Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Kaiduorkhon, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Kaiduorkhon's post 72 has, imho, been well refuted, but I will add seven "Billy T observations:”

    (1) Conservation of energy is not violated as there is “Negative Energy," NE, equal to the KE + PE of the universe. I. e. the total energy is, and always has been, zero.

    (2) The universe is expanding (average separation of stars increasing) at an accelerating rate due to the growing pressure of the negative energy.
    I. e. the NE applies the force needed for stellar acceleration or is “negative gravity.” (Crudely: energy => mass (E =mC^2) => gravity)

    (3) As KE+PE+NE = 0, and KE is increasing with stars accelerating and PE is also increasing as they move farther apart, the amount NE must be growing as stated in (2).

    (4) Someday smaller objects, for example very tiny asteroids “rocks,” will “explode” into near by space as their surface self gravity becomes less than the local negative gravity of the NE in a self accelerating process as their surface gravity decreases, and then all the planets do the same, smallest surface gravity first.

    (5) Eventually the stars too explode into space, regular stars before neutrons stars, then black holes when the negative gravity at they event horizons exceeds the positive gravity there.

    (6) Much later still, molecules will be ripped apart, but the order is more determined by their "binding energy" than self gravity. Then almost finally, the atoms are ripped apart into their quarks. I think the electrons survive forever, to keep the total charge in this much larger universe, zero still. I think man does not really know why the self electro-static repulsion has not already destroyed the electrons. It must be the strongest, non-nuclear force that exist. Perhaps, some yet unknown attractive "fifth force" exists inside the electron?

    (7) Finally, the mass density falls below one quark in the volume of the present universe and time, which never really existed, dies too. Time is measured by observable change, not anything in and of its self. When all the quarks are receding from one another faster than the speed of light, time not only does not really exist, but the change needed for measuring it, becomes unobservable.

    What happens "next" is more speculative. The uncertainty principle of QM, makes the mass density indistinguishable from zero. Thus the original t = 0 conditions of the Big Bang have been re-established. I. e. “Nothingness” again exists. This seems to be the conditions for a Big Bang to occur. Perhaps a new one does, but it need not have the same physical laws as our universe does. It would however have change, so if intelligent creatures develop in it, they too would probably suffer under the illusion that time does exist.

    As it is funny, I'll add Fred Hoyle's reply to his BB critics who asked him: "And from where do all those hydrogen atoms come from?"
    Fred replied: "From the same place you get them all at once!"
    (At the time this exchange took place, few realized that the BB was too hot for millions of years for any atoms to exist.)
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Indeed, Billy T, you are well versed and generally updated on 'today's physics' - while, on the other hand, please note that the more resolved and non-speculative observations of 'bygone' ('refuted') science are displaced by an unleashed miasma of speculation, portions of which are boldly and falsely labeled 'theory'; 'string theory' for example, as it is presented in the url made accessible via post 81 (above) in this thread.

    Sincere thanks for the addition of more of 'today's physics', as it compares to the unrecognised import of the abandoned and/or contradicted 'old school' physics. I respectfully submit that your's is a list of the transition of feral interpretations that has displaced the scientific discipline of yester-year with the turbulent conjecture become 'theory' within 'contemporary' science (is no longer scientific, but rather a theater of desperately dog paddling band aids in a sea of - frequently frantic - confusion).

    Posts in this thread continue to reveal that some dissent has yet to understand, for example, how the Steady State can be back on the slate in a spatially expanding universe. Such misunderstandings continue to exclude and/or underestimate the key factor of 4-D expansion (3-dimensions moving at right angles from a given test object or system, generating the 4th dimension of time, motion and gravity). As though Einstein's General Principle of Relativity - a century aged primary element (in two & one half more years) is alien to the since proposed and often frantically submitted 'solutions' for perceived, allegory obstacles and non-existent 'problems' that are long resolved.

    The history of Einstein's abandonment of the repelling force (Lambda) continues to be misunderstood and/or malapplied, while it's history and value is reconsidered in the fact that Einstein was returned to and working on a reinstatement of Lambda, to the time of his expiration as Professor Emeritus at Princeton, 1955.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    False. The old theories were replace because they did not jibe with observation and experimentation. The current theories are clearly the best at explaining observation and experimental data.

