9

# Theory of Gravity

cameronleon

0
Sun 1 Oct, 2017 08:26 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:

I doubt that. Relativity is a highly mathematical field. In order to understand relativity at all you need to have mastered at least 5 semesters of college math (starting with calculus and going through differential equations).

Wrong.

In order to understand relativity you must believe at all cost that time dilates.

But time doesn't exist physically.

Then, learning relativity is a waste of "time".

0 Replies

cameronleon

0
Sun 1 Oct, 2017 08:49 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Based on your posts here... I don't believe that you have had any math or science education at the University level.

Explain e=mc^2.

E= energy
M= mass
c^2= 180,000 miles per second x 180,000

Explain how is possible in the physical world that mass in order to become energy must travel or expand at 32,400'000,000 miles per second?

Light itself is the particle expelled by the collision of the particles of the Sun, and light is energy, and as energy can travel solely at 180,000 miles per second.

How is possible, when relativity claims that nothing, read carefully, nothing can move (travel or expand) faster than c (180,000 miles per second), that in that equation is required for c to be at the square?

Please don't come here with silly answers like, "go to school and learn" or, " it is not for you to understand it" or "it is just a symbolic formula" and crap like that.

Simply explain such a mass traveling or expanding at 22,400'000,000 miles per second in order to become energy.

Even more, give me a quantity of mass capable to travel or expand at that speed.

The symbols and letters in that equation are clear, energy, mass and c (c as light traveling in vacuum at 180,000 miles per second)

There is no other interpretation to those letters and numbers.

I can state that the right equation is e=mc

Man! I'm a genius. I'm not breaking the doctrine of relativity with my formula.

Yes, e=mc rules!

cameronleon

0
Sun 1 Oct, 2017 08:53 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:
Since you're dying to reveal your amazing theory, let's hear it.

It is not a theory, it is a fact.

I can prove the fact: Gravity is motion in action.
brianjakub

1
Tue 3 Oct, 2017 06:11 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
brianjakob wrote:
He is looking at gravity in the same way that entropy changes pressure and temperature in a gas. That is similar to wind in a hurricane. That causes him to average all matter and all of the empty space together in a galaxy as if all the matter in that galaxy is one continuous hurricane.

Sure Brian. Pretty much any post you have made shows that you have little understanding of science... sometimes comically so.

Entropy doesn't change pressure and temperature in a gas. This is not similar to wind in a hurricaine. And the phrase "average all matter and all of the empty space together" is nonsensical.

Your posts are what you would get if you threw a physics dictionary into a blender..

I am sorry it is taking so long to respond. Had a very busy couple of weeks, and this response will take a little work to get right. I can and will do it when I get a break in the family and work schedule
0 Replies

TomTomBinks

1
Tue 3 Oct, 2017 06:15 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:
I can prove the fact: Gravity is motion in action.

1
Wed 4 Oct, 2017 09:15 am
@cameronleon,
Nothing there supported your contention that we have/are seeing galaxies disappear before our eyes.
brianjakub

1
Sun 8 Oct, 2017 02:42 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
brianjakob wrote:
He is looking at gravity in the same way that entropy changes pressure and temperature in a gas. That is similar to wind in a hurricane. That causes him to average all matter and all of the empty space together in a galaxy as if all the matter in that galaxy is one continuous hurricane.

maxdancona
Quote:
Sure Brian. Pretty much any post you have made shows that you have little understanding of science... sometimes comically so.

Entropy doesn't change pressure and temperature in a gas. This is not similar to wind in a hurricaine. And the phrase "average all matter and all of the empty space together" is nonsensical.

Your posts are what you would get if you threw a physics dictionary into a blender.

I apologize about taking so long to respond. I would like to think that sometimes my posts are poorly written and incomplete rather than thrown in a blender because, there is a method to my madness.

maxdancona
Quote:
Entropy doesn't change pressure and temperature in a gas. This is not similar to wind in a hurricaine. And the phrase "average all matter and all of the empty space together" is nonsensical.

