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.

 

Space-time contraction Gravity theory

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Gravity as a result of contracting space-time

Gravity, it is a fundamental part of our existence, but we have yet to define exactly what it is and how it works. While many physicists are busy coming up with elaborate equations to explain this most basic of influences they always come up short. I totally disagree with the notions of force carriers like gravitons, gravity waves, and negative energy to define the nature of gravity. How can a particle or wave emanating from matter pull you towards it? The force of the particle or wave impacting matter would be a net push away, not a pull towards. This is the equivalent of shooting a bullet at a can and having the force of the impact send the can back towards you. Curving space can describe the path traveled, but not the actual force pulling it back. While in our imaginary world of mathematics, we can explain this happening by using negative energy, and other similar terms, in reality it falls short. For example, I have two apples, and I gave away three. How many apples do I have? Negative one? In math it works, in reality I either have an apple or I don’t. There isn’t a hole in the universe shaped like an apple that I created. On a blackboard, the energy can be described as negative, and react in the opposite way of traditional physics. It works on a blackboard with numbers and nowhere else. I have a different approach, and mine explains gravity, matter, energy, relativity, dark matter, etc...

Let’s imagine there is an asteroid in space. We need gravity to make that asteroid come towards the Earth. How can we do that without completely rewriting all the laws of physics, and making up new laws which can only exist in our imaginary world of numbers? We have particles and waves, the equivalent of shooting a can back towards us. I don’t like that. It makes no sense. So how else can we make that asteroid come towards Earth? Curved space? It can define the path the asteroid will travel towards Earth, but not actually pull it. What’s left? What if we actually pulled the very fabric of space-time the asteroid occupies towards Earth? That would work, but how could that happen? That sounds even more farfetched then having an apple shaped hole in the universe. Well if we take what we know, it actually is the only answer that makes sense both on the blackboard, and in reality.

It is a fact (or generally accepted), that energy and matter are basically the same thing. Matter at its most fundamental level is just a different form of energy. I think we can all agree on that. If not, I’m going to prove it to you. Another thing I think we can all agree on is that matter can bend space-time around it. Let’s take this a step farther. If we can agree that energy=matter, and matter can bend space time, then if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Energy can bend space time, not as much as matter, but to an extent. Not a very big leap there. I think we can agree on this. I think we can agree on something else, that energy not directly attached to mass tends to propagate in waves (frequencies, and amplitudes, EM radiation, sound, even ripples in a pond, etc…).

Well let’s keep putting the puzzle together. Energy can bend space time, and energy propagates in waves. I think the conclusion to this is that space-time bends with energy waves. I am not sure how this can be wrong, unless energy and matter are not fundamentally the same, space time does not bend with matter, or energy does not travel in waves. All of those I think are fairly well established and proven.

So how does that help move that asteroid? Well I think to understand how energy, matter, gravity, and time are all one and the same; we need to define them at a basic level. What is matter? This is actually a tricky question. I think the more appropriate question is what makes matter different from the space-time surrounding it? For starters I think we can all agree matter has mass. How did it get that mass? If energy and matter are the same, and energy has no mass, how can matter exist? No matter how much we compress nothing we still have nothing. Okay that doesn’t work, so let’s define mass. Mass is simply the relation of density to volume. Well energy has no mass, so therefore no density. We’re going to have a hard time creating mass with just energy. There is only one piece left to this equation. Space-time, there is literally nothing else it could be. It has volume, and it must have a density in order for any of this to work, and I’ll prove it. If we are going to argue it has no volume, then the entire volume of the universe must be zero, in which case we don’t exist to have this debate. If we are going to argue it has no density, were going to run into a few problems of how can you curve something with no volume or density, there is nothing to curve. If it has no density, how are we creating mass? I believe it is an answer to the gluon field science is looking for. Also, I’m going to show that by space-time having density it also solves several problems in special relativity, dark matter, time and so forth. So the conclusion we are coming to here is this: Matter can’t be made of just energy. Matter is made of space-time, bent curved and compressed by energy.

