It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My theory why Gravity is wrong

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I am still working on this idea so bear with me... I just came up with it this morning.

1) Black Holes

Current science today tells us that Black Holes are comprised of mass. A mass so great not even light escapes. And yet this great mass is compressed in to a single point.

I tend to differ.

Attraction to a black hole is not the cause of gravity, but due to a potential difference. A difference from where? Well another Universe.
The black hole may have been created by a collapsing massive star, which was so violent, it ripped a hole in the Space-Time fabric.

On the underside of the space-time fabric for Universe #0 (ours) lies another universe. I will call this Universe #1. Both universes have a different energy reference point, A benchmark. All matter, plasma, light and EM energies are based from this benchmark. They can have higher energy or lower energy states but remain within the tolerance.
Universe #0 has a higher energy reference than Universe #1, Here is the potential difference.

When a black hole is created (tear in space-time) the inhabitants (all matter, light, EM,) are attracted to the other Universe. It wants to naturally balance itself, find a equilibrium.
As material falls into the black hole it is shredded to pieces down to the atomic
scale. It passes through to the other side in the form of "jets".




I have always wondered, if Gravity theory were true, how do the jets escape the gravity of the black hole?

Information from Universe #0 passes through the black hole to Universe #1 as a jet. This would also be true to the jets we observe, they are information (bits of energy) from the other Universe. The information was never destroyed, It disappeared from this Universe and moved into another. This might solve Hawking's Information Paradox. Maybe he had it right the first time, and just needed this explanation.
If a jet does not shoot from a black hole, It simply means there is no material in that area of the other Universe at that time.

2) Gravity

If this multiverse difference were applied across the fabric of space-time. We could postulate that all things are affected by this difference through the fabric barrier. The energy in Universe #1 would attract objects in Universe #0. Such as planets. The planet and the other universe would attract each other and squishing space-time. Imagine space-time like a sponge, you can push on the center and it compresses. This is what would happen and bend space-time around the object, causing a gravity like effect.
The larger the object or more dense the object the more it bends space-time. This is due to the object consisting of more material, thus more stuff to be attracted to the other Universes energy.



Thanks for reading











[edit on 27-1-2008 by 1freelectron]




posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   


how do the jets escape the gravity of the black hole?


Aren't the jets created by swirling matter, heated to the Nth degree, falling IN to the balckhole?

The "jet" would therefore needn't be subject to 'inescapable gravity, having been created above the event horizon.


Cheers

AoN



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Anomic of Nihilism
 


Well thats one idea.
Scientists still do not know how the jets material are lifted from the matter that is swirling.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Awesome analysis, and it makes sense, like matter is going in from one universe to the other for 'mass' to balance in either one, interesting concept, well done.

However, I have postulated that black holes are 'stars' in other universes, a 'white hole'.

Starred and flagged


Thx



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Im a Marty

However, I have postulated that black holes are 'stars' in other universes, a 'white hole'.



I also have thought that the other side of a black hole could be a white hole.
gone one second, in another universe the next





Thanks

[edit on 27-1-2008 by 1freelectron]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
This is a good theory. So you just woke up and thought this up this morning?

I'm giving this a star and a flag, plus I will be watching. Thanks for sharing this thought.

Star



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 1freelectron
 


very good

the mass does not just suck into nothing.
that defies even basic physics.

yes it has another side...it has to.
and common sense alone would tell that matter is comming out
on the other side .
one big spiral vortex....uhuh



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I read a really interesting piece on light a while back that you would probably get a kick out of, I'll see if I can find it again. The premise of the theory was that light was extradimensional, when something is resonated to the point where it heats up and begins to emit light, it is excited enough to have caused a dimensional rift. Light demonstrates properties of a wave and particle to us, because of the 'flatlander' effect, and when it is absorbed it creates heat in effect trying to equalize back into it's other dimension. Or something like that, it was a little over my head but it made alot of sense about the fourth time I read it. Gravity could be a similar 'flatlander' perception of something going on extradimesionally.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 1freelectron
 


As I understand it, relatavistic jets, are generated from the poles of the magnetic field surrounding the black hole.
As the black hole rotates, the magnetic field is twisted it almost a funnel, that allows the the material to escape the event horizon.

The magnetic force is far stronger than the gravitational force.

I have read a theory, that gravity was a "leakage" of energy from one dimension to another.

I personally, I dont like the current concept of a depression in space time as the explantion for gravity.
Its a poor 3D explanation for what is clearly a multidimensional force.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Stari
 


Yep, That morning I was laying in bed watching the Discovery channel and a show about black holes was on.
I wondered if there was a better explanation for it, 10 minutes later I had this idea.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Wow interesting! You could be onto something, then again maybe not, thats the thing with theories,(which your idea most certainly is not, in any scientific way at least)Still whatever your eating or smokeing keep it up!
Definately stared and flagged!
Oh and when you said that attraction to a black hole is not the cause of gravity I assume you meant the "local" area around the black hole?

[edit on 28-1-2008 by Fada126]



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
The premise of the theory was that light was extradimensional, when something is resonated to the point where it heats up and begins to emit light, it is excited enough to have caused a dimensional rift. Light demonstrates properties of a wave and particle to us, because of the 'flatlander' effect



I Have read of this in "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. When I am trying to visualize the 5th dimension (spatial 4th) I start with picturing
Flatland and work my way through the 3rd and to the 4th. I wont even try to visualize dimensions higher than spatial 4th, I think I might go crazy


Light as a function of the 5th dimension makes sense. like you said it behaves as
a particle or a wave, sometimes depending on if there is a observer or not.
Also as Einstein described, We can never catch up to a light particle or wave. If we accelerate to 99% of c, light particles or waves will still be traveling at light speed away from us. This is just fascinating, no matter how fast we go, light will always remain constant (in a vacuum) from our point in space.



posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Fada126
 


currently at hypothesis stage

The attraction to the black hole is limited to the local area. But the forces that are responsible for the material crossing in to the black hole can be felt by all matter through the dimensional barrier.



[edit on 28-1-2008 by 1freelectron]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1freelectron

currently at hypothesis stage

The attraction to the black hole is limited to the local area. But the forces that are responsible for the material crossing in to the black hole can be felt by all matter through the dimensional barrier.

as in its felt by everything on the other side of the black hole?then wouldnt the reverse be true for our dimension?is that what your saying, and if your were able to see or even imagine what 4d looks like you wouldnt be human!sorry to burst your bubble!
Or are you one of them Reptillians??????????????I wonder!



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Couldnt that bit, where it escapes be like...the eye of a tornado ? calm in the eye.

Fox



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
before i read some of the replies i also started thinking about blackholes being massive stars in other universes and vice versa. it makes sense, at least on the surface. another thing i considered was the big bang. a lot of people tend to assume it was a one-time event. i find it hard to believe that our universe had any specific origin. the idea that "everything in existence everywhere" came to be "billions" of years ago" seems silly to me. i think of it as more of a perpetual series of big bangs that, in terms of how we percieve time, happen billions of years apart.

i propose the thought that black holes themselves eventually suck up enough matter to create their own "big bang", which redistributes matter into the universe, which collects and forms solar systems with stars that eventually nova and create more black holes. rinse and repeat.

i love pondering this kind of stuff so please keep the conversation going, and don't be afraid to tell me i'm wrong or don't know what i'm talking about - i probably am and i don't. =) just make sure you include your own ideas.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by an0maly33
 


Nice one, but we would have observed something akin to a big bang,the light from such things would still be visible today, unless were really unlucky with the timeing, and just happen to be in a two hundred or so odd year period where everthing looks to be remaining static!



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Excellent theory my friend. It is VERY similar to one of mine. However, a few pieces are quite fundamentally different.

What I would like to now do is give you my theory... you will of course see many parallels, which is why your version caught my eye.

Consider mine, and lets see if we can't find a middle ground between yours and my theories.

_________________________________________


Equalization of matter, Black Holes, and "How we got something from nothing".

First we shall begin with matter from nothing.

It is simple common sense to understand that before anything existed, nothing did.
Let's represent this as 0.

In order to have a positive quantity in an equation that began as 0, the negative variable of the positive quantity has to also be present.
Let's represent the positive quantity as X, and the negative equal as -X...

0 = (X) + (-X)

Before we can begin thinking of these quantities as the Universe, we have a slight problem. X and -X cannot co-exist. They would cancel each other out pretty shortly after their creation, regardless of the velocity they may have been hurdled from the point of origin.
But, thanks to mathematics we have all learned way back in public school, we have a way around this... the Universe does too! (Thank heavens)
If the negative equivalent (-X) of matter is brought to the other side of the equation, the two variables are isolated.

(X) = (X)

It's rather simple, but what we have just done is introduced two equally massed Universes, both of them can be thought of as positive quantities, as on their own respective side of the equation, they are.

I make no presumption that the two universes are or are not mirrors of each other. That is not the intention of this theory.

Here's where most scoff, but then scratch their chin a few minutes later.
Simply put, black holes are the equal sign.

Whether through extreme mass attraction, or though some unforeseen fluctuations in the fabric of space, a tear between the two Universes, or 'joining' is created. It is at this tear or joining that the mass attraction of the two universes is experienced by both sides.

As matter passes through the black hole, the matter is then canceled out by matter on the other side of the black hole. Remember, the matter in the other universe is the equal opposite of our own, the negative version of it.

As to how matter manages to escape the black hole instead of being canceled out by the other side of the equation, I do not have a definitive answer for.

I can presume that there may be instances in which there is not enough matter on the other side of the black hole at that point in time to cancel all the matter that is passing through from our side, so the leftover matter may be rejected in some form or another. Or an attractive force on the other side of the equation manages to extract some matter from the event horizon, rejecting the equal quantity of matter from our side.

___________________________________________

My theory goes much further, but that's all I feel is necessary to post at this time... at least, it's enough to read without entering a coma.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by johnsky]



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
It's pretty simple to devise "alternative" theories that don't contain any math. This way, you are not bound to demonstrate how the new theory matches experimental data, whether it is internally consistent, and you can dispense with demonstrating its predictive power. I mean, I can claim that theory of gravity is wrong and that the candidate black holes are not such at all, but in fact are emplacements of imperial space army of supreme being Zmorrg, who himself resides in the center of a massive neutron star. You can't prove me wrong.



posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's also very easy to denounce people for their thoughts.

Please, don't step in the way of free thought. If someone has an alternative take on a current standing theory, you can either read into it, or politely not say anything at all.

If you have a theory to contribute, or something to add onto someone's theories, then please do.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join