JohnSSM

So truly...are you telling me that you had envisioned a grid of lines being pulled into a mass to represent einsteins geometry? And youre saying that most physicists allready intuitively know and understand the curvature and how it appears, and the math is just the next step in that understanding? Where did i describe that? Do you know how many times today you have drifted from subject and made incorrect assertions and claims? I think I must be done with that...

I didnt mention the inverse sqaure law in the opening post...that came 8 pages later when mordred couldnt tell me how to figure gravity at distances...which the equation he posted did not... Can you read the experiement on entry 89 to see what he was asking about and why we then needed to figure gravity at distances from center? To tellyou the truth, i couldnt have even told you what the inverse square law was...mordred mentioned it, then you and then i figured out I had used it.. But im the one who had to accurately desribe this to mordred? I have a long way to go? I think ive been doing pretty good... Its like you all believe that all proponents of GR don't disagree on anything about GR...but, oh boy...do they ever...You cant even get a group of guys who all know it and love it to agree about everything within everything about it...has that been your experience? GR meetings are fulled with peaceful discourse and aligned ideas? Man...That has not been my experience in groups of people who all claimed to know and support GR,,, So gimme a break...everything can be argued...i was looking for discussion...that kinda means we all go in the same direction...agreeing to full listen and fully acknowledge what the other person has to say...but if i dont get to talk at all because I dont have math to back up things yet, then ill shut up and leave....

Ok yes...and here's the thing...have you realized that i described that model really well without GR equations? I predicted it..and it seems as if it being blown off to coicindence... but that NON coincidence was the point of this topic..."i have a new way to model GR"...without math or equations and I did it...

Ok...lets see your equation that determines the decrease in gravity as one increases distance from the source... OK....ill make a map of an EMF on my work bench and take a picture...you do the same with gravity and send me the picture...

We can detect and view the curvature of EM fields by putting things with charge into them...charge is a physical trait of mass that determines how it will act in an EMF...so we can physically take a bunch of them to map out regions of EMF and totally discover its curvature...do the same with gravity... And I said...very logically that i did not use that math to get here...Im speaking in terms that you cant speak in because you dont get it...not the other way around...

Why dont you tell me how? whats the difference? Im not here to talk about figuring g for unknown masses.... In my example, I used g because I was just trying to explain to you, how to properly figure gravity loss at a distance...stop laughing...its foolish in your position... You are just once again enjoying throwing this forum topic into your own...cuz it had nothing to do with figuring g...asking me to answer that is as ridiculous as asking me if i know how to make meatloaf...both mean nothing to the topic...just another sideswipe from you I wish a moderator would look at the nature of your comments...

The energy of g is 9,81msqaured...That is on the surface of the earth. If i take the radius of the earth, roughly 6371 Km, I would run it through the equation that solves for area of a sphere, to find the total area of the earth at the surface. The equation is simple to solve...no real reason to solve it for this discussion. You would then use that number and multiply by 9.81m sqaured to find the total gravity of earth...then you decide how far away you want to solve for...lets say 25000 km away...You then figure the surface area of a sphere with a 25000 km radius...you divide that amount by total gravity of earth from the smaller radial solution and you now have the stength of gravity is meters sqwuared when youre 25000 km away...tada...i didnt learn that in a class or book....I just thought it up....i did need the equation for the surface of a sphere,,pretty easy I was abiding by the forum rules as much as I could in order to discuss an unproven theory... The big forum rule you should follow is at the very bottom of that page...you dont have to be here...Sorry

ha...

The one you posted does not show the rate at which gravity decreases though distance away from the source....it shows the total of gravity between two objects...It seems i spend most of my time correcting you...and youre the one whos supposedly knows whats really going on and Im lost...the irony is compressing me To figure the loss of gravity from increasing the distance away from the center of mass does not take 2 objects...it takes 2 different radii.

I did mention the center of the mass...Im seriously just missing the friction you see... Isnt gravity measured on the surface of a sphere that radiates out from the center of mass? Dont you just take the full amount of gravity at a certain radius, then figure for gravity per sqaure meter on the surface of that radials sphere...then take the full amount of gravity at the new radius and figure how much energy per sqaure meter again on the surface of the sphere? Gravity always represents the same total amount, it just gets thinned out as you travel away because it has to spread to account for the spread...ugh...is that what your equation figures?

You still havent described the problem...I think you cant because you cant...if you dont, this thoery seems solid... The real question occurs to me...where would your understanding be without the knowledge of these prewrittin directives you like to point out instead of using you own words? I don't want to get snooty...But describing something in one's own words is very indicative of true understanding...

Must work! Thanks much for giving the experiment a read...you may be the only one! Dont get sidetracked...this is where you said Keplers laws would trouble my experiment...Im asking you how now...

Dont get sidetracked...this is where you said Keplers laws would trouble my experiment...Im asking you how now...

