Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein
- Thread starter Kaiduorkhon
- Start date
One troll, urging on another.....
As I have said, we can't really blame the poor trolling souls too much...forums like this are the only outlet they have for their nonsense.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Good to see you here, river. Are there points allotted for or subtracted, for 'one-up-man-ship', 'gotchism' and/or sportsmanship?
It seems this thread oscillates on and off topic here: skunk-fight, science, skunk-fight, quasi science, etceteras.
Might we agree to stay on topic here? It seems that the self-revealed opposition reserves no discipline for meaningful debate. 'Debate' is taught in many colleges and class-rooms world wide. Cursing, name calling and other distractions are pointless in debate, as may be confirmed by any barrister or magistrate, as well as the confirmation of scientifically inspired inquiry and exchange of valuable ideas and/or qualified information.
It seems this thread oscillates on and off topic here: skunk-fight, science, skunk-fight, quasi science, etceteras.
Might we agree to stay on topic here? It seems that the self-revealed opposition reserves no discipline for meaningful debate. 'Debate' is taught in many colleges and class-rooms world wide. Cursing, name calling and other distractions are pointless in debate, as may be confirmed by any barrister or magistrate, as well as the confirmation of scientifically inspired inquiry and exchange of valuable ideas and/or qualified information.
You mean me calling rivers a troll???
That is common knowledge and was recognised long before I started here.
Now instead of fart arsing about why don't you come to the point and tell us all what it is you are disagreeing with, or what part of mainstream science you find objectionable. Does gravity push instead of pull???Did the BB really happened as commonly accepted????Was the BB like a fire cracker going off?? Is DM real??? Is DE real???...Is the CC real????
What is your problem?
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
Was it you, or origin, who claimed to have read Total Field Theory (over 300 pages) in about 24 hours? Was it your or origin who said he found it a difficult and 'painful' read; apparently having said this, after I provided the url and described it as a relatively comprehensive and easy read? I'd provide the url again, here, whereas both you and origin have definitely convinced me that neither of you have read the subjected, accessible book, and that you (plural) won't do so.
Albeit, consequently, your Post (immediate, above) summons up a reiteration of previous redundancies.
Speaking of which, you may still access the recommended informations at issue @ Post #59, p. 6, and, Post #21 @ p. 3. These are offered solutions to subjected, perceived problems. Post # 59 on p. 6 allows access to numerous works written by Truly Yours, whereas the lastly offered url on Post 59 delivers the inquirer to Total Field Theory (which takes about a minute to emerge after you apply the provided url and press 'Enter'... ).
The last interrogative in your above Post indicates you've been remiss on your provided homework.
Albeit, consequently, your Post (immediate, above) summons up a reiteration of previous redundancies.
Speaking of which, you may still access the recommended informations at issue @ Post #59, p. 6, and, Post #21 @ p. 3. These are offered solutions to subjected, perceived problems. Post # 59 on p. 6 allows access to numerous works written by Truly Yours, whereas the lastly offered url on Post 59 delivers the inquirer to Total Field Theory (which takes about a minute to emerge after you apply the provided url and press 'Enter'... ).
The last interrogative in your above Post indicates you've been remiss on your provided homework.
It wasn't me...can't speak for origin......And no I really cant be bothered going to your post links, because whatever solutions you offered can't be validated....
Just one question, why do you think you are in pseudoscience?
And you have a few more to answer from my previous post, but if you can, please try and dismount from your high hobby horse and come down to the level of us mere mortals......Typical arrogant stance by pseudoscience pushers though I suppose.
Just one question, why do you think you are in pseudoscience?
And you have a few more to answer from my previous post, but if you can, please try and dismount from your high hobby horse and come down to the level of us mere mortals......Typical arrogant stance by pseudoscience pushers though I suppose.
Just some more info and the proper interpretation of it......
I never came into this thread until post 79, and was not even a member of this forum when you started the thread. After reading the inferences in your post 72 and the supposed link to Einstein's " Unified Field Theory " which most people know was [1] Never completed, and [2] Did not invalidate the BB one iota, I started getting suspicious of what you were trying to push.
Subsequent posts of yours then reinforced my suspicions of where you were coming from.
I never came into this thread until post 79, and was not even a member of this forum when you started the thread. After reading the inferences in your post 72 and the supposed link to Einstein's " Unified Field Theory " which most people know was [1] Never completed, and [2] Did not invalidate the BB one iota, I started getting suspicious of what you were trying to push.
Subsequent posts of yours then reinforced my suspicions of where you were coming from.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
The objective of the Unified Field is to find gravity on or near a gravitational system (GR - material inertia originated push), and gravity acting at a distance (SR -light, electromagnetism) to be one and the same (hence - 'Unified Field). This objective is accomplished in the work you are not reading.
