The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity  (Read 7943 times)

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« on: 06/10/2007 11:13:51 »
 I am in some confusion. I have tried unsuccessfully to research the web for answers for many months now. I tend to get side tracked and lose interest, I have visited forums but they in general are not helpful or out of date. I have just joined the science forum and while my attention level is currently high, I thought I’d contact some members who may have their own ideas or answers to my questions .. I’ve never even posted on a forum before and never contacted anybody in any way with these or any other ideas or thoughts.

I am an engineer by trade and probably of average intelligence, with a short attention span,  a  cave man in science  terms.

 In short while traveling on a plane journey in idle thought, it occurred to me that gravity as I understood it in my relative ignorance, was illogical. This caused further though processes which led me to seek answers to many simple questions. In fact I found that there were no definitive answers. This got my interest and led me to concoct a theory that is probably not original.

May I state right away that I am a firm believer that in general terms it’s usually unwise to try to answer difficult questions with simple answers! But in this instance I believe a simple explanation must be the answer

Basic Theory
We all believe, without question, in our own “natural” individual human self-defense biological mechanism, where anti bodies bombard and attack “intruders” Without conscious thought, we treat these intruders as blemishes or threats on our life’s landscape that must be removed.  The antibodies appear to gang up and produce a self determined, reactive, premeditated and predictable force in order to see off the intruder.
In the same way that human biology automatically react to stimulus it could be that the universe may also react in a similar predictable fashion.  I believe it perfectly logical to assert the same unconscious thought process to the universe as a whole. The defensive “universal force” (UF) is a reactive force created by the universe. Design and composition at this point irrelevant. This could even mean that the Universe is a living thing maybe not with conscious thought but certainly with natural unexplainable reactions.  Most if not all of my own questions now have a coherent answer based on the evidence of our own natural human defense model

UF is:-
1.   completely predictable and logical
2.   limitless power
3.   selectively reactive
4.   controllable in the short term only
5.   utterly relentless. Once the process starts it continues to grow until it achieves its ultimate objective … to obliterate the intruder/blemish completely (or at least as we understand completely).  Nothing can stop it!

Process
Generally the existence of the universe continues on relentlessly until a blemish appears and triggers UF. The trigger could take any form, the cause and source unknown..Probably heat or vacuum sensitive. The response is a literally limitless crushing force against the intruder, resulting in a chain reaction of friction and greater force, with an inevitable consequence.

UF acts:-

6.   in a ripple like effect,  as if the blemish has been dropped into a pond, strongest at each center fading to nothing at the outer edge
7.   Equally and simultaneously in all directions ie, the force on a perfect sphere would be exactly equal in each direction and therefore balanced. While the force on a cube would have an uneven effect on the flat surfaces, greater at the center lesser at the corners, effectively a balanced effect, assuming no outside influences, both these options would be balanced and would not result in movement. While an uneven shape such as a planet would cause a “domino” of motion resulting in continued rotation.
8.   Independently from other sister forces carrying out similar cleansing roles across the universe.
9.   forces in close enough in proximity would directly and proportionally effect each other
10.   

