My theory of the creation of the universe. - Page 2

rebel · #31 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 02:30 AM

Gillianren,

Could you please elaborate on that? And if you would please try to direct me to the information, I would like to take a look at it.

Nereid · #32 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 03:06 AM

Newton's law of universal gravitation is:

F = G m₁ m₂ / r²

where:
F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses
G is the gravitational constant
m₁ is the mass of the first point mass
m₂ is the mass of the second point mass
r is the distance between the two point masses.

It accounts for the observed positions of major solar system bodies (and much more) to a very high degree of precision (General Relativity, which is more general than this Newtonian law, does even better).

Note that this is inconsistent with what you wrote: "gravity is stronger as you go away from mass, not closer".

Perhaps you could write down an equation or three which describes what the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses is, in your speculative idea?

rebel · #33 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 06:43 AM

Nereid,

I've been trying to scan some of my notes with equations and drawings into my computer since yesterday. My printer isn't compatible with windows vista and my automatic updates for vista out dates my updates that I have to keep getting updated for my printer. I can't call Lex mark until Monday and have technical support find out what they need to update so I can reinstall the update for the all-in-one.

I believe that with the help of visual aides my "speculative idea" will provide more knowledge on the subject of gravity.

Gillianren · #34 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Could you please elaborate on that? And if you would please try to direct me to the information, I would like to take a look at it.

I would imagine it'd be in any decent physics text. However, if gravity got stronger the farther away you were from something, it would mess orbital mechanics all to heck and gone.

cjl · #35 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 07:26 AM

Not to mention that we'd all be flying away from the earth because of the tremendous gravitational forces on us from all the distant objects...

rebel · #36 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 07:39 AM

Gillianren,

The only thing that has been disproven is the standard models theory of gravity.

Here's some physics text for you, the "flat rotaional curve".

The "flat rotational curve" proves that stars in a spiral solar system lose there velocity the farther they get from the center of it.... sounds like what I said.

In the standard model the velocity of the stars would have kept speeding up to a point, but not slow down.

This proves that the expanding force is greater (giving more resistance to velocity of the stars) the farther you get from mass (the center).

rebel · #37 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 07:49 AM

cjl,

There are different effects of gravity. There is the effect of gravity felt on:
1.) the universe as a whole, on all objects.
2.) a single object in the universe.
3.) between two objects in the universe.
4.) more than two objects but less than every object in the universe.

understanding that an object in this case has at least one nucleus.

The numbers are all there, they just need to be put in the right spots.

Nereid · #38 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Gillianren,

The only thing that has been disproven is the standard models theory of gravity.

Here's some physics text for you, the "flat rotaional curve".

The "flat rotational curve" proves that stars in a spiral solar system lose there velocity the farther they get from the center of it.... sounds like what I said.

Please provide at least one reference which includes relevant quantitative details.

FWIW, word salad is not science.

Quote:

In the standard model the velocity of the stars would have kept speeding up to a point, but not slow down.

This proves that the expanding force is greater (giving more resistance to velocity of the stars) the farther you get from mass (the center).

Please present a detailed proof (not just an assertion) of this claim. Please ensure that the proof is quantitative.

Please also show that "the expanding force is greater" for our solar system, starting with just the eight planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

Nereid · #39 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

cjl,

There are different effects of gravity. There is the effect of gravity felt on:
1.) the universe as a whole, on all objects.
2.) a single object in the universe.
3.) between two objects in the universe.
4.) more than two objects but less than every object in the universe.

understanding that an object in this case has at least one nucleus.

The numbers are all there, they just need to be put in the right spots.

Please put the numbers "in the right spots", for 3.) above.

Nereid · #40 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Nereid,

I've been trying to scan some of my notes with equations and drawings into my computer since yesterday. My printer isn't compatible with windows vista and my automatic updates for vista out dates my updates that I have to keep getting updated for my printer. I can't call Lex mark until Monday and have technical support find out what they need to update so I can reinstall the update for the all-in-one.

I believe that with the help of visual aides my "speculative idea" will provide more knowledge on the subject of gravity.

If you'd like, this thread could be closed until you are ready to present your answers; just ask.

(Note that you would also need to refrain from posting elsewhere in BAUT until you are ready to answer the direct, pertinent questions asked of your ATM idea, as presented.)

Cougar · #41 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

The "flat rotational curve" proves that stars in a spiral solar system lose there velocity the farther they get from the center of it....

What's a "spiral solar system"?

Plus, a flat rotation curve demonstrates that objects farther from their orbital center DO NOT go slower than objects closer in. A phonograph record has a flat rotation curve. If our solar system had a flat rotation curve, Neptune would orbit the Sun once every year instead of (the actual) once every 165 years.

However, our galactic system does have a flat rotation curve, more or less. This can be explained by a roughly uniform distribution of gravitating dark matter spread throughout the galaxy. Although dark matter has yet to detected directly, recent weak gravitational lensing observations of the Bullet Cluster has nailed down the reality of dark matter despite the fact that, like the neutrino, dark matter hardly interacts at all with "normal" baryonic matter, hence the difficulty in detecting it directly.

rebel · #42 (**permalink**) 29-April-2007, 07:31 PM

Nereid,
Is this web site vista compatable? I can't even get web site links to my post.