We have shown how energy can in theory bend space-time, but energy by its self cannot create mass. Space-time has density (we will see how this is), but not enough density to form what we know as mass. Energy + Space-time however = curved, distorted, regions of space-time, that by definition can be considered mass if they are dense enough.

So how does all this relate to gravity? We can now (in theory) tell you how that asteroid in the example got there, but not how it is going to be attracted to the Earth. It is time for the next logical step. If Earth is made of energy, and energy bends space-time, what happens to the space-time around Earth? When you bend something, you translate length to height (relative to orientation), and therefore shorten it. To compensate for this translation more material is pulled inward. Let’s use an example. Let’s say we have a piece of paper that represents space-time, and we draw a picture of the asteroid on the edge, and a picture of Earth in the middle.

Apply my theory and crumple up the paper around Earth to represent energy bending space-time to create matter. What happens to the part of the paper you drew the asteroid on? The more you crumple up the paper in the middle, the more paper you need, and the more the picture of the asteroid gets pulled in to compensate for the density change in the middle of the paper. Now since everything in the universe is moving, set the whole thing in motion, and matter (high density space-time distorted by massive amounts of energy) is constantly pulling in space-time around it as it moves. You now have space-time getting pulled towards Earth, along with the asteroid occupying it. Space time expands again after the wave passes, when no energy or matter is present.

(continued)




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
What we are really seeing all around us is massive amounts of energy distorting space-time as they travel. This energy bends and curves space-time into higher densities as it passes through. Like a energy wave through water, the water gets denser at the point the energy wave passes through it. Also like water, space-time does not move with the wave, it just changes density as the energy wave passes through it to create the wave effect.
I also believe that space-time curvature and folding operates on a quantum principle. When energy bends space-time, it can only bend in certain ways. This would enable different stable states of density, including states dense enough to be considered mass. A constantly transitioning density would make mass appear and disappear. There is either enough energy to increase the density a level to the next stable form (stable not necessarily meaning dense enough to be considered mass), or there isn’t.

Every time we collide particles in an accelerator, we are splitting the particles up into smaller more basic components. Applying my theory, what we should see is space-time density decreasing with each split to form new smaller, less dense particles (to the next lower stable density) + whatever energy is left over. We should in theory be able to continue splitting particles until eventually we decrease density enough to where space-time no longer can be considered to have mass. We will then see that all fundamental particles are merely space-time distorted by energy. Look at your hand, trillions and trillions and trillions of energy waves all moving together through space-time. Now move your hand, that isn’t matter in your hand physically moving through space. The empty space where your hand used to be was your hand a moment ago. You only moved energy. That energy is now in a different spot, distorting the local area of space-time into something that resembles your hand. When you move, you are merely moving the energy that makes you…well you. The actual mass is made of the local space-time in that area, which stays where it is (relative to you). “Your” energy is constantly distorting the fixed space-time around you as you move, creating the illusion of solid matter moving through space time. Like a wave in a pond, the water isn’t moving with the wave, just the energy changing the waters density as it moves. We are constantly in motion as the universe moves. Untold numbers of complex energy waves bending space-time as they go, all bent into the familiar denser forms of matter we know around us as we sit here.

We can’t keep talking about space-time without the time aspect. Energy, mass and gravity all affect time, and they all should since they are the same thing. We can show time moves slower relative to an objects mass/gravity field, or as you accelerate. The real question is why? Time, can be defined as the space between two actions. Specifically Planck time. It is in simple terms the smallest amount of time there can be between two actions. Since energy is required for an action to take place, and energy moves in waves, the measurement of time between two energy waves could be considered the basis for Planck Time.

So let’s apply this theory and see if it works. We know energy travels in waves. We know waves slow as they transition to denser mediums. We know time (energy waves) slows around mass. AROUND mass…not mass but the space-time around it. That transition to slower wave propagation can only happen if the density is different from normal space-time, thus proving space-time does exist in different states of density. Space-time having density would not only account for mass/energy, and gravitational lensing, but also time dilation, as energy waves take longer to propagate through the denser space-time around matter (which in itself is just even denser space-time). Stronger gravity (higher density) = slowed time (slower energy propagation).