Examples of effect
11.   Gravity
1.   In fact what we term gravity is a downward force caused by UF
2.   The earth is yet another blemish in the universal pond in the relatively short, but to us long, process of being dealt with by UF
3.   UF has identified the friction or heat at core of the planet and is reacting as it must by slowly crushing the Earth
4.   Rotation of planet is due to uneven surface and shape of landscape
5.   Each element of the earth compacts downwards towards the blemish at the core,  effectively supporting the element laying above it, all of us waiting for the inevitable
6.   Further effects of UF are that the sea and other elements are bombarded with varying levels of downward force, causing a further chain-reaction effect. The effect of UF is as a child bouncing on a bed. The lighter element in the Earth’s atmosphere are bounced around like pillows in an uncontrollable fashion, this is turn drastically effects the climate tides and so on
12.   Propulsion in space
1.   We assume a rocket propelled vehicle
2.   When the rocket fuel ignites an effective sphere shaped explosion is created causing UF to and attack in all directions equally.
3.   The rocket design is such that the tip of the body of the propulsion device is some distance from the core of the explosion and acts to greatly reduce the UF forces at one side of the core only, therefore the UF forces create controlled movement of the rocket 
4.   The UF force at the tip of the rocket is at its weakest though in a direct line with the centre of the core, at the other end UF force is pushing towards the centre of the core, creating a mini gravity effect around the explosion the core 
5.   In fact the explosion/blemish is itself is being propelled forward through space, if the propulsion of a space vehicle was a coiled spring, when the spring was released  it would cause no forward movement of the vehicle
13.   Combustion in space
1.   If there were a balanced explosion in space with no external influences, there would follow a ripple effect from the core of the explosion with an equal force emitting outwards on all sides, what would happen to that force if not engulfed and digested by UF
2.   Are we to believe that when the fuel is exhausted the force of the explosion vanishes or fades away?
3.   Why is it not being countered and defeated by the UF force
4.   What if the fuel load was such that the explosion lasted for a week or a thousand years, with no gravity to speak off as we now teach, what stops the explosion from spreading across the universe from its core at an unimaginable speed engulfing all in its wake

Thoughts please
Kevin




 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #1 on: 06/10/2007 17:29:38 »
I'll have to read through your theory again to understand it fully, but 1 thought imediately springs to mind.

If UF is responsible for what we term gravity, wouldn't it be the same for every object of similar size? The gravitational force at the surface of an object depends on its size & mass. Your theory seems to suggest that 2 objects of the same size would have the same amount of UF pushing downwards on them hence giving the effect of equal gravity. We know this cannot be the case.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2007 20:13:02 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #2 on: 06/10/2007 18:19:11 »
assuming that each triggers UF and if the objects are far enough apart they would each have UF gravity, if they are close enough they would each effect the others gravity (as we conventionally understand)or if close enough, interact and become one
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #3 on: 06/10/2007 20:15:10 »
Maybe, but that doesn't address the point I raised. If UF is coming from a source external to the objects in question, the same amount will act on objects of the same size regardless their mass. We know that gravity does not work like that.
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #4 on: 07/10/2007 08:48:44 »
Unless i am misunderstanding, your question appears to be based on the very theory of gravitation which I am disputing. The actual theory of gravitational mass is unknown to me other than I believe that there is ongoing debate on the accuracy of mass theory in general with many differing views. Does "we know" refer to undisputed and 100% accepted theory? A little like religion "they cant all be right but they can all be wrong" Could it be that a less complicated answer is waiting to be found?

The shell around the core of the UF delays the inevitable and offers a life span, this in turn allow us effective short term control which we harness/harvest as energy When the rocket (see 12 propulsion in space) is independent of the earths atmosphere the ignition of fuel triggers UF, this is a simple theory to propulsion in space, I am uncomfortable with the fuel burn rate theory it reeks of flat earth text books.

In an attempt to answer what I believe you ask, ref 11/5 notes that each of the earths elements are compacted toward the core, clearly this is done in an orderly manner with  weight/mass (free of outside influence) being the probable determining factor in what lies closest to the core, in any event clearly UF is sensitive to weight/mass.  An exact copy would cause an exact replication. Same size different mass are not exact replica's and would result in varying degrees of instant response. Outside influences, weather winds temperature and so on, would  also  effect, as would distance from the core and location generally.

Each positive response, results in the creation of another gravitational field (UF). A simple flame may not even trigger a respone while nuclear fusion creates a distorted overreaction perhaps. Why "assume" that air surrounding a nuclear explosion is sucked in, during the immediate aftermath, why not a force from outside, reacting instantly and proportionally? I'm sure that the justifications in the flat earth text books can just as easily be put to this theory


 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #5 on: 07/10/2007 12:18:18 »

UF is:-
1.   completely predictable and logical
2.   limitless power
3.   selectively reactive
4.   controllable in the short term only

What do you mean by controllable?

