Gravity doesn't pull you down...

how could that be possible if it is the universe expanding? you couldn't have it expanding at you from all sides.

You faggots first of all if had any intelligenct then you wouldn't say "gravity". Jews invented that fucking word. Just like they invented the Holocaust. Einstein was a jew. Don't you think there's a connection?. Hitler had it right. He wanted a better place to live in and then got stomped out by a bunch of weaker nations that loved degeneracy. That's why the world is all fucked up right now. Niggas like Yea Forums and their dumb antics and non-stop useless fucking threads. You think people ant to see trap and wrekt threads 25 hours a day?. No. You think they want to eat food?. Yes. You think they want to fuck your mom?. No. You think they want to eat donkey poop?. No. You think they want to think?. Maybe. Fuck you and don't fuck with me again.

a....user?

Attached: Lucky_Stare.jpg (396x566, 155K)

The distances aren't growing because all of the objects are growing and you measure the distance between objects relative to their size. Your rulers are expanding just like the Earth is.

hitler was literally the begining of jewception.

He didn't understand the part where the Earth will still hit him as it accelerates. If he can't even understand something as simple as that, it's not a great loss if he does jump.

Interesting now Jewish and Jesus are so similarly written. Same as Satan and Santa. Illuminati might get me for exposing this.

and somehow we are growing in size, yet keeping the same density? where's the matter coming from to do this, or is it expanding too?

>stoner logic

Right on bro

All density you're measuring is relative to the density of other matter. When all matter expands the relative density between them stays the same. Besides, since mass is just the speed at which a particle is expanding, density won't really change anyway.

>TOWARDS earth from all directions.
What you're describing is a "big crunch" scenario where Earth is the midpoint. You're fucking retarded.

Nah, not stoner logic, it's just a hypothesis that actually fits what we observe in the universe without the need to invent stuff that doesn't exist like dark matter or dark energy that we are currently using to explain why the universe doesn't behave at all like we would predict.

so why not just have people expand faster than the earth and escape?
>it's just a hypothesis that actually fits what we observe
mind explaining black holes then?

You can't expand faster. Your mass is what it is. If you expand faster it would simply make it appear as if your weight became higher and you would have even less chance to escape earth.

About the black holes it's really simple. They are expanding at a rate equal or faster then the speed of light so nothing can actually escape.

Obvious bait, but I'm taking it for moment.

If you and the Earth were accelerating together, then your relative velocity to the earth would be null, and you'd be able to jump off into space. Unless, the Earth was constantly accelerating, and you were just swept along with it, and that would resemble gravity. However, this would mean that as the Earth speeds up, it will eventually reach light speed, which would increase the mass of the Earth exponentially until it collapsed into a black hole. So I actually wish Flat Earthers were right, because it would mean this whole goddamn planet is on the fast track to the hell that it deserves.

but shit does escape.

Gravity also works on the moon, so the moon needs to be expanding, but if it did that it would hit the earth so it would also need to be moving away. The surface of the moon pointing towards the earth cannot be simultaneously moving towards the earth and staying the same distance from it.

You are misunderstanding. The earth isn't accelerating through space, it is expanding, just like everything else. As it expands it also is pushing the space around itself. However it's expansion is not fixed, it is accelerating, which is why you can't jump off.

TBF, light speed could be expanding too.

Expanding as in, creating more land?

Your Mom's a whore and your Dad beats you daily.
Prove me wrong.

>Mass=speed of particle expansion
For this to be true, the speed would have to be constant. According to your previous arguments, everything is accelerating. Acceleration by it's definition is a change in speed. Also, let's talk about density. Density is the amount of matter in a given space. The volume of that space is dependent on the surface area. If particles are constantly expanding at a certain speed (measurement of mass according to you), and everything is accelerating, then volume would have to be accelerating at the same time. This is impossible without distorting the shape of objects because if this were true, the ratio between surface area and volume would not remain constant. Kys

>but they aren't really until it crashes into the mass

/thread

Possibly, but if the speed of light were changing, then we would notice it. Unless, the universe as a whole were expanding, in which case, we would be a part of it, and the speed of light would stay the same, relative to us.

Of course. If your speed is fast enough you will escape because at some point the acceleration of the space that the Earth is pushing out plus your speed is higher than the accelerating expansion of Earth itself.

The moon is also expanding, as the Earth pushes space outwards from it's own expansion it keeps pushing the moon away from the earth, so it angles outwards, but since both Earth and moon are becoming bigger and that distance is becoming bigger too you get an illusion of a circular motion around the Earth. You can easily write a simulation of this and if you keep zooming out the camera so that the Earth and the moon stay the same size, you'll get the same motion that actually we observe.

Expanding as every single particle growing.

Now you're ignoring the fact that the space is curved due to the expansion. Either that or you think that if you move a measuring device through a curved space it wouldn't curve itself.

Define "expanding."

Not him, but if the universe is expanding equally from all points it stands to reason that it would contract at all points as well
But it isn't contracting, it's expanding and this is clearly observable so yeah he's retarded

It is expanding. Everything is expanding. However because gravity isn't pushing things together, but pushing things apart at large scales the expansion is actually observable.

Also, if you put all the matter into one spot, it will explode extremely fast at first and then would appear to slow down, just as we know it did.

You're trying to overcomplicate a simple concept to try to make it seem like you know something about quantum mechanics. What you're really talking about is a simple geometry problem that you got wrong.

Not sure which part you're replying to so can't give you an answer.

If it's about density, think about it like this:
o o o o

vs

O O O O

Same shape, same density, same relative surface.

>acceleration of the space that the Earth is pushing out plus your speed is higher than the accelerating expansion of Earth itself.
ok, so let me see if i get this straight, the universe is expanding, the world is expanding and the force put upon us due to that expansion is what keeps us grounded? and we have observable proof of this?

Right, because everything is a perfect sphere...

Not on Earth, because you couldn't differentiate gravity that is pulling from gravity that is simply a consequence of the planet becoming larger. However if you take it to space, you can prove it because it is consistent with how galaxies behave without the need to dump in dark matter and dark energy.

If you have a triangle that is made from particles and you enlarge all particles that make that triangle the triangle would be simply enlarged. If you then use a measuring device that is also being enlarged to measure the sides of the triangle, you would think that the triangle was same the whole time.

But define particle. Atoms? Bosons? Hadrons? All physical matter? These particles don't have physical dimensions like we understand on our macro level. Subatomic particles are basically localized energy. They aren't physical objects so much as they are dimensionless perturbations of quantum fields.

That is exactly what I am saying. Mass is just energy that pushes the space around it away.

You're either a creative troll, or you're off your meds. Good luck on your psychotic break.

That's hardly a way to prove me wrong.

You're using established science in order to explain why the established science is wrong. Do you realize how you sound?

Nigga are you high or somethin

>However if you take it to space, you can prove it because it is consistent with how galaxies behave without the need to dump in dark matter and dark energy.
and in what way do they behave?

Yes. Perfect explanation. You get it.

So why and how are they expanding?

It is simple to prove you wrong, because you are a 0/8 tryhard.

i guess i mean in what way do they behave where dark matter is no longer accounted for while everything is expanding?

Yes, but if we are made of these particles, and the particles are expanding, then we would also expand, and therefore notice nothing, since everything would appear normal, relative to us.

In order to notice that things are expanding, you would have to observe from a frame of reference that is NOT expanding. In other words, a separate universe entirely. Otherwise, there's no actual difference.

Now you're just taking an argument to extremes. I never said all science is wrong. What I am saying is gravity isn't explained well.

There are irregularities in the speed of stars at the edges of the galaxies, and the simple fact that the universe isn't just expanding, but also accelerating. These things are not consistent with our understanding of how gravity works.

Because it is what particles are.

Just imagine the universe like this (and this is an extremely oversimplified explanation):
You have particles that are all constantly moving at the speed of light in a 4 dimensional space/time. Some of those are moving in the spacial dimensions so their speed in the dimension of time is 0. Others are very very slow in the spatial dimensions and are moving through time at the speed of light. As you speed them up in the spatial dimensions, they slow down in time, so the faster they go, the slower time goes for them. Now, some of these have the property to expand the space around themselves at a certain speed. If you lump enough of them nearby, they will move all the other ones around, as well as the space itself. When this happens, the particles at the edge are now moving at larger measurable speeds, so their speed in time decreases. This is why gravity slows time down.

No, the issue is that all of this expansion on a large enough scale is cumulative. So if you are observing it from a galaxy, you will notice that most of the other galaxies are moving apart from you because of the accumulation of the speed over large distances.