I certainly never claimed, nor will I ever read your 300 pages.
That was me. I flipped through it and was pained by the mish mash of unsubstantiated, inaccurate and misunderstood information.
I read more than enough to see the multitude of errroneous information. You are certainly correct that I would not sit down and read 300 pages of that.
Wow, I assume english is not your first language.
The assignment proffered relative to the aforementioned dissertation was declined after a perusal of tractate indicated a dearth of verisimility contained within .
gravity typically is found at a near a gravitatonal system.
Gravity does act at a distance. Like the earth and moon .
If you would quit trying to sound scholarly and just said what you mean you would find that you would communicate much better.
Gravity and electromagnetism are not the same thing. You don't prove they are the same, hell you don't seem to even have an understand of either of the them.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
"... summons up a reiteration of your redundancies."
Where's your sense of humor?
Your refusals to fairly evaluate the proferred explanations are repetitive.
Your unscientific posturing is repetitive.
Your cynicism is repetitive.
'Reiterate' means repetitive, 'redundancies' means repetitive - guess you don't 'get it'... : )
Apparently, understanding even the most fundamental realities isn't in your enthusiastically bubbling vocabulary.
........................
Your perception that gravity and electromagnetism are not the same is the standard repetitive mistake.
My response is (generally; consequently) repetitive.
Gravity and electromagnetism are two apparently unrelated phenomena that actually have the same identity.
Where's your sense of humor?
Your refusals to fairly evaluate the proferred explanations are repetitive.
Your unscientific posturing is repetitive.
Your cynicism is repetitive.
'Reiterate' means repetitive, 'redundancies' means repetitive - guess you don't 'get it'... : )
Apparently, understanding even the most fundamental realities isn't in your enthusiastically bubbling vocabulary.
........................
Your perception that gravity and electromagnetism are not the same is the standard repetitive mistake.
My response is (generally; consequently) repetitive.
Gravity and electromagnetism are two apparently unrelated phenomena that actually have the same identity.
Last edited:
Trying to guess which parts of your post are suppose to be serious and which suppose to be funny is not a simple as you seem to believe.
For instance this is pretty funny.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
"My response is (generally; consequently) repetitive."
That was explained to him/her/it back in post 89..........
" 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 even larger scales still that space/time is expanding, and as the density gets less with expansion, that expansion accelerates."
A tug-0f War of sorts between DE/CC and gravity.
Kaiduorkhon
Registered Senior Member
origin: The last two questions in your second (of two) paragraph(s) are the concept(s) in Total Field Theory, yes.
paddoboy: Yes. When you posted # 89 I read it. It includes..."as the density gets less with expansion (on larger scales)".
That's incorrect, the overall universe of the microcosms (extremely dense relative to the density of 'now'; at any given moment), and the density of the macrocosms (thinned out relative to 'now') remain (relatively) the same, always, everywhere: varying in density - Past & Future universal moments - only when compared to the ('eternal') 'Now'.
origin: You're definitely getting warmer in this thread, with the progression of dialogue and space-time (space 'and' time) being joined - with a hyphen (space-time) - by Einstein, when the 4th dimension emerged with the General Principle. Time equalling motion; in this case, the right angle motion of three dimensional entities, constantly generating the uniformly expanding 4-D universe: ergo, 'gravity is the 4th dimension'.
paddoboy: Yes. When you posted # 89 I read it. It includes..."as the density gets less with expansion (on larger scales)".
That's incorrect, the overall universe of the microcosms (extremely dense relative to the density of 'now'; at any given moment), and the density of the macrocosms (thinned out relative to 'now') remain (relatively) the same, always, everywhere: varying in density - Past & Future universal moments - only when compared to the ('eternal') 'Now'.
origin: You're definitely getting warmer in this thread, with the progression of dialogue and space-time (space 'and' time) being joined - with a hyphen (space-time) - by Einstein, when the 4th dimension emerged with the General Principle. Time equalling motion; in this case, the right angle motion of three dimensional entities, constantly generating the uniformly expanding 4-D universe: ergo, 'gravity is the 4th dimension'.
No, it is 100% correct. I'll state it again clearer I hope.
The energy/density of the Universe at the largest scales, gets less as the Universe/space/time expands.
As a consequence, the DE/CC or whatever other term we feel like calling it, that is causing space/time to expand, also causes it to accelerate in the expansion rate.
On smaller scales [galaxies, galactic groups, clusters and walls of galaxies] gravity overcomes the expansion and individual regions of space/time are "decoupled"from the overall expansion rate. [We see this with our own immediate local group of galaxies]