# Is gravity , absolute space ?

## Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

2. Attracted to each other and ''empty'' space . A comet shows a comet is attracted to the space ahead , that is why Newtons law of motion works .

Why is it not attracted to the empty space behind it?

Since the sun is not empty space, doesn’t that mean there is less attraction toward the sun, since there is less empty space in that direction?

Quote

3. I'd light a match and see which way the high energy state was directed

We already know a point source is isotropic with a 1/r^2 behavior; no preference for empty space. We know that light is deflected toward non-empty space (e.g. the sun) as it passes by

• Replies 66
• Created

#### Posted Images

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

While energy will contribute to the geometry of space-time, just as mass does, it does not curve in any way.
You can in fact, argue that even space-time doesn't 'curve', but geometric curvature in the mathematical model ( GR ) effectively reproduce observational evidence. After all, space-time is merely a mathematical concept, a co-ordinate system geometry, if you will.

Unless you are confusing energy with light, and the fact that light follows null geodesics ( curved by gravity ).

That is not correct !  The tensor of space time energy is the gravitational transition .  This pulls the field lines really tight and it takes a lot of ingenuity to know how to make a curve .

##### Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

I can tell you now that it isn't 1.41 g/cm^3 !

How can you say that if you don't know what it is? And where did 1.41 g/cm3 come from?

25 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

The Suns density per cm^3 is dynamic and variable .

Is that because its volume changes? Or because its mass changes? Or both?

And what is the size of this variability? Is it monotonic or cyclic or ... ?

26 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

I can tell you that the volume of the suns energy is denser than the surrounding space and as a natural condition of gravitational transition the Suns energy is attracted to that surrounding space .

So what holds the Sun together then?

27 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

If this were not so , then EMR could not travel A to B !

But light can travel up as well as down, just as easily.

Maybe it is simply the fact that photons, being massless, have to travel at c.

##### Share on other sites

There is no 'lines' in space or space-time.
There are in the mathematical model.

Can you show me a tensor, or is it a mathematical concept ?

##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

The tensor of space time energy is the gravitational transition .

And colourless green sheep dream furiously. (Your sentence makes no sense; its semantic content is zero.)

##### Share on other sites

Just now, swansont said:

Why is it not attracted to the empty space behind it?

Since the sun is not empty space, doesn’t that mean there is less attraction toward the sun, since there is less empty space in that direction?

We already know a point source is isotropic with a 1/r^2 behavior; no preference for empty space. We know that light is deflected toward non-empty space (e.g. the sun)

It is equally and proportional attracted to behind it so the body in motion will continue its motion unless acted upon .  There is no gravitational drag and slowing down of the body in motion because of the equality of attraction .

The Sun occupies an equal and proportional underlying volume of empty space .  When the Sun eventually dies , decays to nothing , the volume of empty space will still be there .

(E/R^n)/t    Energy divided by real coordinate space over time is how I describe gravitational transition !

##### Share on other sites

Stars don't decay to 'nothing'.

Keep digging.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is no 'lines' in space or space-time.
There are in the mathematical model.

Can you show me a tensor, or is it a mathematical concept ?

I have a visual model , can create the math  concept and additionally have the engineering for a working device !

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Stars don't decay to 'nothing'.

Keep digging.

Stars don't occupy the same volume of space constantly . The space within a star is constantly changing .

##### Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

It is equally and proportional attracted to behind it so the body in motion will continue its motion unless acted upon .

If it is attracted equally from ahead and behind, then that is not the reason it keeps moving. You have just destroyed your own claim.

11 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

When the Sun eventually dies , decays to nothing

Never gonna happen.

12 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

(E/R^n)/t    Energy divided by real coordinate space over time is how I describe gravitational transition !

And can you show that this produces results consistent with observation?

9 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

Stars don't occupy the same volume of space constantly . The space within a star is constantly changing .

Irrelevant. They don't "decay to nothing"

##### Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

The space within a star is constantly changing

So is the mass.
According to fairly well understood stellar nuclear fusion.
The volume change is more dependent on temperature, and resultant radiation pressure, in conflict with mass, and resultant gravitational contraction pressure.

##### Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Zodiac said:

I am sorry but your thinking is not good question!

Not sense make it now, not sense make it ever!

Shut down or up, as you please!

##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it is attracted equally from ahead and behind, then that is not the reason it keeps moving. You have just destroyed your own claim.

Never gonna happen.

And can you show that this produces results consistent with observation?

Irrelevant. They don't "decay to nothing"

Yes I can demonstrate all my work is consistent in observation !

I have sketched a basic model for you to ponder over .    hf/x=F(G)<E

##### Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

I have a visual model , can create the math  concept and additionally have the engineering for a working device !

In other words, you have nothing.

Just now, Zodiac said:

Yes I can demonstrate all my work is consistent in observation !

Come on then. Show some quantitative predictions from your model and how they compare with the real world. Maybe you could start by calculating the altitude of a geostationary satellite using your model. Or even just acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Earth. Anything really.

(I am not holding my breath because you can't actually calculate anything useful, can you?)

##### Share on other sites

Just now, Strange said:

In other words, you have nothing.

Actually I have T.O.E including the relevant physical math !

As a consequence of discovering T.O.E , I have advanced physics .  Additionally present physics , confirms my physics .

##### Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

Actually I have T.O.E including the relevant physical math !

Of course you don't. You don't have anything.

##### Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course you don't. You don't have anything.

I have models , I have math  and I have present physics knowledge to back me up !  I have everything which of course begins with R^n=0 .  An unspecified volume of real coordinate spatial points .

Now of course we could go into a^3+b^3=V  and so on but simply E/R^n = F(G)<E explains most of the physics involved .

P.s Yes I have useful calculations that work but they are dangerous calculations (Nukes are matches compared) .

Edited by Zodiac
##### Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

I have models

And yet you are unable to share them

19 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

I have math

And yet you are unable to show us.

20 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

I have present physics knowledge to back me up

Pretty much everything you say is contradicted by physics.

20 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

I have everything

Based on the evidence, you have nothing.

20 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

P.s Yes I have useful calculations that work but they are dangerous calculations

Ah, bless.

##### Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

And yet you are unable to share them

And yet you are unable to show us.

Pretty much everything you say is contradicted by physics.

Based on the evidence, you have nothing.

Ah, bless.

The reason I am presently unable to present models is that I am working off a broken chrome book with limited uses .

Based on evidence I have everything including the Universe expansion confirming my analysis and theory to be more fact than anything presently available .

Do you really want me to produce dangerous math live for anyone to see ?

Do you really want me to show you the physical math process of how to destroy an entire planet ?  Not only show you but include the design to the doomsday device ?

I know how to arc space-time energy my dear , I can sink an entire Navy my dear !

However I am a man of peace so i'd rather leave the boys with toys playing alone .

Back to physics , a single spark in a void is attracted to the entirety of the void .  The point energy source will be divided by the void , decreasing in magnitude and density to 0 .

This is a fact and the momentum of dispersal is c , c being a consequence of F(G)=<E  !

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

The reason I am presently unable to present models is that I am working off a broken chrome book with limited uses .

Nice excuse.

You might as well drop the pretence. You obviously don't know enough physics or mathematics to have come up with anything meaningful.

5 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

Do you really want me to produce dangerous math live for anyone to see ?

Do you really want me to show you the physical math process of how to destroy an entire planet ?

Pathetic fantasy excuses.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Nice excuse.

You might as well drop the pretence. You obviously don't know enough physics or mathematics to have come up with anything meaningful.

Pathetic fantasy excuses.

The beauty of physical process is that physical process is not subjective or fantasy .  The physical process does not care what I or you think as the physical process works !

I don't know enough physics ?

I have just explained a single spark in a void being attracted to the entirety of the void . This of course in regards to Dirac's work , particles popping into and out of existence . Advancing on that and correcting it .  Virtual particles manifesting at any given point of R^n , that self annihilation as a consequence of F(G)=<E .

Please do not make false claims that I do not know enough physics !

Recap :

Newtons absolute space (Advanced and modernized:R^n an unspecified volume of real coordinate spatial points , an immovable reference frame )

Dirac particles popping into and out of existence (Advanced and modernized: E/R^n=0 density, causality F(G)=<E

I told you , that physics agrees with me ! I am not making things up , I have advanced every scientists work who is involved !

I will return later to discuss the strong force required to stop virtual particles self annihilation ! (Atomic model)

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zodiac said:

I will return later to discuss the strong force required to stop virtual particles self annihilation ! (Atomic model)

In a thread which explicitly discusses gravity, it should be quite interesting and novel to combine it with a discussion of the strong force.

Let me guess: at a certain distance between nucleons, they are attracted to each other because of the existence of vacuum in between them. But as they approach each other too closely, they get repulsed, because they physically bump into each other in a similar fashion as billiard balls?

Edited by taeto
##### Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, taeto said:

In a thread which explicitly discusses gravity, it should be quite interesting and novel to combine it with a discussion of the strong force.

Let me guess: at a certain distance between nucleons, they are attracted to each other because of the existence of vacuum in between them. But as they approach each other too closely, they get repulsed, because they physically bump into each other in a similar fashion as billiard balls?

Actually the electron strong force (force 1) converges with the proton strong force (force 2) to produce a weaker emitted  force (force 3) ! F1+F2=F3

In science force is push and pull , gravity is both push and pull !  The field space interior of an atom also playing a role .

Returning to the earlier post , I mentioned E/R^n and particles self annihilation , the reason a virtual particle self annihilates is because it is has no bond to retain form without a counterpart .

A single electron in a void cannot exist , it would be torn apart by the mechanical stress of F(G)=<E

Edited by Zodiac
##### Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

Actually the electron strong force

Electrons don't take part in strong interactions.

6 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

gravity is both push and pull

Nope.

7 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

A single electron in a void cannot exist

And yet they do.

Stunning levels of ignorance, there.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Electrons don't take part in strong interactions.

Nope.

And yet they do.

Stunning levels of ignorance, there.

Are you really suggesting the present atomic model isn't electrons , protons and neutrons ?

Gravity isn't push and pull , I'll retract that statement as a messup error , worded badly !

A single electron cannot exist in a void , it is impossible physics , there is no mechanical bond of the electron to retain stability !

##### Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Zodiac said:

no mechanical bond of the electron to retain stability !

I think the point the physicists are making is that the electron on its own is not unstable. it does not decay.

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×