gamefreek_01 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 its the only solutino to this conudrum that is not too far fetched Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 the particles that create the pressure are preforming owrk to keep the particles stuck together whcih in turn holds everything together resisting the other forces agaisnt the whole object Work is distance and force. There is no movement in this situation. It is not work. Is there a physicist in the house?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 lol i just said the movement of the particles which create force on other particles to keep them together to make the whole substance stay solid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 although there might be one problem those particles that make up gravity and magnetism must be held to gether by sometihng, as yuo get small and smaller yuo have to keep explaining the force with particles stuck together in chains so the only way this endless explaination would be the only force in nature that only relies on other particles to push the particles together called pressure. Are you suggesting that this unifying force called "pressure" is what ties together electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong nuclear forces? Does Mark say that EM force is not what holds certain atoms together to form a substance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 these theories are of my own although mark may or may not have said the same. and yes the only solution to all these problems with endless energy and such is pressure where the second smallest particles smaller thna light are held together, alos made of the smallest partilces, are held together by a continuous force of other very small particles shotting around everywhere to keep these second smallest particles togther whcih these particles join together to make chains to mkae gravity andm agtentism and weka nuclear force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 i would like to defend mark because me and him share similar views on these topics. As opposed to defending him because you agree with his interpretations? sry for my large amonuts of spelling mistakes i tend to make mistakes when i type fast Try typing more slowly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 as someone said before he supposedly siad that gravity is caused by every thing expanding at the same time, i disagree with that but his ideas of how scientists are mostly wrong and arent thinking enough is what i agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 How do you quantify scientists being 'mostly wrong'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 when i inquire that that moslty wat scientists say is incorrect i am overemphasising the fact that scienctists are not giving the correct thinking on subjects of physics like gravity such as einstein and his outrageous theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kotake Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 when i inquire that that moslty wat scientists say is incorrect i am overemphasising the fact that scienctists are not giving the correct thinking on subjects of physics like gravity such as einstein and his outrageous theories. And what is so outrageous about Einstein's theories and not about Mark's theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Gamefreak,I stated earlier in the thread,that the author.In order to arrive at his final theory was using expansion theory.Perhaps if you were to read about that first,you would better understand the authors work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 to answer your question kotake einstein theories such as how gravity has to do with space time curvature is very implausible nothing could work like that first because time is not a dimension of reality but a measurement of how fast we do things, and second even if time wasnt just a measurement then the movement of bodies through psace would not create gravity. and also i probly should not say mark's theories becasue i had only read his free chapter which only gives reasons why gravity is wrong not what he thinks it is these theories are mine i suppose but also the theory someone had siad mark had given for gravity would be wrong, the expansion one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 What? Try to make more sense please. Your bit on Einstein demonstrates absolutely no understanding of Relativity whatsoever. time is not a dimension of reality but a measurement of how fast we do things, How is that? Isn't time another measurement, like distance? Can it not be a dimension, even if it is not spacial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 our 3 dimensions are the width length and height of an object or piece of matter which gives us information on its apperance time how ever gives us information on something that not only can be infinit( an object can do anything at infinit different times where as one single object only has one set of dimensions) be also time tells about how long a object does something time however tells us nothing about an actual object only what its doing( how long is donig it) thus time is not a dimension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 when i inquire that that moslty wat scientists say is incorrect i am overemphasising the fact that scienctists are not giving the correct thinking on subjects of physics like gravity such as einstein and his outrageous theories. And the "correct thinking" on the disciplines that these scientists have studied all their lives would come from whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 while i didnt understand a bit of yuor question ill tell yuo that even if scientists or anyone might have studied and studied for years that doesnt mean that im wrong or there right they have to have the right mind to really think about atoms and give good thoeries, einsteins theroy is very implausible and other theories like big bang all are impluasible when i theorize try my hardest to make my explanation all make sense in terms of what a know about anything, and if it doesnt make any sense ill find where it doesnt and work around it with a new theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 If they're so implausible, why have scientists proven them correct time and time again? Flukes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Everyone is being very nice gamefreek01, as they should be, especially since you are new here. I, however, am a mean bastard, so I am going to be nasty. 1. Please learn to type and to write in sentences. You apologised earlier for your spelling errors. Thank you for that. You explained it happened when you typed fast. Sayonara suggested you type slowly. You ignored this. gamefreek, asking people to spend time trying to understand your infantile English, sentenceless writing, and persistent typographical errors is rude. Please stop being rude. Your last post (41) could have looked like this: While I didn’t understand a bit of your question I’ll tell you this. Even if scientists, or anyone, might have studied and studied for years, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong, or they are right. They have to have the right mind to really think about atoms and give good theories: Einstein’s theory is very implausible; and other theories like big bang all are implausible. When I theorize I try my hardest to make my explanation all make sense in terms of what I know about anything. If it doesn’t make any sense I’ll find where it doesn’t and work around it with a new theory. That took under two minutes two correct. Please do the same in future. 2. You do not have any theories. You have speculations. If you can explain how these speculations may be tested they can graduate to hypotheses. If, after rigorous testing they appear to be valid, at least in some circumstances they may be honoured with the title theory. 3. I am one of the most insufferably arrogant people I know, but I would not have the audacity to challenge Einstein's theories, especially from what appears to be your weak appreciation of scientific fundamentals. 4. "Even if scientists have studied and studied for years, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong, or they are right." True, but it sure stacks the odds in their favour. gamefreek01, you have the same rights as me or anyone else to post any and all of your thoughts on this forum. I'm using my right to seriously question what and how you are posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 hmm well i see your point on my spelling and stuff ill take that into account as i type out this and any other posts. sry for inconviencing you. Now i like to think of what i have been saying as being theories because i have thought about this alot looking around the internet and i have talked to people about some or this and aurgued i call these my theories because thats what i beleive through all the thiknig ive put into it. isnt that what a theory is a persons beleive on a topic. Not a speculation. Although i dont understand how einsteins theorys are scientifically fundemental but i do respect einstein, even though i had heard from my friend at school that it was actuly eisntiens wofe who could of made the theories. i respect einstein because he great ideas but they were correct i believe (ive only read general relativity indepthly so i only can relate to that theory) i beleive this because the plausiblity of time being a dimension is wrong which i had talked about in a earlier post also the way that moving through space to create gravity could not work espically for all objects in the universe because they would need to move for this to be even a small bit correct. And yes scientist that have degrees and such do tip the favours for them but in some ways might tip it for me where the scientists are to fond of the things they learned where it makes them close minded which appears alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 oh and to capn refsmmat them proving it could be because of luck or even indirect relation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Ophiolite,whilst nobody would disagree with what you said.I think saying it only showed your rudeness. Gamefreek might talk/type the most utterly incomprehensible balderdash of any member here.Yet that does not give you the right to deal with him in a condescending manner. We dont know his/her age or nationality,gamefreak is simply showing that there is alot to science he/she finds difficult to comprehend.But has shown to us he/she has an enquiring mind(which should be encouraged not put down).If people are going to respond and reply to gamefreak,it should be positive.If not one should restrain themselves,especially respected members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 lol you make me sound like a little kid although thank you for standing up for my rights, and my age is only 14 and i live in canada, ontario, windsor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 24, 2005 Author Share Posted February 24, 2005 hmm well i see your point on my spelling and stuff ill take that into account as i type out this and any other posts. sry for inconviencing you. Now that just sounds silly. Taking it into account by saying "sry" and misspelling "inconveniencing" as well? I don't want to be mean, I'm just saying it would be easier if you could slow down and think when you type. Now i like to think of what i have been saying as being theories because i have thought about this alot looking around the internet and i have talked to people about some or this and aurgued i call these my theories because thats what i beleive through all the thiknig ive put into it. isnt that what a theory is a persons beleive on a topic. Not a speculation. But a good theory would have some sort of reasoning and evidence. You have not put forth either of these (not in a recognizable form, anyways) while Einstein and others have. Although i dont understand how einsteins theorys are scientifically fundemental but i do respect einstein, even though i had heard from my friend at school that it was actuly eisntiens wofe who could of made the theories."I heard" holds absolutely no respect on this forum. As seen in this post by Sayonara³.i respect einstein because he great ideas but they were correct i believe Okay, so you say they were correct. (ive only read general relativity indepthly so i only can relate to that theory) i beleive this because the plausiblity of time being a dimension is wrong which i had talked about in a earlier post also the way that moving through space to create gravity could not work espically for all objects in the universe because they would need to move for this to be even a small bit correct. So now it isn't correct. Quit contradicting yourself. I don't want to be rude, I'm just saying you don't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 oh lol i dont know how to spell inconveniencing and i meant to saying i do not beleive he is correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamefreek_01 Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 personally people i think you guys are trying not to engage the actual problem of arguing with me so yuo make me seem as dumb as yuo can because yuo cant compete with my theories or ideas 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