Let’s prove it again. If you accelerate mass (add energy), in my theory any addition of energy would also curve space-time further. If we curve space-time it contracts, and get’s denser. So in my theory an object in motion, would not only gain mass while shortening it’s length (further bending and compressing space-time), the additional density also slows down energy propagation through the medium (time dilation). I believe it is a fact that objects as they travel, do gain mass, shorten in length, and experience time dilation relative to speed (energy input related to space-time distortion). (continued)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Let’s prove it again. Since we are looking at space, matter, time, and gravity as all different aspects of the same phenomenon, let’s apply this over to one big gravitational mystery, dark matter. There is not enough matter to account for all the gravity in the universe, not even close. So we use dark matter. Supposedly it is an exotic particle that has the gravitational pull of matter, but none of the other characteristics. If gravity is merely the product of contracting space time, and that is a result of density changes with energy waves, then everything produces “gravity” not just traditional matter. Anytime you bend space, you are creating areas of higher density, pulling in space around it, therefore creating gravity as the energy moves though space. If you have matter (very high density space-time), then you also have to account for the space surrounding matter. It’s denser than normal space-time (hence time dilation, and observable space-time lensing around matter) but not as dense as matter. Both are bending space to different extents (traditional matter, just a lot more). Since both are bending space both are creating “gravity”, not just the traditional matter. Wouldn’t matter, that’s not quite true matter yet creates gravitational pull, be the very definition of dark matter? Wouldn’t “dark matter” be everywhere in my theory then? Anywhere there is energy, including right in front of you, it’s just not bent enough to have enough density to be considered matter. Using my theory all of this extra gravity should now be accounted for.

Let’s prove it yet again. Since mass and gravity are related, why wouldn’t a heavier/denser object fall faster than a light one? Yet everything falls at the same speed (in a vacuum). If there was a relation, wouldn’t they have to fall at different speeds? Why would a grain of sand, and a ton of bricks be affected the exact same by gravity if the mass was so different? According to physics the more massive object needs to overcome inertia making it fall at the same rate. If that is true at terminal velocity, inertia has been overcome and it should continue to fall faster due to the mass/gravity relationship, but it doesn't. Using my theory, the object is not being pulled by gravity, space-time is. In individual frames of reference, the space-time they occupy is being pulled towards Earth at the same rate, so they both move with it at the same rate regardless of mass (unless they are acted upon by outside forces).

So in conclusion, energy propagates in waves, those waves distort space-time. Space-time propagates the energy by creating areas of higher density (like a ripple in water). These areas of high density space-time (matter) pull in the surrounding space-time to account for the higher density. The gravity we experience is space-time contracting towards matter. Since we are always in motion space time is always contracting around matter as the wave moves. Mass, and gravity are merely areas of highly condensed space-time being distorted by energy and pulled inwards as space-bends with the energy around “mass”. The denser space-time medium slows down energy traveling through it. Energy takes longer to propagate thus the time between actions take longer and as a result time slows around massive objects and strong gravity fields, or even if you move. Not all energy is sufficient to bend space-time enough to be considered matter, and areas of high-density space time are everywhere around matter, and can also create gravitational effects without being considered true matter (dark matter).

There is gravity in a nutshell. Unless one of these is false: Energy and matter are fundamentally the same, matter bends space-time, energy moves in waves, waves slow in higher density mediums, time moves slower through high gravity fields, mass increases with acceleration, time slows with acceleration, dark matter is needed to account for gravity but cannot be traditional matter, gravitational force is a constant for all matter in a vacuum regardless of mass, my theory works. No complicated math, no imaginary negative energy fields, no imaginary particles. Everything you see around you is the inevitable effect of energy flowing through space-time.

Still a work in progess...
edit on 9-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Interesting. How about if we say that instead of space being warped, matter itself is naturally warped, or curved in nature. The spinning of the planet, with large threads of matter spun out into our surrounding space, pulls us down to the more dense surface.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
matter is space-time in my theory...same thing. Threads of matter coming from Earth? Where?

edit on 9-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
A lot of excellent thinking in your hypothesis. Will it be solved in our lifetime? Probably not.