That's not how things work. You have to prove that you're right, so that others can attempt to prove it wrong. You haven't proved anything, therfore there's nothing for you to be proven wrong about. So far, we're only discussing hypothetical idea.

If I am wrong it would be quite easy to show it though. All I am asking is to find an actual problem with my explanation. It fits everything we know about the universe.

We have a winner! Thank you.
/thread

If the Earth was flat and the Sun moved in a great circle around the N pole, you would see a difference from reality in motion most marked at times of rise and set. Place yourself on the equator during the equinox. At rise, the Sun would appear from north of the equator (left), with slow movement towards you (foreshortened) and southward (right, as it follows its circular path). Its horizontal motion diminishes over the course of the morning as its direction loses an X-component, but will appear to increase its speed as it approaches. When overhead (Noon) it would be moving most quickly and almost straight east-west. After Noon it would appear to slow down and begin its drift right (north), and farther along it gains the drift to the right and magically disappears.

That of course, is not what we see at the equator during an equinox. The Sun rises due east, transits straight up, and sets due west all at a constant angular speed all along its path, which is apparently a straight line on the sky, because in this geometry you (not a distant pole) are on the same plane as the circle it traces.

Continuing south during an equinox, a flat-Earther would still see the Sun appear from the NE, approach but curve left to due north at Noon, then continue left and away to the NW, fading away. In reality, the Sun still rises in the E, moves up and left to north at Noon, and then set again in the W. This motion (also traced by the stars at night) clearly shows there is an axis of rotation that rises up from the southern horizon and extending up and away south to a south celestial pole on the sky. A Sun (and stars) moving around a disk cannot behave like it is revolving around two poles (north and south) simultaneously. ...

Technically yeah, the reason that gravity works is unknown. We have a fantastic understanding of the mechanics of gravity and its effects on matter and energy, but, we don't know WHY gravity works. Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean that no one does.

that still doesn't explain how this explanation of gravity can bypass darkmatter

...
Furthermore, a close-proximity Sun would increase in brightness from invisible at "rise" to its brightest at Noon and back again to invisible at "set" in the course of one day. Light intensity varies by the square of the distance from the source. This means the intensity of the light from the Sun (and Moon, and stars) would continuously vary all day, and most radically just before and after Noon. Again we see differently, the Sun remains more or less constant in brightness during the day, with a good accounting (and weather-dependent) for its dimming when near the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.

Lastly, if it were a "close" Sun and Moon passing overhead, there would be an obvious change in the apparent sizes of the objects as they approach, pass overhead, and head off again. Again, this is not what we see. The Sun and Moon stay the same angular size throughout their pass. You can experiment and prove this yourself by taking photos of them during rise, then again five or six hours later when they are at their highest, and maybe again as they set, just for added data. Measure their sizes in the photos. They're the same.

And if you really want to gild the lily, get in communication with someone a thousand miles away. Use an astrolabe (you can make a crude-but-good-enough one using a school-grade protractor) to measure the altitude of the Sun (or Moon) simultaneously. You can easily triangulate the height of the object, and your result will show it's near infinity (you both have close to the same angle, due to the crudeness of the instrument). But if it were 6,000 miles up, you'd be able to reasonably measure the 10° different viewing angle, or nearly 30° if they were the 3,000 miles often quoted.

This has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Well no, he jumped out the window to try and hit the ground, but he missed.

Nothing you wrote has anything to do with anything.

Yes it does. It's a precursor to flat Earth. I'm just a little ahead of you.

We don't though. It doesn't explain why the stars at the edge of galaxies move at the speeds they do and the fact that the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down.

Because if you start off from my assumption and then calculate gravity as a force that pushes space away from massive objects instead of bending it towards them, then expand it to large scale, the stars and the expansion of the universe don't need any additional matter or energy to explain it.

Unless you show at least a bit of understanding of what I wrote, you don't really have the authority to make that assessment.

No it isn't. If you understood what I wrote, you'd also understand that it wouldn't even work if the Earth was flat.

>gravity as a force that pushes space away from massive objects
but that doesn't explain why we're attracted to the earth, you can't have it both pushing (emptyish)space away while using it as a force for attraction for you

Wrong about what? The fact that the universe is expanding? That's already a known fact that was discovered by brilliant researchers nearly a century ago. Not only are you late with this discovery, your only evidence is vast generalizations.

