Ha! Exactly. Had to be a conspiracy theory in there just struggling to get out.
This might be a worthwhile point (spoiler: it isn’t) if we hadn’t already used those measurements to land astronauts on the moon; to predict the motion of planets to ridiculous accuracy (the GR correction to the precession in Mercury’s orbit amounts to just 43 arc-seconds/century); to predict and then detect subatomic particles ranging from the electron to quarks to the Higgs particle; and so on. Science works. That’s the difference between what scientists do and what you’re fumbling around with: science presents a coherent theory that allows specific, falsifiable predictions. Anything else is simply bullshit.
This is not new or advanced stuff; Newtonian mechanics dates back to the middle of the 17th century. Whining about how the sheep don’t understand your awesome brilliance is a waste of everyone’s time. Putting forth an incoherent, ill-defined, meaningless theory that makes no predictions, has no rigor, and offers no improvement over existing and experimentally verified models is a waste of everyone’s time.
To avoid making this thread a complete waste of time, here’s a clip from Futurama.
Incidentally, the nth Fibonacci number is given by F[SUB]n[/SUB] = (φ[SUP]n[/SUP] - (-φ)[SUP]-n[/SUP])\sqrt{5}, where φ = (1 + \sqrt{5})/2 is the golden ratio.
I’m not saying it’s PHI…but it’s PHI.
may you slide down the pike of eternal impalement
If the pike was in space, would he slide faster?
But what if the pike is frictionless?
MANTRAPHILTER, this type of insulting post is not acceptable in this forum. You’re new here, so perhaps you don’t realize it, but you can earn warnings for insulting posters outside the Pit.
Don’t do this again.
Math is only a language, true. The problem is, you’re not using something superior to math to express your ideas.
Math is the inferior language when it comes to expressing relativity. As space is changing relative to whatever mass is displacing it, and there is no way numbers can represent the idea. if a formula were possible it would have to include the weight, the density, and the circumference of the mass. Since a planet is not perfectly symmetrical and has varying density’s there is no way to calculate how much space is being displaced at a given relative point in the field of displaced space.
Just because you don’t understand math does not mean it can’t be used to do exactly what you are saying it can’t.
I just got an Idea, A single proton is consistent so, if you know the weight of a proton, you could take the known weight of a mass and divide it by the weight of a proton then multiply it by the amount of space that a single proton displaces. Only problem is to measure the distance that an electron orbits its proton in order to get the amount of space that is being displaced by the proton, is relative to the field of displaced space that you measure it in. Maybe the average distance that an electron orbits its proton, measured at both the surface of the planet and at where space becomes a vacuum. So the weight of a mass divided by the weight of a proton multiplied by the average distance a proton orbits its electron in said masses field of displaced space would be - some sort of formula for the gravitational field of a planet?
OMG, you’re right. I don’t think anyone has ever worked with THREE variables before.
If there’s no way to calculate it using maths, I don’t think rambling strings of words like “relative to the less space farther away from the more space” are doing it better.
The ideas you’re proposing here aren’t complex - they’re just not coherent.
How is this not math?
This right here is all we need to know about your “theory”
And yet, the math exists to do just that.
Yes, because repeated strings of the word “displace space” is inherently more clear. :rolleyes:
That’s what calculus is for. Seriously, the concepts of limits and infinitesimals were derived specifically to be able to calculate using variables changing in varying ways and interacting in non-linear manner.
Quicksilver, to be fair, your formula doesn’t address the question MANTRAPHILTER is describing. He has cobbled up his own confusing use of the words “space” and “displaced” to mean something that is not the straightforward reading of physical volume. Rather, it’s more analogous to the curvature of space-time due to gravity. Except it’s nothing like that.
After six pages of this, I finally know enough about Mantraphilters’ theory to write it up with all the math gobbledygook that the high priests of science looooove so much, send it to the King of Physics under my own name, and win a Nobel prize! See you in Stockholm, suckers! Or, rather, I won’t see you there, because you’re going to be stuck here whining about math while I enjoy my millions of dollars and physics groupies. Bwahahahaha!
Yes, how can you use math to describe how much time speeds up or slows down because of the curvature of space created by the mass that displaces it.
so your saying my theory does not show how gravity and the strong nuclear force are the same force.
I wrote this theory to show how gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and magnetism are all part of one simple idea. It is the space displaced by a mass that causes all of the four nuclear forces. My language may not be up to your well educated standard, but the theory is sound.