Why does gravity "attract"?

[RWS]

I only put this stuff out there, to hear the objections and hopefully learn from them. Maybe adjust the theory, or maybe scrap the theory. But I definitely don't want to hear the stupidity and ignorance shown so far... And I am a man of little patience for fools sometimes.

So now that you know how I roll, I hope this thread can "move" forward in a positive manner and "attract" more ideas. Like Gravity! : -)

 

[RWS]

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.

Shooting stars are not shooting anywhere. The earth is moving into an area where there's dust in our way (that is also moving along in a straight line but at a slightly different angle). When we periodically intersect, what you are observing is the dust hitting our atmosphere and friction slowing them down and burning them up. So, not sure what you're saying there.

The moon was not always showing the same face to the earth. It just has for a long time. And meteors can miss the earth and hit the side of the moon facing us. Since there is no atmosphere or tectonic activity to erase them, meteor craters facing the earth do not make any sort of argument pro or con as to what I have said about the illusion of attraction. And in fact, the side currently facing away from the earth is far more heavily cratered than the side currently facing us.

So please state your point.

Here's the other side of the moon:

 

[RWS]

Here's both sides together genius. Please tell me why this has anything to do with my theory that the illusion of attraction is caused by curvature and motion. Look forward to it "debunker-wannabes". ;-)

 

[JQPublic1]

Thanks for the insults but I can look past those.

Look, I jumped in here because I have questions that I thought you might answer. I defer to your apparent higher knowledge on this subject. I am not trying to be funny here, I am seeking serious answers that a layman like myself can comprehend. If your patience would allow it, I implore you to keep clearing things up for the benefit of us all.

Now to answer your last question, mainly because I can still see it without scrolling the page, I am wondering how the craters on the moon appear to have been caused by meteors or whatever at various angles since it is not spinning? And if the moon ever did spin it should not have craters all over it but just along the equator. Are those really impact craters or are some of them formed by volcanic or other heat events???.

Getting back to the idea that the earth and moon is "running into space debris" and causing shooting star phenomena.
I can't see how that is possible unless some matter is moving in opposite directions. Exploding stars send particles in all directions and that might account for the varying concentric impact angles we see patterned on the moon's surface.

Lastly, as a student, I am asking you,the teacher this question again; will you respond this time?

How do you explain lunar and solar eclipses and planetary alignments? How do these observed phenomena mesh with your theories? I will sit back and enjoy the lecture.

 

[RWS]

You, as a student, have not listened one bit. You are stuck on something, and don't realize the stuff I say, or the stuff physics says.

All matter goes in a straight line, along curved space.

Once you understand that concept, then we can proceed to other concepts.

If you can't, then go back to religious stuff, because I'm trying very fucking hard to be nice. K?

 

[RWS]

I may have answers for you, but I'm just saying stuff that is logical. If logic works for you, then I am your man.

I take logic to another end though. I don't stop where logic ends, I try to find new ways it will go. That's how I roll.

 

[RWS]

And asshole, I never insulted you, until now. Jus sayin...

Make something useful, or just let it go. Think of something useful.

 

[JQPublic1]

You, as a student, have not listened one bit. You are stuck on something, and don't realize the stuff I say, or the stuff physics says.

All matter goes in a straight line, along curved space.

Once you understand that concept, then we can proceed to other concepts.

If you can't, then go back to religious stuff, because I'm trying very fucking hard to be nice. K?

Just as I thought.You are a fraud. You can't fit solar and lunar eclipses into your little hypothesis, can you?
You are also stumped by the planetary alignments that occur ever so often....go on admit it... you got caught...

 

[RWS]

Dude, please stop before I get offensive. I have no idea what you're trying to say, in the way you're saying it. If you're talking about eclipses falsifying physics, then you have a lot to learn. I tried to put it in a simple way for you to understand. If you don't, then you don't understand physics, and are probably an apologetic for some creationist religion.

So next time, ask me a question nicely, or google it before you try to insult me. This is the last time I will be nice to you.