Really, what is the exact point that you're trying to prove?

Could you please show me your math to back this up?

>Unless you show at least a bit of understanding of what I wrote, you don't really have the authority to make that assessment.
I understand you're making shit up without any proof, then complaining that no-one proves you wrong. This guys got it right long ago:
You're exactly a flat -Earther troll who just wants to argue, but without substance. You're an attention whore. Fine.

Al dente Pasta.

i would further add, if it is about the acceleration of expansion, the moon has less of it, so it should be getting smaller by the minute?

I, your second quote, am not a flat earther, nor am I OP.

>This guys got it right long ago:

Gravity never just pulled you down. It's force is is contributed by both bodies, so for you example, the Earth and you are pulling upon each other.

It might be an illusion based on some opposite force toward the expanding Universe, though that's yet to be understood or proven. For now, we just know that it works.

It's not a force of attraction for you. It's simply expanding at an accelerating rate, so if you jump off of it it will accelerate so the ground will catch up with you. Which in turns would make it seems as if it pulled you down. You can easily demonstrate that it is actually pushing you upwards constantly because the time is slowed down for you compared to how it would go if you would be actually static somewhere where nothing is pushing you out.

No, I am trying to explain why the universe is expanding. Of course we know it is expanding, I didn't claim that as a new information.

There is more than just 1 equation. The interesting one is probably this:
vt = sqrt(c*c-v*v) where vt is your speed in the temporal dimension, c is the speed of light and v is your speed in the spatial dimensions. Pretty much everything else comes out of this.

>You're exactly a flat -Earther troll
I don't claim the Earth is flat.

No, because of the curvature of space.

What I am saying is, nothing is pulling anything, you and the Earth are becoming larger which makes it seem like you're pulling eachother. Imagine 2 objects that are static but are both becoming larger over time. Now imagine a reference space which bends as the objects grow. Since light itself is traveling in the bent space, both objects would still appear to be the same size but the distance would appear to be decreasing between them.

>No, because of the curvature of space.
el oh el, im done entertaining your faggotry for tonight

So if the earth is moving away from me durong sundown i should fall off? Explain why the sun is hot if gravity doesnt exist

That's your right. I am not forcing anyone to spend time in this thread.

Read the thread maybe? It's not due to motion it's due to expansion.

Your math has no units whatsoever. I take it you have no formal education on astrophysics or quantum mechanics?

Square root of meters squared divided by seconds scared is meters per seconds. What are you on about?

no, just a crackpipe

I too like to insult people when I am all out of arguments. Well done, user.

bitch im not the one that tries to find a way around dark matter, and then just writes shit off when it doesn't add up as "curvature of space"

if the earth were to match the speed of anyone jumping and then, for example, a lot of people jump in different times, that wouldjust mess up earth. the speed for earth is constant, its being pulled by the sun and the earth i pulling the sun back. the sun pulls the earth because of the sun's size. the bigger you are, the more you pull stuff to you. technically, you have gravity, you can "pull" stuff to you but you're just not big enough to actually pull it towards you.

tl;dr gravity depends on size,if you're big enough,you can equally pull stuff. you,as a person, has gravity but because the earth is bigger than you, it just pulls you harder than you can.

p.s. if the earth is going to match your speed to simulate gravity, then stuff wouldn't stay on earth like oceans, or the atmosphere.

p.p.s. if you want detailed explanations, you can do your own little research. don't be restricted by what I know or whatever anyone knows. you need to know every single detail or at least enough to not be ridiculed. not saying that I'm ridiculing you.

if both were growing, then wouldn't the distances between them also be growing at an equal rate? Thus, we'd be the same 'relative' distance apart?

I am not talking about movement speed, I am talking about the speed at which the Earth is expanding. Imagine a ball that is growing in size with ants on it that also grow in size - both at an accelerating rate. Now if the ants start to jump, the ball will catch up every single one of them.

I wrote a bit more detailed explanation below in that same post. Also, I thought you left the thread, welcome back I guess. I can try again though, the light doesn't travel in straight line, it travels through the curvature of space. Since the Earth has a larger push on space than the moon does, the space around the Earth will be more curved than the space around the moon. Then if you shoot a light ray through that space and observe it, it would seem as if their size compared to each other is constant. I am not 100% sure if I am explaining this well enough, I can clarify more if needed.