    Old theories that work are not abandoned. For crying out loud Newtons theories on motion are 300 years old and still taught and are usefull today. When a theory is found to be inadequate it is modified or abandoned - this is science, sorry if you don't like it.

    I understand how you could feel this way. If you have no scientific training it is very hard to understand the more advanced (or even the more basic) physics and your confusion is understandable. But your confusion is yours and not that of the scientific community. We do not have the answer to everything - you seem to think that this implies we have the answer to nothing - you are quite mistaken. I encourage you to take some courses and expand your knowledge.

    That would be because they are mutually exclusive.

    This is simply an absurd statement, devoid of rational meaning.

    I realize you just make stuff up as you go along, but this is really getting ridiculous. If you believe these things you are living in a fantasy world. The issues that are adressed by GR were not resolved long ago, hell most of the issues weren't even realized.

    Einstein did blunder. He thought the universe should be steady state so he put in a 'fudge factor' to make it so. Bad move plain and simple. GR as it stands actually shows that the universe is not steady state - it is either expanding or contracting. It is expanding - so good job taking that ugly 'fudge factor' out, Einstein and giving us the amazing theory of GR.
  8. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    The rudimentary misunderstanding regarding GR is that it introduces a 4th dimension (of time and motion), applicable to matter itself; meaning that 'matter' (solidity of space) itself is constantly expanding at right angles from apparently 'static' mass. Because this expansion is universally applicable to matter as well as space, the uniform expansion goes unrecognized - as regards 'proof' of this: extend any handy obeject at arm's length and release it, observe it 'fall' (A to B) to the floor or ground, and attribute the observed motion to that of the dropped object, rather than realizing that the entire (apparently static) frame of reference (in this case, earth) is expanding, constantly growing larger, causing the illusion that the dropped object is moving from A to B, rather than the converse interpretation (B to A) - that the entire earthly coordinate is constantly moving 'upward' at right angles (fulfilling the definition for the 4th dimension) inertially pinning everything to it's surface, and, overtaking 'free-falling' objects.

    Einstein's Cosmological Constant (Lambda) has been resurrected and extracted from the (otherwise generally abandoned) GR; and Lambda is another way of expressing the - alternative- 'repelling force' Newton speaks of in his Principia Mathematica).

    The fact that I am not a certified 'scientist' and your highlight of that fact means I haven't the right drivers and irons to join or otherwise be a part of your - 4th dimension shunning (the fact that everything is uniformly expanding, including yourself and every microcosmic entity you're composed of; including the turf and divots under and upon your 4 dimensionally expanding) - golf club.

    Kindly elaborate on what you have been taught is the 'fudge factor'. The retention and application of Lambda by the (What?) 'scientific community' continues to perpetuate and pivot upon the central factor in GR, while rejecting the very fact that Lambda proves to be: namely, the continuous uniform (4-D) expansion of the entire spatial and physical universe.

    But, because you do not recognize the expansion of your keyboard or cell phone, etceteras, you do not acknowledge the import of GR; while your 'modification' of GR (the abduction of Lambda, maintaining a 'Steady State') leaves you with a filibustered (hold the 4-D chocolate?) fudge cake.

    The geocentric universe can be seen and measured after all - it's ridiculous to say the earth moves and generates the illusion of the universe - including the nearest star - revolving around it.

    Deja vu: squared.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Shouldn't this be in alternate theories and/or pseudoscience????

    I mean wow wee!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    No, that is apparently your rudimentary misunderstanding, General Relativity says nothing of the sort.

    What in the holy hell are you talking about??

    If you are trying to say that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate that is true.

    I was simply saying if you find science interesting then take some courses. You are stating misconceptions of science like they are facts, so I am simply suggesting you should learn some of the subject you wish to discuss. With just a basic understanding of science you would not be taking the indefensable stance that everthing expanding.

    Read about it yourself. Again with the everyting is expanding?

    Your problem is that you are clueless at the most basic level of what GR is all about. It has nothing at all to do with with everything expanding. It has everything to do with space expanding and not a steady state universe.

