Neveos

Time to give evidence? As in you threatening to close the thread? Do you not see the pages long thread on telepathy? lol, By all means, go ahead and humor you and your crooked means. Here's my evidence, I call this gravity: drop dead. Ok maybe that's harsh, but you are really peaving me off claiming I vehemently oppose the practice of physics, when i am obviously engorging myself in it.

Look, more important than getting personal recognition for something, is that the truth gets out there. In fact, even though I enjoy the practice of figuring out something, I really enjoy the technologies that we benefit from having already figured out something. People should work together, and seeking to protect ownership of intellectual property actually slows the progress of knowledge. I am far more able to progress knowledge from where I sit than I am with a lot of money, and that is the way of a philosopher. And by that statement I don't know how much I would care if you "stole" anything revelatory about my theory. Because I would want someone to get this out there. This is not true actually, and logic is a perfect method of both describing and discovering reality. When a theory isn't logical, we typically call it wrong. No, your argument may have been considered valid, but it wasn't sound. So this means that the argument is not logical, because the premise that all animals with fur are mammals is not true, and in fact, therefore, to some philosophers, nonsensical due to the opposite being applied as a result of it being false, "not all animals with fur are mammals" making it actually invalid. Basically, there's nothing wrong with using logic. Once again, math is logic. How am I doing this? There is no theory for gravity other than spacetime. And either I am rediscovering this, and other people really don't understand the theory, or I am somehow explaining a similar theory better. This is problematic because undetectable space is pretty much undetectable. This is, quite literally, asking me to retrieve a sample from a black hole. The only way I can describe undetectable space is that it appears to pinch together, causing "curvature" in space, density of matter, and is the entire reason the Earth appears to curve around. What? Did you not read the OP? I am explaining gravity -as being- the expansion of matter. What? I never claimed that the density increases. I said matter expands. More specifically, the repulsive fields expand. Consequently, they weaken, and this is observed in thermo-dynamics. Basically, nothing. Yeah, and I'm finally starting to get questions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Don't get on a power trip. I already expected people to get threatened by me when I started. Simple explainable protective human behavior. To not ban me is to be somewhat unpredictable right now, I've already been relocated to a pseudo-science forum. And why is this coming after a very well-thought out and respectful post to Jill? Probably because I am making headway? Height of ignorance to smolder the truth.

I don't know what "tangential" means in this sense, but I do know how I am conceiving this, so I'll clarify: All objects and all space actually is different than it appears to be. The more dense mass simply has more matter and/in less observable space than a lesser density. Which means that the Earth is expanding faster than the moon, but remember we won't see this relationship because we cannot witness this expansion. Earlier, in the last post, I misleadingly wrote that slingshotting was the result of dense masses indicating less space to traverse, but I meant less observable space, more unobservable space. This is why a spacecraft slows as it approaches a path over-the-top of the planet (it covers less observable space) than when it is being "thrown out". In the latter stage, it has a couple possibilities: The fact that it could come out slower, or faster, are two of them. The reason the speed changes is due to its trajectory and how much of the kinetic energy was redirected in the same or different directions, and this "focusing" is probably similar to what happens in my explanation of gravitational lensing. The expansion of matter makes it appear as though they are about to make contact, and passing by all the unobservable space causes it to appear to temporarily slow down as it passes by the massive object. The spacecraft will appear to speed up when it exits the unobservable space only if it has traveled through enough unobservable space, which tends to happen by taking a trajectory as close to the planet as possible because of the greater amount of unobservable space (due to the proximity to denser materials) it will have to pass in order to miss the planet, and this is because unobservable space is actually straighter than observable space, consequently the space craft is actually redirecting from its original trajectory by staying its original course relative to observable space. By going along with the unobservable space in the appropriate manner, speed is retained if taken in a special way, and actually gained if taken as much as possible, because it is (and hard to even say this) more and more straight. More and more along what only appears to be curvature. I also believe that this is why there is a time difference on the planet, as opposed to out in space. The transactions within a system will occur slower due to a need to pass through unobservable space, and less so out away from densities. Remember, it is all expanding at the same time, and as I mentioned earlier, it explains why I and the laptop are not being pulled together or (split apart) on the surface. Since it is ALL in flux, not many effects other than this appearance of gravity can be noticed because I am being spread away from my computer on the surface's expansion faster than I can expand into it, and the ground is expanding as fast as the core is, but the core has even more expansion taking place in unobservable space, causing there to be an acceleration effect coming from below. Phew, I understand how this is hard to comprehend, but I'll be using this notion of "unobservable space" more often now. All matter is equal, and expanding equally, while objects are not. Objects can be denser or lighter, and the only difference is one of how much equal increments of matter is in how much observable space. Denser objects expand faster, note the illustration of this above, simply because there is more matter expanding into eachother. All matter expands equally, and this results in the appearance of less dense objects having a stronger priority of attraction to the denser objects. No because of the above explanations. All matter expands equally. Not all objects expand equally. I thank you very much for a very productive discussion.

