Rick Thielens Theory On Black Holes,big Bang &gravity

[Rick Thielen]

Rick Thielen's Theory On Black Holes, The Big Bang, and Gravity

When I was young I asked my second grade teacher about gravity. I asked her if she would explain what gravity was and how it worked. The teacher explained that the rotation of the earth creates gravity. I questioned her explaination in my mind. I thought to myself if I took a ball and dipped it in water, then spun the ball the water would fly off. So I thought to myself what she told me didn't make sense at all. As the years past my thought process began to develop which would help me to understand the concept of gravity. Again when I was in the sixth grade I asked my teacher the same question about gravity. The teacher explained, put water in a bucket and hold the bucket in your hand and rotate your body extending your arm outward, you notice the water will remain in the bucket. I said to myself if it wasn't for the sides of the bucket the water would be gone. There are no walls holding the oceans back, so I really didn't accept her explaination. As I approached my fourties I still on many occasions philosophized about gravity. I continued to try to understand the concepts of gravity. At one time I thought gravity could be some type of magnetic attraction, but one day a thought came to me, gravity could possibly be a push instead of a pull. I continued to toy with this idea and this is what ultimately happened. I think that space as we know it and understand it is more than we imagined. To this point I have not heard any explainations about gravity that made any sense to me. Most of us know space as a cold empty vacuum. I believe space is more than that. If you could imagine a box filled with water, and all six sides were sealed. Now put a ball into the box directly in the center. There is an equal pressure on all the surfaces of the ball, disregarding the gravity of this planet. I believe space is similar to that water in the box theory. I believe our universe has restraints or space could be its own restraint. No one can be sure of the configuration of the restraints, box, ball, etc. When you add mass to the universe, the pressure of the space increases. The pressure of space is not thouroughly understood by myself or anyone. It's not exactly the same pressure as water. I feel that mass of any form displaces space. Laws of physics in this instance state that any mass, any size, diplaces space and space applies a force on all mass regardless of size. The larger the mass, the greater the force. The reason why objects and elements have different weights is because of the density of matter. Lead weighs more than aluminum because space can occupy the less dense material. The greatest amount of force (gravity) is at the point of convergance, in our case at the planets surface. That force has greater effect on the more dense matter and less effect on matter of less density. If our planet was larger in size everything on Earth would weigh more because as I mentioned before our planet in displacing space and space has a gravitational affect on everything on the planet. If you were able to place a golf ball into space it would have a very small amount of gravity because it is displacing space. The amount of gravity would be so little we could not measure it, but I am sure something would be attracted to it, maybe on a subatomic level. If you could hollow out the center of the Earth, say fifty feet in diameter, and you could go there, you would experience weightlessness exactly the same way as if you were in outter space. I believe the pressure of space is equal on all sides at the core of the Earth. There is a possibilty that sometime long ago, say around the time of the Big Bang, the restraints of space were much closer together. Imagine if the same amount of space that occupies our universe now was squeezed down trillions of times smaller, all the matter in the universe, because of the greater force of space, would compress into one very large mass. Than imagine what would happen if the restraints of space expanded outward in all directions, maybe even faster than the speed of light. If the restraint moved faster than the speed of light, it still may have taken eons for our universe to come to its completion. There are other ideas (theories) about how the restraints actually changed positions. Suppose the restraints of space expanded to only half its intended capacity until the smaller portions of matter reached to what seemed to be to us the extremities of space,then the restraints of space expanded even more. Many of the fragments from the Big Bang may have been spinning at that time and suddenly exploded because the restraints expanded even further which could explain spiral galaxies. It's a known fact that most galaxies have a black hole in the center of them. Some are active and some are inactive, no one knows the reason for the this as of yet. Scientists know of the black holes that are active, matter is being removed from space, there are many therories as to where that matter goes. If my theory is correct, this would reduce the amount of matter and space in the universe. Therfore if the matter and space consumed by black holes were not replenish the effects of gravity would progressively become less on all matter in the universe. Everything on planet Earth would progessively become lighter. There are two things that need to take place in order to keep the effect of gravity at a constant, something that would manufacture space and matter and dump it into the universe or the restraints of space are receding to compensate for the loss of space and matter. I think the second of the two is more acceptable. I know that it was said that our universe is expanding. I believe it's receding. Some persons would think, my goodness were being closed in, but the amount of the restraints have moved since the Big Bang is minimal. I don't believe all that I have described was a random act, but a display of unbelievable engineering.