    Uh, huh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I should say so. It started of poorly and has nose dived into the 7th ring of pseudoscience hell.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Pure solid unadulterated nonsense, but in the hope that some semblance of sensibility and logic can be achieved, this is actually how things do exist....on molecular and atomic scales, we have the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and EMFs holding masses and bodies together against expansion. On larger scales gravity overwhelms the overall Universal expansion on galactic and galactic groups and clusters scales, as we observe in our own local group of galaxies.
    It is only over large scales that space/time is expanding, and as the density gets less with expansion, that expansion accelerates.

    As mentioned, this stuff by Kaiduorkhon, is largely pseudoscience gobbleydook.
    These pseudoscience pushers and conspiracy nutters certainly love science forums as the only way they are able to spruik their nonsense and achieve inner peace and satisafction.
    They remind me of shit and live in the dark.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2013
  13. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    The last line of the immediate-above Post may better serve as adjective for the Big Bang Gang: at the top-beginning of that Post.

    Whereas '... the density gets less with expansion (in deep space)' is the same misunderstanding, in and within near (here) space.

    Origin's Post #87 indicates he or she doesn't understand that 'deja vu' alludes to having been, seen, thought or felt something before; when it's 'squared', it refers to the inverse square law applicable to light or gravity (for example) emanating from a given source and distributing itself through space in a value of square. Post #87 applys a question mark regarding 'deja vu:squared', apparently, failing or refusing to recognize that before Copernicus gave us the 'heliocentric theory'; the so called 'Aristotilean' school of thought maintained that the universe revolved around the earth (hence 'geocentric'), rather than the converse model of Copernicus (Heliocentric - the earth revolves on it's axis every 24 hrs, generating the illusion of an earth centralized universe).

    This is really basic physical science (and language) - why the question mark?

    Name-calling and rat-packing (speaking of conspiracies) have no value for making any given case.

    Refer, 'The Art of Missing the Point: when you can't afford or don't feel like catching on.'
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    When you come to a science forum, and post in science [instead of pseudoscience] deriding mainstream cosmology, and inferring that what we have learnt since 1905 is all rubbish, you must expect some less then savoury comments...
    Therein lies the conspiracy.....

    Obviously, the only place you can air your crazy ideas is on a science forum. You would not dare try and get such misaligned, mis-interpreted physics and cosmology passed peer review.

    I also realise that they laughed at Galeleo with his new outlook on the solar system etc, but people like you forget that they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I predict that this will end up in alternative theories or pseudoscience..

    all the best
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    WTF? I don't know what you are saying here either. The universe is expanding and the mass/energy is constant so yes the universe is overall getting less dense. The density of our galactic cluster is becoming more dense due gravity pulling the cluster together.

    I'm a he. I know what deja vu is but I do not know what deja vu squared is suppose to be. So deja vu squared was suppose to allude to the inverse square law? Uh, ok, how are we suppose to guess that had anything to do with what you were talking about and it would have help (a little bit maybe) if it was an inverse square, doncha think?

    So from just the "deja vu squared" comment you think someone would be able to guess that you were for some unknown reason making some obtuse reference about Aristotle and Copernicus and their view of the earths position in space. Well sorry to disappoint; but I didn't get it, and I still have no clue why you would be discussing either of those guys or their ideas on the earths position in space.

    No conspiracies here. I do not think you are making good logical scientific points so I am calling you on it - that's all. Come back with some evidence to support your claim and you will shut me right up!

    Please enlighten me! What is the point I am suppose to be catching on to?
  16. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    I had kind of hoped that this thread yesterday would die a natural death so I could be lazy and just quietly lock it or something, however...
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Hey, I'll shut up, it is just silliness any way. Shhhhhhhhh.....
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

  19. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    "Inferring that what we have learnt since 1905 is all rubbish..." - Post #91 by paddoboy.

    Please inform me and any other reader where you see such 'inference'.