The problem, is that the posters are hostile rather than cooperative. To ask me questions about my reasoning is to admit I have any reasoning going on at all, and no one wanted to admit that, so they attacked my ability to reason first. People 101. You will one day understand that this is a dissuasive strategy, and one which, while true in some sense, is ultimately unproductive. I am very interested in carrying out other methods of logic than forcing very specific mathematical values together, as this would take longer and conjure less intuitions. For instance, as I will soon explain to other people, I believe that light is incapable of escaping super-massive objects like black holes, because of a certain law I am laying down due to the observer being made out of the same matter that is expanding: Some sort of law by which matter expansion is incapable of being detected by an apparatus made out of matter, thus the very concept of "density" means that there is more matter in a location than appears in size, thus there must be more unobservable space hosting that matter, by comparison to the amount of space hosting a less dense object. Thus gravitational lensing happens because the older light takes longer travelling over the top of all that matter and converges with newer light, as the object expands. Light does not escape black holes, because there is faarr too much unobservable space for it to traverse, and that's what I call orbit, it may even be expanding too fast for light to travel by it. Unfortunately, this is a model for understanding, and the evidence is going to be all the unexplainable events which gets a good correlative explanation. I'm doing a lot of that right now in thought experiment. What are you talking about? I asked her to re-ask the question. And she was talking about a rising helium balloon. I'm sorry, you need to actually understand what's going on here. Do you know how many scientists since Newton have tried to understand what gravity is despite being able to predict it incredibly well?

Very good, I applaud the actual attempt to debate. I actually think that gravitational slingshotting is a result of two dense objects coming so close together that the total amount of space in the area is shortened as a result of the total amount of mass. Thus they appear to cover more space in a shorter amount of time. The resulting distance gained is quickly lost by the satellite as the denser object expands too fast for it to escape. Can you explain this phenomenon better? You mean why do they rise? I explained in the OP that denser materials, since they contain more matter and less space, will expand faster than lighter materials. This why we are feeling an "acceleration" effect on the surface of the planet, and also why these balloons will rise. Because the denser materials, expanding faster, will incrementally push/squeeze the lighter materials away.

Oh no, I like math, and I probably know quite a few theories about it that could teach you a thing or two. But, oh yes I am doing science, and philosophy is a much much older a practice that birthed science. But, let me make this clear, math is nothing more than logic, and so is all forms of reasoning. All forms. This theory, I have, is nothing but a model of how we can explain many of the phenomena we experience, much like how we never really saw the subatomic particles we reasoned were there, until we did. And so far, it became very clear to me how various phenomena could be explained by matter-expansion, and I'm very sure that other phenomena could be explained as well. Perhaps even the appearance of space-expansion, which I will think about regardless of whether or not I know its ins and outs, since it isn't hurting me not to, but will only benefit me as I do.