 

[JQPublic1]

Dude, please stop before I get offensive. I have no idea what you're trying to say, in the way you're saying it. If you're talking about eclipses falsifying physics, then you have a lot to learn. I tried to put it in a simple way for you to understand. If you don't, then you don't understand physics, and are probably an apologetic for some creationist religion.

So next time, ask me a question nicely, or google it before you try to insult me. This is the last time I will be nice to you.

Don't worry.... I have seen enough...I am out of here like the rest of the smart folks...heh heh heh! BYE

 

[RWS]

Planetary alignments are all due to the angle and velocity that they are moving in, with respect to the sun, as it moves along.

Remove the sun suddenly, and all planets just go in a straight line. There is no steering wheel on any of the planets. The movement of the sun in a straight line, causes curvature of space around it as it goes. And planets and moons and whatever, need to move to keep their distance. They're all moving in a straight line.

Understand that concept, and then I got some really cool stuff that has potential afterwards. But first, understand real physics. I'm not making that part up.

 

[RWS]

But you fukkers are all hung up about the really simple stuff...

OMG, this is gonna be fun when I get to anti-gravity and time-travel... We are at least 200 pages from that, at this rate of unconscious ignorance of scientific fact. Just wait until I say some crazy stuff... That'll put us past 1000 pages for sure, and by then I'll be dead.

But I'll have this thread, among others, as posterity.

 

[RWS]

Please tell me I'm not the smartest mofo on this site.

Not again...

Geebus! Somebody please have some brains....

 

[RWS]

So far, 100% of posters on this thread don't agree with fundamental physics....

That's gonna make my further ideas a little hard to swallow.

It's everybody's loss, if that happens, including mine. I could use some brains to help me further.

 

[RWS]

Dude, please stop before I get offensive. I have no idea what you're trying to say, in the way you're saying it. If you're talking about eclipses falsifying physics, then you have a lot to learn. I tried to put it in a simple way for you to understand. If you don't, then you don't understand physics, and are probably an apologetic for some creationist religion.

So next time, ask me a question nicely, or google it before you try to insult me. This is the last time I will be nice to you.

Don't worry.... I have seen enough...I am out of here like the rest of the smart folks...heh heh heh! BYE

I guess you were the only smart folk...

BTW, I love your avatar. The Olmecs were a great society that raises some questions about how people could have migrated to the Americas. And they were very impressive. But that's a conversation for a different thread.

 

[RWS]

Mebbe it's a form of magnetism.

The universe travels in a straight line.

Is time linear or can it 'fold' on itself?

Time is another human measurement to describe stuff. Like the number 2. 2 does not exist in nature. Neither does time.

However, everything that happens in the universe is recorded in the sense of energy. I'm not going there yet, until the initial stuff is accepted. I'll get there.

But it seems if I put too much stuff out at once, then I get ridiculed. So, one step at a time...

 

[RWS]

Time, and the number 2 (and greater) do not exist. They are measurements created by humans to explain stuff.

But they don't really exist.

 

[RWS]

Kinda like Santa Claus.... you got to use it to explain stuff, and it works, but it is not the reality.

 

[waltky]

RWS wrote: Time is another human measurement to describe stuff. Like the number 2. 2 does not exist in nature. Neither does time.

Time exists...

... or we wouldn't be here...

... it is the condition...

... in which all the other forces take place in.

 

[RWS]

"2" is a measurement created by humans, to calculate stuff. It does not exist in nature or physics.

A particle exists. It meets another particle... 1 + 1...

It either combines to form a bigger particle, meaning 1+1 equals 1.

Or they annihilate themselves, meaning 1+1=0.

Or... they just go right on by each other with no interactions, and then there is no equation.

Things either exist, or don't exist. This is not a binary argument, but the reality of how particles and matter interact with each other. They have no "sense" of 2, it's all just a bigger 1. Particles do not have the intelligence to calculate math as they do the things that they do.

They just do it. To them it's either existence, or non-existence.

To us, with the brains, we have to figure out methods to calculate it, but those methods do not exist EXCEPT in our brains.

Therefore "2" does not exist, except in our brains. Just like "time".