Gravity alternative!

Well said Dywyddyr!
I am astounded everyday when I view the nonsense that some post here, driven by agendas like religion, delusions of grandeur, inflated egos, they truly believe they are the fountain of wisdom.
Even more astounding, is that they also believe they are convincing others here to their ways of stupidity.
In some cases I also believe they continue with their outragious claims, simply because those same claims then draw refutation and derision from others that do know better. In other words they are invoking their undeniable rights to free speech. And while I also believe in free speech and their right to say what they want, those same Idiots then ignore the fact that they are also responsible for what they say, and the effects on others around them.
In this scenario of course, it is that they post their fairy tales of unsupported drivel, as fact.
It's a sad state of affairs that some are so inflicted with such "qualities" of delusions of grandeur, inflated egos, and religion that it blinds them to the world around them and the fact that others are laughing at them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I havn't seen any threads of Dywdyydr banished to alternative, pseudo or the cesspool as yet.
Your's of course are always destined for one of those three.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nvm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly Time is observed to slow down or speed up in the caesium atom depending on what reference frame, the satellites speed up, and spaceships they slow down.
It shows that relative to the speed of light constant of the sun, no change in time.

Secondly, to be honest your theory, idea, will be ignored because the way it is written , is not really understandable. I am a person who had the same problem, but of late I am finding better literature qualities, although my literate qualities still need polishing, I am sure I am becoming more understood. I literally had to learn English again.
Ok, on saying that, let me try to show you the sort of content you need and have to do.

''Yes when a huge matter gets all the space around a very relatively small mass like a photon it simply leaves it nothing but to compete more and take the space in between it and the other huge mass and when the space depletes or finishes the photon goes away fast since but not as fast as it were the photon has a small mass that absorbs but at the same time it absorbs a small amount of energy where my theory says that when a a small mass feels the difference in space abundance leading to it going so fast and the space around a sun is much less that the space around an electron also I wouldn't say that the space is converted to energy inside the matter since it would expand which doesn't happen what I believe is that it makes matter exists one more time in the universe''

Firstly , you have made a paragraph that is a complete sentence with no full stops, or commas, science will never accept this, and their instant thought will be troll.

''Yes when a huge matter gets all the space around a very relatively small mass like a photon''

Complete word salad, you will need to study science terminology to convey your exact meaning.

I read -Yes, when a mass of a large volume occupies spacial dimensions, then the next part is not understandable - ''around a very relatively small mass like a photon''

If the large mass is occupying the dimensional space, what do you mean by around a mass of a Photon?

Do you not know that a Photon is ''mass less'', and has no solidity?

A Photon has no mass.

 

adhams, regardless of your own knowledge of science (and English composition) theorist is one the very last people you should pay any attention to.
You won't learn anything of value from him, except, possibly what NOT to do.

 

Says the person who never works, and only has the ability to mimic. My last post to adhams was good advice, advice I have received off you in the past and many others.

 

That would be wrong. (And it's not relevant).

That too is demonstrably false.

Um, no.
It wasn't good advice and anything you've "received of me" has been filtered through your delusions to come out garbled.

 

I do not see you trying to help adhams in any way apart from being an obstruction with no objectiveness.

Are you saying that a Photon has mass now?

Are you saying a Photon has solidity?

Are you saying his paragraph was not word salad?

I do not want to bicker with you, I helping the opp out with his idea to see if there is anything to his idea. If you can not understand his idea then do not comment.

 

Oh look, you've completely ignored everything I wrote (including the fact that you were wrong).

 

I vote for Dyw to be banned for disruptive posts, sorry to anyone reading this sham of science. Dy stop disrupting topics and putting members off from conversation.

 

Every single post of yours is a "sham of science".
You don't do science.

 

Do you not understand that you have a need for conversation, your replies are instantaneous with one liners, often insults, and no actual science talk?

 

Hey!
Much like your posts.
With the exception that mine are:
A) concise,
B) grammatical,
C) often witty and
D) I am capable of discussing actual science when it's required (which, since this is in a decidedly no-science section happens to be not a sine qua non).

 

Honestly , Dy, you are not considering that I have spent several years learning some basic science. What I talk about is the simple stuff. If you notice I do not discuss chemistry etc.
My topics -

Time,
Gravity,
Em radiation,
Einstein,
Universal expansion,

Also a few other bits of information I have on other topics. I do not discuss anything I do not know present information about. I do not claim to know everything.
I do however claim that mixing Philosophy , Physics, reality, formalness, is my scientific structure of thought. Stop arguing with me please, I know you can be smart when you want to.
Anyway this is disruptive behaviour by us both in threads, so we need call a truce, it is spamming the forum.
Please will you go in my light theory and discuss that with me?

 

Incorrect.
You may have spent time reading about "basic science", but your posts show that haven't learned anything.

Yeah, all of which you get wrong.
Amazing how much you're "learned", isn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Apart from your inane "theories" - all based on things you DO NOT KNOW.

Arrant boll*cks.

There's no point: you don't listen, you don't know the basics an you can't understand why you're wrong.

 

Your presumptions about me , is amazing, I ask you to discuss science I know very well and understand. My ideas are not suppose to be the same has present information, or technically they would not be a new idea.
If you want me to go around just preaching the present information and telling everyone with a new idea, that they are wrong, that is easy to do.
Has yet, you have not impressed me with any of your own wisdom.
I have you out explained in several departments, I am shining a new light on science, knowing the old light is fading.
Gravity, you do not even know the correct definition and all the entire process involved.
Science defines an object on the ground of having a Fn=0, by gravity, that is entirely untrue. The force still being imposed is gravity. The object has an elasticity to gravity.
The more the object is displaced by altitude, the thinner the elasticity becomes stretched.

Both I and you, and the ground, wants to fall, we all want to fall centripetal to the source. The source is the core. M1 , M2, and M3, the sun, the core, solidity of matter.<the ground>.

 

As has been pointed out several times, I'm not "presuming".
You demonstrated your complete lack of grasp of the science involved.
Both here and on the other where you were banned for persisting in nonsense.

Nonsense.

Also nonsense.

 

Ok it is nonsense, I will agree with you, so can you please explain why it is nonsense, because to all the rest of the normal world, nonsense is not really an explanation on somebodies wrongness, and no more than I say so.
So you are saying that the Earth's core is not the central point of localised gravity?

Are you saying that the ground is not being pulled to the core by centripetal force?

Please explain where I am so wrong?

 

I put to you, that all mass contains energy, I also make a supposition that all the energy in any masses atomic particles wants to join , and the force is always isotropic to volume to a central point of mass.

 

I also put to you , that this can be seen in the Cavendish torsion experiment, where the lesser energy magnitude was attracting to the greater energy magnitude.