Gravity : down to earth model, that will knock your socks off.

[grzegorzsz830402]

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

Only if there are forces other than gravity that are stronger than the gravitational attraction.

And why you made assumption that explosion happens within gravitational field (please do not pick and choose purposely in direction of misunderstanding).
 

[grzegorzsz830402]

On 6/8/2023 at 5:29 PM, Halc said:

Your assertions appear not to work since you posit acceleration at times away from the primary mass, which violates empirical observation and thus falsifies your assertions.

Yes, within constraints of your understanding, that means, in contexts of limitations  of current scientific model,  originating from erroneous assumptions. (about vacuum for example)
 

[grzegorzsz830402]

On 6/8/2023 at 7:43 PM, OceanBreeze said:

In general, I do agree with your criticisms of grzgorz"s post but I will give him a chance to come back and clarify his remarks.

It might turn out to be interesting. (one can only hope)

Interesting: arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.
If Halc can handle friendly and mild "trash talk", that can look like real, or not real dislike, that it can be entertaining, interesting and educational.

Now a little bit about my TOE. Like mentioned before only 3 dimensions of space, matter that interacts with another matter within that space, no massless particles nonsense, no retro causality. No internal inconsistencies. Two elementary particles and governing forces between them.
Big Bang as inevitable consequence, assuming abundance of those particles in any random distribution. Provides logical explanation to observable data (curent interpretation of observable data suggesting expansion that accelerate, holds no water) correct observation incorrect yet only plausible interpretation within current model. 
Hint. Objects can accelerate away or towards something.
Pulsars emit light in every direction, way more elegant explanation without need for them to spin at ridiculous speeds. Tying stars and black holes and maximum speed of light (tunnel wave) propagation.

And do not give up on Hulc, guys. Ok he got schooled because he underestimated me. He may come back strong in second round.
And remember just because someone is wrong it don't make other guy wright.

So, if there is anything interesting for you OceanBreeze, shoot.
Awestruck, probably not yet, curious, probably more with possible grudge then my model yet, it will change. If not entertained then you have no sense of humor:)
 

Edited June 13, 2023 by grzegorzsz830402
spelling

[SPBpolymath]

2 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

ou suggest that like it would be in favour of your claims, yet it is other way around

He’s tryna use that as justification to do whatever the **** he wants

[SPBpolymath]

I wouldn’t use that as a legal defense

[grzegorzsz830402]

2 hours ago, SPBpolymath said:

He’s tryna use that as justification to do whatever the **** he wants

It looks for me like a quick reply that he have not especially focused on so some subconscious confirmation bias towards preferred is unavoidable. I am looking for someone competent enough to challenge my model. 

 

Quote: if anyone thinks that my model is just incorect and they are willing to provide their critisism, it is more than welcomed, in any form.

 

I wrote it and I ment it. 

[grzegorzsz830402]

3 hours ago, SPBpolymath said:

I wouldn’t use that as a legal defense

That, do not mean, that it do not serves other purpose. And it does. Because I  have no interest in convincing any body to my model. I want them to test it. 

 

3 hours ago, SPBpolymath said:

I wouldn’t use that as a legal defense

Are you a lawyer ?? Or anyone of sort??

[SPBpolymath]

31 minutes ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

It looks for me like a quick reply that he have not especially focused on so some subconscious confirmation bias towards preferred is unavoidable. I am looking for someone competent enough to challenge my model. 

 

Quote: if anyone thinks that my model is just incorect and they are willing to provide their critisism, it is more than welcomed, in any form.

 

I wrote it and I ment it. 

You mean what the whorl looks like they ur lens?

 

It would be nice, ya know know we all want things 

[grzegorzsz830402]

7 minutes ago, SPBpolymath said:

You mean what the whorl looks like they ur lens?

 

It would be nice, ya know know we all want things

So what would you want??? 

[Halc]

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Humility advised. I think, those people spent a long time on it and they for sure chose their words carefully.
Peculiar :different to what is normal or expected; strange:

It's a pop you-tube made (or at least hosted) by 'Melissa". The choice of words was made by the video creators, not by the people actually looking at the stars. My point was simply that there was zero indication of exactly what was peculiar about the orbits. Finding a circular one would have been darned peculiar. It looks like a typical distribution of n bodies moving in temporary orbits about a primary mass, all very unlike an isolated unary solar system which forms a completely different way.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

You suggest that like it would be in favour of your claims, yet it is other way around.

Citation needed. Have you ever done a simulation of a fairly compact say 6 body system?  I have.  They're pretty simple. Orbits are not regular, and things easily get ejected.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

So what are your prediction to orbit shape of S8 or S14 if their would be only bodies in that system. (looked at separately of course)?????

Kind of irrelevant actually. A single body would never have been captured in the first place.  A single body somehow already below escape velocity would maintain its initial orbit indefinitely per Kepler's laws, with precession corrections per relativity if it gets really close to the primary. Kepler's laws were based on Newtonian physics.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

One of the most studied stars is S2, a relatively bright star that also passes close by Sgr A*Its orbital period is 12 years, but an extreme eccentricity of 0.985 gives it the close approach and high velocity.

You are mistaken. You've altered the quote. It is S 4714 that gets that close and has that eccentricity. S2 currently goes around every 16 years and stays at least 9 time further away.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

The greatest orbital eccentricity: S2 (e = 0.985 ), Mercury (e = 0.2056).

The star with the highest eccentricity seems to be S175 at e=0.9867.  Only one or two have an eccentricity as low as Mercury.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Simplifying from 0 to 7650 km/s, that is rather not ignorable fluctuation.

From 0??  You assert that S2 stops somewhere?

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

I couldn't find any data about speed fluctuation, so I will assume it is ignorable.

29.3 to 30.3 km/sec, a difference of 1 km/sec, ignorable depending on the purpose for which the number is being used.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

So I guess I was not that far off, let's not get peake on words, english is not my native language.

An oval is the shape of a typical race track like the one used in the Olympics.  Two semi-circles connected by straight lines. Just so you know.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Just make correct assumption and [a bouncing ball] will go up and down following linear trajectory.

That it will, but it will still be very unlike orbital motion.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Key focus was on distance speed relation, and differences in trajectory shape and energy loss was also highlighted

Distance/speed relation follows energy conservation. Any gain/loss in gravitational potential energy must be balanced by an equal and opposite gain/loss of kinetic energy. Couple that with momentum conservation and the shape of the orbit can only be one thing.  This all assumes a 2-body system. With more bodies, energy can be transferred from one star to another and the orbits can change at any time.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Ok. S8 slingshot around off, gravitational field surface of Sagittarius A* in Elliptical motion.

There is no 'gravitational field surface'. Yes, all the stars/planets can be said to 'slingshot' around their primaries. The term implies a turn-around which every orbiting thing does. At no point is a 'surface' encountered, and at no point is acceleration around the primary in any direction except towards the primary. In a 'bounce', a surface is encountered and there is very much acceleration away from the primary, as in the ball hitting the floor. This does not happen with anything in inertial motion about a massive body. It can happen to charged particles if they're caught in a sufficiently strong magnetic field, but something like S2 does not behave like a charged particle.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Gravitational field surface, where gravitational field starts

Gravitational field does not 'start'. It has no limit. The field of Sgr-A is what accelerates the motion of every S star towards itself. It accelerated our sun towards itself at all times despite our sun not being in orbit about it. This is basic Newtonian mechanics. A=GMr² where A is nonzero no matter how high r (the distance away) is. Your lack of understanding of such simple basics is why nobody is awestruck and this topic was banished to the strange-claim section.

If your model defines a limit to the gravitational effect of some mass, then how is it computed and why observation of things further away accelerating towards it will falsify the model.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Maybe in your model they don't in my they definitely do.

I don't have a model. I don't do alternative theories. I'm not in the profession.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

and He actually knows because he is in one of those dimensions.

Is this some kind of religious topic? I mean, you speak of belief and such instead of making better predictions, and here you are referencing 'He' all of a sudden.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

In this particular context how my model differs from general relativity or quantum physics, and why it actually makes it superior.

I don't think you understand either theory well enough to be able to explain differences.

6 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

So field generated by implosion starts in front of surface of the Earth Core, and you can define its outer edge for any object, and it's gone be distant from which it won't affect that body. It is object dependent. 

The English is sufficiently bad that I cannot parse this. You seem to suggest an implosion of something already effectively not-empty. An implosion requires either a hole to fill or a compression of existing material, but you don't seem to be describing either of those. Your assertion of the gravitational field having an outer edge at the surface implies that this core-object will not attract anything (like the moon) because the moon is more distant than that edge.

If you're saying that, it's easily falsified. You perhaps are not saying that, but the words say something like that and I cannot parse a different meaning.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Halc

[grzegorzsz830402]

11 minutes ago, Halc said:

The English is sufficiently bad that I cannot parse this. You seem to suggest an implosion of something already effectively not-empty. An implosion requires either a hole to fill or a compression of existing material, but you don't seem to be describing either of those. Your assertion of the gravitational field having an outer edge at the surface implies that this core-object will not attract anything (like the moon) because the moon is more distant than that edge.

If you're saying that, it's easily falsified. You perhaps are not saying that, but the words say something like that and I cannot parse a different meaning.

You are wright, this one you haven't anderstood at all. Let it be my inability to be precise enough. About other things I do not feel like we can find a way for productive information exchange.  

You either interested in challenging my model or not. It's like you reply more to the background then what I was pointing to. 

You did your best and I do appreciate your effort. I look for some one to help my attempt to falsify my model because I couldn't so far. Yet everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias that is why I look for outside source. 

There is no way that you can convince me that current scientifically accepted model is anything more than temporary bridge between old and new. 

You could only help me falsify my model or fail to do so, and then I would look for someone else to try to do the same. 

So what I am trying to say is that I do not find you competent enough to do that for me.

And your avoidance is not really confirming or falsifying anything. 

Thanks again for contributing,  but I would like you to stay outside of this topic. 

Good Luck. 

[grzegorzsz830402]

O if you would want me to do the same for you and challenge something to the best of my abilities, let me know. I will do my best to return the favour. 

[grzegorzsz830402]

And yes there are some details that I will keep for my self. I won't give out all details I do value my model to much to do so.

[grzegorzsz830402]

That is pretty much for everyone.  I will no give out key elements of my model. So you may only benefit to the point that I will be willing to share.  I do not look to convince anyone to my model. Yet if you work on your own you might find information exchange beneficial. If you have good understanding of current model yet do not develop personal one, but you fancy intellectual challenge in good humour you are invited. 

[SPBpolymath]

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

good humour

Bad intentions 

[grzegorzsz830402]

Motivation and Intention are not my big concern. If someone with bad intentions could find holes in my model, then he would help me not hurt me. So I guess bad intentions in this context would take form of praising and reassuring. Yet, I would not fall for that. Other bad intentions would be stealing someone's work. Making him share his model than convincing him that it is flawed and then presenting it to general public as your own  "flash of genius". Grate movie by the way.

Can you think about different form of bad intentions?? Maybe those that someone could accuse me of. Rightfully or not. As bad intentions may not be a conscious choice or actually well though though. 

So if you could think of any that you would have to look for, be cautious when exchanging information with me. Or maybe feel like I have them on conscious level or subconscious one. Let me know and warn other to look for warning signs. 

For me,  you have not provided me with any thoughts about my model, you warned me about Hulc. So I guess I can not say that I have reason to assume any bad intentions that on your side that would be of concern. Yet I would not avoid information exchange even with thief of ideas. If he would chalenge my model on meritorical level. I would gladly accept the risk. Because someone with ability to do so is to rare. I fear not, He would have to give me something to maintain information exchange in hopes that I will accidentally spill the beans.  

I would gain best critisism I could find and took pleasure in leaving him empty handed. Maybe not exactly empty handed. I would give him humility lesson. Cheaters are delusional about their abilities. Bet the cheater in his own game playing honestly and show your cards from the being. I would definitely enjoy that.

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by grzegorzsz830402
Spelling

[SPBpolymath]

3 minutes ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Motivation and Intention are not my big concern. If someone with bad intentions could find holes in my model, then he would help me not hurt me. So I guess bad intentions in this context would take form of praising and reassuring. Yet I would not fall for that. Other bad intentions would be stealing someone's work. Making him share his model than convincing him that it is flawed and then presenting it to general public as your "flash of genius". Grate movie by the way.

Can you think about different form of bad intentions?? Maybe those that someone could accuse me of. Rightfully or not. As bad intentions may not be a conscious choice or actually well though though. 

So if you could think of any that you would have to look for, be cautious when exchanging information with me. Or maybe feel like I have them on conscious level or subconscious one. Let me know and warn other to look for warning signs. 

For me,  you have not provided me with any thoughts about my model, you warned me about Hulc. So I guess I can not say that I have reason to assume any bad intentions that on your side that would be of concern. Yet I would not avoid information exchange even with thief of ideas. If he would chalenge my model on meritorical level. I would gladly accept the risk. Because someone with ability to do so is to rare. I fear not, He would have to give me something to maintain information exchange in hopes that I will accidentally spill the beans.  

I would gain best critisism I could find and took pleasure in leaving him empty handed. Maybe not exactly empty handed. I would give him humility lesson. Cheaters are delusional about their abilities. Bet the cheater in his own game playing honestly and show your cards from the being. I would definitely enjoy that.

 

Riddle me this.

 

A square has more area than a circle.

A sphere has more volume than a cube.

 So then does the Tesseract have more warpage than the Hopf Fibration? Warpage is measured in tetration rather than exponentiation. Or does the Hopf Fibration have tetrationally more surface warpage?