My theory predicts that Gravity is a pressure from the Universe, not an attractive force. And for a few years now I have been deciding if that pressure has changed over time.

Since I was a child I have often wondered how T-Rex managed to get up off the floor if it fell over. It has those reduced arms, and a heavy back end. It looks like it would be hard work to get up. And since my gravity theory is channeled through bubbles like bubble-wrap which protects us from a huge pressure from the Universe I had been thinking that pressure on the dinosaurs may have been less. This would account for their huge size, and predict their downfall. But apart from their size I had little to go on. But this...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110809104301.htm

... picture reminded me that they had three toes. Now my theory also predicts that pressure creates off-springs that are forced out of the Aether. Snowflakes for example are the 6 sided shapes produced by Aether pressure in cold conditions, and Aether pressure is Gravity, which is counter acted by magnetism (which is also Dark Flow). Another theory this week...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110810085501.htm

... shows how alternating pressure from holes produces such crystals. And from all of my information put together, and the three toes of the dinosaurs which would fit inside our hand print. I can conclude that our extra two digits are a force pressure from extra gravity.

Hydrogen bonds are also the same release of pressure, and so are electrons in their creation of orbits.

Aether is much like a liquid, and is like a sea pressure, but much lower, but it is infinite, so creates infinite pressure. The pressure created the Galaxies, because the infinite pressure folds into Black Holes. The black holes cannot contain the material that falls into them, so the material is reduced in scale, and then escapes as magnetism (Dark Flow). The escaping pressure creates the bubble around the Galaxy. The pressure on the bubble then creates pounding waves. The pounding waves then create more pressure inside the bubble. The black hole spins the material out as a disc spiral. The spinning material creates more holes in the aether. The holes then allow more material inside, and creates suns, and planets. All of the atoms etc. The escaping materials create more bubbles. The bubbles now counteract more pressure. This ends up as a bubble wrap to protect us from the huge pressures of infinite Aether. The bubbles however are slightly unstable. A meteor, or comet for example can break through them. If something big happened to a bubble it would alter Gravity. The dinosaurs must have experience a break in the bubble chain, and the pressure must have suddenly dropped on them, and killed them.

The bone density must have been filled over time by high pressure which gives them the appearance of normal density as they have become filled by new material internally, and externally. Take a look at the creatures around us.. birds (light) have three toes. Camels (Heavy) have two pressurized toes. Elephants (very heavy) have compressed toes. Fish (Under pressure of the sea) have toes that have squeezed out as fins. Humans (in the middle) have the toes of Dinosaurs, but with the extra digits squeezed out.

My theory predicts that Gravity is a pressure from the Universe, not an attractive force. And for a few years now I have been deciding if that pressure has changed over time.

Since I was a child I have often wondered how T-Rex managed to get up off the floor if it fell over. It has those reduced arms, and a heavy back end. It looks like it would be hard work to get up. And since my gravity theory is channeled through bubbles like bubble-wrap which protects us from a huge pressure from the Universe I had been thinking that pressure on the dinosaurs may have been less. This would account for their huge size, and predict their downfall. But apart from their size I had little to go on. But this...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110809104301.htm

... picture reminded me that they had three toes. Now my theory also predicts that pressure creates off-springs that are forced out of the Aether. Snowflakes for example are the 6 sided shapes produced by Aether pressure in cold conditions, and Aether pressure is Gravity, which is counter acted by magnetism (which is also Dark Flow). Another theory this week...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110810085501.htm

... shows how alternating pressure from holes produces such crystals. And from all of my information put together, and the three toes of the dinosaurs which would fit inside our hand print. I can conclude that our extra two digits are a force pressure from extra gravity.

For a genius, you sure have some unbelievably absurd ideas that are devoid of anything which remotely makes rational sense. But by all means continue, because you seem to really impress yourself...:rolleyes:

I not only impress myself, but when people argue with me it makes me even more impressed that they don't see it. It doubly qualifies me.

I not only impress myself, but when people argue with me it makes me even more impressed that they don't see it. It doubly qualifies me.