R. A. Thielen

Supplement to Rick Thielen’

s theory on black holes, big bang, and gravity---------------------------------------------In the original article I mentioned how the fabric of space was not thoroughly understood by myself or anyone else. I failed to mention in the article that it is possible that there could be an alternate reality with dimensions similar to our own. It could be a possibility that there is another expanse the size of our universe in an alternate reality. It’s also a possibility that realities are defined by frequency. The alternate reality could have a frequency just under our own. Similar to radio frequency, if the alternate universe had a mass the size of our universe; nothing could exist in that universe except that mass. In other words, two automobiles could not occupy the same space. If they did we all know what would happen. But if you could alter the frequency of one of them there would not be a problem. It’s a possibility the mass that I mentioned in an alternate reality, could, if it had an altered frequency have an effect on an adjacent reality. If that mass was able to show its presence in our universe, but not to its full potential it would have an effect on all mater in a way I described in the original article. It’s also a possibility there could be an alternate reality with a frequency above ours. I often thought that our own sun required regulation. A way to do that according to my theory would be to place the sun partially in this reality and the remainder in the adjacent reality. As the sun looses energy its frequency can be altered so the amount of energy from the sun would remain at a constant. I also thought that the same theory that applies to the sun can also apply to the stars. I do know that our planet is bombarded with electromagnetic energy or information from the electromagnetic spectrum. This information in the form of light may be essential for life on our planet and may be regulated the same as our sun. Most of us are amazed at the size of our universe. Its mind boggling, but we compare our universe to things that we have learned in our lives. To us our universe is unbelievably enormous but, what we use as a reference to decide what is small or big may be logical to us and may not be accurate. The direction up to someone in North America is down to someone in China. I often thought our universe when compared to anything in it is the largest thing in existence. But what if we were viewed the way we view matter on a subatomic level!

[JMJones0424]

Please do not be offended when this post gets moved. The Astronomy and Cosmology Forum is for more conventional discussions, your ideas do not constitute a scientific theory, so it doesn't belong here.

 

Curiousity is a wonderful thing. Your former science teachers should be ashamed at their lack of knowledge and/or poor attempts to address your questions. Hopefully by now you know that the prevailing view is that gravity is an attractive force between objects that have mass, directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. It may seem to you that there is no particular way to distinguish between an attractive force between two objects and a force that pushes two objects together from the outside. In order to test your hypothesis, you need to imagine a situation that could distinguish the difference between the two. This is what makes science science, rather than just imaginative explanations for unexplained phenomenon. In short, in order to think scientifically, you must imagine ways to test your ideas in order to determine their worth.

 

I propose that the tidal influence of the moon on the seas is evidence against your proposition. You seem to claim that space (or whatever more appropriate term you wish to use) pushes water down to the Earth due to the displacement of the Earth in space and the pressure that space applies proportionally to that displacement. How then do you account for the attractive force of the moon on the Earth's seas?

 

As for the rest of your post, it appears to me that you seem to be glossing over quite a large swath of scientific knowledge. May I recommend you dig around a bit on this forum, and by all means, please ask questions. There is much to be learned about the cosmos around you, a great deal of which mankind already has a pretty good grasp on. Before attempting to propose alternative explanations, I recommend you first understand the widely accepted explanations, and even more importantly, why they are widely accepted. You may very well be able to pry new understanding from the vast unknown, but without first understanding the basics of what is known, you may find that you are beating away at a horse that has been dead for some time.

[Qfwfq]

Rick, I'll add a thing or two, further to what has already been said.

 

First, I don't think many will read your post through, from start to end, because it is not very well written and structured. Mostly, it is in two big blocks and this make a difference because it is more daunting to go through.

 

Second, as well as not being well organized, your thoughts hardly qualify as a scientific theory. You are speculating and conjecturing on unsolid and, in parts, not well defined grounds. Some of your ideas are similar to things that have been considered and, yes, those teachers, as you describe them, did not do a good job and neither did you acquire a good background in general physics after that.

 

Before thinking of proposing your own new theory, it would be a good idea to have in-depth familiarity with the status quo and, possibly, the history too. For instance, when Newton was challenged about the so-called "action at a distance" problem and queried of its causes, he first replied that he hadn't meant his Principia to be concerned with this and then put forward a very bold conjecture of masses being pushed together, which never came to be established yet provided a model defined better than in your post.

