Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Bored of the usual flat space picture? Well I am. This is how I believe that gravity works. We live in a liquid of strings...How hard to imagine? Well it is hard to imagine. My liquid is not visible, but its forces are creating gravity. It vibrates causing radiation in all directions. The peaks of this radiation push atoms outwards away from the peaks like surfers. The atoms gather together where the vibrations lessen. The atoms then pinch the liquid string like a finger pressed against a guitar string. Our planet is wrapped around the strings like a pearl, and it is trapping the vibrations, and stopping them. This causes things to gather here. Photons travel through the liquid as surfers also. Light would be a wave pushing a particle. This would result in a pattern of both wave, and particle on a photo sensitive paper. My idea is similar to string theory. It means that space is not flat, it is 3D. It means that there is an outer edge to the universe. The outer edge would be the edges of the liquid travelling further into the nothingness. The outer edge may be pushing more atoms away from us. This might be a wall of atoms, or they may be molten liquid. I just feel that something has to grip the strings at their extremities. Well that's it! Enjoy the picture! Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Is this based on anything? Maths, philosophy, astrophysics, cosmology? It seems you've just randomly created a mechanism for gravity without any citations whatsoever, any reason that the current model is incorrect, any supporting evidence or even a solitary scientific principle. All of which explian why this will now be thrown into the pseudoscience forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 I actually agree about the fact this should be in pseudoscience. Other than that, you're explaining a concept that appears in the string theory.. only... err... can you support your theories on a little bit of science? I don't get where this entire thing is even REMOTELY theoretical and possible... maybe I got you wrong? try to explain further please. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 It's partly based on nature, and its fractals, my explenation is just a fractal image of water. It's also based on the results from experiments where light is shown as both a particle, and a wave at the same time. My example would produce those results. My example would also produce the result of light travelling at a constant speed. The wave can push light faster than we can register, because as the wave passes the speed of light it causes a time breach. This means that a photon travels both forward in speed, but equally, back in time. This equality causes........ +Speed -Time This I would call equality, or no registered result in accelleration. This means that a single photon can be in two places at once, which has been demonstrated in experiments. Obviously, radiation, sound, light, are all waves so you need a wave device. Truth is more important than science. Do you want to be scientifically correct, or do you want to see the truth? Here I have shown you the most realistic example of the universe. It's the equivellent of man building the most streamline, wind resistant shape for a car, and not knowing why it is beautiful. Someone can tell me why my idea is right, mathematically. I have just used some known experiments, and produced the criteria to expose those experiments. I believe that I have shown the truth, now someone else can prove that it is the truth. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Sounds interresting and I'll have to think about it further before I post my response about it. HOWEVER about your last paragraph: 1. It's actually my opinion that the truth is less important than the WAY we get it. We won't find an ultimate truth anyways because we atre too small and undeveloped to grasp it - only by TRYING to find it, we achieve progress. 2. Of course science is important. If it wasn't, I could just tell you the red phunky elephant in the bottom of the sea invented the world while eating cheerios. It's the ultimate truth, and science means less. If you SAY SOMETHING, then you need to be prepared to prove it otherwise it's completely invalid. Taht said - I don't throw your theory away completely YET, I need to think about it first, but i WOULD appreciate more details on how you came to that conclution that this is the truth, what more information it gives me and why I should actually believe ni your theory than in any other. You thrown an idea to the air, it's a nice one, very imaginative. You now should show us why we should think about that idea seriously over other existing theories of the universe, otherwise it stays just that - an imaginative idea. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 My theory started to evolve when I read Scrodinger's Kittens. That might be a good place for you to start. It's the best popular science book ever. Then I started to wonder how light can produce those odd results, and be in two places at once, and produce both a wave, and a particle. The I started thinking about strings, and I started bypassing anything that didn't make physical sense. So I made sense of everything, and i got rid of the flat universe, and I got rid of the infinate universe, and I disposed of the constant speed of light. Now I was left with my theory. It's more to do with selective science, which is a good idea really. Lets not have these spooky results. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Because Call of Duty is about to finish installing, I must be blunt. SHUT UP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Hmm you seem to be low on intelligence..I don't expect you to understand, I expect you to get annoyed with your inability to cope with science laying you out with impossibilities. My material is based on science, but a lot of science has proven things that are false. If I use those things then I can only end up with another of your none sensical factors, like light not travelling any faster when you approach it. You can stick with your innacuracies if you like, but I am sticking with my truth. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 By 'your innacuracies', do you mean the ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC FACT that MrL has been taught at one of the best universities in the world in this exact field of science? That would be the scientific facts that are based on repeatable experiments (as opposed to the complete lack of any experimental evidence you gave), reliable results (of which you gave none), accepted theory (your isn't) and also the fact that by your little 'truth is more important than science' rant, you have displayed absolutely no inclination that you know the principles upon which science operates. Which is why this thread is in pseudoscience. That would improper science. Or 'flat-out wrong' science, as I like to call it. MrL - call of duty rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 It is based on science, but I thought that everyone on here was up to date with all of that, so I didn't bother explaining the experimental results based on tests in universities. I have explained it now. Here...... http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41289#post41289 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # :Hmm you seem to be low on intelligence..I don't expect you to understand, I expect you to get annoyed with your inability to cope with science laying you out with impossibilities. Yeah, that's why I study Physics at the best (none of this 'one of the' rubbish, greg) university in the world. And call of duty is good, but loading times are a bit off so I'm defragging my hard drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Pinch Paxton said in post # :? The first line is a reply to you. The second line is a reply to Greg. Note: This only applies in the post you were immediately following. It does NOT apply in this post, so you ARE allowed to read the second line, and apply it to your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Because of the facts that us humans don't like change, and that that theory sounds nuts to me, I disagree. By the way, couldn't we detect this "liquid?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Well that depends on whether you decide to believe in Dark Matter, Strings. I suppose that fish don't really notice that they are in water. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 The offset of planets during a solar eclipse? What's that got to do with your theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Well I edited it out. It's just a consequence of the wave. I don't feel that I have to explain all of the already known facts just to get back to my theory. Soon I'll have to prove that the world is round. I feel like I am having to explain way to many know details to keep this running. Some things aren't visible, they have consequences, but are not easily detected. You can see iron filings from magnetism forming a pattern, that is my liquid in action. That's the best I can tell you. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now