Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Locating the centre of the Universe


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#61    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,379 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 19 January 2010 - 10:08 AM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 19 January 2010 - 09:59 AM, said:

Bloody hell.

What is it with you people?

Daniel: don't ask questions that have complex answers if you're going to whinge when the simplification is too abstract.



This is where you utterly fail. The universe, its structure and constituents are mind-meltingly complicated. Just because can't grasp the basics doesn't mean that the universe suddenly has to follow simple rules.

You're right, the simplest idea is a sphere with a centre. But that isn't what the universe is structured like, and no amount of whinging is going to change it.

You think this is getting more and more complex? Damn right it is, and you know what, this isn't even 2% of how complex this can get.


physicsolved: I'm sorry, but almost nothing of what you've posted is even close to something that can be considered science. You're not thinking outside the box, you're not rallying against the "parroting science worshippers" - you're just wrong, completely wrong. What you've posted make no sense and has no practical value or application. None.



My breakfast was closer to a unified theory than that.


Triade: do you not understand the idea of an "analogy"? Do you actually think that Steller is suggesting that we live on a giant balloon???



This is what is known as a "lost cause".

This thread has gone absolutely nowhere - a question is posed with a complex answer that takes a bit of abstract thinking, and an answer challenged by minds that seemingly couldn't be any less capable of abstract thought.

If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong.



no telling me what something is like when we have no idea what that something is like is wrong.

in a balloon type structure, you have a rigid edge.  in a shockwave, you have a flexable edge.  further in a balloon everything is pushed out nothing is left in the middle.  how ever in a shockwave, the substance that makes up the wave in this case space doesn't really move it just sits still while everything on the wave moves outward and as has been indicted if it hits something solid oh i don't know like another shock wave it bends around it if it is able too.


also if you don't like my question don't respond to it.


and the answer is obvious to anyone who stops to think about it.  this universe isn't everything.  just like the earth wasn't everything during the dark ages.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#62    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,557 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 19 January 2010 - 11:15 AM

View Postdanielost, on 19 January 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

no telling me what something is like when we have no idea what that something is like is wrong.

What???.


View Postdanielost, on 19 January 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

in a balloon type structure, you have a rigid edge.  in a shockwave, you have a flexable edge.  further in a balloon everything is pushed out nothing is left in the middle.  how ever in a shockwave, the substance that makes up the wave in this case space doesn't really move it just sits still while everything on the wave moves outward and as has been indicted if it hits something solid oh i don't know like another shock wave it bends around it if it is able too.

Forget the balloon ok? No-one is comparing anything to a balloon. No-one is saying the outside of the balloon is X and the inside is Y. OK?

The only reason the balloon was ever mentioned was the illustrate the expansion of space. Not the structure of the universe, or the properties of gravity - just the way space is expanding.

Draw two dots on the surface of a balloon or any stretchy fabric, and pull the fabric apart - the space between the dots stretches.

That is space expanding. Your shockwave idea is meaningless I'm afraid.


View Postdanielost, on 19 January 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

also if you don't like my question don't respond to it.

I have no problem with the question, it was a perfectly good one. But don't throw your toys out of the pram because you either don't like or understand the answer, or because you want it to be "simpler".


View Postdanielost, on 19 January 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

and the answer is obvious to anyone who stops to think about it.  this universe isn't everything.  just like the earth wasn't everything during the dark ages.

This is a non-argument that hints at a "we don't know everything, so why bother trying to know anything?" kind of attitude. As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.

Edit - I propose a new law similar to Godwin's Law. The first person to mention the myth that we used to think the earth was flat as a way of dismissing current scientific knowledge automatically loses the argument.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 19 January 2010 - 11:48 AM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#63    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,379 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 19 January 2010 - 02:10 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 19 January 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

What???.




Forget the balloon ok? No-one is comparing anything to a balloon. No-one is saying the outside of the balloon is X and the inside is Y. OK?

The only reason the balloon was ever mentioned was the illustrate the expansion of space. Not the structure of the universe, or the properties of gravity - just the way space is expanding.

Draw two dots on the surface of a balloon or any stretchy fabric, and pull the fabric apart - the space between the dots stretches.

That is space expanding. Your shockwave idea is meaningless I'm afraid.




I have no problem with the question, it was a perfectly good one. But don't throw your toys out of the pram because you either don't like or understand the answer, or because you want it to be "simpler".