If the distance would be filled with matter then yes, but since the distance has no mass, it doesn't grow at the same rate. It does get distorted because the objects distort the space around them, but it wouldn't grow at the same rate.

>Also, I thought you left the thread
i said i wasn't entertaining your faggotry, not leaving the thread.

So then why is it proven that the empty space between galaxies is growing greater by the moment? The implication is that all space, whether occupied by mass or not, is expanding at a rate and/or acceleration. Thus, gravity is likely not an equal and opposite force of gravity. The two work to churn massive entities into coagules.

Velocity is a rate of distance per time. When you multiply velocity with time, the units of time cancel out, and you're left with distance. Your equation is not only vague and meaningless, but algebraicly sloppy.

If you actually knew what you talking about, you'd have actual proof. But you simply don't.

I mean the expansion of the universe being an equal and opposite force to gravity. I don't think they are.

but i guess i will anyways. if the earth is expanding at 9.2 m/s for "gravity" purposes, the moon would be expanding at 1.2 m/s, meaning the earth would be expanding 1/6th the rate earth is?

or whatever 1.6 /9.8

You pull you down

also how do you explain the moon's effect on the tides?

I'll try to explain. I am apparently very bad at explaining, but I will try.

Imagine this. You have a balloon in a pool. The water is space the balloon is an object. Now, you keep pumping air into the balloon. The balloon not only grows, but also is pushing the water. One balloon won't make much of a difference, but if you have many balloons all doing the same, they will seem to be getting closer to eachother at short distances and coagulate into groups of balloons, but the group of balloons that are further away will become more and more distant from eachother and at a a faster rate as time goes on.

You clearly didn't understand the equation. It's m/s = sqrt(m/s*m/s - m/s*m/s).

No, the moon is expanding at that exact rate and the earth is expanding at that same rate as well. However, they are not just expanding, they are also bending space around them. So if you would go to the moon, since the space around the moon is less distorted you would actually become smaller yourself. If you would then travel back to Earth, you would become larger. If you shoot a light ray through this distorted space, it would seem to you as if it is going in a straight line, but it is actually going through the curvature of space.

The tides are easily explained. As the moon is expanding and then pushing the space around itself it is also pushing the Earth away, as the Earth spins, the vector of this is changing, and since the ground is pushed away faster than the water is, the water will be moving towards the moon.

Repelling instead of attracting. “Pushing” instead of “pulling”.

>being this much of a beta cuck

>No, the moon is expanding at that exact rate and the earth is expanding at that same rate as well.
then why are you able to jump 6 times higher on the moon?
>and since the ground is pushed away faster than the water is, the water will be moving towards the moon.
lol wat? the thing expanding slower is moving faster towards something that is also expanding.

I think you work for a secretive government program and are trying to feed us disinformation as part of a psych-op operation. Now I will hide in my tinfoil dungeon.

That isn't what you wrote originally. And your equation still doesn't prove anything, nor does it explain anything you're talking about. If your math doesn't work, your "theory" doesn't work.

How much of the universe do you think is space rather than massive objects? How much of massive objects do you think is space? The answer to both questions is: disproportionately space.

Your idea isn't misguided, but it's also not grounded. Why does space occupied by mass have any different from 'empty' space? And, why is it that gravitation attraction is not a net opposite of expansion? Are there latent variables involved beyond sheer distance? If your answer were correct, you'd be able to explain what they are.

also why is the moons effect on the tide ~2.16x greater than the suns?

its the jews, and i'm being dead serious

Massive black hole outside of the universe.

I am clearly bad at explaining.

What I was trying to say is:
The moon is expanding at 1.2 m/s, and the Earth is expanding at 9.2 m/s.

However. Neither m or s are fixed. As the space gets more distorted, 1 meter becomes longer. This means 1 meter is longer on Earth than it is on the moon. If you go to the moon, your particles are now in a less distorted space so now if you took a 1m ruler, you would still be 1m large. Also, since the moon is expanding slower, time is slightly faster there than on the Earth. Now if you jump on the moon, since it is expanding slower, it will take it more time to catch up with you. So the moon actually gets smaller and smaller compared to Earth. But you can't see this and you can't measure this. You can't see this because light moves through this distorted space so as they become larger and the space becomes more distorted it will appear to you that they are at the same relative size. You can't measure it because if you take any measuring device from Earth into the curvature of space on moon it will be reduced as well, so you will get the exact same measurement every time. Did I explain it now or is it still hard to understand what I mean?

About the tide part: Take a ball to space, make it moist. Then push the ball and look what will happen to the water.

You are responding to the wrong person. He isn't me.

You have too many questions for me to answer in a timely manner, so I will answer the one that is probably the most important: The space occupied by mass is different from empty space because mass is the speed at which a particle forces space to expand. If there is mass, there is no expansion.

Because of the distance.

Ok, but do I still have a chance to get girls?

I suggest you study astrophysics either at a university or in your own time. Once you know more on the matter, you might change your mind.

Based on your comment, you seem like you know enough about newtonian physics and watch the Universe or whatever, though, with these higher fields, you can't make any justified claim until you are fully educated. I myself am not, so this is as far as I'd go.

>If there is mass, there is no expansion.
If there is NO mass, there is no expansion.

Sorry, forgot that no there.

>it will take it more time to catch up with you
isochronous curves wouldn't work in that way would they?

because the total weight of all the worms and other animals living under the ground outweight the weight of the people living on top of the surface. Which keeps everyone down

Why wouldn't they?

how the fuck would they? wouldn't it always be the shortest path towards the expansion?

No because of inertia.

What you are describing is called a "thought experiment." It's not a real experiment, and it doesn't prove anything.

You. Don't. Have. Any. Concrete. Evidence.

You can explain all you want, but without proof, all you have is a belief. No matter how hard you believe, it's still a belief. You are not a scientist, and you are not talking about science. You are rambling about your beliefs.

Don't endorse his schizophrenic episode. He's not talking about physics, he's talking about around them. He's delusional.

idk man, it just seems like you take a lot of cop outs. if scientists were as lazy as you, they would just say outer galaxies act strange due to "the curvature of space"

Where did I claim it was an experiment? It is a hypothesis that can be proven and/or disproven. It completely works well within the data I can gather, but I am not claiming to be an authority on anything. I just thought we can have a fun discussion on the topic. You seem to be very emotional for no reason though.

Why is this thread bothering you? People can't talk to each other?

I don't see why it is a cop out though. I might be wrong.

Honestly I find it very strange how many people here get emotional about a topic that doesn't affect them in any way.

Of course not incel.

I am OP and I do not approve of this message.

Nothing that you're saying has any scientific credibility. I'd try to explain why, but your stubbornness exceeds you. Take a course in astrophysics and maybe you'll understand that you're in over your head.

>Honestly I find it very strange how many people here get emotional about a topic that doesn't affect them in any way.
well do flat earthers rustle your jimmies in any way?

Remember when people published actual scientific papers on Yea Forums? Yeah, me neither. I am talking about a hypothesis that I have. I personally think it is quite a good one because I have actually been thinking about this for a bit, then made some simulations, and also compared my results with what info I could find and it all seems good. If I thought this was solid science, I would try to publish in a scientific paper. Since I know it's not, I made a thread on Yea Forums to see if anyone can punch some holes into it and to have some fun...

Nah, I usually laugh about those. Creationists on the other hand do rustle my jimmies. But there is a difference between them and me. I am not claiming ultimate knowledge. In face I am not even claiming what I am saying is true. All I am saying is I have a hypothesis (an unproven one) that I think just might be true.

He never replied, which means your suspicions are likely correct. Or else he's simply a garage intellectual without the knowledge to understand why he's wrong.

What would I reply to "go and learn more"?

Lol, publish a paper. Ok, kid. Can't wait to both pages.

i mean im pretty sure i get what you're saying, and i can see how it makes sense to you, but you can also say that it's the exact opposite and would make about the same amount of sense.

not sure if i understand, can you rephrase it in a way thats not wrong and dumb

The problem is that I don't see why it wouldn't make sense. It completely fits with every bit of data I can find. It explains why time slows down in gravity fields, it explains why the universe is expanding, it explains the weird motion of stars and it isn't in conflict with anything that we know.

Read the thread. It's been explained in depth later on.

Because it's very important to any field where the gap in knowledge between the common, high-school educated/non-specifically college-educated and field-educated is so great, any form of argument without the proper knowledge is irrelevant.

