Why does gravity "attract"?

[Unkotare]

When some clown claims to rewrite the laws of physics, you know you're on the internet.

 

[Campbell]

When some clown claims to rewrite the laws of physics, you know you're on the internet.

Yeah...self appointed cosmologists. They know about as much about the universe as I do jacking off a rhino.

 

[Campbell]

The trampoline example does not work in space. Yes, the bowling ball creates a warpature, but without motion, the marble will not get drawn towards the center.

Imagine a hose with a huge mouth, under water.... If that hose lies dead under water, nothing is drawn into its tip. But move that hose, and things will start to get sucked in. Put a screen on the tip of that hose, and move it along the ocean, and things will start to get stuck to that screen. Only because of the motion. The screen is matter. It keeps us from being sucked into the center of the earth. As that hose moves along, we will be stuck to the screen. That is what we perceive as "gravity". It is just an illusion of warpature and motion. And it requires space-time to have "friction". Some sort of "ether". Maybe that's dark matter, but we'll get there...

But stop that motion, in terms of the initial motion of the universe... and everything will dissipate. Everything falls off the screen on the hose without motion.

It's all because of the "Big Bang!" Everything is still moving and consequently everything has a weight and a speed in the universe relative to everything else in the universe. On the moon we would weigh so much less we could jump 50 feet.

It's all definitely moving!

But what if movement for an object stopped? In terms of the universe. Think about it.

Movement creates the attraction force for all matter. Without movement, everything would dissapate into fundamental particles, until the formed again.

If two black holes collide, movement may temporarily stop, and all that matter that is drawn in there, can be instantaneously released. A Big Bang. And then the movement starts again, and the illusion of gravity starts over.

Who Knows?? Nobody!

 

[saveliberty]

Well this is going to look pretty silly if we discover big objects are actually moving away from smaller faster ones....

 

[saveliberty]

When some clown claims to rewrite the laws of physics, you know you're on the internet.

Yeah...self appointed cosmologists. They know about as much about the universe as I do jacking off a rhino.

Maybe you can cover the first couple of steps. Just for amusement purposes.

 

[Campbell]

When some clown claims to rewrite the laws of physics, you know you're on the internet.

Yeah...self appointed cosmologists. They know about as much about the universe as I do jacking off a rhino.

Maybe you can cover the first couple of steps. Just for amusement purposes.

The universe or the rhino??

 

[Yarddog]

Not a simple question. And, based on my theory, not a simple answer...

But the reason why is motion. And only motion. Without motion, there would not be this attraction effect caused by the warpature of space that mass creates.

I have much more to say about it, and it gets to some really crazy subjects such as time-travel, but this is a theory I have been putting forth for a very long time.

The classic example of putting a bowling ball on a trampoline or rubber sheet, and rolling some marbles around it.... ONLY works because it is being done on the Earth. If that example is done in space, the marbles just go in a straight line from where they were thrown.

That example is completely flawed. It takes a new understanding of warpature by mass, and how the motion of that mass can create the illusion of "gravity". Because, it is an illusion. There is no "gravitron" or sub-atomic particle that controls this. It's basic science, that we have thought too much about.

Mass does warp space. But that in itself does not create an attraction. Think of a vacuum cleaner standing still, vs a vacuum cleaner moving along a carpet.

If you're a dog-hair on the carpet, and far enough from the standing vacuum-cleaner, you're totally safe! No matter how long that vacuum cleaner sucks, you're good!

But if that vacuum cleaner starts moving towards you, you better get off ur butt and start moving away at the same pace. Otherwise you will be sucked in.

I'm getting tired, and I have so many parallels, but the point is that without motion, the sensation of "gravity" does not exist. It requires motion. And this gets a lot deeper, to the big bang, but I'll leave it as is for now.

Gravity is an illusion, caused by warpature and motion.

The universe travels in a straight line.

I don't know, it seems a lot harder than that to suck up dog hairs off a carpet than that around my place. Usually the vacuum needs to travel over the same dog hair 4 or 5 times. Hope that doesn't mess up your formulations

 

[saveliberty]

When some clown claims to rewrite the laws of physics, you know you're on the internet.

Yeah...self appointed cosmologists. They know about as much about the universe as I do jacking off a rhino.

Maybe you can cover the first couple of steps. Just for amusement purposes.

The universe or the rhino??

The rhino, positive the rest is crap.

 

[Campbell]

When some clown claims to rewrite the laws of physics, you know you're on the internet.

Yeah...self appointed cosmologists. They know about as much about the universe as I do jacking off a rhino.

Maybe you can cover the first couple of steps. Just for amusement purposes.

The universe or the rhino??

The rhino, positive the rest is crap.

Opinions are like ass holes.......everybody has one

 

[saveliberty]

Hey, I reread your post, I think we agree on the "guest" cosmologist.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Gravitational force is directly related to objects in your hand and their fragility.

