[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If an object moving through space experiences time dilation how would gravity waves effect it? You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.
The electron shell could be a result of the gravity field of the nucleus. The electron shell allows for light of a certain amount to fill it at all times. It could be a property of a wave that has never been heard of before where the wave fighting out against the gravity pulling in creates the shell effect. It's such highly dense space at the nucleus that it would be like looking into forever darkness and the light gets trapped fighting its way out but cannot be pulled in because of the singularity that space is without gravity waves.

[Kryptid]

If an object moving through space experiences time dilation how would gravity waves effect it?

That depends on the direction of the object relative to the gravitational wave source. If it's moving towards the source, the gravitational waves will be blue-shifted. If away, they will be red-shifted.

You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.

How do you figure?

The electron shell could be a result of the gravity field of the nucleus.

The gravitational field of the nucleus is many orders of magnitude too weak for that to be the case. The electric field is what holds the electron shell in place.

The electron shell allows for light of a certain amount to fill it at all times.

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but do you have a source for this information?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on Today at 20:35:33
You can't seemingly have a gravity wave if you have time dilation.

How do you figure?

Because it is impossible for light to enter the nucleus which suggests a unique property of a wave in the space medium. Only if the universe were a singularity that's indivisible would light spread out as a density like any wave but bounce off of a denser region of space that is the electron shell, which is of the same density as light and light can't fight into the denser regions of the gravity field so it bounces off but gets stuck bouncing back and forth creating an electron.

[Kryptid]

Because it is impossible for light to enter the nucleus

What is your source for this claim?

the electron shell, which is of the same density as light

I need a citation that the electron shell is the same density as light as well.

light can't fight into the denser regions of the gravity field

Evidence?

so it bounces off but gets stuck bouncing back and forth creating an electron.

That's not how that works. Electrons are not photons. Turning a photon into an electron would violate conservation of charge and lepton number.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Evidence?

Kryptid it makes perfect sense, the gravity field is a density on space due to it being a singularity, the light wants to travel to less dense regions of the medium and when those two density's are the same the light tries to escape, it's held in a stationairy position for so long that it begins to resemble a particle when it leaves the atom.

[Kryptid]

Kryptid it makes perfect sense

So then where is the evidence?

the gravity field is a density on space due to it being a singularity

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

the light wants to travel to less dense regions of the medium

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

when those two density's are the same the light tries to escape

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

it's held in a stationairy position for so long that it begins to resemble a particle when it leaves the atom.

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Kryptid it makes perfect sense

So then where is the evidence?

the gravity field is a density on space due to it being a singularity

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

the light wants to travel to less dense regions of the medium

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

when those two density's are the same the light tries to escape

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

it's held in a stationairy position for so long that it begins to resemble a particle when it leaves the atom.

Please back this statement up with a reputable source.

Is observation not evidence?

[Bored chemist]

Is observation not evidence?

Yes it is.
And we observe interactions between EM radiation and the nucleus.
For example, this isotope emits gamma rays in the UV region of the spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_thorium#Thorium-229m
So we know that light does exit and enter the nucleus.

So we know that you are wrong.

I am curious; what observation(s) did you think you had made?

[Kryptid]

Is observation not evidence?

Please post a reference to a reputable source to the observations in question.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

So we know that you are wrong.

I am curious; what observation(s) did you think you had made?

Sorry, light isn't a wave and gravity is magic. Just like magic gravity waves that are the only thing I know about general relativity. Probably a good thing.

I wonder what the branches of the human brain, that think there are answers to the paradoxes of general relativity, look like in the brain? They must be weird misfiring neurons that hurt when you just mindlessly take on GR as belief system.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Is observation not evidence?

Please post a reference to a reputable source to the observations in question.

This professor's video is the first video when you google search how gravity works youtube. Do you disagree with the example? You probably think that describing the 2D bending of the sheet is the correct view as well don't you? Well how do you justify yourself saying bending is gravity when it's not? You guys blow my mind. I'm not too interested in your knowledge that is obscured by clouds. You bloody English!

[Kryptid]

You probably think that describing the 2D bending of the sheet is the correct view as well don't you?

Not exactly. It's a visual analogy. It isn't a perfect representation of gravity.

Well how do you justify yourself saying bending is gravity when it's not?

When did I say "bending is gravity"?

You bloody English!

English? Do you really think I'm English? Either way, insults are not allowed by the rules, so cut that out.

Just like magic gravity waves that are the only thing I know about general relativity.

Gravitational waves aren't magic.

They must be weird misfiring neurons that hurt when you just mindlessly take on GR as belief system.

It isn't a belief system. It's a theory that is superbly well-supported by every experiment that has tested it.

By the way, why did you ignore this?

Please post a reference to a reputable source to the observations in question.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

It isn't a belief system. It's a theory that is superbly well-supported by every experiment that has tested it.

By the way, why did you ignore this?

[Kryptid]

It isn't a belief system. It's a theory that is superbly well-supported by every experiment that has tested it.

By the way, why did you ignore this?

That's neither an observation nor from a reputable source, so it does not fulfill my request.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

That's neither an observation nor from a reputable source, so it does not fulfill my request

It's the top view of the professor's experiment. It's just a fact of that experiment. It is also the only view worth recognition where many people will state the side view and the bending of the fabric. This is a false view because the experiment only works in 2D because of the gravity below the sheet. So a parallel view to the earth which is the top vies is the only correct view of the effect of gravity on space. If you're going to call it bending you might as well think the bottom vies is correct as well.

[Kryptid]

It's the top view of the professor's experiment.

No. I'm talking about your video about quarks.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, light isn't a wave and gravity is magic.

This is a science web site. Comments like that look like trolling.

[Bored chemist]

that think there are answers to the paradoxes of general relativity,

If you think there are paradoxes in General relativity
(1) what are they and
(2) do you really think that you would be the first one to notice them?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

That's neither an observation nor from a reputable source, so it does not fulfill my request.

Is this your idea of gravity in 3D because the source is reputable?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

If you think there are paradoxes in General relativity
(1) what are they and
(2) do you really think that you would be the first one to notice them?

The answers for the age old paradoxes are silly. The last one I watched said the twin clock paradox was solved by the twin's return journey home on a cell phone. That is when I researched answers to that paradox. What is your silly answer to it?