Big Bang Eviscerated

[royinpink]

Mael in real life earth gravity looks like dry spaghetti sticking out of earth the lack of branches is the reason why it is able to move, powered by electron movements. There are other spider web gravities that don't move, I.E. your inertia & and mass. I have a large list of new laws that are obvious yet neglected, I don't spend my time regurgitating other peoples work, I can see this stuff easily, like a movie in my head. That sheet thing is just a stupid graph of a fractile equation showing the rate at which gravity lines separate from eachother. No gravity comes out of earth like your hair when you are being electrocuted POOF Ha ha! note: a small exeption for polar stuff.

Hm. Polar stuff makes me think of magnetic lines so now the image in my head is like this:

But I am still a bit confused. Gravity moves? But not for mass?

 

[Maelstrom]

Hm. Polar stuff makes me think of magnetic lines so now the image in my head is like this:

But I am still a bit confused. Gravity moves? But not for mass?

Mael yes that is fairly close, perhaps with less line bending or gravity would decrease so fast when a astronaut moves away from earth. electrons real in gravity lines by collision causing line shortening by gap bonding meaning the line breaks and re-heals shorter, the number of lines determines the pulling power, imagine chains of ants all pulling backwards...heave...heave..heave. mass poor fly stuck in web sticky sticky stuck to everything sun moons all at the same time.

 

[AsheSkyler]

Depends on how things end here, caught a ex military, hard core, Homeland guy Trailing me red handed. Army Ipad strapped to the left for arm, bluetooth in the ear. So am feeling a little paranoyed, but am doing okay, no doors kicked in so far. Don't worry too much, Mael knows what to do.

It goes without saying, but be careful. Heheh, kind of reminds me how recently Harrison started a thread about whether a person's special interest ever got them in trouble or not.

 

[qwerty]

Mael are you saying gravity is an effect of electron interference particle waves?

 

[Maelstrom]

Mael are you saying gravity is an effect of electron interference particle waves?

No I'm saying flat out that electrons hit gravity lines connected accrossed their orbital path to the surfices of neutrons and protons, and the electron is knocking holes or dents in the lines. This yanks the lines inward shortening them by a principal called gap bonding meaning there is more line face surfice area bonding power on the 2 end faces of the broken line than the 2 bent ends hanging on by a thread. Think of a green stick snapped and the piece still hanging by that bit of bark.

 

[qwerty]

I think I am getting confused as I am trying to visualise your concepts using traditional theoretical models. How do you suggest gravity manifests in lines? It seems you imply newtonian principles to subatomic particle behaviours?

 

[Maelstrom]

It goes without saying, but be careful. Heheh, kind of reminds me how recently Harrison started a thread about whether a person's special interest ever got them in trouble or not.

Ha ha! that thread will be immortal. It is still possible I'm over thinking things, it may be just because of my lovely nuclear research. But the line of ducks is getting fairly long. Anyways I have the government cornered they can't hide their position much longer, filed for my passport and sailboats don't give a rats as.. about watch lists..talk or walk, they don't show, I get to claim failure of maitnence of national interest...did my homework. checkmate lousy spellchecker

 

[Maelstrom]

I think I am getting confused as I am trying to visualise your concepts using traditional theoretical models. How do you suggest gravity manifests in lines? It seems you imply newtonian principles to subatomic particle behaviours?

When I say string theory I really mean it, real strings through space, and I have a fairly good idea of their actual construction, I mean that too. Not a idle claim. And yes I do have a model to cancel the aether friction argument on orbital bodies. Which the would have gotten me a Nobel prize if the Gravity research institute would have at least given it a small honorable mention so someone could see it.

 

[qwerty]

I have always found myself attracted to the idea of aether, it seems like a natural and commonsense concept through which given enough information you could calculate the probability of any action that involved transference of energy.
It seems to me that your theory may be an elegant clockwork macro system involving absolutes of values and variables, interesting.

 

[royinpink]

Mael yes that is fairly close, perhaps with less line bending or gravity would decrease so fast when a astronaut moves away from earth. electrons real in gravity lines by collision causing line shortening by gap bonding meaning the line breaks and re-heals shorter, the number of lines determines the pulling power, imagine chains of ants all pulling backwards...heave...heave..heave. mass poor fly stuck in web sticky sticky stuck to everything sun moons all at the same time.

Yeah, of course, I wouldn't expect the bending to be the same, since that's a magnet lol. Just me trying to picture what these 'lines' really are and how they work. Trying to refresh my memory, the gravity as balls on a bedsheet explanation is how people typically illustrate general relativity, right? Which is what we can't reconcile with quantum mechanics which is why we have string theory. Okay so far? So I'm guessing your gravity lines have something to do with how you are attempting to do that last part.