Quote
5.   utterly relentless. Once the process starts it continues to grow until it achieves its ultimate objective … to obliterate the intruder/blemish completely (or at least as we understand completely).  Nothing can stop it!

Process
Generally the existence of the universe continues on relentlessly until a blemish appears and triggers UF. The trigger could take any form, the cause and source unknown..Probably heat or vacuum sensitive. The response is a literally limitless crushing force against the intruder, resulting in a chain reaction of friction and greater force, with an inevitable consequence.

UF acts:-

6.   in a ripple like effect,  as if the blemish has been dropped into a pond, strongest at each center fading to nothing at the outer edge
7.   Equally and simultaneously in all directions ie, the force on a perfect sphere would be exactly equal in each direction and therefore balanced. While the force on a cube would have an uneven effect on the flat surfaces, greater at the center lesser at the corners, effectively a balanced effect, assuming no outside influences, both these options would be balanced and would not result in movement. While an uneven shape such as a planet would cause a “domino” of motion resulting in continued rotation.

This is the part that sounds to me as if spheres of equal size would display equal gravity (or UF). We know this is not the case.

Quote
8.   Independently from other sister forces carrying out similar cleansing roles across the universe.
9.   forces in close enough in proximity would directly and proportionally effect each other
10.   

Examples of effect
11.   Gravity
1.   In fact what we term gravity is a downward force caused by UF
2.   The earth is yet another blemish in the universal pond in the relatively short, but to us long, process of being dealt with by UF
3.   UF has identified the friction or heat at core of the planet and is reacting as it must by slowly crushing the Earth
4.   Rotation of planet is due to uneven surface and shape of landscape

Wouldn't that cause unpredictable rotation with all planets rotating in apparently random directions?

Quote
5.   Each element of the earth compacts downwards towards the blemish at the core,  effectively supporting the element laying above it, all of us waiting for the inevitable

Are you suggesting that there are a succession of shells in towards the centre of the Earth?
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #6 on: 13/10/2007 08:40:25 »
1. controllable .. we harness the UF as a horse
2. equal spheres .. gravity is the universe responding to the detection of each individual blemish (heat/combustion/friction)the depth of the response is determined by the cause not the mass
3. unpredictable and random .. maybe .. but whose rules determine "unpredictable" and "random" in UF terms maybe our rotation is changing .. speeding up as the earths' surface is reducing,  and the rotation of all universal satellites   simply must be random 
4. Shells .. not sure what you mean with the term shell .. all effected elements (not all elements need effect) are pushed down where they appear, they are effected by each other and UF

general .. in order to give this simple theory greater credibility we can look at an existing and fully functional smaller version of an automated defence mechanism which controls our very existence .. we have a working mock-up directly in front of our eyes in our own human defence mechanism, this too is an automated reaction which we strive to understand, but we accept that it exists. There are endless theories and suppositions for both, most of which will be disproven at some time, why not a simple answer?
There are many other examples of how UF could be effecting us, our planet and the accepted universe. Can i suggest you try to swap corners and attempt to fit UF theory in place of say the black hole theory, could it be that a black hole is the immediate aftermath of a successful UF commission, perhaps instead of asking how or why we should be asking why not! 

If UF is not the natural defence mechanism controlling the universe, what is! GOD? i think not!
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #7 on: 13/10/2007 08:59:54 »
try justifying the UF theory to the mountain and pendulum theory ... it works!
 