Yes, it certainly does....

My theory predicts that Gravity is a pressure from the Universe, not an attractive force.

Generally speaking this is not a new idea. A kinetic gravity model also referred to as the LeSage model of gravity or push gravity has been around since the time of Newton. I believe it was last given serious scientific consideration by Feynman, with the neutrino as the force carrier.

While generally speaking a "push" gravity model does show potential to resolve some problems we face in merging GR and QM, so far those models that have been proposed have all included fatal flaws. Most commonly a heat build up that results in the vaporization of the atoms of which our world depends.

Addendum, as for gravity killing the dinosaurs, I'll give you one, as without gravity there would have been no dinosaurs, so ultimately gravity is responsible for their demise.

Generally speaking this is not a new idea. A kinetic gravity model also referred to as the LeSage model of gravity or push gravity has been around since the time of Newton. I believe it was last given serious scientific consideration by Feynman, with the neutrino as the force carrier.

While generally speaking a "push" gravity model does show potential to resolve some problems we face in merging GR and QM, so far those models that have been proposed have all included fatal flaws. Most commonly a heat build up that results in the vaporization of the atoms of which our world depends.

I've never heard of this heat build up. I don't even see how its possible even with today's gravity models.Anyway whatever that is supposed to be it isn't going to happen in my version. The push is to the centre of atoms, through holes in the Aether, so not really much contact apart from the resulting electrons.

This is my logic structure...

+1 mass
-1 negative mass

Mass can bump mass.

Negative mass can bump negative mass.

Mass moves into negative mass.

Negative mass can move through positive mass.

Negative mass can create a hole through positive mass allowing positive mass to enter positive mass through that hole.

Positive mass bumps out an electron, and positive mass shrinks by that electron mass.

Negative mass bumps out a positron, and negative mass expands by the mass of that positron.

Negative mass is a hole that positive mass can move into, it is an atom.


This is a Turing machine, and...

+1
0
-1

....is the Trinary code that creates everything.

+1 mass

-1 Negative mass

0 = zero space.

Zero space is a location that is empty.

All mass can move into zero space.

Zero space is a Black Hole. It is the area of least resistance for mass, and negative mass.

Mass has to fold into negative mass if it shrinks to negative.

Negative mass can expand into mass if it becomes positive.

That's the logic commands. It's a solid computer program. I am programming it at the moment.

My theory predicts that Gravity is a pressure from the Universe, not an attractive force. And for a few years now I have been deciding if that pressure has changed over time.

Since I was a child I have often wondered how T-Rex managed to get up off the floor if it fell over. It has those reduced arms, and a heavy back end. It looks like it would be hard work to get up. And since my gravity theory is channeled through bubbles like bubble-wrap which protects us from a huge pressure from the Universe I had been thinking that pressure on the dinosaurs may have been less. This would account for their huge size, and predict their downfall. But apart from their size I had little to go on. But this...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110809104301.htm

... picture reminded me that they had three toes. Now my theory also predicts that pressure creates off-springs that are forced out of the Aether. Snowflakes for example are the 6 sided shapes produced by Aether pressure in cold conditions, and Aether pressure is Gravity, which is counter acted by magnetism (which is also Dark Flow). Another theory this week...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110810085501.htm

... shows how alternating pressure from holes produces such crystals. And from all of my information put together, and the three toes of the dinosaurs which would fit inside our hand print. I can conclude that our extra two digits are a force pressure from extra gravity.
Your idea was the basis for an excellent novel, End of an Era by Robert Sawyer (http://www.sfwriter.com/exer.htm). He has a different explanation for the sudden change in gravity, of course. But I would hate to ruin the book for you.

If this absurd idea was precipitated by dinosaurs, you are barking up the wrong evolutionary tree. It's no more difficult for a t-rex to stand up than it is for a chicken or ostrich. They were massively strong. Also, oxygen levels were higher.