To all appearances? My words? Really? To all appearances? Do you see how this is actually wrong, and thus, a lie? Now, what would drive you to do that? I don't even remember what that feels like to employ such a method in a scientific argument... I am using what is claimed, by the mainstream, to be true to draw logical conclusions and making them known. This is called correlating: Gravity exhibits the same effects on an object that acceleration would, but we do not know exactly how. Gravity is stronger the more matter is in an object, acceleration is stronger the more speed given to the accelerator, so, lo and behold, I suggest that all matter is expanding causing me to feel a "downward" force, and blimping objects in space, causing them to make contact. Why am I not witnessing the actual expansion? Oh, I'm made out of matter too, and that is why... Increase in distance of object IS (that word meaning "identical to") an increase in the amount time that has passed since I am what I am now. Furthering objects appear smaller and smaller. Therefore, the past always appears smaller and smaller, and the more present they become, the larger. Closer/newer/larger and farther/older/smaller. Now, that was some of the thought processes using premises that mainstream claims to be true. Wow, if you honestly call that "hand waving", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean, then by god you better get good at it.

You all do realize that mathematics is really just a case of logic, and so is dialog, right? Oh you don't, because that would mean that you would have to admit that I am doing science.

Once again, welcome to philosophy. I know that it probably feels good to you to hide behind a wall and demand for something which I cannot give, asking for credentials when I came to post a bright idea on a forum for some feedback. Its like asking an orphan for a parent on parent's day just because you don't want to invite any orphans. No, instead, I come on to a thread in which I very plainly watch everyone commit the same fallacy believing they are backed by evidence. The person asks why objects appear smaller at a distance, and everyone claims it was due to the objects taking up less space on the retina. I laughed as I saw everyone repeating the question using circular logic. No, in fact, common sense drove me to back up Weird Theory who was threatened by this machine of idiocy, and I very clearly understood that he put up the only valid argument. One which I disagreed with slightly, but the very sense he was making was awe-inspiring in comparison to you all.

Actually, after reading that, do you have a rough idea of how my model works? Ok, now, all the mathematicians and all the physicists in the world, you claim, have never thought about this model? Ok, and if the model turns out to be correct in retrospect, and I were asked if I used any complex mathematical or physics language to come up with this model, will I say, "Yes, I had to use them, or I would have never come up with these correlations."? No, I wouldn't. I know its good for making it too complex for the majority of the world to understand. I know its good for chasing off people who threaten how intelligent you think you are. You understand what I am getting at. I understand what I am getting at. Why do you think we can use a balloon to understand many things like air pressure and space expansion? Is it magic, or are there correlations? The reason you wrote that post is because you do not like me being right. Here is a good question. Why can't you see anything wrong with the idea of matter-expansion? Are you that ready to put it to the labs and the chalk boards. Is it really that well-thought out on my part? Did I actually look like I hit a nail on the head?

Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy. And censorship never gets anyone anywhere. I seriously don't understand forums these days, banning and closing threads when their best buddies aren't feeling the way they want. No, I'm not going to post anything more than this very plain and well thought out argument for taking matter-expansion into consideration, and I didn't expect forum junkies to take it very well. Let me just point out that none of you have explained the what the OP has originally asked, and yet you claim to have done so. So I am very happy for calling you all idiots, and would be honored to have been banned by one of you... a feat which is very clearly the height of ignorance on whoever does so... just pushing the truth away. It is moving away from us in a diagonal direction at a rate which is sufficiently fast enough for it to both not allow the Earth to expand into it, and for it not to expand into the Earth. The fact that it goes around the Earth is something I'm still thinking about, but seems to have to do with how denser materials are larger than they actually are capable of appearing, which is why light bends around super dense objects since it is actually travelling by more matter than we witness as being there. Likewise, I'm sure this has to do with why satellites orbit in ways that appear circular. They are simply making a very very long straight route either into or away from another mass.

don't insult people Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged wow, big time don't insult people Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged don't insult people