But when I picture lines, I am literally picturing gaps, as you say "the gap between the lines increases," which seems to make no sense, because I'm imagining discrete lines that have no effect on each other. Like you hit the line and you have gravitational pull, you move into the gap and you are freeee... which can't be true. So I'm trying to reconceptualize these lines so that they make sense. Magnetic lines of force made more sense in how there is still the magnetic field, but there are these lines representing contours and strength of the magnetic force...but those are just a representation. So I still don't really get it.

No I'm saying flat out that electrons hit gravity lines connected accrossed their orbital path to the surfices of neutrons and protons, and the electron is knocking holes or dents in the lines. This yanks the lines inward shortening them by a principal called gap bonding meaning there is more line face surfice area bonding power on the 2 end faces of the broken line than the 2 bent ends hanging on by a thread. Think of a green stick snapped and the piece still hanging by that bit of bark.

Since I don't get the lines in the first place, knocking holes in them is...???

When I say string theory I really mean it, real strings through space, and I have a fairly good idea of their actual construction, I mean that too. Not a idle claim. And yes I do have a model to cancel the aether friction argument on orbital bodies. Which the would have gotten me a Nobel prize if the Gravity research institute would have at least given it a small honorable mention so someone could see it.

I thought strings were really tiny? Like Planck length? How are strings related to gravity lines? Aaaa...

 

[AsheSkyler]

When I say string theory I really mean it, real strings through space, and I have a fairly good idea of their actual construction, I mean that too. Not a idle claim. And yes I do have a model to cancel the aether friction argument on orbital bodies. Which the would have gotten me a Nobel prize if the Gravity research institute would have at least given it a small honorable mention so someone could see it.

Beware of bed bugs! But I'd rather take my chances with bed bugs than with a vehicle where if you try to bring a pencil on board you are arrested, stripped searched, and interrogated about which basements the terrorists are operating out of these days.

 

[Maelstrom]

I have always found myself attracted to the idea of aether, it seems like a natural and commonsense concept through which given enough information you could calculate the probability of any action that involved transference of energy.
It seems to me that your theory may be an elegant clockwork macro system involving absolutes of values and variables, interesting.

Aether theory is really just a old term for sub-atomic clouds around stars, lack of visibility doesn't mean they aren't there and gravity its self indicates their presence. the fusion ladder requires there presence. Their layering around a star maybe somewhat like a onion heavy to light more or less I'm unsure on the level of mixing, their possible interactions would take take too much time to describe here. Your last statement (clockwork) is quite perceptive.

 

[Maelstrom]

Yeah, of course, I wouldn't expect the bending to be the same, since that's a magnet lol. Just me trying to picture what these 'lines' really are and how they work. Trying to refresh my memory, the gravity as balls on a bedsheet explanation is how people typically illustrate general relativity, right? Which is what we can't reconcile with quantum mechanics which is why we have string theory. Okay so far? So I'm guessing your gravity lines have something to do with how you are attempting to do that last part.

But when I picture lines, I am literally picturing gaps, as you say "the gap between the lines increases," which seems to make no sense, because I'm imagining discrete lines that have no effect on each other. Like you hit the line and you have gravitational pull, you move into the gap and you are freeee... which can't be true. So I'm trying to reconceptualize these lines so that they make sense. Magnetic lines of force made more sense in how there is still the magnetic field, but there are these lines representing contours and strength of the magnetic force...but those are just a representation. So I still don't really get it.

Since I don't get the lines in the first place, knocking holes in them is...???

I thought strings were really tiny? Like Planck length? How are strings related to gravity lines? Aaaa...

Mael The lines are are made up of chunks of very small particles, each chunk is one graviton a long string of them is a gravitational line. They, (the lines), in turn radiate outwards from each atom or earth like the spokes of a wagon wheel. Two spokes, (gravitational lines), get farther and farther apart as you measure between them moving out from the center of the wagon wheel with your measuring. The gap between 2 lines will resemble a slice of pizza, the number of lines on a object is constant six lines = six gaps, double the distance from a object th,e (center of the pizza,) and the gap between the lines, (the crust of a pizza slice or a section of the wagon rim), is much larger. Earth has billions of gravity lines, as you move away from earth the number of those lines pointing strait enough at you to touch you, will drop fast. As you move farther out they will drift to the left or right up or down away from you, (if) they were not pointed directly at the center of you. You get far enough out from earth and only a bulls eye hit from a line will make a gravitational connection. that is why Niel Armstrong can bounce around on the moon like a bunny, maybe 20% of the gravitational lines of earth pulling him down.

 

[royinpink]

Mael The lines are are made up of chunks of very small particles, each chunk is one graviton a long string of them is a gravitational line. They, (the lines), in turn radiate outwards from each atom or earth like the spokes of a wagon wheel. Two spokes, (gravitational lines), get farther and farther apart as you measure between them moving out from the center of the wagon wheel with your measuring. The gap between 2 lines will resemble a slice of pizza, the number of lines on a object is constant six lines = six gaps, double the distance from a object th,e (center of the pizza,) and the gap between the lines, (the crust of a pizza slice or a section of the wagon rim), is much larger. Earth has billions of gravity lines, as you move away from earth the number of those lines pointing strait enough at you to touch you, will drop fast. As you move farther out they will drift to the left or right up or down away from you, (if) they were not pointed directly at the center of you. You get far enough out from earth and only a bulls eye hit from a line will make a gravitational connection. that is why Niel Armstrong can bounce around on the moon like a bunny, maybe 20% of the gravitational lines of earth pulling him down.

So...gravitons are hypothesized particles of gravity like photons are for light, right? So why aren't we talking about gravitational waves rather than gravitational lines?

Are you telling me that the reason we don't perceive them as lines is they are too small and too numerous, so when you're mostly dealing with planetary bodies, the gaps only become noticeable at large distances? That is the only way I've thought of for this to make sense to me. I can picture the pizza analogy no problem.

If you wonder why I am bothering, it's because although I know I am woefully behind in understanding the basic stuff at play here, I have never run into something I couldn't understand if I tried. Except economics. I fundamentally do not get money. But anyway, physics is not as mysterious as money, and I find this stuff interesting. It's just been since junior year of high school (which would be...11 years ago?) that I actually attempted to understand it. I hope you don't mind me attempting to join in.

Now I'm reading about gravitational waves. Fun stuff.

ETA: To return to your original post...

So you have solar systems and galaxies floating around like wiggling squids inside giant marshmallow sub-atomic blobs trying to poke their gravitational tentacles out to grab on to stuff in deep space. At these vast distances, (the law of radial dispersion), would likely reduce a hard gravitational connection with another system to 1 or 2 gravitational lines if you are lucky. This means that there isn't enough gravity to spit at in collecting a (infinite) amount mater over (infinite) distances to form a Big Bang. And don't bother to use the (gravity has to be more present) for galactic formation argument, I will cut you to pieces with a super-nova compression argument, as I have a functional model for super-nova conflict.

Okay, using my tentative and partial understanding of gravitational lines, what you're saying here makes sense until I get to the next thing I'm shaky on--the Big Bang. I vaguely remember there being alternate models of the Big Bang and one of them involves the universe compressing before it expands with the 'bang'? What's it called..."Big Crunch," yeah, that. So I am guessing that's what you mean about collecting infinite matter over infinite distances? Or am I totally off there?

I wouldn't dream of using a 'gravity has to be more present' argument as I do not have one What is a supernova compression argument?

One last edit: Actually now I'm not sure why I had to understand gravitational lines in the first place. How does conceptualizing gravity this way change things?

 

[Maelstrom]

So...gravitons are hypothesized particles of gravity like photons are for light, right? So why aren't we talking about gravitational waves rather than gravitational lines?

Are you telling me that the reason we don't perceive them as lines is they are too small and too numerous, so when you're mostly dealing with planetary bodies, the gaps only become noticeable at large distances? That is the only way I've thought of for this to make sense to me. I can picture the pizza analogy no problem.

If you wonder why I am bothering, it's because although I know I am woefully behind in understanding the basic stuff at play here, I have never run into something I couldn't understand if I tried. Except economics. I fundamentally do not get money. But anyway, physics is not as mysterious as money, and I find this stuff interesting. It's just been since junior year of high school (which would be...11 years ago?) that I actually attempted to understand it. I hope you don't mind me attempting to join in.

Now I'm reading about gravitational waves. Fun stuff.

Hi royinpink you are correct a thing becomes more noticable when it is absent, we swim in air and hardly think on it, step out of a air lock in space and you'll miss it real fast. The way to think of the wave thing is you take a string of gravity or light in your hand and crack it like a whip, the ripple, (wave), travels down the string the first piece of light is still in your hand, (basically), when the ripple of energy, light), pops at the end. Or more simply waves are a bunch of particles bumping eachother down the line, endlessly.

 

[royinpink]

Hi royinpink you are correct a thing becomes more noticable when it is absent, we swim in air and hardly think on it, step out of a air lock in space and you'll miss it real fast. The way to think of the wave thing is you take a string of gravity or light in your hand and crack it like a whip, the ripple, (wave), travels down the string the first piece of light is still in your hand, (basically), when the ripple of energy, light), pops at the end. Or more simply waves are a bunch of particles bumping eachother down the line, endlessly.

The more I thought about it, the more I felt like I was making a big deal out of something that wasn't actually that different, just a different way of picturing it...anyway, thank you for your clear explanation. And I hope I didn't confuse you with my multiple edits (added a couple things to the post).

 

[Maelstrom]

The more I thought about it, the more I felt like I was making a big deal out of something that wasn't actually that different, just a different way of picturing it...anyway, thank you for your clear explanation. And I hope I didn't confuse you with my multiple edits (added a couple things to the post).

Hi royanpink I am challenging the idea directly that the universe has to do anything other than sit out there and look happy as it does presently, in other words all actions are local constant and unending, just a big endless box of stars forming growing dyeing... forming all over again. A locally driven closed loop fusion ladder, up you go in complexity until crushed back into base particle dust again. Saying what you see is what you get, is not as sexy as Big bang, but real science is basically cataloging observable actions with a little logic thrown in.

 

[royinpink]

Hi royanpink I am challenging the idea directly that the universe has to do anything other than sit out there and look happy as it does presently, in other words all actions are local constant and unending, just a big endless box of stars forming growing dyeing... forming all over again. A locally driven closed loop fusion ladder, up you go in complexity until crushed back into base particle dust again. Saying what you see is what you get, is not as sexy as Big bang, but real science is basically cataloging observable actions with a little logic thrown in.

This has to do with what you said about time, right? No time, just motion. I like that bit. It reminds me of what I wrote about rhythm in linguistics, how rhythm is basically there for us to have a sense of time and without it we just lose all perception of time. Of course since I'm talking about language, not physics, I'm taking about human perceptions, but I like the similarity in that the fundamental part is the rhythm/motion, not time.

I got really into Augustine when I wrote this, which pissed off people who believe that phonology modeled on syntax is the way to go (they have a basic unit of time in metrical phonology that they assume is fundamental, and I said it was secondary, a byproduct of rhythm rather than a constituent of rhythm, which throws off their whole model). But prosody doesn't work like grammar (not to mention I have problems with generative grammar as well).

 

[Maelstrom]

This has to do with what you said about time, right? No time, just motion. I like that bit. It reminds me of what I wrote about rhythm in linguistics, how rhythm is basically there for us to have a sense of time and without it we just lose all perception of time. Of course since I'm talking about language, not physics, I'm taking about human perceptions, but I like the similarity in that the fundamental part is the rhythm/motion, not time.

I got really into Augustine when I wrote this, which pissed off people who believe that phonology modeled on syntax is the way to go (they have a basic unit of time in metrical phonology that they assume is fundamental, and I said it was secondary, a byproduct of rhythm rather than a constituent of rhythm, which throws off their whole model). But prosody doesn't work like grammar (not to mention I have problems with generative grammar as well).

Hi royin, sorry your post flag slipped by somehow, on the music thing sorry I'm a little green still struggling to figure out 3 time and 4 time, I look at my sheet music and say Aaagh! you're cheating there are too many notes in that section. But then I can't read notes worth beans, I keep making dire threats like, why can't all C notes be red and B notes be blue so I don't have to count all these chicken scratchings in-between or why can't a A note have a little A we aren't writing with goose quills any more we have fixed type. Sorry a little angst.
Your view of time matches mine it has no magic substance and exists in our mind as much as in life, movement is how we mark time and with out movement time would have no meaning, fortunately we don't live in a frozen universe, so real visual time, is eternal in the past and future. Some people think it's funny to argue that if you lived on a black hole the atmosphere would be like liquid iron and time would be slower because you move slower. To which I say okay grab a rock and a waterproof watch and start walking on the bottom of the pool is time slower or does it just seem slower, what does your watch say after you've been walking for 4 minuets, maybe a new apple one will say shall I call for CPR? Translation the (opportunity) of time is infinite and unchanged by local impediments to movement, (friction), but movement is still the only thing we can use to see that (opportunity). I hope I'm not being too esotaric.

 

[Maelstrom]

Passport letter came... photo refused, reason glasses, wall-mart lady who takes them was shocked, first time that has happened. They barely show, think I have them on left, can't remember taking them off. So the drama continues will they send it this time? or did the dog eat the application. Do they have dogs in the state department, perhaps they can round up a seeing eye dog to send me a photo of.