Gravity Defined

[Dreamian]

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 offer your feedback. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by Dreamian

[Pmb]

From what I've read of that URL this thread doesn't belong in this forum, it belongs in the Alternative theories forum.

 

Since you asked for opinions here is mine: It's total garbage. Since you only had one semester of physics in college you lack the skills to understand all the mistakes that you made. There are far too many to list. At one point it's as if every sentence becomes nonsense. The entire page is basically a word salad.

 

You use terms like "obviously" to refer to things that make no sense at all. I can't/won't tell you everything that's wrong with it so I'm going to leave it at that. If I got into it it would take far too much of my precious time, time that I use helping people understand real physics. Nothing personal. But before you start claiming a theory is wrong you really should learn physics first. Especially the theory you're claiming is wrong and before all of that learn the Philosophy of Physics most importantly.

[Dreamian]

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.

 

Actually, rather than concentrating on my mistakes, how about concentrating on the Possibility I presented, which I cannot understand how you can call it garbage.

 

How about answering the questions I asked?  

 

So is it your stance that, like some claim of a higher deity, that energy just is? that electric charge just is?

 

I offered a possibility of how it is, and it makes sense.  Take some precious time to tell me how it does not.

 

I haven't got a degree in physics, I had to settle for a degree in electrical engineering and go to work,. but my reasoning skills are just fine.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Dreamian

[Pmb]

I never insulted you. I criticized your attempt at rewriting gravity. It's you who are doing the insulting. If you can't take criticism then you shouldn't have asked for it. But there are way to many errors to point out.

 

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. I'll show you one of them and that's it since it's quite clear that you think that criticizing your article is the same thing as a personal insult against you which anybody can tell you it isn't. Nowhere did I say something about you other than you should learn physics the right way.

 

One error is that you claimed that to understand gravity you have to break it down to the subatomic level and there's no argument to support your claim and observation dictates that how matter responds to gravity is independent to the structure and composition of matter.

 

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.

 

Go ahead. Contact any physicist at any university. Your guaranteed to get a response from one of them if you contact enough of them. They'll say that there's no physical content in your article, no scientific argument. All there is is your thoughts and beliefs and that does not constitute a theory.

 

And since you've chosen to be extremely rude and chose to insult me I'm guessing that nobody else is going to help you given that you're going to insult those who tell you that your theory is terrible.

[Dreamian]

That was weird, i thought my response was deleted as it just disappeared. 

 

I took it as insult because you simply called it garbage without giving good reason. Now you have given some, and to me that is respect.  I understand that I am no physics expert, that does not need to be pointed out, and I am sure anyone who reads what I wrote would come to that same conclusion. However, please explain how it isn't obvious even to a physicist that there must be a smallest substance? I would think physicists have been wasting a lot of time with the particle accelerators in an attempt to find that smallest substance/particle, if as you claim, one does not exist.  

 

There was another place where I used the word Obviously, I stated that obviously interactions must occur within the smallest substance for the existence of energy.  How can that not be true? please explain.  Or was it in fact your claim that a smallest substance doesn't exist?

 

Hold on, there was one more place where I used the word "obviously", where I was basically stating that it is obvious that mass does not exist everywhere in space,  that everything is not mass.  That is pretty obvious, isn't it? I mean unless the reason I can look up and see the stars is because all the mass between here and there is transparent.

 

I stated clearly that my hypothesis was just that, a hypothesis. 

 

"Breaking it down to the smallest particles" and actually, I was getting to the smallest substance in existence, of which I stand by my claim that "obviously" must exist. was my prepping the reader of where I was going with my idea/definition. Nothing more.

 

See, this is how it works without becoming insulting. You offer criticism in a manner that I can respond to. perhaps it is simply a lack of understanding on your part, and so by offering actual criticism, I am offered the opportunity to clear things up.  To simply call it garbage is not criticism, it is an insult, plain and simple. It offers me no opportunity of defending my hypothesis.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Dreamian

[Dreamian]

"observation dictates that how matter responds to gravity is independent to the structure and composition of matter."

 

If you had understood my definition, you would understand that the above statement could still hold true. Not that it is true, just that observation might dictate, or rather give the impression.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Dreamian

[Dreamian]

you are right though.  I wish I had put this in the alternative theories section.  but it is what it is

[Dreamian]

www.gravitydefined.com

 

 

Edited

 

is a work in progress

Edited July 30, 2015 by Dreamian