Thread: Re: What is your theory about the universe?

Hi all, I have a theory that I've been trying to get feedback on. It explains what I think the structure of space time is like and what it is a result of i.e. distortion from magnetic fields of varying strength. It also explains gravity perfectly in the most simple way possible, and what I think is remarkable is that all that is required is visualisation, of how what we see might look if it were affected by magnetism in this way. I raise the case that what we see is an optical illusion. A result of perfect constant proportions along a gradient of varying scale. What we see is the overall average of everything. I made a youtube video titled Gravity theory.here's the link: Gravity theory - YouTube.
Any feedback would be awesome

Thanks alot

mrfrodo

Originally Posted by mrfrodo918

It also explains gravity perfectly in the most simple way possible, and what I think is remarkable is that all that is required is visualisation,

If you do the numbers, do they tally up with accepted theories of gravity, i.e. General Relativity ?
Visualisation is not really relevant in a scientific context, what we need to know is rather if the theory makes the correct predictions in terms of numbers.

I honestly don't know how to do the numbers yet, but I'm learning. I don't know how it ties in with general relativity. I have a lot of ideas, but I completely agree, the concept would have to be able to provide predictions that yield accurate measurable results. That's why the video has disclaimers. I mostly wanted to post the concept on the net to see if it was intuitive for other people. Accurate, measurable (and perhaps pending) predictions aside, what did you think of the concept in the Youtube Vid?

Originally Posted by mrfrodo918

I honestly don't know how to do the numbers yet, but I'm learning. I don't know how it ties in with general relativity. I have a lot of ideas, but I completely agree, the concept would have to be able to provide predictions that yield accurate measurable results. That's why the video has disclaimers. I mostly wanted to post the concept on the net to see if it was intuitive for other people. Accurate, measurable (and perhaps pending) predictions aside, what did you think of the concept in the Youtube Vid?

Would you be able to quickly describe your hypothesis and its main ideas in writing, as I currently can't use YouTube ( for various reasons ). Thank you !

Ok I turned the powerpoint into images

Slide2.JPG

Slide3.JPG

Slide5.JPG

Slide8.JPG

This one's a bit misleading, If you view it as a solarsystem, The center circle represents the sun, but if you were to remove the body of the sun in order to see whats going on inside it would look like like this:

magnetic pinch spacetime1.jpg

I only realised this today, If you look at the centre of the diagram, you'll see that space has folded on itself.
Now I'll try and explain gravity. If you picture the planets of our solar system in this EMDST (Electromagnetically distorted Space time) model, gravity can be explained as the perfect balance between the effect that EMDST has on mass and centripetal force. Now the spherical units of space are least distorted (smallest) at the centre of what I guess you could call the 'pinch zone'. so when a planet is at it's furthest point from the star that it orbits, it's mass has been increased (in order to stay the same size relative to the unit of space it is occupying). It would follow that mass would move along the gradient naturally, in order to get to the point where it's mass will be least distorted. So it begins to move back towards to the sun, getting smaller and building up speed. Now I have a theory that the pinch in the centre, is responsible for rotation. I think this is because you have the same electro magnetic current running in opposite directions to itself (because of the folded loop). Now what's rotating? space itself around that centrepoint. So when the planet gets close it doesn't just collide with the sun, intead it's orbit is maintained and centripetal force flings it back out towards the biggest unit of space that it has to occupy for it to overcome the preceding centripetal force and for the process to start over.

Your suggestions seem to have something of the look and feel of the Greek philosophers: they are based upon thinking about how things might be explained rather than by how things are explained. This was a reasonable approach two thousand years ago, but has been outdated for some five hundred years.

I applaud, as I routinely do in these situations, your interest in science, your imagination and your enthusiasm. However, I think you will stand a much better chance of making a contribution to science if you invest that energy in learning the basics first.

I agree with John Galt for the most part.
Unfortunately I must tell you that the maths will not work, you will get different numbers than the accepted theory of gravity ( GR ), simply because magnetic fields behave very differently than gravity.

Fair calls. I'll hit the books with a renewed vigour. Thanks for the feedback.

Originally Posted by mrfrodo918

Fair calls. I'll hit the books with a renewed vigour. Thanks for the feedback.

Wow, that's a refreshingly open-minded and honest approach. Thanks (for not being "that guy" )

np

Consider you standing inside a house.

And as you enter the middle of the house, you shake a tiny toy house laying on the table. And the house you are standing inside ... suddenly starts to shake as you shake the toy house.

I believe the universe is a sphere within a sphere. Where the centre sphere is infact the same sphere that surrounds it. The universe is inside itself so to speak.

Hard to describe in words but hopefully that was somewhat understandable.