0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have developed a definition that I believe supports the idea that interactions with variances in density of a smallest substance and the void it exists within is responsible for gravity, as well as the existence of all particles and the energy they possess. http://www.gravitydefined.com/ please keep in mind that I am not a physicist, so this hypothesis may not be what one is use to, but please offer your feedback.
If it is not a difference in density, and the void it exists within, that is responsible for it's interactions, than what else? ?
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance; that not only exists as the smallest substance, but it must exist in varying degrees of density for interaction to be possible. Interactions within this substance obviously must occur in order for energy to exist. Interactions and the energy it creates is what allows for this substance to form the particles that create the elements.
Sorry, friend, but this is all nonsense.
I appreciate the bold step of beginning an argument with "obviously" but whilst it is used by politicians, priests and philosophers, it doesn't work in physics. Where is the experimental evidence or hypothetical imperative for any of this paragraph?
You use terms like "obviously" to refer to things that make no sense at all....I already showed you one error, i.e. you're attempt at arguing a point which is clearly wrong to any physicist but you claimed it's "obviously" the way you thought it was. That's not an argument. ...Your entire article is filled with "I think" and "I believe" which makes it an unscientific paper. Physicists don't argue the validity of their theories with what they think or believe. It's only what they can demonstrate or logically argue that counts. And all arguments are based on axioms and there are no well-known axioms in your article.
and yet you take your precious time to insult me. That speaks a lot about you. If I use the word "Obviously" then it is obvious to me. i can't expect it to be obvious to everyone. You also read too much into what i said. I never claimed any theory to be wrong, i claimed they do not make sense, that they do not give a proper definition in my opinion. I have the skills to reason this, even without a phd. Now, the fact that they are categorized as theories and not as facts, means they are not necessarily correct. I would think as bright as you claim to be you would understand this. If you can take the precious time to insult me, then at least have the honor to take the time to point out my mistakes, otherwise you are just blowing a lot of hot air.
I briefly looked at your site. Firstly, you don't use mathematics. Therefore you have no theory. Secondly, you did ask for opinions so I will oblige. I am an amateur myself. The difference between us is I have put years of effort into reading and learning the physics. I am only now beginning to get some insights. Teaching youself is like climbing a mountain without any equipment. Simply understanding the meaning of some of the symbols used in physics and their meaning can take a while. Even after all this effort I have no theories. I don't know enough yet. So you can understand, I hope, why I don't take you seriously.
I really was looking for feedback regarding my hypothesis and not my writing style or choice of words.
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance; that not only exists as the smallest substance, but it must exist in varying degrees of density for interaction to be possible.
When I used the word "Obviously" in regard to the existence of a smallest substance, I did not in my wildest dreams believe that it would be the center of critique of the hypothesis that I was trying to present to this forum.
... these cannot be studied with a microscope, but must be reasoned out logically within the mind, using what knowledge we have of our environment
It reasons that A smallest substance must exist.
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance..
Interactions and the energy it creates is what allows for this substance to form the particles that create the elements
For Gravity to exist, not only must vast amounts of total void exist within the universe, but also varying degrees of density of the smallest substance that for clarity I will now refer to as the "Ger".
physicists use reasoning all the time to come up with ideas, and ideas for experiments to prove their ideas.
I lack proof, and the skills to present it properly so that it would even be taken seriously, all I have is an idea I reasoned to make sense at this point. but it really is unlikely that I will ever possess what is needed to prove my idea.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_fisica36.htmI haven't read it all yet, but this has been pretty interesting so far, It claims that the aether theory was dismissed due to an experiment that has since been found faulty and so the aether theory is back.
I really did not feel I was being rude to you and alan.... I don't recall having ever insulted either of you.
and yet you take your precious time to insult me. That speaks a lot about you.
I would think as bright as you claim to be you would understand this.
I am just being straight forward as to how I felt about your response.
Please don't feel insulted by my disagreeing with your assessment, ...
Then in the future never claim someone is insulting you when, after your request, they criticize your work. Got it? Nuff said.