulling at B and D is pulling C then both B and C would move towards D. A which has more mass then B would counteract the amount of time that B would take to move and the speed it would move but in the end ball A would (since it is mutually attracted to B) would tug along with B so C, B, and A would all pull towards D.

You closed with something being proven by both quantum and relativistic physics but its funny that of all the things to pick that quantum physics and relativistic physics can explain and explain well you choose the one thing that GR and QM are unable to reach an agreement on. If nothing else, gravity has been a stumbling block in merging GR and QM. Moreso, Newtonian physics also had problems dealing with 3 or more object gravitational equations so it seems that the nature of an attraction that binds the universe together is as of yet unable to be fully quantified by the 3 leading doctrines of science. I am not spewing fairy tales and rubbish. Part of my statements may be far fetched and as of yet hard to comprehend but the truth of the matter is that if you study the current paradigm long enough and in particular the speculations that abound in the paradigm that are taken for fact because nothing better has come along you begin to see certain areas that have no more strength to stand ground then the logical explanations that I have come up with.

well nipok, in one fell swoop, you have completely shattered all of einstein's work. good job! although, he did offer mathematic proof and observational and experimental data. you've given nothing but your word that such-and-such would happen. keep guessing.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

well nipok, in one fell swoop, you have completely shattered all of einstein's work. good job! although, he did offer mathematic proof and observational and experimental data. you've given nothing but your word that such-and-such would happen. keep guessing.

Actually I've shattered nothing. SR and GR have their respective places in the current paradigm. If anything it is the multitude of innacuracies that have been spectulated into theory based on SR and GR that I question. Lets both play devils advocate for a second and accept that SR, GR, and QM all have their basis in Newtonian Physics. IF a significant oversight or innacuracy existed in Newtonian Physics then much of the work done in SR, GR, and QED/QM may be affected. Now I agree that is a pretty big IF but as I continue to try to comprehend experiments to test it someday someone with the resources to test and prove this will test and prove this and then maybe the current paradigm can get back on the right track.

Explain to me why most satellites attain an optimal orbit of at least 350km. I say it is because the denisty of the atmosphere at that level is small enough that the amount of energy the satelitte needs to exhaust to maintain an orbit is much less than the amount of energy and subsequent velocity required by satellites to obtain and maintain a low earth orbit. All the math and formulas are readily available. So I have math and observations although nothing new to add to the mix other than deductions.

QM, SR and GR do NOT have a basis in Newtonian physics. Newton was a brilliant man, but he got lucky with a lot of things. Einstein's SR and GR debunked much of what Newton theorized by producing much more accurate information and predictions more true to observed values. As far as satellites go, I don't know that most do find their orbit at 350km altitude. Do you have any proof of this? You really should get off of this atmosphere/gravity thing.

Newtonian physics does accurately describe most every-day things. That notwithstanding, Einstein's theories are still more accurate in explaining these occurrances. These give more precise predictions than Newton's formulae.
You keep using atmosphere and gravity together as if one affects the other when it does not. And you talk about this "multitude of experiments" that *might* better our understanding of blah blah blah. You talk as if you know the outcome of your experiments will support your ideas. That is hardly scientific.
And I'm not sure if you're aware, but NASA launches earlier this year a satellite designed specifically to prove Einstein's Warping of space/time. So although you say he was wrong, a whole lotta people at NASA think he's right.... right enough to spend a few hundred million to prove without-a-doubt. I don't really see what your 350km satellite thing has to do with this anyway. I only asked that because you said it so matter-of-factly, when I seriously doubt you have any idea the statistical data of the altitude of satellites. As for theories which few comprehend... The theories I've paraphrased are widely known and nearly unanimously accepted. You, however, have come up with your own theory which you claim is correct over that of Einstein. There is amazing amounts of data to support Einstein's theories... What have you to support yours? Can you provide any sort of proof? A logical proof based on known laws of physics? A mathematical proof perhaps?

I am led to believe that nipok has a "house of cards" somewhere, positively brimming with evidence.

Haven't seen it myself though.