A Different Explaination of Gravity

First off this will greatly differ from what current religion of science explains of what gravity is and how it works so there is no need to really get into the fact that my theory here is wrong by those definitions.

We first have to start off with the thought that everything we can see is a being much like us. Meaning that earth is a person and the solar system is a person and so on... The theory i have is that there is an unknown technology to us that we call the matrix these days.

I view it as a way to interact the human body into a place where life can exist just as we have here today and that our perception of the world around us is dependent on what we are programmed for. In order to change the things around us then simply our perception within has to change via new parameters givin to the sub concious via signals from the matrix.

Now to the gravity part. Remember that in this theory earth is a person like us that is inside some type of matrix likely produced by surrounding the being with light. We know that light is information and can be minipulated. So by simply adding and subtracting and tweaking the features of that being the matrix can then project a living copy of that being and it is viewed by us as earth. However that copy shows up as a reflection and the inside is the outside.

There you have it. Gravity that holds us to earth is the same force that holds the being called earth together. Gravity is the same force that holds you together. This in no way tells us what when outside the matrix holds the being called earth together and is likely best described in modern scientific terms.

This follows my logic that among all the debates and arguing we do that some how both sides have truth and that it is better to give the benefit of the doubt in such matters like the varing religions and our current understanding. While even though the religion of science imo is not the actual truth of our reality because we are stuck in a world within a world it is not wise to dismiss any religion at this point they all have some clues we will need to grow.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Well ... I don't agree with you, but I like the way you're trying new perspectives on things widely accepted as facts (you never know, right?). I can get on board with consciousness and perceptions changing surroundings though, and I agree with the last paragraph too, SnF

a reply to: deadeyedick

First off this will greatly differ from what current religion of science explains

I wish I had stopped there but I didn't and read the entire thing. Words cannot completly describe what I think but this comes close.

a reply to: deadeyedick

So, if that's how gravity works, then how is it working on bodies devoid of life?

a reply to: deadeyedick

appologies - i got stuck at your assertion :

" religion of science "

your post went down hill from there

Can't believe I just read that bs !
( tries bitting own ear )
Then the double face palm with slather

well no. Gravity is the curvature of space time, bent by an objects mass. This bending can be determined using the general theory of relativity. Depending on the mass and location in space time.

I recommend you read up on the ricci tensors and shwarzchilds work.

a reply to: Grimpachi

That's pretty much where I stopped reading. I see no reason to entertain an idea that starts off by insulting science.

a reply to: deadeyedick

S&F for bravery if for nothing else.

First off this will greatly differ from what current religion of science explains of what gravity is and how it works so there is no need to really get into the fact that my theory here is wrong by those definitions.

LOL!!
"science of religion"
As opposed to a few others here, that actually kept me reading. If a few of those folks had read the entire paragraph, they would know that you were essentially disavowing the current scientific understanding of gravity.

Unfortunately I have come to the same conclusion. Science these days is more of a religion than the actual pursuit of greater understanding. The following quote is attributed to Max Planck:

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

A perfect example of this is Fritz Zwicky, one of the first scientists to propose dark matter, or Dunkle Materie as he called it. It was over 30 years before the scientific community came to accept it and developed a more coherent theory of its existence. It's all the rage these days in cosmology and astrophysics. In my opinion it's basically just the luminiferous aether of the 21st century. But that's a personal belief and I don't care to debate it.

I must say that I don't completely understand your theory. It doesn't have the requisite 20 pages of math to prove it, so it's not exactly science. Therefore, I think it is a more philosophical approach. And I am quite philosophically- challenged.

Thanks for thread!


dex

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: deadeyedick



So, if that's how gravity works, then how is it working on bodies devoid of life?

Perhaps you just figured it out. The force that holds atoms together is being harnessed and used as gravity by the matrix.