    Of course 1905 is the year Einstein published the Special Theory (ST); about light. The General Theory (GR), published in 1916, is about gravity. Might you clarify what motivates you to proclaim that I call either one or both of these theories 'rubbish': indeed, most of my work (Total Field Theory - accessible via the url provided on page 8, Post # 72) is based on both of these theories.

    It's why I sometimes levititiously refer to myself as 'the world's #1 Einstein groupie. Surely the preceding sentence may be inferred to mean something derisive or amusing, while it clarifies the incumbent Totem and the highly stacked bundles of 'string theory', et al: that objective science has been dissolved in.

    WTF: indeed...

    Billy T., at your cordial invitation I will address your provided url and reflect what I may understand of it, so you may further elaborate on it. Meanwhile, paddoboy stuffs false allegations herein; which he has presently been 'called upon'. Please give me your coordinates on my alleged 'rubbish', as you put it, anywhere in this thread or in my provided url for Total Field Theory - "There is no space empty of field". - Einstein.

    Should I be 'transferred and/or terminated altogether here, I guess I'll be lucky if my Posts are still accessible to 'the public', somewhere: if that be a landing in 'psuedo science' or 'alternative theories', so be it then.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    You caste undeniable derision on the BB model in at least two posts...72 and 90.

    post 72:
    Regarding the *disqualified 'big bang' (*1976 - 1996), *unexpectedly proven to be accelerating, instead of remaining constant or slowing down; refer 'entropic heat death' said to be a forthcoming result of the incumbently perceived 'big bang':

    What was there before 'the beginning' explosion - where did the firecracker and all of its presently observed universal, residual matter and light, originate? Yet, the 'big bang' remains front & center as the incumbent model of the universe.

    "Nothing begets nothing." - Locke

    The BB of course was never disqualified, just modified somewhat with Guthe's Inflationary epoch, and later with the observed accelerated expansion, which raised the question of DE/CC or some other unknown imputus for the cause of space/time expansion.
    And that is how science and scientific models and theories are supposed to work.


    Post 90:
    The last line of the immediate-above Post may better serve as adjective for the Big Bang Gang: at the top-beginning of that Post.

    Whereas '... the density gets less with expansion (in deep space)' is the same misunderstanding, in and within near (here) space.


    The BB gang you refer to, the bulk of mainstream scientists, who happen to recognise the scientific methodology which like other trolls and pseudo scientists, you seem to have left by the wayside.

    You also infer the BB arose from nothing with a certain amount of cynicism and went on saying the BB was an explosion and comparing it to a fire cracker.....both wrong, and quite basically wrong coming from someone who says he knows a thing or two about 20/21st century cosmology......
    Is that enough?

    Others have also picked you up on other basic errors.
  21. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Where's the 'rubbish'?

    Please expand on the 'modification' of the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy...

    Might you likewise defend Brian G's rendition of 'string theory'?

    Alluding to the BB - is that not the complexion of a 'beginning'; also having an 'end'? The quasi 'explosion' that is unlike explosion?

    The herd has proven itself many times to be an insecure sanctuary - in the case of many segments of the contemporary scientific status quo - the real problems have been inadequately 'resolved'; as in your aversion to defending or reinforcing 'string theory' and/or the herd 'modification' of the Law of Conservation of MassEnergy'. The uncertainty of 'Dark matter', etceteras.
    These are specific issues, not 'everything since 1905 is 'rubbish' ".

    You and your acolytes are 'modifying' my (preceding) statements, as you do whatever else you capriciously deign to transform. This is not science (refer ColloquialClusterfork).

    Incidentally, a person of your allegory distinction is generally expected to know how to spell Galileo -who was not laughed at and about so much as he was apprehended for independent thinking instead of clinging to the incumbent 'belief system', i.e., science is not a democracy.

    Galileo - and others like him - was rejected: because he was correct: because he was 'different'.
    Sort of like Rudolph the reindeer.

    You have a problem with your unexplained (what I fecetiously call) 'firecracker'? Indeed you do.

    In your contention with Locke and Hume - you introduce an ineffable process of nothing begetting something?

    Perhaps you and your unnamed 'others' are bound to identify themselves, or be identified; along with a briefing on their collective belief system(s)?

    Has 'the scientific community' whipped up and/or spun-out another 'flavor'?