Either that...or it's being kept from us.

Good read.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I'm working on solving it



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 
Keep it up.


Mebbe you have a chance. What age-range are you in if'n you don't mind me asking? Space-Time is running out.


Plus, whatever it is, gravity gets us all in the end. We eventually stop fighting and lay down for good.

edit on 9-3-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Still reading your post...
Edit: Excellent Hypothesis! It's not greatly different from Einsteinian principles except that you consider energy and mass to be a denser form of space-time, which is quite a brilliant intellectual leap.

Here are some of my hypotheses regarding the nature of gravity:

1. I always thought gravity was a result of spatial geometry.
2. I also think that if you actually could travel something like 30 billion light years, you'd probably end up back where you started.
3. It seems to me the cosmos is rotating, very quickly, while in the shape of a kind of donut mobius using several additional dimensions. This is why I believe it to be "falling" outward, or as they say, the cosmos is accelerating its expansion.
edit on 9-3-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I'm in my early thirties. In reply, Spatial geometry can define how space-time is bent, but not account for an actual gravitational force. Einstein did believe curved space could account for gravity without force carriers like particles, but no one has really figured out exactly how that would work yet. I'm building on that.


edit on 9-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Like it. I have had similar thoughts. Matter, energy, space-time just different symptoms of a common source. I came to the conclusion, that time should be eleminated from a world formula model. The only thing that exists is what exists now. Now is just an infinite small number, its nothing. The effects we attribute to time, must be explained by space and energy only.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


I see matter, space, and time as three distinct things.

Birkeland's filamentary currents are one known existence of threads of matter extending from Earth out into space.

Essentially the large plasma sphere that surrounds our planet.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 



I see everybody is off-line here, as usual, because I'm on the Pacific Coast of USA and I also need some time to absorb the information before I respond.

OP: Your hypothesis is not only brilliant, but really BRILLIANT!

I'm an intuitive scientist and can never truly prove my theories, which doesn't bother me at all because I'm applying my theories to a book I'm writing on color: a philosophical and scientific treatise, correlating physics and metaphysics, Eastern mysticism and Western science into one gestalt theory of the Cosmos.

I perceive everything in terms of patterns of geometry rather than as equations of mathematics.

That's why I'm magnetized towards your thinking. It is intuitional.
You have expressed my very thoughts on the essential workings of the Universe.

I really wish I could post illustrative graphics: I'm not quite there yet, cyberwise!
But my theory has been: that there is a fundamental 4-way cross pattern to the dynamics of the Cosmos.

Energy vs Matter.....Space vs Time.....in a cross pattern; all interconnected.
(When I use the term "vs" I mean diametrically complementary and therefore connected).

Energy is connected to Space, as Matter is connected to Time.
Mass is connected to Energy/Space, as Density is connected to Matter/Time.
Gravity is the opposing factor to Space/Energy/Mass.
Electricity is the opposing factor to Gravity/Time/Density.

They all interact with eachother, forming the basis to the perpetual motion of the Cosmos.

In my theory:

Gravity IS Time. Energy is what makes Time progressional, by expanding it, as Gravity contracts it.
Space etches Time/Gravity into spatial form, as it expands, radiationally. (Energy).
Gravity is the source of the formation of Matter. Energy is what forms it. (Mass)
Space expresses the essence of Time, as Space radiates outwards. (Mass).
Space is the result of the dynamics of Energy, ever expanding.
Gravity is what contracts the formation of Mass into Matter, against the force of Energy/expansion.

Without the essence of Time, one could not use the word 'ever', because that denotes the 'progression of time'. Time is merely the route that Energy takes in its expansion from its source in Gravity, moving outwards.
Matter is formed by the resistance that Gravity causes on the expansion of Energy/Space.
Gravity causes Density (contraction), as opposed to Mass (expansion).
Gravity/Time contracts Space into Matter, via an opposing force.

Energy/Space expands......Mass.....Electricity.
Matter/Time contracts.....Density.....Gravity.

Does this make any sense to you?

I do need more time to absorb your writings and hope to find your thread flourishing when I return to it.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
Gravity, it is a fundamental part of our existence, but we have yet to define exactly what it is and how it works.


Speak for yourself. It's been understood pretty well since the 1700s, and almost perfectly well since the early 1900s. It is understood exactly how it works and what it is. The things not understood about it do not include any of the things that you have mentioned.


I totally disagree with


That's not how science or math works, you don't get to agree or disagree.



How can a particle or wave emanating from matter pull you towards it?


Because you don't understand how they work.



The force of the particle or wave impacting matter would be a net push away, not a pull towards.


Static (and non-static) electric or magnetic forces can also pull things towards them. Unless you want to argue that the math behind how your computer, TV, cell phone, and all other electronics is also completely wrong?


Curving space can describe the path traveled, but not the actual force pulling it back.


Force is related to change in velocity, which is change in distance, so yes, it can.



While in our imaginary world of mathematics, we can explain this happening by using negative energy


There is no negative energy required in the description of gravity.



On a blackboard, the energy can be described as negative, and react in the opposite way of traditional physics.


Negative energy does not react "oppositely" any more than negative position or negative momentum.



It is a fact (or generally accepted), that energy and matter are basically the same thing.


It may be "generally accepted" by non-scientists, but it is false. They are related, but not "the same."

Most of the rest of what you've written is wrong, too, but I think I should stop here. If you want to learn how things actually work, learn basic arithmetic, understand what negative numbers are, learn some algebra, then pick up a good algebra based high school physics book. It will explain energy and gravity to you, as it was understood before the 1900s (which was still correct, just added to, after the 1900s discovery of relativity).



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Whatever is known about gravity is true but it is not all that it means. Gravity is not fully understood and claiming there is nothing to think more about, centuies old discovery is the truth is not only unscientific but also silly. There is so much we have yet to learn about gravity and how to avoid it, to get the technology of flying with other than propulsion.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
Einstein has the best definition of gravity to this day, nearly 100 years after he published it.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I appreciate your suggestions, and like I said it is a work in progress, I have already revised several parts ( a few were not meant to be posted and came from drafts of ideas) . I do disagree with some statements, as they are based in our traditional ways of thinking and current mathematics, which in themselves can not explain many phenomenon either and are proven wrong constantly. I can express this paper in a much more scientific way, but I tried to make it as easy to understand as possible ,and perhaps over simplified some ideas. I noticed you didn't attack the ideas as much as the way I worded it. Point out exactly where you disagree with the principles. As far as energy/matter... we have no clue yet. The gluon field idea is the best we have and even that isn't so hot and has problems. You act like they have already figured all this out, news flash they haven't. I understand many people will disagree with many new theories, but the current ones aren't much better as they are constantly revised, and proven to be false. I seriously doubt we have it all figured out, and sometimes a new way of thinking is required to shake things up a bit and progress science. You have to remember the world was flat, flight was impossible , and the sound barrier could NEVER be broken based on the best science in the day. According to our best math, a bumble bee can't possibly fly, but it does. Go tell it it can't and math is never wrong. We still can't even begin to explain most of quantum physics, but I'm glad to know you think we know everything, everything is right, and nothing should change. By the way, static forces are electrical charges, that are binding objects together, not a force carrier like I am describing. Explain how two positrons with the same charge are held together by static? I'm pretty sure we aren't being held to Earth by static cling right now. And if Einsteins description of gravity is so great, explain why his own theory can't account for 99% of the gravity in the universe. Does that sound like we have it all figured out?
edit on 10-3-2012 by b309302 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Forget the gravity brick/sand thing, that is way wrong and wasn't even suppose to be in there. Stupid copy and paste, I was just floating ideas. However, in quantum physics we can see electrons appear and disappear as they transition energy levels. The electron can only exist in certain states, and not in-between. If we see the electron as a result of folded space time, you can easily see how space-time also operates on a quantum principle. In order for matter to be stable, space-time would also have to fold into stable configurations. When space-time folds/bends, there must be stable configurations at different energy states. In between these forms, mass would cease to exist as we know it until it transitioned to the next state, each state/fold requiring more energy to compensate for the higher density. You can see how an electron would disappear, and then reappear at a higher or lower energy state.