 

[RWS]

Please bear with me. It's a lot to cover, and hard to put into words. Here is a picture of a flat plane and a gravity well.

Let's say we're a stationary planet on the outside top right of the flat plane. We're a dot on that plane. The box that we're in is our position, or quadrant.

Now we insert a stationary mass in the middle, a star. That creates the second image due to the warpature it creates. (but it is not a downward spiral like the picture shows).

The place on the flat plane where the planet is, remains exactly the same. It got stretched towards the star, but it remains exactly where it is, barring motion. The curvature caused by the star does not suck it in, it simply stretches the fabric of the universe as much as its mass allows. The planet in the original flat plane is still in the same exact position in the quadrant that it was, it's just the space-time around it that has been stretched and warped.

Without motion, the picture will remain the same.

It helps to look at it as 2D, since the 3D models always show this "sinking" shape created by mass, that our logic would assume that a planet will just simply roll in for no reason. But again, that model only works on earth (or any place that gravity is affecting the model).

It makes more sense if you look at warpature like this:

Without motion, everything will stay as it is in the above picture. It requires motion to generate that illusion of attraction.

Now, back to moving in a straight line, again try to imagine it in 2D. If you draw a line on a piece of paper from left to right at an angle, and then curl that paper into a cylinder (I said "cone" before, my wrong). As the sun moves along on its straight line, it is warping the space in front of us, causing us to seemingly move in this spiral around the sun. But we are moving in a straight line along curved space. The same applies to the sun "revolving" around the galaxy. It is moving in a straight line along curved space.

And since all mass is moving, it is constantly drawing in new "quadrants" of space as it goes. So an object, like the earth, needs to be moving away from the sun at a greater velocity than the sun, and at an angle to the motion of the sun, to generate what we observe as revolutions. And as long as mass and velocity and direction remain constant in that equation, we will keep our relative distance from the sun.

Hope that helps explain a little better.

 

[cnm]

Without motion, everything will stay as it is in the above picture. It requires motion to generate that illusion of attraction.

So you're saying that motion is not the effect of attraction but rather an illusion of attraction. Nobel fer shur...

 

[JQPublic1]

How does your "straight line" hypothesis explain lunar and solar eclipses? Since eclipses are relatively rare there is some physical dynamic at work that defies your "straight line" theory.

Another phenomenon you seemed to have overlooked is the constantly changing relative positions of the planets. At times they are all lined up. If everything, including planets, were traveling in straight lines, that phenomenon wouldn't be possible. Right?

 

[dblack]

This video really cleared things up for me:

 

[JQPublic1]

Another thing. I have observed that trajectories of "shooting stars" vary considerably. That shouldn't happen under your theories. All of them should enter the atmosphere at the same angle.
But don't stop there... let's visit the moon and observe that meteor caters are visible on the side facing earth.

The moon does appear to be stationary and fits your "straight line" theorem.

 

[Searcher44]

dum de dum....de dum.....de....dum......I think I'll back out of here real ..........................s l o w l y........

 

[cnm]

Too late. As you can see you're now over the event horizon. You'll never escape.

Bwaahaaahaaa.

 

[RWS]

Without motion, everything will stay as it is in the above picture. It requires motion to generate that illusion of attraction.

So you're saying that motion is not the effect of attraction but rather an illusion of attraction. Nobel fer shur...

No, please reread before ridiculing a new idea. I said that the illusion of attraction that science is hung up on, is actually just the result of warpature and motion.

Let me state it a little simpler for you... Without motion, there is no attraction. Just the warpature of space-time.

The math works regardless based on our observations, but there is no "force" of attraction. What we call Gravity is simply the combination of the curvature of space caused by matter, and the motion of that matter through the universe, and how the motion and curvature affects other matter around it. Without motion, there would be no attractive qualities.

In my example above, the Earth is clearly moving in a straight line, along curved space created by the sun as it moves along in a straight line. There is no attraction causing the Earth to turn towards the sun. There is no "steering wheel" on the Earth that makes it turn around the sun. It goes in a straight line, and so does the sun, and so does every other star in the galaxy, and every galaxy in the universe. Everything is travelling in a straight line, along the curvatures created by other matter. You get stable revolutions when the angle and velocity of the two objects are in the proper ratio.

Starting to get it?

 

[RWS]

I hope you folks that are making fun of me, are actually knowledgeable. Because instead of ridiculing a new way of thinking about things, I would most definitely prefer a scientific rebuttal, so we can discuss and maybe come to a conclusion.

But making "Nobel" snipe jokes at my ideas on the subject, without reason, is really making you look bad vs a "newbie" like me.

Jus sayin... I'm putting this out there for you to consider. If you have an objection, I'd love to hear it and discuss it, and if I'm wrong then great! If not, please do not think you are smarter than me.

Got it?