The object is growing, and so are the people. This means the very expansion of matter is undetectable by us, except by measuring the amount of time has that has passed since the light was reflected by the object. This means if it is moving away, the light is taking longer and longer to get to you, and thus the object is more and more representative of the past. The further in the past the represented object, the smaller it will appear. Vice versa for its approach. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged By universe expansion, you think I'm talking about space expansion. But I am referring to an (apparently) brand new form of expansion, which is the expansion of matter. don't insult people Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged don't insult people Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged don't insult people Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged don't insult poeple

It's a model used for explaining physical phenomena? The only thing I can think to look for that we haven't looked for is to very quickly remove a very dense object from within a very light object, and to see if the lighter material will eject in the direction away from the created vacuum before it collapses. For instance, in zero G space, if we were to suspend a ball of liquid and then place a big ball of lead inside of it, and then quickly yank the lead out extremely quickly, whether lighter material would eject on the opposite side outwards away from where the lead ball was yanked. This would mean that the lighter liquid was being accelerated by the dense material, and when the lead ball was removed, it would have continued to move in that outward direction. I don't know what values would have to go into play with this.

Both the observational devices on either end of the field are growing as much as the object. At the 50 yard line it'll appear the same to both people. And change accordingly depending on who it moves towards.

For everyone who wants to inch into matter-expansion, please refer to this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726 And read the entire thing, and we will discuss it from there. Barrage of anti-thesis is boring when you could just take something into consideration. And, no, it isn't just on me to apply mathematics to the theory, its on all of humanity to do so. And yes, philosophy is pretty much the reason I know that a bunch of idiots on this forum are failing to answer how things appear to converge in the distance by answering that they appear to converge in the distance. No, it is because light diverges, and no one is explaining that. And no it isn't geometry, it is theoretical physics. Glad everyone thinks its a bunch of pseudo-science. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You probably need to be a little more specific, and basically don't ask me this question when you have a point to make, just make the point. This isn't a game where you think you beat me, or you get a prize for winning, just put across an argument. Welcome to philosophy idiots, we draw conclusions, not conclusions that give us self-esteem.

We can't detect it because it is all expanding in flux. Phenomena result such as gravitation and smallness of distant objects. The values we use in all other models are probably going to have to be changed as a result, but since everything is in flux, there won't be much need to compensate for ordinary phenomena. It simply explains curvature, gravitation, and beam divergence. That would be the evidence your crying for. And the fact that the law of thermodynamics points in the direction of the future... the theory would explain even that. Please tell me how it doesn't work. I actually don't even understand that question when I am asking why light diverges. You can't go "divergence is a bunch of lines spreading apart from a central location"... that is so not an answer it isn't funny. Why does light do it? That's not geometry, now, is it?

I'm handling all this on another thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44726

This is why I recommend a philosophy over any science. You have to know what on Earth your talking about, and hearing. You cannot answer a question with the same question. Hopefully that makes sense, and if you believe that continue: If someone asks why do things appear smaller when they are further away. And then that person receives an answer: The angle is smaller in comparison to the field of view, therefore they impression your retina less. It is all very true, and uses some different terminology, but it does not answer the question, literally, at all... and, this is so funny, it is the question. big round of applause. Ok, so now I have reduced everyone to claiming it is "lensing" phenomena and "geometry". Which is, yeah, the exact same thing we are talking about. Well, look, if you want a hint: Do not re-state the object in question. If you want, provide an answer which gets at it's base, explain why/how light diverges, don't continually repeat that it just does. If you can't do that, then don't explain anything at all. Explain why a light source will exhibit greater beam divergence the further away it gets. Explain why there is the inverse square law for the many things which radiate from distances. In so doing, you'll understand the concept of "distance" itself, because you have to understand that divergence along a distance, is the same as divergence over time. A tree which is "100 yards" from me, is a tree which is many milliseconds older than me. And the person "50 yards" from me, is a person which is only a quarter as old as the tree "100 yards" from me. Continue to do this, and viola, you understand that there is a huge neon sign going, -wow objects themselves were smaller in the past-. You are being shown representations of objects as they were. If I held up a small identical-looking tree in my hand next to the other tree, well even though they appear the same size, the difference is that the toy tree is closer, but just saying that means it is a younger representation. Light remains constant from its source, but the universe is expanding, so the source of the light will continually have less and less impressionability.