Quote:
Entropy is a thermodynamic function used to measure the randomness or disorder of a system. ... If the process is at a constant temperature then , where ΔS is the change in entropy, qrev is the reverse of the heat, and T is the Kelvin temperature. The thermodynamic entropy therefore has the dimension of energy divided by temperature, and the unit joule per kelvin (J/K) in the International System of Units (SI). Thermodynamic entropy is an extensive property, meaning that it scales with the size or extent of a system.

So if entropy changes (for instance disorder decreases), either temperature(how fast the particles are moving) has to decrease or, the energy in the volume being measured has to increase(which if the volume being observed remains a constant would increase the pressure).

In the example of the hurricane, the hurricane is a partially closed system. Due to the spinning whirlpool effect of a low-pressure weather system a boundary is established around the outside edge of the hurricane dividing the low pressure inside the hurricane from the high pressure outside the hurricane. This boundary caused by the spinning decreases the entropy in the atmosphere because the hurricane is adding order to the atmosphere and thus increases its energy density in that volume of the atmosphere. This causes a wind rushing into the hurricane from all directions in a highly ordered way. As the wind reaches the center of the hurricane it has only one way to go, and that way is up, carrying heat and moisture into the upper atmosphere fueling the whirlpool effect of the hurricane.

So in the end a hurricane starts a low pressure, low energy system that has order added to it by spinning. This added order creates a boundary that increases the energy without raising the pressure. Since the pressure doesn't increase the hurricane keeps gaining energy as it adds order to more and more atmosphere.

On earth the hurricane dies when it goes overland cutting of the source of heat and moisture provided by warm water in an ocean. On a gas planet like Jupiter the Red Spot is a hurricane that has been on going for as long as we have been observing.

All Verlende is saying in Entropic gravity is there is positive energy in empty space (established by the Higgs Field, Dark Energy, Dark Matter etc. . .) He is saying the energy per volume is higher in empty space than the energy per volume in real matter of planets. The reason for this is, "not all the energy in matter is available to interact with the Higgs field of the universe because, it is trapped in matter as order because of the strong and weak nuclear forces." In other words all the nuclear energy stored in matter as order is disregarded.

He is also making another huge assumption though. He is assuming there is energy stored as order in empty space as interacting virtual particles in some sort of invisible holographic structure. He is then assuming that the disorder we observe in matter and define in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is adding entropy to the holographic structure (he is assuming space or the Higgs Field is made up of)where it comes into contact with matter at the surface of a planet and is decreasing the energy per volume of the Higgs field . This creates a flow of energy from the highly ordered high energy density areas of empty space away from matter to the disordered low energy density areas of empty space near the surface of planets and in the planets themselves. This makes gravity like a wind in the Higgs field.

But, in empty space the temperature doesn't change. Only entropy and energy density can change in empty space. But as the energy of gravity enters matter it changes the temperature and raises the temperature of matter to the point where the core of the earth is molten.

If this still looks like a blender ate a dictionary, please ask me questions so I can clarify.
TomTomBinks

1
Tue 10 Oct, 2017 12:16 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
But as the energy of gravity enters matter it changes the temperature and raises the temperature of matter to the point where the core of the earth is molten.

Brian,
The Earth's core is molten because of decaying radioactive material.
cameronleon

0
Tue 10 Oct, 2017 02:01 pm
Quote:
Nothing there supported your contention that we have/are seeing galaxies disappear before our eyes.

Tell one thing before anything.

When you look or detect the farther away galaxies, are you looking at or detecting to

1)- The current status and location?

2)- The past image (status) and location of those galaxies as they were thousands of years ago.

_____________________________________

I will tell you this.

If you can't locate visually the target, then no matter what kind of red-shift you are perceiving, because you won't know if those wavelengths are really coming from an object that is invisible to us.

Got it?

You can't perceive and locate the object, then the perceived wavelength can come from anywhere.

I will tell you more, according we are progressing with this discussion.

First, let me see where you are standing.

So, if you want, you might answer the questions from above.

