Is Gravity Caused by the Motion of Particles in the Fabric of Space?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If your goal is to promote Sorce Theory... and the question of relativity's correctness is irrelevant to Sorce Theory... then why do you spend so much time harping in the incorrectness of it?

Most of my time is spent defending myself from attacks to my credibility. Otherwise I am simply offering a replacement.

Also, it is important for people to see the flaws in relativity in order to open their minds for a replacement. I realize that I am certainly not knowledgeable enough to convince the "experts", but I doubt anyone could be.

My purpose is to help those already on the path to a better theory. The people content with the standard model will never leave it.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by chroot
*ahem*

*clears throat*

Let me see if I can clear this up for you.

THIS IS THE WRONG GODDAMN FORUM FOR PUSHING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY. ALTERNATIVE THEORIES ARE WELCOME ONLY IN THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM. PLEASE RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT THE THEORY DEVELOPMENT FORUM.

- Warren

This thread was ABOUT an alternative theory until you came here and attacked me and started filling it up with combatitive banter.

I did not start the thread, but it was just fine before you got here and started making a mess of things.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by subtillioN
The people content with the standard model will never leave it.

The standard model is wrong, idiot. We all know the standard model is wrong. It must be replaced by a generalization which can include both QFT and GR as special cases. No one in their right mind thinks physics is "done," as you constantly seem to misunderstand.

Your goddamn "sorce theory" is just some hocus-pocus English prose thrown together to emulate scientific demeanor. It's horse****. It's worthless. It doesn't belong in this forum.[/color]

- Warren

 

[Hurkyl]

Most of my time is spent defending myself from attacks to my credibility. Otherwise I am simply offering a replacement.

If you weren't harping on the validity of mainstream physics, nobody would be questioning your credibility to talk about the validity of mainstream physics.

Also, it is important for people to see the flaws in relativity in order to open their minds for a replacement.

If the theory isn't good enough to stand on its own merit, then it isn't good enough to be a replacement.

 

[Arc_Central]

I did not start the thread, but it was just fine before you got here and started making a mess of things.

Aint that the truth!
You must realize Sub - My buddy Warren can't help himself.

Just ignore him - He will go away.

Or NOT!

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If the theory isn't good enough to stand on its own merit, then it isn't good enough to be a replacement.

Now, that's a bit obvious, don't you think?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
I do not claim to understand Relativity in its entirety nor nearly as well as you people who need it to "understand" and quantify reality. It is simply superfluous to me, thus I do not need to know its details.

I can't believe people aren't harping on this more. How do you know relativity is wrong if you (admittedly) don't understand what relativity means?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I can't believe people aren't harping on this more. How do you know relativity is wrong if you (admittedly) don't understand what relativity means?

You will never know because I am done discussing irrelevantivity.

I did not seal the chamber tight enough so I let a bit of reality into "muddy" up the mix. This is forbidden by the headmasters so I did not meet the stringent qualifications. poor me... I cannot discuss the theory of irRelevantivity.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
You will never know because I am done discussing irrelevantivity.

Well, at least we now know your fight or flight response when backed into a corner.

I submit to you however, that a good scientist when backed into a corner he sees no escape from, doesn't run but stays and figures out HOW and WHY he got into that corner and LEARNS from it where he went wrong.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, at least we now know your fight or flight response when backed into a corner.

I submit to you however, that a good scientist when backed into a corner he sees no escape from, doesn't run but stays and figures out HOW and WHY he got into that corner and LEARNS from it where he went wrong.

Please tell me where I went wrong, Russ. Though I already know the bulk of the answer and I have already stated it.

A good scientist is curious about an alternative explanation of reality and not fearfull as has been exhibited so often on this board. That is the only way he can learn where he went wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by subtillioN
A good scientist is curious about an alternative explanation of reality and not fearfull as has been exhibited so often on this board. That is the only way he can learn where he went wrong.

Yes. And if you strive to be a good scientist, you eventually will.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes. And if you strive to be a good scientist, you eventually will.

If you learn Sorce Theory then I will learn Relativity Theory... deal?

 

[Nigel]

Originally posted by ofikn
Hello again!
...
Every time I write that I am _NOT_ trying to attack you, I am trying to get you to change the _FORM_ of your paper to one that could be published.
You claim that there is a problem with the supernovae data, but nowhere in the pdf do you give the numbers, then you claim that your equations solves this discrepancy in the numbers, but you never show that part of the math. I believe you may you have solved that problem, but you do not present this data. Just sending me back for the 5th time to the pdf (which is on my desktop) will not get you published.

A potential title to a publishable paper:
A potential solution to the discrepancy between general relativity and the supernovae recession data.

An abstract:
According to measurements by ... and ... it can be shown that the quantity _____ is ______ where G.R. predicts it to be ... (with references of course) The equation ... derived in this paper shows that this can be repaired with the results of the calculation given as ... with a relative error of ... This set of equations is consistent with other measurements such as the Mossboher (sp) effect etc.

If the numbers check out then this will be published.
...
Start small, and correct then build up to your final theory.

Have a great weekend! I am off to sunnier climes for a few weeks, so keep up the good work, and maybe try to change just a little. (My shrink told me not to be confrontational you should try it!)

Ofek

It's always the people off on holidays who have the clever dick answers. Actually, I started off small, with a paper similar to the one you discuss.

I started off 7 years ago, writing a paper about the cause of gravity and timidly called it something similar to your idea of "A potential solution..." Editor's reply: "Sorry but we don't have time to read, let alone publish speculations. Get lost."

You have to be bold to get anywhere.

Remember, it has been published. Not by Nature, but by a journal which is prepared to do the honourable thing, despite establishment objections from pseudoscientists obsessed with superstrings.

 

[Phobos]

Time to put this topic out of its misery.

Further topics about alternative theories will be moved to the theory development forum.

Hijacked topics will be dealt with on a case by case basis.

As always, throwing around personal insults is against PF policy.

I give a lot of leeway, but I got to draw the line somewhere.