1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory for Gravity

Tags:
  1. Sep 14, 2014 #1
    First of all I'd like to start with the Laws of Conservation of Energy, and energy-mass equivalence. There seems to be a philosophical problem or logical problem rather with the fact that any entities within range of a star orbit at a rate discovered by Newton. It was later discovered that galaxies do not follow the same law, and that the revolving bodies actually move at the same speed regardless of the distance from the super massive black hole. Now I'd like to propose a theory of some sort that the mathematics is still beyond me, but the image in my mind makes sense.

    The way that we perceive time is in a relative way, eliminating the classic notion of absolute time, however I believe this is wrong. Quantum entanglement shows the Bob and Alice theory, and also shows that the electrons are somehow connected after they leave the presence of each other. Now, I propose that gravity is not the reason that the planets are caught in orbit with the Sun. Now, electrons tend to flow from a higher concentration to a lower concentration. When fusion occurs massive amounts of "electron energy" is released, with the likely possibility that many of the electrons are entangled.

    Now light is the purest form of energy as far as I am concerned, and in theory would have no color in the vacuum of space. However, when it reaches a body that contains a lot of mass, it bends toward it. Hence, being governed by whatever it is that causes gravity. Now this is what I propose, I believe that if we relate all of this to time that some things become very clear.

    Let's say that we are approaching a black hole, from an outside observer it appears that the person or thing entering the black hole is slowing down, when on the contrary, it is speeding up to, as far as I know the equation comes out to infinity. In my "thought experiment" I imagined entering a black hole, and what I realized is that for the observer entering the black hole, he would eventually be able to perceive (if able) the entire future of the Universe flash before him, because he would be moving infinitely faster into the future.

    Now I also don't find it to be a coincidence that we are only able to perceive about 10% of the observable Universe, and that only 10 to 15% of our brains are conscious in a waking state. So, what I am visualizing is that the center of our galaxy is both the beginning and the end of existence as we know it. Or as I like to put it "absolute zero" since I can't understand how the representative of nothing can be considered a real number even for the sake of calculation.

    But back to the governing forces of, we'll use earth as an example: If you can perceive reality in a very different way it might make a clearer image; Everything seems to be a victim of duality. So, points of gravity are not moving relative to themselves, they are the empirical representation of non-existence. So, in actuality any body that contains mass is motionless relative to its' self and only relative when compared to another entity, hence the cause of decay when converted to matter. Now, if we use the proportional aspect of the larger spectrum being the galaxy; solar systems do not follow the same patterns that Galaxies do, which seems contrary to logic. I believe that what we perceive as stars and planets seek to reach an equilibrium of electromagnetic force connection. We are attracted to the Sun not by gravity, but the entanglement of the energy (electrons and electromotive force) that initially created the Earth. I also propose that the planets are not actually different entities in an absolute sense, showing both the progression of the solar system from the past and the what will happen in the future.

    Because of the effects of quantum mechanics it would be easier to think of each planet as a point reached on a plane at a given time in the past or future, which is why we perceive them as separate bodies rather than the progression of a single body through time. Jupiter became the the Sun as it moved closer to a point of higher concentration, and it's moons became the planets, just as the rings of Saturn became the moons of Jupiter. Mars collided with another planet to double in size and heat up, when this happened, the electrons of the colliding body entangled with the planet Mars, and became Earth and the Moon, hence the effects of the moon on the tides (we are literally connected to it). In the future our planet will heat up drastically and likely from either a loss of the Moon or collision which would explain the retrograde motion of Venus. Lastly Mercury is our distant future.

    Now I realize that this all sounds extremely radical, but as I've listened to those like Einstein, I realized that the crazier the idea, the easier it is to expand your thoughts.

    The Ort Cloud likely represents the farthest reaches of the entanglement from the creation of Sun. This also means that our perception of the outside of our solar system is distorted much like a fish in a bowl. It's entirely possible that the light reaching us from distant stars could be an entirely different "time zone". Since the light could be distorted by sources undetectable to our faculties such as dark matter and energy. We also assume that regular matter and energy in the conscious state are the norm, when in reality I've come to the conclusion that "Intuition is the only real valuable thing". But, what is this a priori abstraction of thought that seems to be the impulse? It comes to us by an unseen force,

    The point I want to make the most is that because of superposition, electrons could have become entangled at the moment of creation including the sequences of the first forms of life in the DNA and could still evolve or mutate in certain ways based on the change of electrons that were formed at the beginning of time leaving the plasma state.

    I realize that I jump around a lot in my explanations of things and I apologize for that, but I find it difficult to write as fast as thoughts come to me. I will conclude with what this could mean for practical application.

    I would like to ask more about gravity though. My questions regarding gravity revolve around a Unified Field Theory, or M-Theory. would any portion of the theory make more sense if it were realized that superposition only occurs outside the perception of an observer? A better way of explaining this would be to imply that our consciousness is a representation of the duality between nothing and everything (mathematically (0,1). Much like a light cone vector, a thought comes to us from the future or from some form of wave and is quantified by our perception into particles, then reciprocated back out after we decide whether to assign the thought a value of either 1 or 0. So, we need "something" to represent 0 or nothing, which is represented by an imaginary non-existent infinitely small "point". What we really perceive as motion is due to two opposing "real" forces( (+1,-1) or <-1|0|1> both opposing the emptiness that causes gravity. However I will draw a diagram to represent the actuality of what I imagine, as best I can.

    I hope I haven't embarrassed myself with any of this and I realize these things are MUCH more complex, but as Einstein did I am trying to make things simpler. It is very hard to describe the images I see in my mind without rambling. I feel very much like Kant must of when he wrote his Critique of Pure Reason, in trying to articulate sequentially 10 years of meditation and study ha ha. I really hope that you can respond to this. Please let me know if you feel that I am WAY off base with anything or if any of it might be a new thought that I can contribute to understanding this Universe. Actually any feedback at all would be helpful, even if you tell me to come back in 10 years when I know what I'm talking about.

    Thanks in advance if you read this, I apologize for the length. Thank you very much for your lectures. I've watched all of them and they've allowed me to create incredible images in my mind and understand the functions in mathematics.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 14, 2014 #2
    You are just making up stuff. Go learn about conventional physics before you try and come up with something new. Conventional physics has a lot of background and a lot of experimental support. Yes, it takes a lot more effort to learn this than to just make things up. It's hard... that's just how physics is. I expect this will be closed soon.
     
  4. Sep 14, 2014 #3
    Its actually called a "thought experiment", and intuition. What exactly am I making up?
     
  5. Sep 14, 2014 #4
    I guess I should just not think about absolution or the binary fundamentals of the Universe, or what exactly 0 is supposed to represent?
     
  6. Sep 14, 2014 #5
  7. Sep 14, 2014 #6

    Bandersnatch

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Please please pleeease can we not delete this thread? Just this once, just locking is fine. It's so beautiful.
     
  8. Sep 14, 2014 #7

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    You have a strange sense of beauty, but OK.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Theory for Gravity
  1. A Theory of Gravity (Replies: 1)

  2. Theory of gravity (Replies: 25)

  3. Basic gravity theories (Replies: 9)

Loading...