Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Cut The Bullshit In Physics


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#52 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2341 posts

Posted 17 April 2019 - 12:32 PM

Why would you conclude that? I never said you could not observe (or prove) its existence. Did you not read the theory, or are you basing your comment on my abbreviated statement to Moronium?

What observations does your theory predict that would provide evidence for the existence of this void energy?  



#53 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted Yesterday, 05:57 AM

What observations does your theory predict that would provide evidence for the existence of this void energy?  

 

Well, let's see...pgs 9-11 explain the all observable interactions of the force of gravity itself (and that’s it not really a ‘standalone’ force at all, but a resultant force), pgs 13-15 explains all of the observations of the 'anti-gravity' wheel (gyroscopic principles), 16-19 explains away all of the observations WIMPS and how matter is constructed using Void Energy pressure using conventional pressure dynamics of PSI over a 3-dimentional construct, pg 20 explains all of the observations of Black Holes very nicely as well as Gravity Waves ... all done with conventional tests, examples and confirmed observations. All I did was look in another direction for something that most others had not been looking for.

 

To do this I started with A)

 

A) We observe a physical interaction between known particles and then build a sound, mathematical model to define this observed interaction.

 

Then I went to B) We conceive a desired interaction between known particles, based on the observed interactions of those particles, and then we hypothesize a mathematical model to predict this future observable interaction.

 

I then constructed a hypothetical particle and plugged it into the above model to see if it fits any and all of the observed reactions that other known particles produced (and I looked at a lot of particles to base mine on). When it didn’t explain an observation (or point to the methods for a future predictions) I modified the hypothetical particle until I could define its existence in observable terms and meet future predictions. (pgs 15-17)

 

(I referred to them as Gravitons since that is the accepted nomenclature for the hypothetical particle that causes gravity.)

 

Since I haven’t proven the existence of my Graviton particle, I continued to refine my definitions of that particle until I ran out of observable physics that it didn’t satisfy. I have ran out of observable phenomena that cannot be explained with my theory.

 

Since there are so many observed observations that can be explained with my model, I then set about designing a series of experiments that could each indicate the existence of this particle as I have defined it. I found that many of these experiments have already been done, and that many produced the results I would be looking for. The originators of these experiments were not looking for the predicted results I would have been.



#54 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2341 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:10 AM

Well, let's see...pgs 9-11 explain the all observable interactions of the force of gravity itself (and that’s it not really a ‘standalone’ force at all, but a resultant force), pgs 13-15 explains all of the observations of the 'anti-gravity' wheel (gyroscopic principles), 16-19 explains away all of the observations WIMPS and how matter is constructed using Void Energy pressure using conventional pressure dynamics of PSI over a 3-dimentional construct, pg 20 explains all of the observations of Black Holes very nicely as well as Gravity Waves ... all done with conventional tests, examples and confirmed observations. All I did was look in another direction for something that most others had not been looking for.

 

To do this I started with A)

 

A) We observe a physical interaction between known particles and then build a sound, mathematical model to define this observed interaction.

 

Then I went to :cool: We conceive a desired interaction between known particles, based on the observed interactions of those particles, and then we hypothesize a mathematical model to predict this future observable interaction.

 

I then constructed a hypothetical particle and plugged it into the above model to see if it fits any and all of the observed reactions that other known particles produced (and I looked at a lot of particles to base mine on). When it didn’t explain an observation (or point to the methods for a future predictions) I modified the hypothetical particle until I could define its existence in observable terms and meet future predictions. (pgs 15-17)

 

(I referred to them as Gravitons since that is the accepted nomenclature for the hypothetical particle that causes gravity.)

 

Since I haven’t proven the existence of my Graviton particle, I continued to refine my definitions of that particle until I ran out of observable physics that it didn’t satisfy. I have ran out of observable phenomena that cannot be explained with my theory.

 

Since there are so many observed observations that can be explained with my model, I then set about designing a series of experiments that could each indicate the existence of this particle as I have defined it. I found that many of these experiments have already been done, and that many produced the results I would be looking for. The originators of these experiments were not looking for the predicted results I would have been.

Can you give an example? 



#55 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2259 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:16 AM


 

 

I look at inertia as being a phenomenon related to motion., not gravity, per se, so I'm not sure how this responds to the point, Mike.

 

Inertia is a measure of the mass content of a gravitationally charged body. It's related to motion because inertia tends to resist it. However, a gravitationally-charged body also exerts deformation of the spacetime metric, so the motion is also connected to the geometry of the space it moves in. Inertia might be loosely thought of a gravitational phenomenon - let's demonstrate a thought experiment. An electron only has an electric charge because it moves inside an electromagnetic field. In similar light, inertia could be thought of as the analogy of this, in which gravitational masses experience a gravitational charge when moving in gravitational fields.

 

 

It's quite complicated and the full picture eludes us still.



#56 MikeBrace

MikeBrace

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 14 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:28 PM

Can you give an example? 

 

Gravity Waves 



#57 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2259 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:11 PM

I think that was a quote by Dirac? It is of course a theory that fields become what he called ''a particulate aether.'' But what makes me wonder, is why Einstein's gravitational aether never took hold... it solved so many problems when treating this aether as a refractive index, it showed explicitly that light can escape black holes.

 

Physics can be so confusing.