Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The Materialist and Infinite Universe

  1. #1 The Materialist and Infinite Universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    15
    Black holes can not exist, because gravity is caused by the absorption of emission and not by matter in and of itself. Only the absorption of emission can explain the effects of gravity that we readily observe. Such as it involving acceleration, and bodies of different quantities of matter all falling at the same rate of acceleration. This is presented in an essay titled "The Materialist and Infinite Universe", which can be located by putting the title into the search engine on your computer.

    typology1


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    topology1:

    I see you have done the same here and also solicited interest in the essay again. Again, these views are not mainstream. If you have your own ideas, please in future present them in the New Hypothesis and Ideas section. Don't reference the essay again. If you want to discuss it, rather quote sections of it in your own thread (with proper citation). Please don't use other people's threads to promote them.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    15
    New Hypothesis and Ideas section.Got it.

    typology
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I think provabillity (or not) must be the standard for a science forum. A hypothesis (as the one typology 1 suggests) belongs to science when there is proven iprovabillity.
    I can suggest an experiment for that :

    Sailing on sunlight with a reflective sail has shown provabillity and (if I,m not mistaken) also has been shown with experimental testing.
    Provabillity for Typology 1's hypothesis lies in a similar experiment where the sail is not reflective but absorbent. From this hypothesis it should sail opposite direction then compared to a reflective sail or at least different.
    So it has abillity for experimental testing.
    It doesn,t belong in a section then where any wild idea (hypothesis or not) can be discussed.

    Or it needs a seperate forum where ideas with provabillity (as this one) can be discussed.

    Marc
    Last edited by Ghrasp; July 11th, 2012 at 06:17 AM.
    A penguin can,t be half a penguin beit purple or any other colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    It doesn,t belong in a section then where any wild idea (hypothesis or not) can be discussed.
    A scientific hypothesis IS something that lends itself to testing. His idea is entirely appropriate for that section (for now).
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    15
    I offer one small experiment that will go towards proving part of what I present with my theory. Place objects of prefect equivalence on a Cavendish torsion balance and the result will be repulsion, in contradiction of what the Physics establishment presently believes. The torsion balance is used to establish the value of the gravitational constant G. And, of course, within the present beliefs of establishment Physics, gravity always involves attraction and never repulsion. The simple reality is that the attraction on the torsion balance is actually electrostatic. It is a measure of gravity by virtue of the bodies absorbing emission from all directions in portion to their quantity of matter, and more so from the body to which they are attracted, and within the context of the gravitational field of the Earth. Could it be that all attraction from the microscale to the macroscale is caused by the absorption of emission? Could it be that the nuclear and gravity forces have the same cause or mechanism? I must not continue with my "half baked" and yet demonstrable theories on this thread, as I promised the moderator.

    typology1
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is the universe limited or infinite exactly?
    By Emdrive in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: June 28th, 2012, 06:39 PM
  2. Is the universe infinite?
    By nimzo256 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: August 19th, 2011, 01:38 AM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: January 21st, 2009, 10:38 AM
  4. So what tells us the Universe can't be infinite?
    By kojax in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2008, 03:48 PM
  5. Thoughts about the Infinite Spongy Universe
    By bogie in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 17th, 2006, 07:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •