Thread: A notion of space/time and gravity

So I have a hypothesis and I wanted to share it because I thought it was interesting.

Space and gravity are the same thing. Upon the expansion of the universe, the big bang let out space particles such as dark matter and dark energy. Gravity is created when these space particles, which are continuously being dispersed from the area that the universe started from, hit matter. When these space particles try to occupy the same space as matter, the space particles, like a wave, hits matter and wraps itself around the matter. This causes pressurization (aka gravity) to occur. The bigger the object, the more it takes for these space particles to wrap itself and try to occupy the space of the bigger object. Since only one thing can occupy the space at any one time and dark energy/dark matter and other space particles / energy tries to occupy the same space, pressure is made on that specific location. This pressure of gravity is strong enough to attract smaller rocks or planets to it. However, since planets and rocks are in a specific environment which is cluttered with dark matter pushing against the specific (and large) central object while the space is also pushing toward their own rock, the rock that is orbiting the central object must start rotating and orbiting the larger object.. Kind of like an engine constantly putting pressure on these spaces of matter in an attempt to occupy the same space as this matter. Since they cannot occupy the same space, the result is gravitational pressure.

What do people think?

What do people think?

To be totally honest, I think that is a load of baloney.

Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by verzen

So I have a hypothesis and I wanted to share it because I thought it was interesting.

Space and gravity are the same thing. Upon the expansion of the universe, the big bang let out space particles such as dark matter and dark energy. Gravity is created when these space particles, which are continuously being dispersed from the area that the universe started from, hit matter. When these space particles try to occupy the same space as matter, the space particles, like a wave, hits matter and wraps itself around the matter. This causes pressurization (aka gravity) to occur. The bigger the object, the more it takes for these space particles to wrap itself and try to occupy the space of the bigger object. Since only one thing can occupy the space at any one time and dark energy/dark matter and other space particles / energy tries to occupy the same space, pressure is made on that specific location. This pressure of gravity is strong enough to attract smaller rocks or planets to it. However, since planets and rocks are in a specific environment which is cluttered with dark matter pushing against the specific (and large) central object while the space is also pushing toward their own rock, the rock that is orbiting the central object must start rotating and orbiting the larger object.. Kind of like an engine constantly putting pressure on these spaces of matter in an attempt to occupy the same space as this matter. Since they cannot occupy the same space, the result is gravitational pressure.

What do people think?

It does not rise to the level of a load of baloney.

Baloney has a texture, a flavor and a use. It offers nutrition.

This, on the other hand offers nothing. It is just gibberish, incapable of being corrected or made the subject of useful criticism.

It is simply junk that deserves to go straight to the trash bin.

So, as I understand it.. All I hear is, "It's rubbish" and there is absolutely no refutation by scientific means to disprove each point... So in essence, you guys are fairly ignorant of how scientific critique works....

Thanks for at least proving one thing to me..

So, as I understand it.. All I hear is, "It's rubbish" and there is absolutely no refutation by scientific means to disprove each point... So in essence, you guys are fairly ignorant of how scientific critique works....

Thanks for at least proving one thing to me..

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice found in your signature:
"What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. "

Originally Posted by verzen

So, as I understand it.. All I hear is, "It's rubbish" and there is absolutely no refutation by scientific means to disprove each point... So in essence, you guys are fairly ignorant of how scientific critique works....

Thanks for at least proving one thing to me..

Sorry Charlie. You are completely wrong.

There is more than adequate means to disprove each point.

What there is not is any reason to waste time on your garbage by discussing each point.

The ignorance is 100% on your side of the fence. Any fool can see the myriad of flaws in your post.

Yep. It is rubbish. Nope, it is not worth the time or effort to discuss it in detail. It is not deserving of scientific critique. Not even close.

Wow Dr.Rocket. That's exactly the tactic creationists use when discussing evolution. "Nope, evolution can't happen but I wont go into detail on how it's wrong."

Originally Posted by Waveman28

So, as I understand it.. All I hear is, "It's rubbish" and there is absolutely no refutation by scientific means to disprove each point... So in essence, you guys are fairly ignorant of how scientific critique works....

Thanks for at least proving one thing to me..

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice found in your signature:
"What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. "

Waveman, what I am stating completely makes sense in terms of physics. So no, you are misusing that quote. There is also EVIDENCE for what I state. So far you two have not mentioned a single source of evidence that contradicts it. I came here to see what people thought about it. Not to be ridiculed with, "Nope, it's baloney! But I wont explain why it's baloney!"

Originally Posted by verzen

Waveman, what I am stating completely makes sense in terms of physics. So no, you are misusing that quote.

If you believe this then you need some serious professional help.

http://www.psych.org/

If you believe this then you need some serious professional help.

http://www.psych.org/

maybe this is alittle too much.....

Awesome Dr.Rocket. An Ad'hominem attack... You sanctimonious prick. Grow up.

BTW - I am fairly certain that both Charles Darwin and Alfred Wegener were looked at and thought they needed mental help as well. Yet, both their theories ended up being very true.

So unless you're going to debate my ARGUMENT then back the fuck off, asswipe.

Charles Darwin's theory was thrown out as wrong and bunk... The theory of evolution is it's successor...


As for your "theory;"
1: There is no evidence suggesting that Gravity has it's own unique particle.
2: There is no evidence that matter is being constantly created.
3: What exactly is "gravitational pressure"?

Gravity is relatively understood, and it isn't an external force, but an internal force that is inherent in all matter. So, in short, Dr. Rocket is right.

Your post isn't right, it isn't even wrong. It's completely and totally ignorant to all modern physics, and isn't consistent with any theory of gravity.

How the fuck is this pseudoscience? You are saying new theory must be pseudoscience?

Ease up on the language please. I'll move this to New Hypotheses for the time being. The worst criticism of your position so far seems to be ignorance, and to my mind pseudoscience requires rather wilful ignorance. So until Verzen starts ignoring effective scientific dismantlement of his arguments, which has not happened yet, this is not at home in pseudo.

Originally Posted by verzen

What do people think?

I think your intuition of gravity as pressure is worth pursuing. However I also think that our current complex of theories (big bang, dark matter, etc.) prevents us from understanding gravity. There must be a reason why we can't understand it right? And as a rule when explanations grow layers of increasing complexity they are probably flawed to begin with. So I doubt that you will find a theory of gravity in keeping with today's theories.

My own pet theory of "everything" inadvertently predicted a phenomenon which we'd observe as gravity. I suck at math though so I'll wait for physicists to find that on their own.