Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

page: 27
14
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

dragonridr
I believe your trying to take credit for work done by a man named Einstein.He said gravity can cause space and time to distort or more accurately stretch, meaning gravity causes time to slow down so guess what your right just isnt your idea.
That's not what he said before, so I don't know if he's changed his mind or he's just confused:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Angelic Resurrection
Ah, the observed eclipse and gravitational lensing......
Since the speed of light is constant and time speeds up as gravity increases, so when light travels near a massive object, to keep its speed constant it has to ravel a grater dustance to accomodate the increase rate of time, it follows a curved path.
QED


(Emphasis mine) So, Angelic Resurrection, which is it? Does time speed up or slow down in a gravitational field? You've said one and then the other, in apparent contradiction to yourself. It makes a difference because in one case you agree with GR and in the other case you disagree with it.




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Lol sorry my mistake typing in a hurry battling some unknown radiation effects.
Time speeds up in a gravitational field contrary to Einsteins GR



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 

Thanks for clarifying. That's what I suspected, because I remembered I thought it was a typo when you said time sped up in gravity and when I questioned you, you assured me it was not a typo and you disagreed with GR and that's not something I easily forget, as there are thousands of experiments supporting it.

However maybe if I stand on my head when I look at the graph of data showing time is slowing down, and see the graph upside-down, it will look like it's speeding up?

edit on 19-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yea but in spatial expansion measurements the starting line is moving, is this taken into consideration, and is this why the calculations yield a velocity greater then C? Firstly is the idea of space between 2 planets expanding not identical to the idea that the 2 planets are receding away from one another? Also im starting to think the comparison is like apples to oranges and I think I can imagine why you have your point of view; Light has to travel from point A to B linearly, while space expansion is semi mysterious how it occurs, and your point is that an area of space can just instantly appear, like a horizontal tetris block, and if 999 of those blocks appear back to back in a mili second then space is expanding faster then light. Bah im still a skeptic over the meaning and understanding of the idea that space expands when it is not even known what space is, how it expands, where it is coming from, amongst other things.

So say I was holding a rod made of the universes lightest material, the rod is 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 KM long, and when you pick up one end of a stick the other end seemingly also reacts instantaneously thus is the nature of connection. So if I lift my end of the rod in the air, is the other end being lifted faster then light?
edit on 19-11-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Also, is it possible the expansion of space is due from the opposite reaction of gravity, or something like that, as entropy of matter and energy increase over time, the spatial quantity of space increases...there must be some link between the expansion/creation of space and...something, because there is no way that 'somethingness' of space is being created from nothing, no free lunches. If space is absolute nothing which time and time again you people say its not, then I will believe that space expands and increases and it would just be a haughty way of saying the distance between two objects is increasing, but if space is something, if it is actual energy that exists and is real it must be coming, responding, resulting from something.
edit on 19-11-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yea but in spatial expansion measurements the starting line is moving, is this taken into consideration, and is this why the calculations yield a velocity greater then C? Firstly is the idea of space between 2 planets expanding not identical to the idea that the 2 planets are receding away from one another? Also im starting to think the comparison is like apples to oranges and I think I can imagine why you have your point of view; Light has to travel from point A to B linearly, while space expansion is semi mysterious how it occurs, and your point is that an area of space can just instantly appear, like a horizontal tetris block, and if 999 of those blocks appear back to back in a mili second then space is expanding faster then light. Bah im still a skeptic over the meaning and understanding of the idea that space expands when it is not even known what space is, how it expands, where it is coming from, amongst other things.

So say I was holding a rod made of the universes lightest material, the rod is 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 KM long, and when you pick up one end of a stick the other end seemingly also reacts instantaneously thus is the nature of connection. So if I lift my end of the rod in the air, is the other end being lifted faster then light?
edit on 19-11-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Also, is it possible the expansion of space is due from the opposite reaction of gravity, or something like that, as entropy of matter and energy increase over time, the spatial quantity of space increases...there must be some link between the expansion/creation of space and...something, because there is no way that 'somethingness' of space is being created from nothing, no free lunches. If space is absolute nothing which time and time again you people say its not, then I will believe that space expands and increases and it would just be a haughty way of saying the distance between two objects is increasing, but if space is something, if it is actual energy that exists and is real it must be coming, responding, resulting from something.
edit on 19-11-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Space isnt being created its al lready there. Think of a compressed spring as it expands the string gets bigger. Nothing is created by the spring it didnt get bigger but release of energy allowed it to expand to its normal state.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yea but in spatial expansion measurements the starting line is moving, is this taken into consideration, and is this why the calculations yield a velocity greater then C?
Yes, it's taken into consideration. Since the paper I posted is titled "expanding confusion..." and cites textbooks which have explained it wrong, I think it's best if I don't add to the confusion by writing more oversimplified stuff that isn't actually accurate, and let you refer to the paper for something that is accurate.


So say I was holding a rod made of the universes lightest material, the rod is 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 KM long, and when you pick up one end of a stick the other end seemingly also reacts instantaneously thus is the nature of connection. So if I lift my end of the rod in the air, is the other end being lifted faster then light?
Nice try and I had the same thought but I finally convinced myself this doesn't happen. No object is rigid enough for you to push it at one end and then have the other end move instantaneously. Best you can do is create a disturbance that travels quickly from one end to the other. Of course since you aren't used to dealing with such long rods, you never notice the delay on ordinary objects. However massless things like shadows etc can move faster than light with no problem. Wikipedia has an explanation of things which can and cannot travel faster than light.


Also, is it possible the expansion of space is due from the opposite reaction of gravity, or something like that, as entropy of matter and energy increase over time, the spatial quantity of space increases...there must be some link between the expansion/creation of space and...something, because there is no way that 'somethingness' of space is being created from nothing, no free lunches. If space is absolute nothing which time and time again you people say its not, then I will believe that space expands and increases and it would just be a haughty way of saying the distance between two objects is increasing, but if space is something, if it is actual energy that exists and is real it must be coming, responding, resulting from something.
I think the expansion of space is thought to be largely leftover from the big bang, however the acceleration of the expansion of space is not...that's where dark energy comes into the picture, and while we don't fully understand it our best guess is it's vacuum energy. Just saying that doesn't answer the deeper questions, like why does the cosmological constant have the value it does, etc.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I am fascinated to discover that Sterling Allan's father has a theory of gravity.

"New Theory of Gravity - A Brief Introduction":


New gravity model by David W. Allan introduces an energy density component and diallel, gravitational-field lines as part of new Unified Field Theory


His background is that of an atomic clock physicist.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Mary Rose
I am fascinated to discover that Sterling Allan's father has a theory of gravity.

"New Theory of Gravity - A Brief Introduction":


New gravity model by David W. Allan introduces an energy density component and diallel, gravitational-field lines as part of new Unified Field Theory


His background is that of an atomic clock physicist.


You want us to take seriously a guy who thinks balancing an egg on its end proves his theory of gravity? Check this out its quite funny he details his egg experiments.

allanstime.com...



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

dragonridr
You want us to take seriously a guy who thinks balancing an egg on its end proves his theory of gravity?


Who knows?

Maybe simplicity and common sense is where it's at!




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Mary Rose

dragonridr
You want us to take seriously a guy who thinks balancing an egg on its end proves his theory of gravity?


Who knows?

Maybe simplicity and common sense is where it's at!



Why would he need to balance anything if he knew, and understood, how to manipulate gravity?

edit on 21-11-2013 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

Can you re-phrase it?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by peck420
 


I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

Can you re-phrase it?


I figured that, since we are talking about gravity, I should lighten the mood.




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Oh.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

dragonridr
allanstime.com...


Smile:


Years ago, during an equinox in Boulder, Colorado, I remembered our family having six eggs standing on end on the kitchen counter. At that time I remembered not having a clue as to why this might work. Standard gravitational theory could give no explanation, and we had no insights to the new theory at that time.


This is interesting:


The new gravitational theory provides a scientific explanation for this phenomenon that hitherto has been discounted by most scientists as being more myth than fact, attributed to such things as imperfections in the egg surface that provide a small tripod on which the egg can be stabilized.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Its not interesting in the least. Here try thisgo get a dozen eggs and see how many you can get to stand up. Ill bet no more then two and if there really smooth none. What kind of egg makes a difference as youll see.



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


In what kind of situation would a spring, unspring at an increased rate as time progresses, or is it just an illusion of being on one ridge of the spring, measuring another ridge, as the spring unsprings? Or does it make sense that the spring would unspring at first at a slower rate, and then once it builds momentum it pushes and unfolds faster or something?



posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Since force would be applied id assume it move faster at the end of expansion but let me think on this and see what i can dig up.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


In what kind of situation would a spring, unspring at an increased rate as time progresses, or is it just an illusion of being on one ridge of the spring, measuring another ridge, as the spring unsprings? Or does it make sense that the spring would unspring at first at a slower rate, and then once it builds momentum it pushes and unfolds faster or something?



dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Since force would be applied id assume it move faster at the end of expansion but let me think on this and see what i can dig up.
Springs speed up at the beginning of their expansion and slow down and stop at the end, then reverse, which describes a sinusoidal function if there is a mass at the end of the spring as described here:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What about the beginning of a springs springing compared to a little after the beginning, compared to the middle, is there an increase in velocity from beginning to middle? Because thats how I thought accelerated spatial expansion was said to occur and thats what made it mysterious, like it was a big deal when scientists believe they found out that the universe expands, and then also a big deal when they believe they found out that it expands at an accelerated rate. Which if creating an analogy, would be a spring (all energy compressed in the smallest density) sprung, and then as time goes on, as the spring decreases from its original compact density, it does so at an constantly accelerated rate.



posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

dragonridr
You want us to take seriously a guy who thinks balancing an egg on its end proves his theory of gravity? Check this out its quite funny he details his egg experiments.

allanstime.com...
This guy can do it every time, but some might say he's cheating. He does it at time index 2 minutes.




ImaFungi
What about the beginning of a springs springing compared to a little after the beginning, compared to the middle, is there an increase in velocity from beginning to middle?



Arbitrageur
Springs speed up at the beginning of their expansion and slow down and stop at the end...


Does "speed up at the beginning of their expansion" mean something different than "increase in velocity from beginning" to you? I don't know what you're asking that I haven't already answered before you asked it. "Speed up" and "velocity increase" seem synonymous in this case.

Before 1998 we thought the expansion of the universe would slow down but since 1998 the consensus is it won't, it will just keep speeding up so a spring is not a good analogy, which reminds me of the Feynman quote: "I'm not going to tell you the universe is like a ball bearing on a spring, because it's not".
edit on 29-11-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification





top topics
 
14
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join