0 Replies

cameronleon

0
Tue 10 Oct, 2017 02:03 pm
@TomTomBinks,
I have read you saying that I'm desperate to tell my point.

Then, be patient.
0 Replies

cameronleon

0
Tue 10 Oct, 2017 02:10 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:

The Earth's core is molten because of decaying radioactive material.

The entire elements in the universe are in continued decay.

The earth's surface, where life exists, and underground where life also exists, and the water where life also exists, are the whole in continued decay.

There is not a single chance of "evolution" when the elements forming the universe, the earth, and the species are in continued decay.

And more interesting, the simple fact that the elements of the universe are decaying, is the evidence that the universe has a limit; of course, if the second law of Thermodynamics is valid to such immense close environment.

0 Replies

brianjakub

0
Tue 17 Oct, 2017 10:02 am
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:
Brian,
The Earth's core is molten because of decaying radioactive material.
Quote:
Quentin Williams, associate professor of earth sciences at the University of California at Santa Cruz offers this explanation:
There are three main sources of heat in the deep earth: (1) heat from when the planet formed and accreted, which has not yet been lost; (2) frictional heating, caused by denser core material sinking to the center of the planet; and (3) heat from the decay of radioactive elements.
The main source of heat when the earth was formed was gravity.
0 Replies

kk4mds

2
Thu 19 Oct, 2017 03:12 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:
Explain e=mc^2.

E= energy
M= mass
c^2= 180,000 miles per second x 180,000

Explain how is possible in the physical world that mass in order to become energy must travel or expand at 32,400'000,000 miles per second?

You misunderstand e=mc^2. What it says is that the energy contained in a piece of matter, if all of the energy could be released, is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared. As the speed of light squared is an incredibly large number, then matter, if converted to energy, would result into huge amounts of energy being released.

By the way, all of the measurements are measured using the metric system, not the English system (which even the English no longer use).
BillW

1
Thu 2 Nov, 2017 09:15 pm
Wikipedia-

Gravitational wave

Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that are generated in certain gravitational interactions and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light. Predicted in 1916 by Albert Einstein on the basis of his theory of general relativity, gravitational waves transport energy as gravitational radiation, a form of radiant energy similar to electromagnetic radiation. Newton's law of universal gravitation, part of classical mechanics, does not provide for their existence, since that law is predicated on the assumption that physical interactions propagate at infinite speed—showing one of the ways the methods of classical physics are unable to explain phenomena associated with relativity.

Gravitational-wave astronomy is a branch of observational astronomy that uses gravitational waves to collect observational data about sources of detectable gravitational waves such as binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes; and events such as supernovae, and the formation of the early universe shortly after the Big Bang.

On February 11, 2016, the LIGO and Virgo Scientific Collaboration announced they had made the first observation of gravitational waves. The observation itself was made on 14 September 2015, using the Advanced LIGO detectors. The gravitational waves originated from a pair of merging black holes. After the initial announcement the LIGO instruments detected two more confirmed, and one potential, gravitational wave events. In August 2017, the two LIGO instruments, and the Virgo instrument, observed a fourth gravitational wave from merging black holes, and a fifth gravitational wave from a binary neutron star merger. Several other gravitational-wave detectors are planned or under construction.

In 2017, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne and Barry Barish for their role in the detection of gravitational waves.
cameronleon

-1
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 06:16 am
@kk4mds,
Quote:
You misunderstand e=mc^2. What it says is that the energy contained in a piece of matter, if all of the energy could be released, is equal to the mass times the speed of light squared. As the speed of light squared is an incredibly large number, then matter, if converted to energy, would result into huge amounts of energy being released.

By the way, all of the measurements are measured using the metric system, not the English system (which even the English no longer use).

To say 300,00 km per second or 186,000 miles per second won't affect at all the value of c

Light is energy, and mass (nuclear fusion in stars) just collide to cause the impact producing such an energy. To reach that status, action and reaction: the sum of the forces acting on a body is equal to the product of the mass of the body and the acceleration produced by the forces, with motion in the direction of the resultant of the forces, and every force acting on a body, the body exerts a force having equal magnitude and the opposite direction along the same line of action as the original force.

The formula of relativity is out of the laws of action and reaction.

When a nuclear explosion happens, light energy arrives to your eyes before the expansion of thermal radiation, which is also energy.

You can't argue about this fact, inside the philosophical theory of relativity e=mc is way more accurate formula than the non empirical e=mc^2.

0 Replies

cameronleon

-1
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 06:53 am
@BillW,
Quote:

Gravitational waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime that are generated in certain gravitational interactions and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light. Predicted in 1916 by Albert Einstein on the basis of his theory of general relativity, gravitational waves transport energy as gravitational radiation, a form of radiant energy similar to electromagnetic radiation. Newton's law of universal gravitation, part of classical mechanics, does not provide for their existence, since that law is predicated on the assumption that physical interactions propagate at infinite speed—showing one of the ways the methods of classical physics are unable to explain phenomena associated with relativity.

Relativity was based on Michelson Morley experiment declaring null result for aether wind. Several reviews show mathematical and even technical errors in the Michelson Morley experiment.

Here is one example

http://relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.CICS.MMX.Analysis.06302006.pdf

Quote:
The Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment is commonly cited as experimental validation of Special Relativity. While Michelson and Morley concluded an Earth Orbital Velocity (EOV) of 5 to 7.5 km/s, their result is generally accepted as 0 km/s, with their observation attributed to experimental error. Here we find three specific problems in the Michelson-Morley analysis, principal of which is the recognition that their expected result equation does not mathematically compensate for interacting frequencies as governed by the superposition of waves principle. Once the expected result equation is corrected, their data is reevaluated to reveal an EOV of approximately 30 km/s, which was their expected result. This finding is confirmed by reanalyzing Miller’s 1933 repeat Interferometer experiment, also revealing an EOV of 30 km/s. These experimental findings support the presumption of an electromagnetic wave medium and challenge the validity of Special Relativity.

At one point, this dude Einstein recognized that at the end of the day his "space-time" was no other but the mythological aether. He had no choice, something fills up space.

Gravity as motion in action is a force like winds causing the phenomenon.

When two different theories are guiding to the same conclusion about waves in space causing gravity, the theory with greater ancestry rules by right.

Relativity based on the failed Michelson Morley experiment is just a fraud, nothing but a fraud.

Quote:

Gravitational-wave astronomy is a branch of observational astronomy that uses gravitational waves to collect observational data about sources of detectable gravitational waves such as binary star systems composed of white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes; and events such as supernovae, and the formation of the early universe shortly after the Big Bang.

Gravitational waves are waves of aether, caused by the motion of bodies.

Quote:
On February 11, 2016, the LIGO and Virgo Scientific Collaboration announced they had made the first observation of gravitational waves. The observation itself was made on 14 September 2015, using the Advanced LIGO detectors. The gravitational waves originated from a pair of merging black holes. After the initial announcement the LIGO instruments detected two more confirmed, and one potential, gravitational wave events. In August 2017, the two LIGO instruments, and the Virgo instrument, observed a fourth gravitational wave from merging black holes, and a fifth gravitational wave from a binary neutron star merger. Several other gravitational-wave detectors are planned or under construction.

In 2017, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Rainer Weiss, Kip Thorne and Barry Barish for their role in the detection of gravitational waves.

The first experimental finding of aether waves was made indirectly by Miller when he reproduced the Michelson Morley experiment and the interferometer test showed the earth orbital velocity of 30 km per second over the 5 km per second erroneously obtained by Michelson and Morley.

Miller should be the one receiving the Nobel Prize.

0 Replies

dalehileman

-1
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 02:21 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Einstein works in certain conditions and Newtonian theory works in others
Man thank yo for that. It tends to endorse my own theory, that I call 'Relative Relativity, which attempts a conciliation 'tween'em

However something like the Software Glitch, nobody takes Dale seriously

Sometimesd makesd me wonder 'bout self
0 Replies

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek

1. Forums
2. » Theory of Gravity
3. » Page 4