Just throwing ideas out, I'm not even including the math behind my ideas, so don't imply I don't know math. Most people probably don't understand what I'm talking about since I barely know how to describe it. Easier to visualize then describe



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by b309302
 


Keep up the good work! It is dreamers like yourself that advance the state of the art.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by b309302
I do disagree with some statements, as they are based in our traditional ways of thinking and current mathematics


I sincerely doubt you have any understanding of basic, let alone "current" math.



which in themselves can not explain many phenomenon either and are proven wrong constantly.


Such as? There are no known gravity-related phenomena which are not explained by our current understanding of gravity. There is definitely nothing known to be wrong about it, let alone any things proven wrong "constantly."



I can express this paper in a much more scientific way


Considering that what you have written is already logically inconsistent, and you don't seem to have any understanding of how any forces can be attractive, I doubt it.


Point out exactly where you disagree with the principles.


Pretty much everything you have said is wrong.



As far as energy/matter... we have no clue yet.


You evidently don't, *we* do understand it, and have for literally a century.



The gluon field idea is the best we have and even that isn't so hot and has problems.


What is this sentence even supposed to mean? It has nothing to do with anything that has been discussed.



You act like they have already figured all this out, news flash they haven't.


"They" is me, because I am a physicist. And we have figured it out.


the current ones aren't much better as they are constantly revised, and proven to be false.


This is not true, and not how science ever works.



I seriously doubt we have it all figured out


We don't have *everything* figured out, but nothing you've discussed is any difficult to understand (such as negative numbers, apparently).


You have to remember the world was flat


No educated person has thought this for thousands of years. The Greeks even measured the size of the Earth pretty accurately.



flight was impossible


No one ever thought this, the only concerns anyone ever had is if it could be done cheaply and efficiently.



the sound barrier could NEVER be broken based on the best science in the day


No one ever thought this either! This is extra stupid to think, because things that go faster than sound have been known about as long as the speed of sound has been known. Not to mention physics pretty clearly and easily describes things going faster than sound, and has since the day the theory was written down.



According to our best math, a bumble bee can't possibly fly, but it does.


Also false! This is some kind of record! This often-repeated-by-people-who-don't-bother-to-do-research claim is a hilarious misunderstanding of the fact that bees and other small insects use a different mechanism to fly than larger animals, due to the fact that fluid dynamical properties do not scale linearly with size.


We still can't even begin to explain most of quantum physics


Amazing. We not only understand most of it, we understand all of it, and have since the 1930s, when all research on quantum mechanics stopped, and physicists moved on to newer topics.


By the way, static forces are electrical charges, that are binding objects together, not a force carrier like I am describing.


By the way, static electric and magnetic forces are mediated via the interchange of virtual photons in quantum field theories. The same way non-static electromagnetic forces are mediated, and the same way all other forces are mediated (but with their own force carrying particles instead of photons).

By the way, this was discovered in the 1930s. It's called quantum electrodynamics. We discovered it right after we finished quantum mechanics. Countless electronic devices depend on it being correct in order to function.


And if Einsteins description of gravity is so great, explain why his own theory can't account for 99% of the gravity in the universe.


Wut? This is wrong in so many ways. Presumably you are complaining about dark matter, which is detected through gravitational effects. Dark matter, as the name would indicate, has nothing to do with gravity, but is simply matter which, unlike stars and hot gasses, are not luminous. Meaning, we can't see it. Meaning it's harder to figure out what it is.

That's no more a problem of the theory of gravity's than losing $10 is a problem of the theory of economics.



Does that sound like we have it all figured out?


It sounds like you don't have it figured out!

At least pick some problems from the past hundred years to complain about!



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join