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

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of particle-wave duality and how it is caused by the motion of particles in the fabric of space. The pressure towards us from the fabric of space produces gravity, and this is the mechanism behind the acceleration due to gravity. This understanding also explains why apples fall. The conversation also mentions an article published in Electronics World, which reviews and extends the mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity and resolves problems with general relativity. It is proposed that this model can be used to rigorously test the consequences of this physical fluid model for the fabric of space. The conversation also mentions the fixed 377 ohms impedance of the vacuum to electromagnetic energy, which suggests that the fabric of space is a non-particulate
  • #456
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?

:wink:
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #457
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?
 
  • #458
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.

:wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #459
Originally posted by subtillioN
You will never know because I am done discussing irrelevantivity.
:wink:
Well, at least we now know your fight or flight response when backed into a corner. :wink:

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #460
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well, at least we now know your fight or flight response when backed into a corner. :wink:

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #461
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.
 
  • #462
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?


:wink:
 
  • #463
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. :smile:
 
  • #464
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.
 

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top