Science has gotten into the habit of inserting new definitions whenever they don't understand. Sometimes the answer was already found but not used, because of the lack of understanding of what they are looking at.

For instance the atom now has more idividual parts than when I was in school, but the fact is that with my model it has less parts and agrees with all of my assumptions that I've posted on this thread.

I'd rather leave this thread open for the input of others if nothing else.

garykpo · #43 (**permalink**) 30-April-2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

I have a theory on gravity, light, creation of the universe, atoms, and how it all started.

In the beginning the earth was void and without form. There was no matter at all. Then GOD said “Let there be light”.

This was the start of the big bang, but not the creation of matter. When you put a glass of water outside on a hot day, condensation starts to form on the outside of glass. This is also true for light or “energy” in the vast void of space. The “energy” is hot as all forms of energy are, and the void of space is cold as we can prove today. This difference in temperature formed a layer of condensation on the expanding energy. Energy expands, because there is no opposition in the void of space; energy is created and expands in a specific pattern of creation. This condensation is the creation of matter, or condensed energy.

The ball of expanding energy is now surrounded by a layer of condensation in the sea of cold space. The condensed energy on the outside of this bubble starts to freeze, like all water does in a freezer. The energy keeps expanding and pushes on the frozen walls; this compression gives us all of the natural elements on the period table. Compression continues until the frozen walls can no longer contain the creation of energy.

The big bang starts with a crack, and then, condensed energy is separated by the expanding creation of “free” energy. Thus the world of physics begins. Gravity, light, elements, motion, quantum mechanics, and the rest of the laws of physics now apply. All theories of physics can be done away with; this way there’s no misunderstanding of the basics. Gravity is the difference between the expanding rate of “free” energy compared to the expanding rate of condensed energy. “Free” energy expands faster than condensed energy, thus a higher pressure pushes you down to a lower pressure. This gravity is the same in space as on earth.

Light is nothing more than a wave that travels through the creation of energy. The reason light is a constant speed is because the conductor that it travels through is created in a consistent pattern. Light cannot be slowed down or sped up because only GOD can create or destroy energy.

The elements were formed from the compression of condensed energy. The heaviest elements were on the inside wall receiving the most pressure and the lightest elements were on the outside wall of the expanding ball. Until it exploded, then they were scattered throughout the universe.

Atoms do exist of a proton and a neutron nucleus, but the electrons do not move around the nucleus. The electrons are the expanding “free” energy that is called the pattern of creation. The electrons are still created in a pattern, and then they expand, just like they did in the beginning.

Using this thought process answers questions that scientists can't.

you dont have a clue you need to think before you speek please feel free to inquire as to why i think so

rebel · #44 (**permalink**) 30-April-2007, 01:49 AM

Cougar,

Sorry, I meant spiral galaxies

Your demonstration of a phonograph record is correct. That would be the effect gravity has on 2.) a single object in the universe (as per post #39).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An example of a spiral galaxy, the Pinwheel Galaxy (also known as Messier 101 or NGC 5457)A spiral galaxy is a type of late galaxy in the Hubble sequence which has a basic physical characterization of:

-A central bulge surrounded by a disk and encased by a spherical halo.
-The bulge resembles an elliptical galaxy, containing many old, so-called "Population II" stars, and usually a supermassive black hole at its center.
-The disk is a flat, rotating assembly (which contributes to a large angular momentum) consisting of interstellar matter, young "Population I" stars and open star clusters, which contain 102 − 103 stars.
-The halo is a spherical region containing Population II stars, often in large globular clusters consisting of 105 − 106 stars, that orbit the galactic center.

Now, according to the main stream, a different set of equations as well as a new series of theories are needed to explain the difference between the atoms in a phonograph record spinning (#2 from above) and (#4 from above) the stars in a spiral galaxy spinning.

They need these different theories because the standard theory doesn't include both of these phenomena into one theory...like mine.

rebel · #45 (**permalink**) 30-April-2007, 01:52 AM

garykpo,

Please feel free to express your opinion, everyone else is.

I'm open to all "clues".

Nereid · #46 (**permalink**) 30-April-2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Nereid,
Is this web site vista compatable?

As far as I know, it is.

Quote:

I can't even get web site links to my post.

Why not ask a question, in the About BAUT section, on how to do this?

Quote:

[snip]

I'd rather leave this thread open for the input of others if nothing else.

OK.

When do you expect to be answering the open questions about your ideas, as presented in this thread?

rebel · #47 (**permalink**) 01-May-2007, 03:16 AM

Nereid,

Still having problems with my encoder. The only language I can get to work uses to many kbytes to fit on this format. Lex mark is sending me a vista compatible CD for my all-in-one. They just finished making it compatible with vista. they said it should arrive in 24 - 48 hours. In the mean time I will transfer my notes better for your benefit.

Thanks for your patients.

rebel · #48 (**permalink**) 02-May-2007, 01:28 AM

Nereid,

I've talked to my dell technical support, they told me that I can't scan pictures into my photo editor and copy them to paste them to this site. They said that pictures need to be copied to a server and downloaded to this site.

Does this site have any such server?

When I try to send a picture of my equations, it stops and says that this is a dialog box (not for pictures).

rebel · #49 (**permalink**) 02-May-2007, 01:40 AM

Nereid,

Well my bold worked that time.

Let's try my quote's.

rebel · #50 (**permalink**) 02-May-2007, 01:41 AM

Nereid,

Well my quoting didn't work right.

In your directions of how to use the fonts will you please not abbreviate. Thanks.

Nereid · #51 (**permalink**) 02-May-2007, 03:24 AM

Please get engaged in this thread.

I split one of your posts, about fonts etc, out, to create that thread.

rebel · #52 (**permalink**) 05-May-2007, 05:24 PM

Nereid,

I have equations and drawings to prove that this "theory of creation" is better than the existing "theory" that is excepted as mainstream.

If anyone knows how I can get my equations into this forum, please let me know.

Without the equations, which I've been trying to put into words, I can't answer the questions satisfactory enough for people to fully understand.

mugaliens · #53 (**permalink**) 05-May-2007, 09:03 PM

Here's my theory: We spang into existence just five minutes ago, complete with memories, theories, a supposed (but manufactured) history, a...

Awww, I'd never get away with this - you know me too well.

I think I'll just watch a movie!

rebel · #54 (**permalink**) 06-May-2007, 12:54 AM

mugaliens,

I believe your watch is slow, I'm 34 years old.

rebel · #55 (**permalink**) 06-May-2007, 01:20 AM

can someone who knows how to use the fonts please put the following words into equation format?

1.) Fe = Ce multipled by the sum of Rc times Ee

2.) Ce = Fe divided by the sum of Rc times Ee

3.) Ee = the sum of Fe divided by Ce is divided by Rc

4.) Rc times Ee = Fe divided by Ce

5.) Rc = the sum of Fe divided by Ce is divided by Ee

Letters stand for: - Fe = # of electrons
- Ce = # of atoms, or mass
- Rc = Rate the electrons are created (rate of creation)
- Ee = expansion of electrons
- Ep = energy pressure, the measured amount of force caused by Ee

If someone could write these equations into there proper format, then I believe we could continue our conversation better. Thanks.

stutefish · #56 (**permalink**) 06-May-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Nereid,

I have equations and drawings to prove that this "theory of creation" is better than the existing "theory" that is excepted as mainstream.

If anyone knows how I can get my equations into this forum, please let me know.

Without the equations, which I've been trying to put into words, I can't answer the questions satisfactory enough for people to fully understand.

rebel
If your equations are mathematical, have you considered using some common characters on your keyboard to type your equations directly into the message field, the same way you type in your other messages?

rebel · #57 (**permalink**) 06-May-2007, 02:52 PM

Stutefish,

How do you type in squared, square root, divided by, multiply by, or inverse?

Please tell me you know.

Hornblower · #58 (**permalink**) 07-May-2007, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Stutefish,

How do you type in squared, square root, divided by, multiply by, or inverse?

Please tell me you know.

I have seen x squared improvised by means of x^2, and have done likewise myself. Too bad the software for this forum will not do superscripts.

Square root x^-2

Reciprocal 1/x

Multiplication x(y) or x*y

Use parentheses and brackets as needed as you would in handwritten notation to separate the operations correctly.

Van Rijn · #59 (**permalink**) 07-May-2007, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebel

Stutefish,

How do you type in squared, square root, divided by, multiply by, or inverse?

Please tell me you know.

There are various common methods. Here are some:

Squared:

Use the symbol "^" as in x^2

or you can use the vbcode "sup" function:

x²

Square root:

sqr(x) or
x^0.5 or
x^(1/2) or
x^1/2 or
√x

Divide - use the "/" as in:

x/2

Multiply:

2x or
2*x

Hornblower · #60 (**permalink**) 07-May-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornblower

I have seen x squared improvised by means of x^2, and have done likewise myself. Too bad the software for this forum will not do superscripts.

I have ostrich egg on my face. I just found out how to do superscripts and subscripts in About BAUT.
How do I make exponents and Greek letters?

Scroll down to second post.

I also blew it on the square root. The exponent should be 1/2, not -2.
sqr(x) = x^1/2

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Cosmic	alkawn.net	Astronomy	2	01-July-2006 07:56 PM
The Universe A, C, B	RussT	Against the Mainstream	10	05-March-2006 03:45 PM
Do we need a theory of the universe at this point?	Ari Jokimaki	Against the Mainstream	78	06-May-2005 05:32 PM
Androids and Unified Theory.	Synchro	Against the Mainstream	2	09-October-2004 04:49 AM