 

You see, all kinds of ideas are possible, but conducting actual research takes a lot of competence and work. Asking questions, OTOH requires just a healthy curiosity and the capacity to understand and be understood.

Edited December 28, 2011 by Qfwfq
dumb typo

[phision]

Rick Thielen's Theory On Black Holes, The Big Bang, and Gravity

When I was young I asked my second grade teacher about gravity. I asked her if she would explain what gravity was and how it worked. The teacher explained that the rotation of the earth creates gravity. I questioned her explaination in my mind. I thought to myself if I took a ball and dipped it in water, then spun the ball the water would fly off. So I thought to myself what she told me didn't make sense at all. As the years past my thought process began to develop which would help me to understand the concept of gravity. Again when I was in the sixth grade I asked my teacher the same question about gravity. The teacher explained, put water in a bucket and hold the bucket in your hand and rotate your body extending your arm outward, you notice the water will remain in the bucket. I said to myself if it wasn't for the sides of the bucket the water would be gone. There are no walls holding the oceans back, so I really didn't accept her explaination.

I remember a similar experience from my childhood when my older brother tried to demonstrate gravity by swinging a bucket of water until it became inverted and then stated, "Do you know why the water doesn't fall out the bucket, it's because of the gravity I've created by swinging the bucket!". I explained the force he created was acting away from the centre of rotation(centrifugal) and not towards the centre(centripetal) like gravity does. That was the end of that demonstration!

 

Perhaps there is a deep-seated. under-lying cultural influence for the wide-spread belief that rotation causes gravity instead of the other way around.

 

At one time I thought gravity could be some type of magnetic attraction, but one day a thought came to me, gravity could possibly be a push instead of a pull. I continued to toy with this idea and this is what ultimately happened. I think that space as we know it and understand it is more than we imagined. To this point I have not heard any explainations about gravity that made any sense to me. Most of us know space as a cold empty vacuum. I believe space is more than that.

Most scientists now believe space to be seething with virtual particles called Vacuum energy which is associated with zero-point energy and is thought to cause the Casimir effect which is a force exerted on matter/mass by the pressure of unseen undetected particles that make up space!

 

If you could imagine a box filled with water, and all six sides were sealed. Now put a ball into the box directly in the center. There is an equal pressure on all the surfaces of the ball, disregarding the gravity of this planet. I believe space is similar to that water in the box theory. I believe our universe has restraints or space could be its own restraint. No one can be sure of the configuration of the restraints, box, ball, etc. When you add mass to the universe, the pressure of the space increases. The pressure of space is not thouroughly understood by myself or anyone. It's not exactly the same pressure as water. I feel that mass of any form displaces space. Laws of physics in this instance state that any mass, any size, diplaces space and space applies a force on all mass regardless of size. The larger the mass, the greater the force. The reason why objects and elements have different weights is because of the density of matter. Lead weighs more than aluminum because space can occupy the less dense material. The greatest amount of force (gravity) is at the point of convergance, in our case at the planets surface. That force has greater effect on the more dense matter and less effect on matter of less density. If our planet was larger in size everything on Earth would weigh more because as I mentioned before our planet in displacing space and space has a gravitational affect on everything on the planet. If you were able to place a golf ball into space it would have a very small amount of gravity because it is displacing space. The amount of gravity would be so little we could not measure it, but I am sure something would be attracted to it, maybe on a subatomic level. If you could hollow out the center of the Earth, say fifty feet in diameter, and you could go there, you would experience weightlessness exactly the same way as if you were in outter space. I believe the pressure of space is equal on all sides at the core of the Earth.

Your theory, as I understand it, may help to visualize gravity (which I like :D) but offers little in the way of furthering our(mankinds) understanding of this force.

 

Please do not be offended when this post gets moved. The Astronomy and Cosmology Forum is for more conventional discussions, your ideas do not constitute a scientific theory, so it doesn't belong here.

If this thread gets moved: I think it should still have a link from here, as it may help people visualize the force of gravity!

 

In short, in order to think scientifically, you must imagine ways to test your ideas in order to determine their worth.

Some theories take decades for an appropriate test of an initial hypothesis to be demonstrated, e.g. the rescent Higgs bosons developements.

 

I propose that the tidal influence of the moon on the seas is evidence against your proposition. You seem to claim that space (or whatever more appropriate term you wish to use) pushes water down to the Earth due to the displacement of the Earth in space and the pressure that space applies proportionally to that displacement. How then do may explain this as reduced space pressure above the tidal wave as there is less space between the earth and moon than there is above the sea in other directions. Perhaps he could clarify his thinking on this. you account for the attractive force of the moon on the Earth's seas?