This is a non-argument that hints at a "we don't know everything, so why bother trying to know anything?" kind of attitude. As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.

Edit - I propose a new law similar to Godwin's Law. The first person to mention the myth that we used to think the earth was flat as a way of dismissing current scientific knowledge automatically loses the argument.


i didn't use that argument.  i used the argument that the earth was everything in the mind of the church during the dark ages.  that is the earth, the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars all of which orbited the earth.


and again if those two dots are moving away from each other then how can the third dot also on that surface be moving toward either of the dots.

if the galaxies are not moving, but the space between them is getting larger then they cannot be moving toward each other.


personnally i don't think we're riding a shock wave.  i think said shock wave or balloon edge left us behind long ago and we are in the middle of said area.  that doesn't mean i think we are the center.  there may not be a center.  what we call the universe may only be a group of galaxies inside a much larger area and there may be far more groupings of galaxies out there.


then again as someone stated in another thread we may simple be inside a black hole.

Edited by danielost, 19 January 2010 - 02:15 PM.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#64    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 19 January 2010 - 02:29 PM

Quote

and again if those two dots are moving away from each other then how can the third dot also on that surface be moving toward either of the dots.

It isnt moving towards them due to the expansion of the universe. The balloon is merely an analogy to explain how everything can be moving away from each other due to expansion.  Why do you keep bringing up a 'third' moving toward either of the dots? Really? What does this have to do with anything?

Quote

if the galaxies are not moving, but the space between them is getting larger then they cannot be moving toward each other.

No, you're just dealing with two separate things. Due to the expansion, the distance between stationary galaxies will increase. If the gravity of two galaxies pulls them together, then their motion through space can be greater than the distance being put between them by the expansion of the galaxy and hence they will move closer togheter.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#65    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 January 2010 - 02:43 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 19 January 2010 - 09:59 AM, said:

My breakfast was closer to a unified theory than that.
This breakfast didn't happen to involve Moebius strips of bacon, did it?

-------------------
Seriously, though, here is a quantitative answer.

Where is the centre of the Universe?

If the big bang was t years ago (something like 14 billion years, I think), then the centre of the Universe is t light-years away in any direction.

Obviously you can only get there if you can travel faster than the speed of light (otherwise, by the time you get `there' the centre of the Universe would be at least 2t light years away from your new position, in any direction), and if you did somehow manage to get there you'd probably regret it.

(This doesn't mean that any of the other answers - and by that I mean real answers - are any less valid or true. This is just another way of thinking about it.)


#66    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:29 PM

View PostStellar, on 19 January 2010 - 03:35 AM, said:

But we're not talking about movement, we're talking about expansion. I suppose you can say that the membrane is moving in the "outward" dimension, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. When refering to objects within the universe, we speak of any sort of movement relative to the universe. Why? Because we have no idea what or even if there's anything "outside" of the universe, nor do the laws of physics even necessairly apply to anything outside of the universe. Hence, when dealing with expansion, it is not the objects that are moving due to the expansion, but rather the space between them that is expanding.



No object is changing location due to the expansion of the universe though.



That is first of all wrong, as I already explained, and second of all contrary to the laws of physics.



Nope. Not from a physics stand point.



Not relative to the universe itself. The universe, in the baloon analogy, is the membrane. Relative to that membrane, two motionless ants arent moving.



But in the balloon analogy, the balloon isnt the universe, the membrane is the universe. Hence, the center of the balloon does not correspond to the center of the universe.



What paradox? One experiences a gravitational pull from the other. There is no paradox here.



Really? Are you shitting me? Do I need to explain gravity to you?

I give up! "Lost in the 60,s tonight"! He is so predisposed as to be blinded by the predisposition(s)


#67    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:39 PM

Emma_Acid 
physicsolved: I'm sorry, but almost nothing of what you've posted is even close to something that can be considered science. You're not thinking outside the box, you're not rallying against the "parroting science worshippers" - you're just wrong, completely wrong. What you've posted make no sense and has no practical value or application. None.

MY RESPONSE:

"If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong".

QID PRO QUO!!!!!


#68    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,557 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:46 PM

View Postphysicsolved, on 19 January 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

"If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong".

QID PRO QUO!!!!!

Not really applicable, given that what Steller's been talking about has scientific backing the world over, and is verified by decades of observation, while your "ideas" are of no value or applicable use whatever, and demonstrably so.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#69    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 19 January 2010 - 05:15 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 19 January 2010 - 11:15 AM, said:

What???.




Forget the balloon ok? No-one is comparing anything to a balloon. No-one is saying the outside of the balloon is X and the inside is Y. OK?

The only reason the balloon was ever mentioned was the illustrate the expansion of space. Not the structure of the universe, or the properties of gravity - just the way space is expanding.

Draw two dots on the surface of a balloon or any stretchy fabric, and pull the fabric apart - the space between the dots stretches.

That is space expanding. Your shockwave idea is meaningless I'm afraid.




I have no problem with the question, it was a perfectly good one. But don't throw your toys out of the pram because you either don't like or understand the answer, or because you want it to be "simpler".




This is a non-argument that hints at a "we don't know everything, so why bother trying to know anything?" kind of attitude. As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.

Edit - I propose a new law similar to Godwin's Law. The first person to mention the myth that we used to think the earth was flat as a way of dismissing current scientific knowledge automatically loses the argument.


Refer to illustration.

What expands space? SPACE! Exclusively . Unless of course you can explain something else that expands or contracts space. What is the force acting upon space that expands it? Where does it come from? So many rhetorical questions!

Properties of gravity: If an object planet is such and such distance from another planet the SPACE between them ( as being sufficient)is what controls their relative positioning. If the space between them contracts( decreases) then the objects come closer together ( not sufficient . DANGER DR. WHO). Thus ....observation: Isn’t it said that a planet is safe( or meteorite, star etc..) from another planet ( or meteorite, star etc..) so long as the distance between them is at such and such so that the "gravitational pull" ( theoretical; as gravity is a mere theory)of one planet ( or the other) does not "draw them together? What is the difference between that "theory" and my postulate that "gravity" is in reality merely the expansion( increase ) or contraction( decrease) of space area or distance BETWEEN ( Space is between all "mass objects")objects???

Thus: what would draw the objects together would be the increase or decrease in the SPACE BETWEEN THEM resulting from the expansion or contraction of the SPACE BETWEEN THEM.

So what is space? EVERYTHING! Space acts upon space. Bulk space( "invisible" ether) acts upon vestige space( "visible" ether relative to bulk space= small reflected bubbles of space( small or large circles enclosing part of bulk space) reflecting the properties and qualities of bulk space). Or bulk space acting upon PLANE space( not plain ).

Gravity = (space increase or space decrease between objects)= motion or movement of object(s) relativity to one another= (expansion or contraction of distance between objects)= SPACE

Gw( gravity weakened= weak force)=S( DISTANCE BETWEEN OBJECTS)INCREASED.

Gs( gravity strong= strong force)=S (Distance between objects)DECREASED

EMF( Electromagnetic force)= S(space)ever existential and ever-relative to "mass objects"

NF( Nuclear force)= Proton (S=space) electrical charge found in the CENTER of all atoms( center of all “balloons”; and represents the space energy force which dictates the DISTANCE between two or more nucleons(“mass object atoms= MICRO nucleus…..or “mass object being/forms=MACRO nucleus). This Nuclear force controls the distance between the circumferences of each atom or each “mass object”. Thus of necessity also controls the relative spacing of the nucleuses( centers) of the sphere atoms or spherical “object masses.”

Thus the “residual strong force” would represent EMF increase( space increase-expansion) between “mass objects”. The “strong interaction” would represent EMF decrease( space decrease-contraction) between “mass objects.”

WICIPEDIA :At SHORT DISTANCES(Gs..refer to above)) the nuclear force is stronger than the Coulomb force;(Nevertheless, the dependence of the electric force with distance (inverse square law)”….is relevant) it can overcome the Coulomb repulsion of protons inside the nucleus. However, the Coulomb force between protons has a much larger range and becomes the only significant force between protons when their SEPARATION EXCEEDS(Gw…refer to above)separation exceeds about 2.5 fm.

You yourself said it: 'As far as the current understanding of physics is concerned, the universe is, by definition, everything.' Indeed: As the universe is everything; so to is "everything made up of space energy.' Thus the universe = space energy.

Thus: space energy controls all functionings of the universe. when space energy asserts itself within or into our universe all motion/movement, spin, revolution, distance, speed, location, time, stretching, contracting.....relativity of mass objects ...is altered.


when space energy relaxes "itself" within or into our universe all motion/movement, spin, revolution, distance, speed, location, time, stretching, contracting.....relativity of mass objects ...is altered.

despite entropic decision the ultimant determinant factor of the universe lies squarely/circularly with the entity called space=LIGHT!