Offline Mr Andrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
  • God was primitive man's attempt at Physics.
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #8 on: 22/10/2007 22:58:19 »
I see a huge problem...this theory takes all of the observations and predictions of gravity and gives them a different name.  It's the same thing with a little more dramatic flare.  Science is the process of taking observations, developing a model and using that model to predict the behavior of things in the future.  That model consists of only things that can be proved.  Anything extraneous can be written off as pure conjecture.  All the (classical) theory of gravity says is that matter attracts other matter obeying the inverse square proportionality with their seperation and a direct linear proportion with their masses.  Observations, model, predictions...no extraneous material.  You can make any analogy with any physical system (human immune system) you want to attempt to visualize it more easily but the law remains the same.  You can say that gravity ACTS like white blood cells attacking microbes in the human bloodstream but you cannot say that it IS like that.  It IS proportional to m1*m2/r^2.
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #9 on: 23/10/2007 00:20:06 »
From what I understand many gifted thinkers also see/have seen, "huge problems" in the generally accepted theories of science as we understand/have understood it. Clearly many theorists are at odds with each other and therefore using the "cant all be right but can all be wrong theory, ... it is indisputable that many are simply wrong, the question is, if only some are wrong which ones and more importantly, IF ONE WHY NOT ALL? ... it appears to me that many of the accepted theories rely on the same base line.. what if that base line is wrong ..  Try replacing the accepted theory that masses attract with the UF theory that the universe instinctively compresses .. at worst, many accepted theories could probably be answered just as logically .. We humans are cursed, or maybe blessed! by our limited knowledge, this limited knowledge once led us to believe that the earth was flat! Imagine the fun to be had in 1000 years time when we look back at our ancient and mostly inaccurate theories (including the hopelessly flawed UF theory of course)
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #10 on: 25/11/2007 14:25:32 »
The actual theory of gravitational mass is unknown......
=======================================
 We supposed that graviton particles:
 a)
 Theoretically predicted but never observed ( a hypothetical
 particle ) with no electric charge and no mass is supposed
to be responsible for the gravitational interaction between
 matter and energy.
 b)
 A hypothetical elementary particle is responsible
 for the effects of gravity (the quantum of gravitation ).
 It means, that the initial gravitational mass of stars
 and planets is created from gravitation particles .
 
 Nobody knows :
 "What geometrical and physical parameters
 can gravitation particle have ?"
 The Einstein's GRT doesn't explain
 which particles create a gravitation field.
 I will try to explain it.
 ======.
 1.
 Where has the first material gravitation particle appeared from ?
 
 Now it is considered, that reference frame which
 is connected with relict isotropic radiation
 T = 2,7K is absolute.
 But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
 This relict isotropic radiation continues to increase and
 its temperature will decrease.
 And, hence, approximately over a period of
 20 billions years it will reach T=0K.
 
 Therefore the gravitation particle can appears from
 Nothing, from Vacuum, from Absolute Zero: T=0K?
 
 Let us take some area of Vacuum (T=0K)
 and mark it with letter R.
 The number of particles in this area of Vacuum
 we will mark with letter N.
 Then every particle of this area has
 gravity/ mass of rest: R/N= k.
 2.
 Can they have volume?"
 No.
 Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787),
 when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
 the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
 temperature reaches -273 degree the volume
 disappears. The physicists say, if the particle
 has completely lost its volume
 the physical parameters of particles become infinite.
 But such statement contradicts the
 "Law of conservation and transformation energy".
 And then we must understand that the sense of the
 "Law of conservation and transformation energy" is.
 We should understand and accept that
 when volume of the particles disappears they become "indefinitely flat figures ".
 What do "indefinitely flat figures " mean?
 They mean, that we cannot reach Absolute Vacuum T=0K
 and we also cannot reach density of the particle in the T=0K.
 The " Charles law" was confirmed by other physicists:
 Gay-Lussac ( 1802), W. Nernst ( 1910), A. Einstein ( 1925) .
 These " flat figures " have the geometrical form
 of a circle, as from all flat figures the circle has the most
 optimal form: C/D= pi = 3,14.
 
 These R/N= k particles are initial gravitational particles.
>========== ============ .
 
 Which is common condition of gravitation?
 1.
 Let us suppose that in some local sphere of Vacuum
 the quantity of the passive particles ( k) that is equal to
 the number Avogadro N was found.
 Then according to the principle of Boltzmann,
 the gathering of the particles in some local sphere of Vacuum
 has a probable basis: S= klnW.
 It is common condition of gravitation.
 ============ ====.
 