So if truth is wrapped in any thought that could be taken as an insult then it is proper to ignore it? You half to keep in mind as i do that the two means of thought here both would have come from some form of truth percieved. I can see where the religion of science wants to rise above other religions in thought but at the same time in order to arrive at truth greater than what is known you will have to accept that i have been privy to events that rise above the religion of science. In no way shape of form have i been privy to the complete truth and i use faith in my religion. It would be intelluctual for science to be able to admit that far more is taken on faith in that religion rather than assuming that it is all fact.

a reply to: deadeyedick

That would be the Strong Nuclear force, that binds atoms together. The Strong Nuclear force is a different force from gravity.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: deadeyedick



That would be the Strong Nuclear force, that binds atoms together. The Strong Nuclear force is a different force from gravity.

Yea thanks for the correct term.

So the strong nuclear force is the sorce of gravity by turning a being inside out in a reflection created by the matrix.

That that binds us together also pushes us toward earth or pulls us toward earth depending on your view.

again of coarse the religion of science disagrees with me and i have come to accept that.


I say that there has to be a certain point where if something spun at the correct speed it would turn inside out without completly coming apart. That is the speed that the being earth is spinning compared to his world and view of time. That is the basis for what we call gravity.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: deadeyedick

S&F for bravery if for nothing else.

First off this will greatly differ from what current religion of science explains of what gravity is and how it works so there is no need to really get into the fact that my theory here is wrong by those definitions.

LOL!!
"science of religion"
As opposed to a few others here, that actually kept me reading. If a few of those folks had read the entire paragraph, they would know that you were essentially disavowing the current scientific understanding of gravity.

No I'm pretty sure everyone knew that was coming as soon as they read the thread title then saw the insult to science "religion of science". There is nothing wrong with proposing a radical idea that isn't within mainstream science, but to start off by offending the people you are speaking to, isn't going to endear them to you any quicker.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Except gravity can bend light.

The strong nuclear forces doesn't.

Gravity is a result of mass being drawn into one or more empty non-spatial dimensions.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: deadeyedick



Except gravity can bend light.



The strong nuclear forces doesn't.

hmmm
I did not say that they were exactly the same but that they are the same force and one is put through the matrix and previously i said that it is likely the matrix is a way to manipulate mass through light. Givin that it only points to more likely hood that it is true.
We can assume that from your statments that the matrix causes some type of changes to the nuclear force when it is reflected.

For the posters that want to harp on the fact science is a religion. It can also be taken as a compliment. It is your own perception that tells you it is an insult. not mine.


krazyshot you are free to call whoever whatever you want and yes how they percieve your intent is on them.

Personally i view religion in very high regards so any other percieved intent of a religious person calling science a religion by context should be taken not as an insult unless one is looking for insults and ignores context. that is if you are paying attention to all the factors involved. Your comparison below fails because it would be the same as a black person coming up to you and saying what is up my black brother.

a reply to: deadeyedick

OH why didn't I see that before?! It's not an insult from you because you don't consider it one. Now I guess I can go up to black people and call them n#. Then before they get offended, I'll say "wait wait, I meant it as a term of endearment. -I- don't consider it an insult."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No I'm pretty sure everyone knew that was coming as soon as they read the thread title then saw the insult to science "religion of science".

Ok, I understand. I think my post was even more insulting than the original OP. Or at least I added salt to the raw wound.

I apologize to anyone I may have offended. That should never be my intention.

There is nothing wrong with proposing a radical idea that isn't within mainstream science, but to start off by offending the people you are speaking to, isn't going to endear them to you any quicker.

The interesting thing is that many of the people who are offended by this purported insult, respond to these unusual theories in a rather insulting way. Perhaps the OP was trying to head off some of that from the start. I believe that most of the people who generally have any positive input to these radical theories aren't offended by the "religion of science" moniker. In fact, it is likely that they agree with the general principle represented by that term.

I know there have been several threads about the "religion of science." While I don't want to derail this thread, I am curious why you find it so "insulting."

BTW: Thanks for the reply. At least I know that somebody actually read the crap I write.

dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Your post are spot on with the info in both your post along with other members. thanks to all for contributing.