Idea on mavity

Radiation said:
What do you mean by predict and why would it be worthless? They can already predict how things act and react under mavity
Click to expand...

Well that's why it's a scientific theory.

Newton's theory of gravitation makes predictions... some of which were found to work very well (orbits of most planets, how things fall, etc) and some of which weren't found to work very well (orbital deviations of certain planets).

Einstein's theory of general relativity makes predictions again - it accurately predicts the orbits of all the planets (much better than Newton), aswell as predicting gravitational lensing and the occurrence of singularities (black holes)...

Yours doesn't predict anything - it's not scientific. It's as scientific as believing the world exists on the back of a giant tortoise. It's just a random idea plucked from nowhere with a few buzzwords strung together to make it sound nice.
 
Radiation said:
What do you mean by predict and why would it be worthless? They can already predict how things act and react under mavity, however i want to get a true picture of the way the universe is and could be, theres nothing worthless about that.
Click to expand...

He means worthless because he cannot discuss ideas without them having some "effect" to have worth... shame really...
 
daz said:
Well that's why it's a scientific theory.

Newton's theory of gravitation makes predictions... some of which were found to work very well (orbits of most planets, how things fall, etc) and some of which weren't found to work very well (orbital deviations of certain planets).

Einstein's theory of general relativity makes predictions again - it accurately predicts the orbits of all the planets (much better than Newton), aswell as predicting gravitational lensing and the occurrence of singularities (black holes)...

Yours doesn't predict anything - it's not scientific. It's as scientific as believing the world exists on the back of a giant tortoise. It's just a random idea plucked from nowhere with a few buzzwords strung together to make it sound nice.
Click to expand...

They've done the maths which predicts what things do under mavity, however they still admit to not knowing what mavity is, some say bent space, some say possibly gravitons, i say a type of resonance in the vacuum pushing matter together at the boundary of particles, all could be possible but the maths of how things react under mavity are done and fine for predictions.
 
Radiation said:
They've done the maths which predicts what things do under mavity, however they still admit to not knowing what mavity is, some say bent space, some say possibly gravitons, i say a type of resonance in the vacuum pushing matter together at the boundary of particles, all could be possible
Click to expand...

Can I ask what your physics/scientific background is? When you say "some say gravitons" the research behind the theoretical existence of them isn't insignificant...

but the maths of how things react under mavity are done and fine for predictions.
Click to expand...

Not quite - mavity isn't well understood on the quantum scale at all.
 
daz said:
Can I ask what your physics/scientific background is? When you say "some say gravitons" the research behind the theoretical existence of them isn't insignificant...

Not quite - mavity isn't well understood on the quantum scale at all.
Click to expand...

I read lots, i believe while maths is fine for making calculations its often poor at giving a real idea of the way things are, not the best way to true understanding imo, take electronics for instance, back when i started reading up on it and trying to learn how things work it was never explained in a good enough way, you get confused on the complexity of a circuit and the components without really getting a good idea of whats going on, at least at first but when i understood its as simple as shaping signals, timing on/off etc, its easier to understand whats actually going on and why things work.
 
But take an LCR circuit for instance - it's a great example of a damped, driven harmonic oscillator system... that's maths.
 
Radiation said:
i say a type of resonance in the vacuum pushing matter together at the boundary of particles,
Click to expand...

But what reasons have you got for deciding on this model? You've just plucked it from the aether and tacked it onto some existing theories.

Normally when someone proposes a paradigm shift or a completely new theory it's in response to predictive innacuracies in a previous model being solved by their new one. How does your model improve on the current one?
 
Radiation said:
I read lots, i believe while maths is fine for making calculations its often poor at giving a real idea of the way things are, not the best way to true understanding imo, take electronics for instance, back when i started reading up on it and trying to learn how things work it was never explained in a good enough way, you get confused on the complexity of a circuit and the components without really getting a good idea of whats going on, at least at first but when i understood its as simple as shaping signals, timing on/off etc, its easier to understand whats actually going on and why things work.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
 
[FnG]magnolia;12537847 said:
I believe Blue Peter made this model first in 1976. When Shep was still with us :(
Click to expand...

:D.
They did, I remember that exact program too!
Sadly though I could not recreate the model since my mother had bought Fairy Liquid that month, as you know it lasts so much longer than other washing up liquids that by the time it was empty I'd forgotten how to make it :(.
 
This is my fav pie chart:):):)
6a00d8341bf7f753ef00e54f4022218834-800wi.jpg
 
[FnG]magnolia;21553818 said:
This is relevant to another thing the OP doesn't know anything about in another current thread.
Click to expand...

Im not sure i see how this is relevant to the point i made in the other thread?

Thanks for the bump i guess as i had forgotten this one, it's funny though because i actually had another since.

The expansion of the universe may explain mavity or rather the expansion of stuff within the universe may do, imagine the planet is getting larger, if you throw a ball in the air and the ball is getting larger at the same rate, the space inbetween should become smaller.

Although space is said to be expanding as well so im unsure about this one, though perhaps the rate of expansion of space and matter is different so it may still work, but again theres also orbits which i can't see working in this scenario?
 
Last edited:
Radiation said:
Im not sure i see how this is relevant to the point i made in the other thread?

Thanks for the bump i guess as i had forgotten this one, it's funny though because i actually had another since.

The expansion of the universe may explain mavity or rather the expansion of stuff within the universe may do, imagine the planet is getting larger, if you throw a ball in the air and the ball is getting larger at the same rate, the space inbetween should become smaller.

Although space is said to be expanding as well so im unsure about this one, though perhaps the rate of expansion of space and matter is different so it may still work, but again theres also orbits which i can't see working in this scenario?
Click to expand...

It's dark energy that's making the universe speed up:)
 
Oh good. The weekly 'i know nothing about what I'm trying to discuss and yet I still think I'm going to look impressive' thread has arrived bang on time.

But wait, there's a twist, this one appears to be 4 years old?

I call shenanigans!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom