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

[grzegorzsz830402]

59 minutes ago, SPBpolymath said:

Bad faith arguments do not work here.

 

the signs indicate my lens is the right lens

Ok I will address first one about bad faith. Bad faith arguments work everywhere, otherwise bad faith in general would extinct. Assumption: we have somewhat similar understanding what bad faith is. Yet it is hard to know what is someone motivation and I do not try to guess if I do not have to. You gonna have people with bad intentions every now and then in your life. 

When people in past challenged religious dogmas did they have been welcomed with open arms or were they harassed and oppressed?? World did not changed that much. Removal of that feather collapses whole structure and it took some effort to build it. And on other hand how many people claim having unified theory and they all difrent so they all can be correct once. And some of them are quite silly.  If you stretch your intellectual abilities and venture into unknown most of the time you bring rubbish. I do not assume bad faith. And even if some people are just here to ridicule those who tried never even coming close to comprehend current model so what. Sens of humour especially about yourself is a great strength. Quote from Dan Milman book. 

 

the signs indicate my lens is the right lens. 

It could be the right one, if you could specify what you see through that lens. 

There is that experiment: if you count balls you don't see the gorilla. 

If you for what ever reason do not wish to specify what you see through those lens. 

I am curious what you think about my lens do they show me the same world or do I count the balls and do not see the gorilla in the middle pounding on his chest?

[grzegorzsz830402]

10 hours ago, SPBpolymath said:

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?

In answer was hidden a question? Yet no one even asked what questions was it? And I do not believe that they actually figure it out. Correct me if i am wrong.  No one is curious?? Or they are shy to admit that they did not get it.

They probably think,  that crazy can understand crazy:) 😂 

Edited June 14, 2023 by grzegorzsz830402
Spelling

[grzegorzsz830402]

SPB I have asked few questions that I have not got unswer from you. It was quite few so if you could answer for those you feel comfortable answering then I will assume that you do not wish to unswer for those you did not. I  have to admit that I have not watched videos you posted so I will comment on them once I will have time to watch them. 

Or maybe you are not comfortable to answer any questions, maybe you prefer to only ask question or and comment. For now I would be OK with that. 

Or maybe you can propose a theoretical scaffolding for information exchange interaction that will improve communication from haphazard one to more organised one. 

Is there any alternative model to the currently accepted one by scientific society that you find interesting??? And if so, could you recommend me one. Won't hurt me to analyse it. 

Yet it is a bit taxing on brain to jump between models. 

[SPBpolymath]

I’m not going to spend any of my accumulated warpage on your wordsalad capades

[SPBpolymath]

If I spend a penny it will be on paying back a negative currency

[grzegorzsz830402]

29 minutes ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Bad faith arguments do not work here.

I kind of felt like Halc replies were purposely either avoiding merit of my posts, misinterpreting them and if replying picking on irrelevant even if I have wrote Simplifying and avoiding addressing merit of the post completely.  Was it bad faith I don't know maybe he prepares you for what you gone experience any way if you will try to chalenge old. I treated that as training regardless assuming some good intentions like there have to be someone playing devil's advocate. For me challenging someone else alternative model (breeze). Currently accepted one by scientific society if he would asked those questions someone would. And he have stopped to participate once asked. Can not really assume bad intentions from Halc. I prefer to say he plays devil's advocate. 

There is no possibility for my model to compete with yours If you have one. Everyone with his own TOE have to chalenge alone whole scientific society on current model, and if you think they will play by the rules hmmm....

You post under different name I was nicely informed, I have my assumption why that could be. 

If you have experienced so hostility or ridiculing here is nothing compere what real world would have for you if you actually have theory that would threaten old. Imagine that you are one of the well respected scientists, and some guy will expose you and your mates on all bullshit you have repeated for years acting like someone smart that actually understands what those masses can't. From respected to ridiculed. Quite a fall. You think scientists are less human the other people.  

So on that note I think I will invite Halc to play devil's advocate on few things.

[grzegorzsz830402]

You are still invited to comment on whether I write her, critisism welcomed in any form hostile, abusive, ridiculing, even threatening.  I am for freedom of speech so feel free. Yet, I won't address anything you write if not directly instructed by you to do so. 

I have to admit that I do think that you have intellectual capacity to chalenge my model and not be evasive like Halc was in my opinion.(earlier applies).

Yet for some reason you chose not to and actually have not provided much. Other that interesting Riddle. 

[grzegorzsz830402]

So I will try to corner currently accepted model. And I invite everyone who is willing to plays a devil's advocate to participate. 

And in defence of scientist that I have not wrote kindly about I want to write that temporary flawed model are needed as a bridge that helps to close the gap and helps to get to unified theory. And all alternative theories that are not quite unified model have to be rejected because we have all information on one scaffolding as imperfect as it is is better to maintain it until real unified theory is found and rigorous attacks are needed to separate all delusional ideas from the real thing.  

[grzegorzsz830402]

Dark matter

....Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%^[of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy content.

.....Many experiments to detect and study dark matter particles directly are being actively undertaken, but none have yet succeeded.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Does anyone disagree that it part of current scientific model accepted by scientific society????

[grzegorzsz830402]

Vacuum:

A vacuum is a space devoid of matter. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

 

[grzegorzsz830402]

Outer space:

Outer space, commonly referred to simply as space, is the expanse that exists beyond Earth and its atmosphere and between celestial bodies. Outer space is not completely empty; it is a near-perfect vacuum.

 

[SPBpolymath]

Show business is no business!

[grzegorzsz830402]

11 minutes ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

95% of the total mass–energy content.

So where is it?? It can not be where other 5% is wright. 

matter: In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume....

The Properties of Matter

Because it occupies space, all matter has volume and impenetrability, since two objects cannot occupy the same space simultaneously.

 

So 95% of matter can not be where other 5% is. Wright???

So by exclusion we are left with space that hypothetically is nearly perfect vacuum? 

We can not detect dark matter/energy. Wright??

So current model assumption is: that only space that could be taken under reasonable consideration to accommodate unimaginable amount of mass/energy (that have to take up space, Wright??) Is definitely not (approximation correct at scale considered at) evenly distributed through space and definitely can not be medium for light as a tunnel wave, or medium for electromagnetic waves. And definitely can not disturbed implosion and created gravitational field. No, no for sure n'dimension none material way of explaining oneself from explaining what one do not understands is a way to go. In a same way church understood God as they had direct hotline. Same scientist have fancy experiments and understands reality and common folks are just not equipped so they have to adore them for their ability to translate what they have learned from n'dimension. And you do not even think about pointing out inconsistencies, church had heretics scientist have crazy people. Guess apple can not fall far from the tree. (Gravity)

If hand fit the glove......

No you all common folks you do not deserve reality model that you could easily understand. Science replaced religion,  God needed to be loved,  scientist need to be admired. 

So maybe for that reason believing that I have key elements for unified theory I won't share it to those who will keep it for themselves to keep others in dark because they are just to stupid to understand. 

Every particles before photon had to meet criteria to be categoriesd as particle. 

Photon got exception from all criteria that every other particle had to meet.

Yet,if random common folk would state such claim, everyone would frown. 

If genius scientist proclaimed it. It do not sound stupid any more. After all you should not question God as no human can understand God. 

So if scientist says something you don't understand it's is by default because you are to stupid to understand it. It is never the case that what he proclaims have no sense and it is stupid. 

Don't you dare questioning scientist's 

What is funny about it psychologically is pattern much in statements.

I am not like my parents and never will be. 

Science is not like religion and newer will be.

They have direct line to reality through experiments that only they can understand,  and they will happily provide you digestible guidelines how to admire them. 

Ok. Now do your job guys and prepare me for battle with high priest of science. 

They won't give up easily and won't play by the rules. Toughen me up. 

Round One for me.

If you disagree just give this to a common folks to read that you now and let them be te judges. 

 

 

 

 

[Halc]

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

So where is it?? It can not be where other 5% is wright. 

You are applying classical rules to non-classical concepts. There's nothing to prevent dark matter from being where matter is. There's dark matter in you. Dark energy has uniform and constant density everywhere, so there's nowhere where it isn't. Dark energy became dominant once the expansion of the universe lowered the density of matter below that of the constant density of dark energy.

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume.

Again, a classical concept inappropriately applied. An electron for instance is matter. It has mass but occupies no volume. It is a fundamental thing. If it had volume, it would have a left half and a right half which would contradict it being a fundamental thing.

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

So 95% of matter can not be where other 5% is. Wright???

The word is "right??", and no, that statement isn't right. "Wright" means 'maker or builder', like a play-wright.

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

We can not detect dark matter/energy. Wright??

We wouldn't posit it if we couldn't detect it, so not right.

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

Is definitely not (approximation correct at scale considered at) evenly distributed through space and definitely can not be medium for light as a tunnel wave, or medium for electromagnetic waves.

Dark energy is evenly distributed and does not lose density as space expands. Matter (dark or not) is not evenly distributed (both are attracted to gravity wells and repelled from gravity hills, and the average density of matter goes down as it gets distributed over more space as space expands.

None of this stuff is medium for light. Light doesn't have a medium.

4 hours ago, grzegorzsz830402 said:

If genius scientist proclaimed it. It do not sound stupid any more.

It has nothing to do with anybody being a genius, or to do with belief, unbacked assertions, or admiration. It has to do with publishing a model that fits the evidence better than other models. This is pretty much the opposite of the way a church works. Science, unlike a religion, encourages being questioned. But it pays little attention to the ignorant (or in this case, nonexistent) ones since they pose no challenge.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Halc

[grzegorzsz830402]

1 hour ago, Halc said:

You are applying classical rules to non-classical concepts. There's nothing to prevent dark matter from being where matter is.

I am pointing out inconsistencies in current scientific model. Non-classical concepts should fallow the same logic or at least some logic. Supermarket is non-classical corner shop. Yet you would not accept potato if you asked for oranges. You either have categories or not. 

[grzegorzsz830402]

2 hours ago, Halc said:

There's nothing to prevent dark matter from being where matter is.

Yes there is logic and consistency.

[grzegorzsz830402]

2 hours ago, Halc said:

There's dark matter in you. Dark energy has uniform and constant density everywhere, so there's nowhere where it isn't. Dark energy became dominant once the expansion of the universe lowered the density of matter below that of the constant density of dark energy.

A little bit closer yet not quite there. Yes. It fills up all gaps. And there is a a matter in clasical point of view,  and separation (dark matter, dark energy) came from lack of understanding not from actual empirical data. Current model have incorrect assumptions about elementary particles and forces that govern their interaction. Therefore explains fraction about 5% and admits to know virtually nothing about 95% of univers.