I didnt find my answer with the tools of math...I was hoping to teach about that process in this thread...thats all The math will be awesome to learn...there's much to be learned... PS...the cosmo constant is actually the force keeping all those gridlines from just entirely collapsing into the earth...in SFT... and something to also note...there may be dark energy and dark matter, but maybe not in the amounts they suggest with GR, because the cosmo constant could also be at work...there could be dark energies and a constant...figure how to change those equations to make them work, will ya? ~ I get that....why does it keep my test from working though? thinking...... I just need two converging gravitational fields...I fly directly through that center of mass...and see if time and length dilation occur as I enter, pass through and leave it.. That center of mass is what I predict will show that the two fields combine by further smashing spacetime in a place with no mass...

Look to comment 89 in this thread and read my experiment of how to test for SFT... What if this time were the only time I would ever get to discuss my perspectives at all? What if you were the only one who had the chance to discuss them with me...its quite romantic as science should be... Theories in the night, exchanging glances, wondering in the night, what were the chances, they could find a common perspective in order to really communicate truths between each other without sending the other off for 6 years of math degrees, before the night was throouuuuuuuugh.

Dont you get it man? I saw the same geometry as you and used different tools...Isnt that a fact at this point with the similarities of the geometrical descriptions I made and the equations you used that i have no idea how to interpret? It is to me...So...i will research lots of stuff all over the place...I was looking for commentary on my theory here...We both get it... I dont get to go to other threads to discuss this thoery...thats not cool

I really want to know who created the graphic of the 3d compression model of spacetime that SFT predicted...Its the only graphic I have ever seen like that besides the one I had in my head...ive been scratching it into piles of mashed potatoes...I would really like to talk to the guy who made that graphic because he or she is the one who can explain how GR geometery actually works...because he modlled it accurately... A phone? ok...youre almost excused..I could never do this on my phone...eyes are killing me allready

This one guy on the forums said that compressing mass gave it more mass...ha! Can I just say that you did not supply me with anything that has fed my theory yet...it still exists as it was before i "met" you...and as it has existed from the beginning of this thread...you have showed me proof of what my findings state...very reluctantly ha

Grand Unification Theories...didnt recognize GUT... Did you wanna hear mine? Eh, its probably as far off as my understanding of geometry and spacetime...but do you really think I thought to create one without studying the previous examples? I dont misquote the force carries of simple QM...you do I will laugh with you at the aether guy...ha! what a pooper!

Mordred, I was checking out the book by Cahn and on the first page of the first chapter called SU(2) They show a 3x3 Grid and talk about an x, y, and z...is that left to right, up to down? Im seriously lost on the first paragraph and have no idea I never overlook a conservation rule...ha...seriously though, have you seen me misquote GR when I talk about it? The only time i misquote is when Im talking about SFT (space foam thoery) and you dont agree with my findings...more than ever, I feel like I get it...but i got it in a way that you dont get...I can live with that...i suppose i see your declarations of my misconceptions a bit useless to a discussion of my entry entitled "A new model for general relativity" which presupposes that it will have ideas seen as misconceptions by GR and those who follow it confusingly to a T...I have endured 4 or 5 entries saying such things...If my ideas offend you, and you dont want to discuss them, and only redirect me to other ideas after telling me I dont know what Im talking about, I suppose Id rather have you just not say anthing...I was hoping to discuss them..To do that, you would need to attempt to see it as I see it...and you are not...which is fine...

The mechanism of EM is charge. What else drives EM besides charge? (And I finally learned that the quote function wouldnt work with IE but does fine with chrome) I prefer to see it as the old one with new understandings, not misconceptions...Your opinion is sturdy, like the truth to you. You should know that it's relative... E&M? is that something different from EM or a typo? Just noticed it...

Mordred...How do you think I came up with a model of spacetime that really turned out to be a huge success...Did i need any courses to figure what I figured? I didnt take any so...are we calling me lucky? The mechanism of em is charge

I was just going over the particle tables for a refresher...its how I remember it...the fermion lepton thing has always just annoyed me and and I refused to take it all in...but im taking it all in now... Mechanics are not metaphysical...When I ask why, im not looking for a reason, im looking for a mechanism...

If 2 fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state, but bosons of equal energy can occupy the same spacetime, it really feels like we run into a situation where spacetime IS different for different particles...almost like spacetime is made up of all these fields, but not everything interacts with all these fields as they DO interact with each other...spacetime has walls for fermions which cannot be breached, but for some bosons, there are no walls...space-time offers different rules for different particles... GUT theories? I don't know GUT and google is not helping... Me personally, I think it's all spacetime geometry...and not only gravity...all of the four forces...But unless someone is actually gonna sit and read it all, acknowledge its possibilities and discuss them, and it will be a lot, I don't find any reason to write it here...its the tree falling in the forrest...and ive got it all written down elsewhere for myself.. Mordred, the description of my experiment to test spacefoam is in entry #89

It kinda seems like EM and entropy go hand in hand, and Gravity and the strong force go hand in hand...almost like there are only 2 forces, each of which can act in 2 different ways...or maybe even 3 different ways... How was my luck with the geometry of spacetime?