You know, I heard once that there are two kinds of idiots in the world: the one who believe everything they're told, and the ones who don't. Both don't require any thinking.

Why do you think focusing the light (which requires a distribution of light of certain ratios in the first place) to magically explain this phenomenon? If I line up a bunch of photo voltaic cells (without the use of any lenses, which for some reason makes this all better) along a line in an arc which are sensitive to blue light, and suppose a blue suited man is standing on the other side of a non-blue basketball court... how much blue light do you think I absorb with those cells further away, as opposed to closer to the man? Which cells do you think will absorb more? It is the ones closest to the man which have absorbed more at any given time. And you are going on about how shadows get cast. And instead of thinking about these shadows, it is about reflected/emitted light. We are dealing with the same situation as a distancing light bulb. The further it is away, the darker it gets, and the closer it gets, the brighter. You are getting more lightbulb-light the closer it is to you, and no one is explaining why other than the fact that they are answering, "Well, more of it is taking up your seeing apparatus". Yeah, no shit, I know, did you not hear me ask the question? Ready, scientists who put me in speculation forums: Why: farther -> less impression -> And my answer is, "Oh yeah": farther -> older -> Therefore, matter-expansion Therefore less impression from older objects And yall's answer is: less impression -> farther -> Therefore, increase in self-esteem for answering Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yeah, thanks for not adding anything while vaguely disagreeing with me. By the way, thanks for scaring off the only other person who knew what was going on. Welcome to what happens to the intelligence level of online forums. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh really? Ok, put your hand around the sharp end of a cone, be careful not to cut yourself. Then slide your grasp down the cone, and oh!, look, your hand is having to open up to continue! Now your hand is at the base, and it is just wide open on the surface of a rounded side. Your hand was really big back at the beginning wasn't it!? You could wrap it around the whole thing!! But now you can't wrap it worth a shit!!

Is this really non-mainstream? It's probably more likely that the people who frequent the forum don't know much about space-time.

Uh yes it is. If a thing travels further along the cone, what do you think happens to it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I told you not to even mention this because it has nothing to do with a lens, look, "let me draw you a picture": If my seeing apparatus is an impressionable bar on my robot eye: ================================== And I see a dark object in the distance: ===============8================== What do you think happens when I get close to it? =======88888888888888888888========= So the magically-too-complex explanation of "refraction" has nothing to do with why things further away impression a seeing apparatus less. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No it isn't the lens, and see the above response I gave about an impressionable bar. Also, it isn't a categorization effect of the brain that it makes spatial/temporally distant things smaller, I am saying they -are- smaller if I am correct in believing that matter is expanding. So by the time light from a spatially/temporally distant object reaches our seeing apparatus, our seeing apparatus has grown making the distant object's reflected light impression it less.

This is not a counter argument. Why is the "field of view" larger the further from the observer? Saying it's conical is not saying anything relevantly different in answering this question... It is an absolute restatement of the problem. Why is it conical, such that I am asking, why does it expand? Why are further things taking up less space in the field of view. And don't bother telling me its because the viewing apparatus is a lens, therefore we get a cone, because even if the viewing apparatus was a bar or a globe, there would still be this same phenomenon whereby closer objects will impress the viewing apparatus greater than if they were further away. Does no one see that obviously every instance of observation entails a condition whereby we have a relationship between distance, and the amount of time light takes to impress your eye from the object? Light's representations of further things are older than they actually are, and this is a fact of physics. This is a true factor in every such case, and probably strongly suggests mine and Weird Theory's theory that further things are smaller than if they were closer things, and the difference is one of time.