#70    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,557 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 19 January 2010 - 05:30 PM

Sorry - given that you don't even know something basic such as how gravity functions, I'm not going to even try to address any of your other points.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#71    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 January 2010 - 06:48 PM

I'll take one for the team, I guess.
[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']
What expands space? SPACE! Exclusively .[/quote]
No. Residual inertia from the big bang and Dark Energy expand space.
[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']
Unless of course you can explain something else that expands or contracts space.[/quote]
Residual inertia from the big bang is known and quantifiable. Dark Energy... well, we're working on it.

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']
What is the force acting upon space that expands it? Where does it come from? So many rhetorical questions![/quote]
Just because you don't want to listen to the answer doesn't make the question rhetorical in general.

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']
Properties of gravity: If an object planet is such and such distance from another planet the SPACE between them ( as being sufficient)is what controls their relative positioning. If the space between them contracts( decreases) then the objects come closer together ( not sufficient . DANGER DR. WHO).[/quote]
Absolutely not. The relative distance between two objects defines the strength of their interaction in a spatial potential.

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293'] Thus ....observation: Isn’t it said that a planet is safe( or meteorite, star etc..) from another planet ( or meteorite, star etc..) so long as the distance between them is at such and such so that the "gravitational pull" ( theoretical; as gravity is a mere theory)of one planet ( or the other) does not "draw them together? [/quote]
Yes, that is probably `said'. It is completely wrong though. Gravitational pull between two massive objects is always drawing them together. Occasional conditions, such as the aforementioned expansion of space or the much more common Conservation of Angular Momentum (i.e. in planetary orbits) is sufficient to keep objects from crashing into each other.

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']What is the difference between that "theory" and my postulate that "gravity" is in reality merely the expansion( increase ) or contraction( decrease) of space area or distance BETWEEN ( Space is between all "mass objects")objects???[/quote]
Well the theory involves actual equations which can produce quantitative predictions. Your postulate is vague rambling with erratic use of punctuation.

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']
Thus: what would draw the objects together would be the increase or decrease in the SPACE BETWEEN THEM resulting from the expansion or contraction of the SPACE BETWEEN THEM.[/quote]
No. To draw objects together you definitely must decrease the space between them, no argument there. That does not suggest that the space between them must be contracted in and of itself. The objects can easily be moving through space.

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']So what is space?[/quote]
All physical locations occupied by only the vacuum potential?

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']
Gravity = (space increase or space decrease between objects)= motion or movement of object(s) relativity to one another= (expansion or contraction of distance between objects)= SPACE

Gw( gravity weakened= weak force)=S( DISTANCE BETWEEN OBJECTS)INCREASED.

Gs( gravity strong= strong force)=S (Distance between objects)DECREASED

EMF( Electromagnetic force)= S(space)ever existential and ever-relative to "mass objects"[/quote]

NF( Nuclear force)= Proton (S=space) electrical charge found in the CENTER of all atoms( center of all “balloons”; and represents the space energy force which dictates the DISTANCE between two or more nucleons(“mass object atoms= MICRO nucleus…..or “mass object being/forms=MACRO nucleus). This Nuclear force controls the distance between the circumferences of each atom or each “mass object”. Thus of necessity also controls the relative spacing of the nucleuses( centers) of the sphere atoms or spherical “object masses.” [/quote]
First, your `NF' is the same as your `Gs'.

Second, why is there a different time scale, parity, and symmetry-breaking rules for a `Gw' interaction than for a `Gs' interaction if one is merely the inverse operation of the other?

Third, why is your general case of space increase/decrease, gravity, mutually attractive while every other above described force is mutually repulsive?

Forth, if all forces are basically the same action upon space why do they all act on different degrees of freedom (mass, flavour, colour, charge)?

[quote name='physicsolved' date='19 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1263921331' post='3251293']
despite entropic decision the ultimant determinant factor of the universe lies squarely/circularly with the entity called space=LIGHT!
[/quote]
Light is just the mediator of electromagnetic interactions.


#72    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,868 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 19 January 2010 - 07:27 PM

Quote

Thus ....observation: Isn’t it said that a planet is safe( or meteorite, star etc..) from another planet ( or meteorite, star etc..) so long as the distance between them is at such and such so that the "gravitational pull" ( theoretical; as gravity is a mere theory)of one planet ( or the other) does not "draw them together? What is the difference between that "theory" and my postulate that "gravity" is in reality merely the expansion( increase ) or contraction( decrease) of space area or distance BETWEEN ( Space is between all "mass objects")objects???

I dont see how that can express reality. What is happening in the case of my cup of tea resting on the table? The gravity pulling it down towards the center of the Earth is still there, hence in your case the contraction of space should still be happening, no?

Or how do you explain say the Sun and the Earth? They are gravitationally linked, yet the Earth is in a stable orbit. Is the space there still contracting due to gravity?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#73    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:05 AM

Wicipedia: Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Separately it was shown that large spherically-symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.) This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Newton called induction.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him – see History section below.) In modern language, the law states the following:
I propose the following: “every massive particle in the universe IS ATTRACTED to every other massive particle”….. DUE TO the “force” of space /energy (EMF) and that there “masses” or inconsequential. In reality there is no such thing as “mass” rather “everything is space energy. When a “visible space energy” object is attracted to another it is because the space(invisible) between them is either contracting or remaining constant. If the “force” of space is constant the objects remain constantly at such and such distance with no deviation. If the “force” (space) is decreased the objects come closer together. If the “force “ of space expands the objects “change from one point to another altering their relativity thus …MOVING!  The “force of attraction” is an inference caused by the fact that we only perceive the “object mass(es)” with our eye seeming to move when in reality it is the space we do not “see with our eyes” either ( ETHER) expanding or (ORE) contracting relative to the objects. Space is relative to all objects as well defines all object “shapes” as distinguishable and separated from other objects. The object” masses” are never moving in reality but are at constant zero motion. Only when space increases/decreases between them does the illusion of  “object mass” movement occur. To reiterate it is the  light space energy that is  either  expanding or contracting resulting in objects SEEMING to be either attracting, separating, or remaining constant.  

It is imperative to note that although “ Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity.” As it concerns our discussion we are confined to a discussion of gravity thus my comments are particularly related to this context.

I agree with the following synopsis of space( force of attraction …..or not…or  “attraction” constant) relative to mass: inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (Separately it was shown that large spherically-symmetrical masses attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centers.)”
Notice that this work( wicipedia) demonstrates the eloquent principle; that being: “ as if ALL their mass were concentrated at their centers.” This supports almost fully what I have been proposing that ALL matter consists of “space energy.“ Further that the relevant factor of Attraction of one object to another is located at the center. That is: when we view the earth and its moon we do not perceive the core centers of both as well we assume because we can live on the circumference of the earth and see only the circumference of the moon, as well because we perceive “mass” by the sense of touch , that “mass” is different from space. I ask what does space feel like? Physics has proven that space FEELS like many things. Touch any so-called “mass” object and you are feeling “space energy‘. Everything is space energy. Thus the only distinguishing factor between what we see ( visible space energy) and what we do not see ( invisible space energy) is the product of our vision….the eye. Apparently our eye (inferior as it is relative to other beings…I.e. animals and insects) cannot visually perceive light energy as it is: infinitesimal atomic energy circles . Our eye conglomerates the atoms thus because of this all of the small “atoms” are massed together so that there combined( myriad) “little bodies” form a larger circumference circle/sphere. In other words  our eyes are so designed that there must be so many microscopic atoms collected( in “Mass”) together until they form a large enough “image” for us to visually comprehend. Thus all mass is ( what we are perceiving as mass) is space light PHOTONS building up to the point thus creating a large enough “amount” to become visible to our “macro-oriented” eye. Other creatures seem to have a more Micro-oriented eye meaning that they can see smaller fractions of light photon( perhaps to the point of comprehending the “atom“ in its infinitesimal form) with no need of any “magnification.


#74    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:07 AM

Mass= “volume” of light energy photon communicated to any perspective mirrored eye. ALL of  the center of the volume of light ( thus the only real mass=   captured space center(s)) is “concentrated in the center of every organism. ( im not refering to any mythical chi, rather a scientific proposal). This center  volume of space ( verses “mass”=illusion) represents a single  space energy atom whose diametric size is reflected or magnified out from its center as far as space will allow. The farther space allows the atom to reflect outward into space the larger and more magnified the diameter of the visible equivalent reflection of the invisible space energy atom(s). If space contracts “in on” the atom the former magnified diameter ( magnified to the point of our eye perceiving it) shrinks. Eventually if space continues to contract in on the atom, the atom will “vanish” from our view. Thus another quality of space expansion/contraction is its ability to magnify an atom  to a threshold we can visualize or  to “shrink” an atom  to a threshold beyond our visual perception. The universe is comprised of atom(s)( or ONE ATOM!)=( light- energy photon(s)…”basic unit of light“) those/this atom(s) can either be infinitesimal( space contracting in on them/it) and thus not perceived by the HUMAN anatomical eye;  or: magnified ( due to the same space expanding ”outside” of the atom)  to the point of our eye registering them. The tragedy is that as soon as the atoms were magnified to a size we could comprehend them ( progression in our ability to comprehend physics) we labeled them mass, gave them a weight, through in the theory of gravity( force of attraction), abandoned the reality that everything is invisible space energy, and made the mistake of distinguishing what we do not see from what we do see as if they were different. All of this pseudo-scientific and inferential rationalizing resulted in predispositions that caused a stagnancy in physics or even further a regression in the ability to move on in our thinking!

The universe as it concerns so-called “physical matter” is merely a product of ATOMIC REFLECTION. That is to say : Invisible light energy( infinitesimal “atom(s)”)  is being reflected/magnified to our eye by means of the expansion/ contraction of space within, around, beside , between atom(s) . The same principles of the functioning of the eye ( mirroring/reflecting light photon) is occurring throughout the entire universe. That is: Bulk light within the universe…. when reflected…. forms circumferential planes ( an ether ore skin of sorts); defining “each” atomic organism: Big or small) that either reflect the light photon at  a constant position relative to light( light around and within  atom NEVER increasing or decreasing), or reflects the light photon space as it expands outward ( atom expanding= mass increasing) or contracts inward on the atom( atom contracting/shrinking).

Eventually the atom( “mass” light photon) will be contracted to the point that its inner space……….. relative to the outer space that surrounds it…. reaches a point of singularity.

Singularity = when light photon( atom= “energy quality” of light though not fully accounting for all of the properties of space LIGHT energy) atom( representing space captured( plane light energy atom))  shrinks to the point that it returns to space light bulk.

To illustrate look at accompanying picture: When the black circle circumference shrinks to the center then the  ENERGY quality of light as representing the “atom” returns to the FULL nature and quality of light as represented by the green space outside. Conversion( E=mc2)= when space energy CAPTURED returns to space energy free flowing. Or: When energy/light, plane,  atom reflected…………. returns to Light energy un-reflected bulk!

Attached Files



#75    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 20 January 2010 - 04:08 AM

Wicipedia further: Every point mass ( idealized…and that which I do not agree with )attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points

The “force pointing along the line intersecting both points” represents the force of space between( along the line) by which A is relative to B.

Look at the equation in illustration 2:
where:
F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and
r is the distance between the two point masses

F= magnitude of the space between M1 and M2. Where magnitude = space increased or decreased

G= EMF(Light energy)= no magnetism at all. Rather the “extent” at which space expands or contracts. The gravitational constant represents NO increase or decrease in the space energy( EMF) between M1 and M2.

M1; M2 = defined appropriately. Except for this reality: The mass isn’t found at the circumferences of these to objects( M1 and M2), rather resides only in the infinitesimal center. Circumferences are irrelevant to the constant distance between. Thus the true phenomenon of EMF( space energy) relative to M1 as to M2 is only found at the infinitesimal center. Thus the true metric between to objects is not found by measuring the distance from one circumference to the other , rather from the center of M1 to the center of M2.

R= the distance between the CENTER of M1 as to the CENTER of M2. This distance is defined by either the constancy of the space between them or the expansion or contraction of the space between them.

The circumference of any object we see is never relevant and is meaningless in the true functionality of the universe. It is the center of all objects that is exclusively relevant and represents merely an infinitesimally small vestige of invisible space energy…..BEING REFLECTED TO MACRO -SIZE and thus comprehended by our eye. Thus everything we “SEE” with our eyes is in reality merely infinitesimal invisible space energy being magnified( by our eye) via reflection. Indeed everything in the universe is made up of atoms. Or perhaps our universe represents a single light energy “atom” being magnified to the diameter it is due to the accommodation of space. That is to say a single “atomic,,” energy- light, spatial form of light bulk growing in size and dimension due to the expansion of space outside of it …thus of necessity inside

Attached Files






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users