Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: talanum1 on 17/09/2021 10:20:13
-
In my model mass is encoded by a concentration of space points. We must thus have that space points attract space points to account for the warping of space.
-
In my model mass is encoded by a concentration of space points.
You don't have a scientific model, you have a guess based on your limited knowledge of physics.
-
Let me give it a stab using Classic Physics. Mass takes up space. If there was no mass in the universe, space would be at a maximum, since no space would be occupied by mass. Once we add mass, which takes up space, space becomes less, since some of the space is now occupied by mass. Less space means space contracts.
When a star attracts mass and matter, via gravity, into a concentrated area of higher density, the mass takes up a larger and larger percent of the available space. We see this high percent loss of space, due to compressing mass, as local space contracting. Time follows space due to the integration of space-time.
Mass can also have inertia. In this case, the mass is still taken up space but not at the same point of space, over time. If we stop time it takes up x amount of space. The lead edge of the mass in motion is causing space to contract, while the rear edge of the motion, is where it is making more space available. We see this as the Doppler shift.
During the beginning of the universe, when mass appeared in a concentrated place; primordial atom, it took up all the local space; extreme density. Space from afar needed to rush in to fill the space vacuum. This caused the mass to expand; stages of development. Space was trying to expand the mass density, so distant space could equilibrate with local space. The expansion of the universe is lowering universal mass density so more space can appear among the universal mass.
-
Let me give it a stab using Classic Physics. Mass takes up space. If there was no mass in the universe, space would be at a maximum, since no space would be occupied by mass. Once we add mass, which takes up space, space becomes less, since some of the space is now occupied by mass. Less space means space contracts.
Nope.
When a star attracts mass and matter, via gravity, into a concentrated area of higher density, the mass takes up a larger and larger percent of the available space. We see this high percent loss of space, due to compressing mass, as local space contracting. Time follows space due to the integration of space-time.
Nope.
Mass can also have inertia. In this case, the mass is still taken up space but not at the same point of space, over time. If we stop time it takes up x amount of space. The lead edge of the mass in motion is causing space to contract, while the rear edge of the motion, is where it is making more space available. We see this as the Doppler shift.
Nope.
During the beginning of the universe, when mass appeared in a concentrated place; primordial atom, it took up all the local space; extreme density. Space from afar needed to rush in to fill the space vacuum. This caused the mass to expand; stages of development. Space was trying to expand the mass density, so distant space could equilibrate with local space. The expansion of the universe is lowering universal mass density so more space can appear among the universal mass.
Nope.
Well at least you're consistent.
-
You don't have a scientific model, you have a guess based on your limited knowledge of physics.
By its very nature it goes beyond current knowledge. I have a Doctoral Degree in Astrophysics from University of Nuremberg.
-
What have U got against poor PP, Origin?
I have nothing against him, I don't even know him and have never met him. I have a lot of problems with his posts which are typically made up, pseudoscience crap.
-
I have a Doctoral Degree in Astrophysics from University of Nuremberg.
If that is true, why are you pretending to be totally ignorant of physics?
-
It could be somebody young, or old, or not a real fizzy cyst/scientist, so why be rude, to them.
I have been reading and and responding to PPs posts for maybe 5 years and my patience with his tripe has worn EXCEEDINGLY thin over that time.
-
My role model is Eternal Student/ES, who is always polite.
Or as I like to say "U can always rely up/on ES, for a thoughtful reply".
ES is a gem no doubt, I on the other hand, am an old curmudgeon. [shrug]
-
If that is true, why are you pretending to be totally ignorant of physics?
I only got it for my map of gravity in Earth's region of space.
No-one has demonstrated that I am entirely ignorant of Physics.
-
I have a Doctoral Degree in Astrophysics from University of Nuremberg.
If that is true, why are you pretending to be totally ignorant of physics?
I was also wondering that...
-
I can't show U mine coz it would give my TOE away. OK?
Then stop bringing it up.
We must thus have that space points attract space points to account for the warping of space.
Unless your model is wrong.
-
Why?
Because it's basically you bragging about a secret and then telling other people they're not allowed to know what it is. It's annoying.
-
So U think it's annoying? Why?
Because, "I've got a secret, but I'm not gonna tell!" could get annoying if repeated often enough. At least me (although probably to others as well). That's just my opinion, so don't take that as a command from a moderator. I don't think you are technically breaking any rules by doing so. Consider it just a word of advice. I'm not trying to be malicious.
U should be excited.
I can't be excited if I don't know the details. I'm just going to be honest here and say that there have been a lot of people over the years who claim to have the theory of everything worked out. As far as I know, none of them have been vindicated by observation or experiment. At least, not in a way that was ground-breaking. So it's natural to be skeptical when someone says they have the theory of everything solved.
Why shouldn't I hint at what I have done, even if I'm not ready to go public, just yet?
Where did you give any hints? All I recall seeing so far is you claiming that you have a theory of everything but not elaborating further.
-
Give me coupla duys, at least, to put it all together, and feel free to comment upon it.
Go for it. I probably will comment (unless I can't make sense of it).
-
Because it's basically you bragging about a secret and then telling other people they're not allowed to know what it is. It's annoying.
..and childish.
-
I think we are getting off-topic...