If this absurd idea was precipitated by dinosaurs, you are barking up the wrong evolutionary tree. It's no more difficult for a t-rex to stand up than it is for a chicken or ostrich. They were massively strong. Also, oxygen levels were higher.
What have oxygen levels to do about the ability to stand up?
Have you never noticed that an ostrich does not stand up in the same way as a chicken. Because an ostrich is heavier, it must stand very erect on thick straight legs. Land animals heavier than an ostrich have four legs. When those animals weight more than four tons they have massively thick legs (African elephants, or in the past mammoths) and their heads perched almost atop their front legs (no necks).

Have you never noticed that the world today does not possess any six ton chickens? They would not be able to stand up under present earth gravity.

Oxygen is important because it supports larger creatures. The heart doesn't have to work as hard to supply the muscles.

The recent past did feature very, very large two legged birds. The Moa of New Zealand weighed more than 500 lbs! And the elephant bird of Madagascar weighed more like 880 lbs!

If this absurd idea was precipitated by dinosaurs, you are barking up the wrong evolutionary tree. It's no more difficult for a t-rex to stand up than it is for a chicken or ostrich. They were massively strong. Also, oxygen levels were higher.

My idea was based on my own theory which is going back to 2004, and it's about a push gravity using the Aether. I often apply this gravity model to add new perspectives into some events in the Universe, or on Earth. I predict things...

I waited a long time to examine dinosaurs, because all I had was a question about T-Rex standing up. But when I saw the feet I then had a conclusion. The feet do not show evolved compression. Evolution works naturally with the environment. OK an ostrich can lose a toe to run faster, but basically it looks natural. But a T-Rex, and Brontosaurus have feet that match our smaller animals.

You can apply Evolution to feet quite simply. Pressure forces out toes, but walking folds them back. Pressure in mud works feet downwards, and diagonally.. goat, deer, pig. Hard surfaces evolve to flatter feet.

If you just use humans as a single example. Fat people, flat, wide feet, ankles that are short. So this takes away land changes.

Mammoths to Elephant.. looks marginally reversed. Mammoth moving towards longer feet than elephants.

T-Rex.. massively reversed. Long toes, no flatness, longer claws. Same weight as elephant. :confused:

Brontosaurus.. Flat feet, but huge.

Triceratops. Normal lizard feet, should be elephant feet.

Moa.. unbird-like feet for the scale.

Elephant bird = Emu feet, but emu smaller.

All reversed from today.

You are discounting the proportions. A T-rex foot isn't that different from an elephant, with the addition of claws.

http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=70&pictureid=946

http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=70&pictureid=945

The people with the widest feet are the Japanese, and they are generally quite small people.

So now we are talking about feet? I guess if a dinosaur's feet did not keep up with gravity they might fall down break a leg and starve to death!

I am sorry I don't usually make light of someone's ideas. But this gets more and more humorous as we go.

While there is some interesting aspects to the idea of a relativistic ether as a component in a larger kinetic model for gravity, adding feet and dinosaurs to the discussion.........?

You are discounting the proportions. A T-rex foot isn't that different from an elephant, with the addition of claws.

http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=70&pictureid=946

http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=70&pictureid=945

The people with the widest feet are the Japanese, and they are generally quite small people.

What? They are completely different, and the T-Rex is on two legs that's twice the weight. Surely you can see that? Imagine an elephant walking around on two feet all day long, and that would give it tree trunk legs with a huge fold at the bottom like a suction cup. I don't think it would enjoy the tip-toe version. And yeah you can add a long tail for balance, but look at a kangaroo feet, very long, and what weight is that?

The general shape is the same, only the t-rex has large claws as well:


http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=70&pictureid=947

Time to sit back now, and wait to see if I get anything new that adds to the idea.

Time to sit back now and laugh at you.

spidergoat, just curious, what software did you use to make that beady outline? it's nice.

hey nice thread, but slightly off topic about the feet...

if i can recall, the gravity on earth can't really change unless there is some cataclysm.. e.g an asteroid with a great mass hitting the earth to change its mass...

the feet is interesting though.. but what about the hands and arms of animals and dinosaurs in relation to humans.. hmm :S

Natural selection would have to include gravity, and it does if you look at animals today. If you have smaller feet like a Giraffe to body size they are denser.. hooves. If you have larger feet like an elephant they are flatter, with a total combined density of hardness, and softness from the escape points of the kissing problem. All feet match all animals. The Ostrich is at a tipping point between two toes, and 3 toes, as 1 was just being releases, and the ostriches that survived best were the ones with 2 toes. So natural selection included gravity. It also includes how you are born.. egg, or live birth. Different types of pressure. And to the eggs you need to add temperature as well, because temperature changes pressure. things that come out of eggs are not really prepared for gravity so much. They are usually flatter, crawling, or flatter fish, crocodiles, snakes. All things struggling to get around. But chickens change this by sitting on the eggs, and changing the temperature, and pressure to better match an Earth Gravity. Feathers are also better in a blotting material like an egg. But Dinosaurs.. eggs, not sitting, but tall... similar to chickens, but without the extra effort. Today's standing lizards tall but light, usually crawl around anyway.

And to get to the point about what changed Gravity, my version of gravity is directed by bubbles through the Aether. If a bubble breaks, or is damaged, it changes Gravity...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pinchopaxton/Galaxy.jpg

the feet is interesting though.. but what about the hands and arms of animals and dinosaurs in relation to humans.. hmm :S

The kissing problem is that 12 particles can touch 1, and that is a spherical stacking problem. Particles are spherical, and growth is a pressure. weight on the feet is pressure, but also growth in the womb is a pressure. Our hands are a pressure release pushed out through the kissing problem. The kissing problem is very hexagonal on a 2D plane. You add a slight squeeze to the kissing problem, and the hexagon is our hands, and other body parts, slightly squeezed.

Feathers have to do with transferring growth through a feeding material. In other words the feathers can feed outwards through the kissing problem, creating the triple release of 3 points like a birds foot. The feathers are basically 3 toes repeated.

Feathers have to do with transferring growth through a feeding material. In other words the feathers can feed outwards through the kissing problem, creating the triple release of 3 points like a birds foot. The feathers are basically 3 toes repeated.

Seems well past time to exit this discussion, personally. Even though it is in pseudoscience!

This thread give pseudoscience a bad name.

Someone's been kissing toads.

I not only impress myself, but when people argue with me it makes me even more impressed that they don't see it. It doubly qualifies me.

This bit told me all I need to know about you. You're a closed minded fundamentalist who's not open to refutation in the least. While your ideas may or may not have merit(depending on how well they fit the evidence), actually discussing them with you is a pointless waste of time.

Oxygen is important because it supports larger creatures. The heart doesn't have to work as hard to supply the muscles.

The recent past did feature very, very large two legged birds. The Moa of New Zealand weighed more than 500 lbs! And the elephant bird of Madagascar weighed more like 880 lbs!

And we had the predators to go with it:
Haast's Eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast's_Eagle)
Eyles' Harrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyles%27_Harrier)

I would have given body parts to see either of those.

This bit told me all I need to know about you. You're a closed minded fundamentalist who's not open to refutation in the least. While your ideas may or may not have merit(depending on how well they fit the evidence), actually discussing them with you is a pointless waste of time.

It doesn't tell you anything. Think more logically. If I put 'Did gravity change for the dinosaurs?' that's a question. If you open with a question you have already back-footed to science. The replies are then open to scientific evidence. But being as my theory is so completely different to current science, replies based on science are not going to work. So if I put 'A Change In Gravity Killed The Dinosaurs' as a none open sentence.. science has to step up a level, and it needs to step up a level to give me the sort of replies that I need.

spidergoat, just curious, what software did you use to make that beady outline? it's nice.

Photoshop elements, it's like photoshop lite. A good free photo editing software is "Gimp".

It doesn't tell you anything. Think more logically. If I put 'Did gravity change for the dinosaurs?' that's a question. If you open with a question you have already back-footed to science. The replies are then open to scientific evidence. But being as my theory is so completely different to current science, replies based on science are not going to work. So if I put 'A Change In Gravity Killed The Dinosaurs' as a none open sentence.. science has to step up a level, and it needs to step up a level to give me the sort of replies that I need.Translation :

Don't think rationally or ask about evidence. To listen to me you have you ignore evidence, reason, logic and just accept what I say.

You sound like Kirk Cameron trying to convince people his religious faith is justified. Both you and he are delusional idiots.

I'm still trying to picture the sudden change in gravity that would have killed the dinosaurs in a mass extinction.

One minute you're a T-Rex walking along, minding your own business - when "BAM" change in gravity and you're dragging your belly along the floor and scraping the skin off your penis.
What a way to go....

It doesn't tell you anything. Think more logically. If I put 'Did gravity change for the dinosaurs?' that's a question. If you open with a question you have already back-footed to science. The replies are then open to scientific evidence. But being as my theory is so completely different to current science, replies based on science are not going to work. So if I put 'A Change In Gravity Killed The Dinosaurs' as a none open sentence.. science has to step up a level, and it needs to step up a level to give me the sort of replies that I need.

And you, quite obviously, have absolutely no idea how science works. Science doesn't "step it up" to fit a new idea, new ideas are tested against current evidence and if they make a good fit they are accepted as the best approximation of the truth currently available. Such approximations aren't revised because some loony thought up some new idea, they're changed when new evidence demands that they be changed.

You see in science, every science, evidence is the final arbiter of an idea. If the idea fits the evidence then awesome, we've gotten one step closer to a better understanding of the universe. If the idea doesn't fit the evidence or, in the case of your idea, ignores huge swaths of evidence then it isn't worth the neurons that developed it.

Your hypothesis ignores virtually everything we know about physics, geology, and paleontology. That's three whole fields of science, each with sometimes literal mountains of evidence supporting them that you need to overturn. This means that you need evidence amounting to every piece of evidence weighed against you, an unlikely scenario to say the least.

Besides, this is besides the point. My criticism wasn't of your idea, though the criticism of your idea that I just typed is fairly ironclad. No, my criticism was of you. The way you act and speak is that of one who has no interest in the validity of your beliefs, which means that any discussion of them with you is nothing but a pointless waste of time. You want to have meaningful discussions about your ideas? Then you've got to do two things. One, you need to leave yourself open to disproof as an unfalsifiable idea is worthless. And two you need to be willing to learn things. As it stands you're willing to do neither and thus discussion with you is meaningless.

And you, quite obviously, have absolutely no idea how science works. Science doesn't "step it up" to fit a new idea, new ideas are tested against current evidence and if they make a good fit they are accepted as the best approximation of the truth currently available. Such approximations aren't revised because some loony thought up some new idea, they're changed when new evidence demands that they be changed.

You see in science, every science, evidence is the final arbiter of an idea. If the idea fits the evidence then awesome, we've gotten one step closer to a better understanding of the universe. If the idea doesn't fit the evidence or, in the case of your idea, ignores huge swaths of evidence then it isn't worth the neurons that developed it.

Your hypothesis ignores virtually everything we know about physics, geology, and paleontology. That's three whole fields of science, each with sometimes literal mountains of evidence supporting them that you need to overturn. This means that you need evidence amounting to every piece of evidence weighed against you, an unlikely scenario to say the least.

Besides, this is besides the point. My criticism wasn't of your idea, though the criticism of your idea that I just typed is fairly ironclad. No, my criticism was of you. The way you act and speak is that of one who has no interest in the validity of your beliefs, which means that any discussion of them with you is nothing but a pointless waste of time. You want to have meaningful discussions about your ideas? Then you've got to do two things. One, you need to leave yourself open to disproof as an unfalsifiable idea is worthless. And two you need to be willing to learn things. As it stands you're willing to do neither and thus discussion with you is meaningless.

You probably only know a certain few pieces of my theory. It goes back to 2004, and since then science has found a lot of the things that I said would be there. This means that the dinosaur evidence is based on about 20 other pieces of evidence which I didn't go into. However there are alternatives that the dinosaur were lighter than current models predict.

You do realize that the solution is simple right? Get yourself published in the peer review journal. If your hypothesis(it's not a theory yet) is correct and you've supported your arguments with evidence then it should easily stand up to some critical inquiry and skeptical scrutiny. If it doesn't then that means that there's at least one flaw in your hypothesis and you need to either scrap it or revise it. This is the way science works, if you don't like it then don't deal with it but you can't then expect people to take you seriously.

However none of this touches on the main criticism I made of you, that you're not open to disproof or learning anything new. Beyond that you blatantly ignore three related fields of science and all of the evidence they have to support them. I'm sorry but unless your twenty pieces of evidence are extraordinarily strong, they're just not enough.

and since then science has found a lot of the things that I said would be there.No, it hasn't. And your theory of 'everything' can't actually describe anything with any accuracy. It's a theory of nothing.

My theory predicts that Gravity is a pressure from the Universe, not an attractive force. And for a few years now I have been deciding if that pressure has changed over time.

So what is origin of the gravitational constant G?
What is origin of the dark energy?
What is the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and the gravitational field?
What is the internal structure of the particles carrying the gravitational energy?

What are the initial conditions in your model? Where are the differences between the GR and your model? Can we measure such effects? How? Does your model describe more than the GR and contains less the parameters?

So what is origin of the gravitational constant G?
What is origin of the dark energy?
What is the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and the gravitational field?
What is the internal structure of the particles carrying the gravitational energy?

What are the initial conditions in your model? Where are the differences between the GR and your model? Can we measure such effects? How? Does your model describe more than the GR and contains less the parameters?

The origin of G would be a vector force through a membrane like an atom. So an atom would be a hole, and in that hole would be a flow, and against the atom membrane would be a vector force. The flow would be the Aether, a spherical particle. Therefore G would be a constant of mass.. atoms with a vector force. The more atoms, the more G, and weight, and compaction.

Dark Energy would be the out flow of Aether. If you fill atoms with Aether where does the Aether escape? It compacts, and then folds inside out to become negative mass.. anti-matter.. and magnetism. Negative mass acts like a hole in mass, it passes through mass like Neutrinos, and like a link in a chain it creates bonding. A chain requires a hole in a necklace, and negative mass creates a hole for mass to lock into. As negative mass escapes, more mass enters, and now you have a counter weight for G. So two object on the moon fall at the same speed, they both have a counter weight which is equal to their mass... Dark matter.

Einstein speculated bending space time. This require physics that move an object through a curve in space. The imaginary image is actually the curvature of Aether into atoms in the Earth with flow, and rotation. Quite simply.. Einstein imagined a plug-hole, and said something completely different because he had gravity as a pull, and not a flow. His picture was thrown off by attraction which doesn't exist.

The particles which carry the G force are just a membrane, and a negative mass hole, but this hole is something that humans think of as empty space. A negative mass hole is not empty, it is reversed physics. Whatever matter can do, a negative mass hole can do in reverse. This particle can fold inside out so that the hole is the membrane, and the mass is a nucleus. This is a Bose Einstein condensate. With the Dark Matter on the outside the gravity is upwards, and the condensate climbs walls, pulling mass with it like a snail shell.

The initial conditions are an expanding Aether Universe, which then creates collisions between Aether particles which are tiny bumps. The tiny bumps evolve into waves. This is a complete spherical stacking system, so the waves are spherically stacked particles. This allows for the usual spherically stacked results.. the kissing problem. A central particle becomes trapped by 12 surrounding particles. A wave travels towards this centrally trapped particle in every direction, and so it folds inside out. It becomes a hole. All of the other particles start to move into this hole, and they also collapse into a larger hole.

What you have here is the beginning of a Galaxy. An infinite expansion of an Aether Universe gradually folds through a spherically stacked system into black holes, and Galaxies. With Gravity, and Dark matter as results. No big bang, no singularity. Just folding Aether.