• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gravity vs Mass

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Well, we have several proposals for such, but we don't currently have the technology to test those proposals.
Just remove all assumptions of "gravity" and count on the EM forces and qualities in different frequensies and charges all over in the Universe. There you have it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Just remove all assumptions of "gravity" and count on the EM forces and qualities in different frequensies and charges all over in the Universe. There you have it.

Nope. You miss out on too much by doing that. The actual predictions based only on what is known about E&M are an MUCH worse fit to the observations than making the assumption of dark matter.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Plasma cosmology is bunk. it has been thoroughly disproved.
Of course it is! Investigating the plasma realms by using the strange laws of gravity as the norm this would automatically proves Plasma Cosmology to be nonsense as the gravity models are completely inadequate and misleading.
This was also the cause of the MOND theory where it was thought gravity to have a lesser influence. Where they in fact should have discarded an universal gravity completely.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Then show us the math. Not something difficult. Explain the orbit of the Moon using Electric Universe formulas.


Here is a *very* simple problem concerning E&M.

Suppose you have a static 1000 Gauss magnetic field and a charged particle at rest in that field with a charge of 10 Coulombs. What is the force on the particle due to that magnetic field?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Nope. You miss out on too much by doing that. The actual predictions based only on what is known about E&M are an MUCH worse fit to the observations than making the assumption of dark matter.
This just proves to me that you have NO idea of what the EM forces can achieve in formation and motion on the cosmological scales.

Well if you have another several hundred of years to spear, you just wait dark matter to be found and explained. It will NEWER happen.

Again: R.I.P. with your dark this and that ghosts . . .
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I have the best theory dealing with gravity. I use lardnetic tensular calcufuliferation
to reconcile General Relitudiness with Plasmatic Quanticular Meshulite.
I'd show the math, but that would be like teaching a squid to ride a bicycle.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Suppose you have a static 1000 Gauss magnetic field and a charged particle at rest in that field with a charge of 10 Coulombs. What is the force on the particle due to that magnetic field?
Do your own math on the macrocosmic scales please. Remember to count on the nuclear EM force in the galactic centers.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Gravity curves spacetime: both space and time are affected. The degree of curvature is a function of all three coordinates of space and the time coordinate.

General relativity assumes a 'metric' on spacetime that treats one coordinate differently than the other three: that is then the time coordinate. The coordinate itself can be arbitrarily defined, BUT the 'proper time' along any path in spacetime is the same for all observers.
I know roughly how spacetime is seen in GR. My question was if we can see it from an angle that gives @Terrywoodenpic 's statement some sense.
Assume the following analogy:
First we get rid of one spacial dimension so that we can imagine the universe in three dimensions like in the bed sheet analogy. Only this time it's a giant balloon. The direction of time is radial from the point of origin. The balloon "inflates" in the direction of time. There are dimples in the balloon where masses are. The distance of a point near a mass to the point of origin is different from points with no (or rather less) mass as well as the velocity those points travel outwards. Points with extreme masses in a small area make steep dimples and the surface doesn't expand at all. (Time stands still at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole.) Also, fast moving objects make grooves.
There are some problems I see with this analogy: Space would necessarily have a positive curvature and it would decrease over time. Time would probably flow backwards within black holes. Negative mass would probably be impossible.
But in this model gravity would be a function of time as the outward movement (in the direction of time) would determine the gravity.
Now someone with a little more skill and a lot less lazy than me has to do the maths for that model. ;-)
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I rather would say that I avoided the dogmatic indoctrination in Universities :)
No dogma in science. You're mistaking it for religion. Scientific facts are evidence based, tested and provisional pending new information -- pretty much the opposite of dogma.
so......any consensus as to the nature of gravity?
Yes, the Theory of Gravitation is also known as General Relativity, first published 104 years ago and confirmed in countless tests. We'd have no space program or satellite technology without it.
If so, how is it that scientists have failed to make a cosmological unification of all fundamental forces and their combined motional effects in the real cosmological realms?
How is one dependent on the other?
We don't know everything, so we don't know anything?
 
Last edited:
Top