 How did from these gravitation particles (k )
 the first material particles appear ?

 1.
 The first material particles was called "helium", because
 helium exist very – very near absolute zero: T=0K.
 Nobody knows what helium is.( !)
 Why?
 Because the behavior of helium is absolutely different
 from all another elements of Nature. ( !)
 !!!!
 I will try to explain, how the helium
 was created from R/N=k.
 2.
 The helium exist very near absolute zero: T=0K.
 Therefore we must take in attention the processes
 of superfluids and superconductors , which require extremely
 low temperatures , approximately 0K.
 3.
 Then , the first particles which were created
 from R/N =k could be helium II ( He II ),
 which created temperature 2,7K.
 4.
 Then , the second particles which were created
 from helium II ( He II ), could be helium I ( He I ),
 which created temperature 4,2K.
 / Kapitza / Landau theory./
 5.
 And then all the system comes to rotary movement.
 But helium rotates differently from all other liquids.
 If one rotates helium very strongly, it starts to behave not as
 liquid
 but as elastic body
 (experience of E.L. Ŕndronikashvili. /Georgia./ ).
 Separate layers of helium  become elastic ropes that change
 the picture of quiet uniform rotation completely.
 In such rotation sharp friction between different
 layers of the liquid originates. From rotary elastic ropes
 the slices of substance of various size come off.
 Further they break to particles that received
 the names of Helium-three 3He and Helium-four 4He.
 The common thermal temperature in liquid increases .
 
 Rotation and collision of the particles 3He and 4He at some
 stage leads to their further crush to small particles, that
 received
 the name of the nucleus of hydrogen atom- proton (p).
 Protons are initial, the smallest, material particles.
 
 The most widespread elements in stars are helium and hydrogen.
 Our Sun consists of helium to 30% and of hydrogen to 69%.
 Ii was found that in external layers of our Sun on 1kg of hydrogen
 it was necessary 270g of helium. In deeper layers on 1kg of
 hydrogen
 it is necessary 590g of helium.
 Thus it is deeper into Sun it is more helium.
 And in the central area of Sun helium-II, helium-I are found.
 The reaction between (k ) , helium and
 hydrogen go basically on the Sun.
 All the elements of the material substance
 are created from the initial particles (k) and helium.
 ============ ==.
 How does all the system come to rotary movement ?
  1.
 If gravitation- particles fly to different sides,
 they can not create the initial gravitational mass of planets,
 stars.
 It means, that any unknown power collects the gravitation
 particles together and gives to them the movement in one
 direction.
 As a result of this common movement of all gravitation
 particles (k ) in one direction the initial gravitational mass
 of planets and stars is created.
 What power can gather all particles together?
 2.
 Classic physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K the motion
 of particles stops, and the energy of Vacuum is equal to zero.
 The quantum physics asserts, that in a Vacuum T=0K there is
 motion of particles, and the energy of Vacuum is not zero.
 Therefore, let us take some energy area of Vacuum and
 mark it with letter E.
 The mass of this energy area of Vacuum we will
 mark with letter M.
 Then every particle of this area has energy/mass of rest:
 E/M= c^2, ( E=Mc^2, M=Ec^2.)
 3.
 As this particle is in the state of rest condition
 it impulse is equal to zero ( h=0).
 4.
 But this particle can change its state of rest condition.
 If the particle has impulse of Goudsmit -Uhlenbeck h= h/2pi,
 its energy will be: E=hw
 The thermal balance of Vacuum will be disturbed.
 The actively rotating particle with energy E=hw gibes the
 movement of surrounding passive particles R/N=k and
 a gravitational field begins to create.
 And the source of a gravitational field is an active electron
E=hw.
 The remaining particles R/N=k are passive participants
 (victims) of the creating gravitation field.
 ============ .
 The stars are formed by the scheme:
 e- --k --He II-- He I --rotating He--thermonuclear reaction – ...p...…
 The Second law of thermodynamics doesn't forbid this process.
 ============ ========= =.
 http://www.socratus .com
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #11 on: 24/01/2009 12:12:05 »
I am not saying that the supporting maths for current theory is incorrect, when the gravitation theory holy grail is found it may well be that the new supporting data is not so different from today's teachings, I'm just suggesting that the same or similar maths could also support the UF theory .. 
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #12 on: 24/01/2009 13:33:08 »
Quote
In short while traveling on a plane journey in idle thought, it occurred to me that gravity as I understood it in my relative ignorance, was illogical. This caused further though processes which led me to seek answers to many simple questions. In fact I found that there were no definitive answers.