I would imagine, Rick Thielen may explain this as reduced space pressure above the tidal wave as there is less space between the earth and moon than there is above the sea in other directions. Perhaps he could clarify his thinking on this.

 

Rick, I'll add a thing or two, further to what has already been said.

 

First, I don't think many will read your post through, from start to end, because it is not very well written and structured. Mostly, it is in two big blocks and this make a difference because it is nore daunting to go through.

I found Rick Thielen's post and analogical, train of thought writting style, easier to read than most posts and is one of the few long posts I have read all the way through.

 

Before thinking of proposing your own new theory, it would be a good idea to have in-depth familiarity with the status quo and, possibly, the history too. For instance, when Newton was challenged about the so-called "action at a distance" problem and queried of its causes, he first replied that he hadn't meant his Principia to be concerned with this and then put forward a very bold conjecture of masses being pushed together, which never came to be established yet provided a model defined better than in your post.

All great thinkers start somewhere and I'm sure even Isaac Newton initial thoughts on gravity may have seemed "as not being well organized" and "speculating and conjecturing on unsolid and, in parts, not well defined grounds", but are well received now. So don't be discouraged.

[Qfwfq]

I'm sure even Isaac Newton initial thoughts on gravity may have seemed "as not being well organized" and "speculating and conjecturing on unsolid and, in parts, not well defined grounds", but are well received now.

Actually that's not the way it went at all.

[JMJones0424]

 

I would imagine, Rick Thielen may explain this [tides] as reduced space pressure above the tidal wave as there is less space between the earth and moon than there is above the sea in other directions. Perhaps he could clarify his thinking on this.

 

If so, then Thielen is mistaken in using the word pressure and giving the analogy of space exerting a force akin to the force that water exerts on a ball when the ball displaces water. The pressure as described by Thielen would not be affected by the moon any more than holding a board over my head reduces the air pressure I feel. You seem to be describing gravitational shielding in Le Sage's theory of gravitation, which is not relevant to what Thielen is proposing.

 

In short, in order to think scientifically, you must imagine ways to test your ideas in order to determine their worth.

Some theories take decades for an appropriate test of an initial hypothesis to be demonstrated, e.g. the rescent Higgs bosons developements.

 

It appears you meant this statement to alleviate Thielen from the bother of having to determine how to test his ideas. The wiki article on the Higgs boson that you linked to explains quite clearly the history of the theory and its predictions. Thielen has offered nothing of the sort. The comparison between his ideas and that of the early ideas about the Higgs boson is strained to say the least. I simply asked Thielen to consider ways in which he could falsify his ideas, I do not believe this to be an unreasonable request.

Edited December 15, 2011 by JMJones0424

[phision]

Actually that's not the way it went at all.

 

Are you talking about Isaac Newton? As all I was suggesting was perhaps his initial thoughts weren't 100% coherent.

 

The pressure as described by Thielen would not be affected by the moon any more than holding a board over my head reduces the air pressure I feel.

The Casimir effect means that there would be a reduced force under your board if only very slightly but it would not be because of the air pressure being reduced.

 

You seem to be describing gravitational shielding in Le Sage's theory of gravitation, which is not relevant to what Thielen is proposing.

No, I was merely suggesting things which I thought may interest Thielen and perhaps add to his ideas! Also gravitational shielding is based on mechanical process whereas Thielen's idea, as far as i could tell, was about space be permeated by virtual particles or a field of some sort and I said nothing to the contrary.

 

It appears you meant this statement to alleviate Thielen from the bother of having to determine how to test his ideas. The wiki article on the Higgs boson that you linked to explains quite clearly the history of the theory and its predictions. Thielen has offered nothing of the sort. The comparison between his ideas and that of the early ideas about the Higgs boson is strained to say the least. I simply asked Thielen to consider ways in which he could falsify his ideas, I do not believe this to be an unreasonable request.

 

I meant this statement to alleviate Thielen from needing to immediately try and test his hypothesis to appease anyone who merely wished to rubbish his every thought. Giving him time to research his idea further and come to his own conclusions, rather than the ones he was be bullied into!

[Eclogite]

I meant this statement to alleviate Thielen from needing to immediately try and test his hypothesis to appease anyone who merely wished to rubbish his every thought. Giving him time to research his idea further and come to his own conclusions, rather than the ones he was be bullied into!

I applaud your desire to support independent thinking. However, after carefully rereading the thread several times I find it impossible to see how the posts of JMJones or Qfwfq constitute bullying.

 

Both of them have recognised that Rick's post is based upon unfamiliarity with current, well-validated theory, or with the scientific method. They have tried, diplomatically and gently, to guide him towards a more productive approach, in developing his idea, presenting it and appreciating what the current theory is. It is a considerable stretch to see such careful, well intentioned efforts as bullying.

 

Without the guidance that they offer there is little possibility that Rick will carry out the kind of research that will let him reach a valid conclusion. Using your approach we are much more likely to allow him to continue, in ignorance, holding a distorted and inaccurate idea of reality. I cannot believe you would see that as a positive outcome.

 

As a separate technical point, if Rick wishes his idea to be considered seriously it does not need to be tested today. But we do need to have a test defined that could be applied at some point inthe future. In the absence of such a test his idea becomes mere speculation. Interesting, perhaps, but not science.

[phision]

I applaud your desire to support independent thinking. However, after carefully rereading the thread several times I find it impossible to see how the posts of JMJones or Qfwfq constitute bullying.

 

Both of them have recognised that Rick's post is based upon unfamiliarity with current, well-validated theory, or with the scientific method. They have tried, diplomatically and gently, to guide him towards a more productive approach, in developing his idea, presenting it and appreciating what the current theory is. It is a considerable stretch to see such careful, well intentioned efforts as bullying.

 

Without the guidance that they offer there is little possibility that Rick will carry out the kind of research that will let him reach a valid conclusion. Using your approach we are much more likely to allow him to continue, in ignorance, holding a distorted and inaccurate idea of reality. I cannot believe you would see that as a positive outcome.

 

As a separate technical point, if Rick wishes his idea to be considered seriously it does not need to be tested today. But we do need to have a test defined that could be applied at some point inthe future. In the absence of such a test his idea becomes mere speculation. Interesting, perhaps, but not science.

 

I just felt, "Please do not be offended when this post gets moved." and "Before attempting to propose alternative explanations, I recommend you first understand the widely accepted explanations, and even more importantly, why they are widely accepted.", were more coercive than diplomatic and gentle.:(

[Qfwfq]

First of all, we seem to be sliding from a discussion of the OP to one about how it should be judged and discussed. :doh:

:steering:

 

As all I was suggesting was perhaps his initial thoughts weren't 100% coherent.

Well, I can agree with the "not quite 100%" because, even when he wrote them into the Principia, he wasn't aiming to be quite that perfect and he did the whole thing in a rather brief time without the kind of text editing tools we exploit today on these machines we're using to post with.

 

For instance, he uses the term force with a bit of ambiguity, only sometimes specifying "instantaneous" to distinguish what we now call force from what we now call impulse. His approach uses definitions which differ from those used today. A physics student of today that used it would risk quite a bit of confusion. Despite all this, his work made sense and was much more organized (and even coherent) than the OP of this thread and definitely weren't considered speculating and conjecturing on unsolid, nor on ill defined grounds.

 

I just felt, ...., were more coercive than diplomatic and gentle.:(

Keep in mind that the scientific method is based on constructive criticism. I think we were tactful enough.

[maddog]

Rick Thielen's Theory On Black Holes, The Big Bang, and Gravity

When I was young I asked my second grade teacher about gravity. I asked her if she would explain what gravity was and how it worked.

The teacher explained that the rotation of the earth creates gravity. I questioned her explaination in my mind. I thought to myself if I took a ball and dipped it in water, then spun the ball the water would fly off. So I thought to myself what she told me didn't make sense at all. As the years past my thought process began to develop which would help me to understand the concept of gravity. Again when I was in the sixth grade I asked my teacher the same question about gravity. The teacher explained, put water in a bucket and hold the bucket in your hand and rotate your body extending your arm outward, you notice the water will remain in the bucket. I said to myself if it wasn't for the sides of the bucket the water would be gone. There are no walls holding the oceans back, so I really didn't accept her explaination.

I find this interesting that on two occasion you ask a teacher about "gravity" and you in return a description/explanation

of "Centripetal Motion" which is Definitely NOT Gravity (though it behaves as a force). I commend your hesitancy to

"buy" their explanation (of course assuming you framed to them correctly). Yes, Newton did use the example of the

bucket to think how the force of gravity might work. They are not the same thing.

 

maddog