    Might you and yours share it with 'others'. LifeSavers, perhaps?

    Billy T. - By your leave, sir, I'm still reconsidering your cited Post in this thread. Thank you.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    That's already been pointed out to you.

    Not necessarily as anyone knowing anything about the BB would realise.
    The BB/Inflationary model of Universal evolution, was an evolution/beginning of space and time "AS WE KNOW THEM" Matter/energy came later.
    The "AS WE KNOW THEM" is in my opinion very Important.

    I don't need to defend the herd. The herd as you so cynically put it, has of course been wrong on occasions and will probably be wrong again, on other occasions, although it certainly won't be the BB/Inflationary model. Even a future observable validated QGT will most probably incorporate the BB as we know it.
    And of course the anti mainstream and alternative theory pseudoscientific supporters, are wrong 100 fold more then mainstream science could ever be, although there is the odd occasion they may come up trumps. Galileo was of course an example of that.
    Oh and with my mis-spelling of Galileo previously, what can I say....mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And of course for any other typographical/spelling mistakes I may make...mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa again.

    String theory of course has not been observably validated, but what little I do know about it, it does present a mathematically beautiful picture.
    My personal feelings.....I'll wait until more verification/observation before my confidence in it, as a strongly supported theory akin to the BB for instance is forthcoming.....The same goes for the many string theory derivitives such as M theory etc.

    DM originally was a fudge factor so to speak, but a serendipitious one as it turns out. We have plenty of evidnce for its existence at this time, the famous Bullet Cluster anomaly being one of them.
    But again, if and when any evidence comes to fruition invalidating DM, I sure that also will be taken into account, just as the scientific methodology dictates.

    Science in itself did not laugh at Galileo, as I dare say you well know. So you need to be a bit more up front an honest. The church was the supreme ruling body and did the pursercution.
    But what a weird comparison, Galileo and Rudolph! How old are you?


    I'm actually finding it rather difficult to discertain your fecetious statements, and serious statements from some of the derision of modern science that you are making.

    See what I mean?
  23. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Addressing 'string theory' (is an hypothesis) for the moment: mathematics is not palpable reality - it is formulae, which may or not correctly represent and describe reality; which it is meant to do... E=MCsquared, for example is more than lead or ink on paper or chalk on a black or greenboard: it is what the lead, ink and/or chalk and slate is being or doing, squared.

    You seem to be aware of that, while it has a following which does call it a 'theory', which it definitively is not.

    Your point about how spelling and or punctuations incorrectly may be authored - or corrected - by most everyone is acceptable. I misspell words routinely.

    Theoretical physics has been sailing troubled waters since the BB composers and advocates talked Einstein out of a lot of his contributions to science. That's a fairly well controversied fact, while the fact that, before his 1955 dated passing, he had returned to and was working on the same theory he abandoned, is not so well known, i.e., Einstein probably had a reason for his return to the discarded work. That is what I mean.

    We have all inherited a wealth of knowledge - including the ability to speak and write - from those who preceded us; for and by whom I maintain the greatest respect, and humility. On the other hand, it is any seekers responsibility to do his and her best to correctly understand - and then attempt to improve or further confirm or disqualify - the in situ science of the day or epoch. Progress has known contributions and equivocations this way, since the concept and/or example of progress.

    On my - what you call 'cynicism': let he who has not replaced skepticism with cynicism cast the first condescension.

    Even my profanity is less 'cynical' and more skeptical than that of you and yours.

    If you don't understand the metaphor of the fate - and final resolution - of Galileo and Rudolph the reindeer, I guess you don't understand the legacy of Galileo, as it compares with the import of what tens of millions of others have understood, since Gene Autry composed the song, back in the 1950s.

    If you or unspecified 'others' are from the UK, we may be experience a bit of culture - as well as time - lag, here (and there).

    Regarding your submitted difficulty in understanding what my Posts mean. I reserve the method of transmitting, you reserve the method of receiving and understanding or not understanding my conveyances. Anyone may agree or disagree with anyone else - or thing - at any time, for any reason, or lack of same. T'was ever such.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013

Share This Page