What exactly is illogical?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Gravity
« Reply #13 on: 24/01/2009 16:14:14 »
I am not saying that the supporting maths for current theory is incorrect, when the gravitation theory holy grail is found it may well be that the new supporting data is not so different from today's teachings, I'm just suggesting that the same or similar maths could also support the UF theory .. 

Then if you accept that your idea conforms with today's teachings and your analogy only supports that, it is an interesting analogy; but it is only an analogy; it is not some new and useful method we can use to predict future happenings.
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #14 on: 24/01/2009 16:47:59 »
I do not accept my idea conforms at all, I accept that current theories may have common ground, are you saying that you have heard of a similar theory
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Gravity
« Reply #15 on: 24/01/2009 17:12:24 »
Quote from: khayden
Basic Theory
We all believe, without question, in our own “natural” individual human self-defense biological mechanism, where anti bodies bombard and attack “intruders” Without conscious thought, we treat these intruders as blemishes or threats on our life’s landscape that must be removed.  The antibodies appear to gang up and produce a self determined, reactive, premeditated and predictable force in order to see off the intruder.
In the same way that human biology automatically react to stimulus it could be that the universe may also react in a similar predictable fashion.  I believe it perfectly logical to assert the same unconscious thought process to the universe as a whole. The defensive “universal force” (UF) is a reactive force created by the universe. Design and composition at this point irrelevant. This could even mean that the Universe is a living thing maybe not with conscious thought but certainly with natural unexplainable reactions.  Most if not all of my own questions now have a coherent answer based on the evidence of our own natural human defense model
The above quote seems to be your basic idea. It seems to be an analogy of the human body's immune system to gravity in the universe. I can see the analogy; it is interesting; but what new and useful things can I predict about nature by using this concept?
 

Offline khayden

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #16 on: 25/01/2009 09:55:05 »
If in some way true, the benefits could be practically endless, as well as the risks of course. The key thought is that in our own immune system (IS), we have clear evidence of the existence a similar fully functional working model. There is no doubt of this at all. The two bodies (IS & UF) may well operate independently but the likelihood is that they are at least related and react in similar fashion, perhaps with common function. The interchange of existing knowledge between chemist and scientist could benefit each other as well as kick start the new era of thought.

chemistry could play a far greater role in expanding our knowledge of the universe as we currently perceive it, as well as assisting with problems closer to home. The technical advances could be unimaginable ..
1.  catastrophic natural events, perhaps antibodies controlling their power before they strike thus harnessing an energy supply so vast that the thought of oil as a source of power is the equivalent in energy terms of us rubbing wood together to create fire.
2. space travel,
3. farming and food sources
4. the origin and purpose of man .... 
 
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #17 on: 25/01/2009 10:05:29 »
lol
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Gravity
« Reply #18 on: 26/01/2009 19:33:33 »
I think someone once said "if all you have is a hammer everything looks like nail." We probably all wonder about nature and try to fit it into things we already know about. For example, I know about electronics; so I see nature as an electronic structure. I guess someone who knows about the human immune system would fit nature in there in some way.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Gravity
« Reply #19 on: 27/01/2009 08:12:56 »
Yeah, like how I envision nature as one big porn scene
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Gravity
« Reply #20 on: 27/01/2009 17:41:39 »
 ;D ;D
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Gravity
« Reply #20 on: 27/01/2009 17:41:39 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums