Gravity as the expansion of matter, and the smallness of the past.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, that's quite enough of that. Neveos, you NEED to read our rules.

 

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch.

 

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.

 

Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open.

 

If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.

 

All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track.

 

This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

[Neveos]

I might one day understand something different about today's physics. In fact, I hope so. As a physicist, there's nothing I want MORE than to rediscover physics. Or, for that matter, for anyone to rediscover physics. That means I have a VERY big possibility for unique research and - in turn - getting a Nobel prize myself for researching this "new" brand of science.

 

Fame an money, eh? Beyond the "small" result of understanding our universe better, rediscovering physics will give all physicist a new meaning for their research. You'll be hard pressed to find a physicist who won't be totally excited about that.

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.

 

That said, logic on its own isn't a good method of describing reality. You need to make sure that reality fits your logic, not the other way around.

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.

 

If I make the claim:

All animals with fur are mammals.

I can deduce, logically, that every time I see an animal with fur, it is a mammal. And I'd be right. Until we discovered the Platypus. Oops, now I'm 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.

 

You're essentially expecting us to drop the EVIDENCED theory for a theory that you just invented because you feel like it.

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.

 

Okay, I'll play. How *can* it be detected, then? If it can't be detected at all, then your theory is unfalsifiable, and hence nonscientific.

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.

 

Further, you will now need to explain why this "expanding matter" that we can't detect does not cause other phenomena that are SUPPOSED to happen when matter expands; whether we can detect the increased density or not, gravity WILL increase.

What? Did you not read the OP? I am explaining gravity -as being- the expansion of matter.

 

If you claim that the density increases but we can't detect it, and gravity for some odd reason does NOT increase, then there's no difference between saying that and saying that the matter is effectively NOT expanding.

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.

 

Okay, seriously now. What's the most advanced level of physics course that you took recently? ever?

Basically, nothing.

 

I will not continue this if you insist on repeating your statements without respecting the members here enough to give proper responses to our questions.

 

Stop avoiding questions and start debating science or find yourself another forum to debate in. We're not a philosophy forum, we're a science forum, and YOU came to US.

Yeah, and I'm finally starting to get questions.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Okay, that's quite enough of that. Neveos, you NEED to read our rules.

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.

[mooeypoo]

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.

Right, but if the logic isn't supported by evidence, it's not real.

 

Here's an example for you for pure logic that doesn't represent reality:

 

• All animals that have fur are mammals.
  
• A bear has fur, therefore it's a mammal.
  
• Platypus has fur, therefore it's a mammal.
  

 

Great logic. Only it's not true, because there's no evidence that the first statement is true. In fact, evidence show that the first claim is FALSE. And while the second statement is true, the third statement is absolutely false.

Logic must be backed up by evidence.

 

For that matter, Neveos, your claim is shown by evidence to be absolutely, unequivocally false. All hypothesis coming out of that claim are, therefore, false. Unless you find a way to show us why your first claim isn't false, your entire theory is bunk. It's illogical just like my three sentences above are illogical.

 

Stop beating around the bush.

 

 

It's time to give evidence, Neveos. Do you have any?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

One more issue we must address here.

I asked you what is the highest level of physics you've ever taken, to which you answered

Basically, nothing.

 

In itself, that doesn't mean your theory is false, HOWEVER, it does mean that you should be careful who you blame in not understanding the actual physics.

 

Some of the members that have answered you are professional scientists, or well on their way of being professional scientists. While, again, this doesn't mean their claims are automatically true, it does give their knowledge in physics MUCH more credence.

 

In other words, Neveos, next time you claim people don't know what they're talking about, and choose to ignore resources they give you to help you understand the current physics you so vehemently oppose, you might want to consider your own grasp on the subject matter.

 

It's usually much better arguing against a subject you're actually familiar with.

 

~moo

Edited October 12, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[Neveos]

Right, but if the logic isn't supported by evidence, it's not real.

 

Here's an example for you for pure logic that doesn't represent reality:

 

• All animals that have fur are mammals.
  
• A bear has fur, therefore it's a mammal.
  
• Platypus has fur, therefore it's a mammal.
  

 

Great logic. Only it's not true, because there's no evidence that the first statement is true. In fact, evidence show that the first claim is FALSE. And while the second statement is true, the third statement is absolutely false.

Logic must be backed up by evidence.

 

For that matter, Neveos, your claim is shown by evidence to be absolutely, unequivocally false. All hypothesis coming out of that claim are, therefore, false. Unless you find a way to show us why your first claim isn't false, your entire theory is bunk. It's illogical just like my three sentences above are illogical.

 

Stop beating around the bush.

 

 

It's time to give evidence, Neveos. Do you have any?

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.

[mooeypoo]

So you don't have any evidence and you don't know the physics. Now that that's settled, there's no reason to keep this thread open any longer.

[Sayonara]

Neveos, if your attitude does not improve significantly by the next time you post you will be banned outright.

 

No ifs, no buts, no pleading, whining or recriminations... just *poof* - the nasty, unpleasant, rude poster who cannot grasp the purpose of this site suddenly vanishes for good.