>It explains why time slows down in gravity fields
light gets warped in the gravity fields too, why wouldn't time?

The interesting part is that when it comes to time, the gravity has the exact same effect on it as speed does. Which means gravity does equal speed.

This is your argument: "there is so much things that you dont know that would disprove what you're saying. I am not going to say any of it, I will just say that they exist. Now respect my authoritah!" And then you expect an actual answer.

That's literally how science works. That's why a 1st year undergrad cannot make an argument with a seasoned professor in a field. The gap in knowledge is too great.

If anything in academia is true, it's that you need a foundational knowledge before you can even imagine discovering a paradigm-shifting theory. There are rare exceptions to this, yet the pattern stands firm.

You still haven't actually provide a single argument that would shatter what I wrote. What you are doing here is an argument from authority which is just a nasty logical fallacy. "You don't know" isn't an actual argument unless you show what I don't know.

>gravity does equal speed
that's quite a leap there

No observable change in earth's momentum.

Attached: 700_cs_80622N_SkullMask.jpg (450x336, 25K)

I'm merely suggesting you find someone more knowledgable about the field. Your own fallacy is that 'no one here has a rebuttable, so I must be correct objectively.' Whereas, Yea Forums Yea Forums is not a place where highly educated physicists often peruse. I lack the knowledge to disprove your haphazard claims, but someone out there would have a better argument with you, given their knowledge.

try

That was actually the starting assumption. Since that part of the equation was aligned perfectly with what we already knew, I set out to disprove my hypothesis. That's how all this started actually. I wasn't able to disprove it, so I came to see if anyone has any idea how to do just that. Well and to have some fun because I was bored.

Maybe read the thread. I am not talking about motion, I am talking about expansion.

No. If I really thought that then I would also think "hm, I need to publish this". I am honestly curious to see what is actually wrong with this hypothesis. I am not claiming this is 100% true. It's just a hypothesis that I've been trying to disprove for a while. For fun. I am never going to make a scientific paper about it, but maybe some people find it an interesting subject to talk about here.

This isn't really /sci/ material. This is Yea Forums material.

>This isn't really /sci/ material
> I wasn't able to disprove it, so I came to see if anyone has any idea how to do just that.
huh, it's almost as if you don't want it disproven

It was my understanding that all the best minds are on Yea Forums and the rest of the boards only exist so that Yea Forums can be called Yea Forums and not Yea Forums.

Have two people jump on opposite sides of the earth.

For the 100th time. We are talking about expansion not motion.

maybe the best minds in fapology, not the best minds in quantum mechanics, or astrophysics.

If you’re on a train and jump, you stay with the train because you are already matched to the same speed. You are going as fast as the Earth is, accounting for the orbit around the Sun, orbiting the Milky Way — which itself is approaching Andromeda. The Earth’s mass warps spacetime, contracting to create what we deem the force of gravity. When you jump, your mass relative to Earth’s is severely unequal, so you are primarily affected by gravity. However, you too affect the Earth, just so infinitesimally that it’s practically not worth measuring. Einstein’s depiction of three dimensional warping spacetime equating to gravity is the best way to wrap your head around the odd properties of our universe. Theres a good saying: “matter determines spacetime’s shape, while spacetime determines matter’s position”, which could mean that the relationship between matter and spacetime is just constantly proportional. There’s other theories such as graviton particles in quantum mechanics. There’s still so much more research needed to fully explain why matter reacts the way it does in the sandbox of spacetime.

Attached: BA40D339-6A4F-4580-8BCA-F9A08C2F45CE.jpg (803x803, 288K)

A hypothesis is no better than a passing thought. If you don't even want to test your hypothesis, then it literally is a passing thought. In such a case, it is baseless banter.

This only works on a flat Earth. We know the earth is round. Everything on the globe from from near the tangent to the acceleration and back would be left behind the Earth as it accelerated away.
Also as the Earth rotated, everything would be moved into the danger area.
Only on a flat Earth would this work.
And that's jut plain silly.

Then if expanding, the distance to the moon would be measurable discretely with each jump.

We are talking about expansion not motion. The earth is a sphere that expands faster and faster with an acceleration of 9.2m/s^2 no matter where you jump it will catch up on you with the same speed.

We already covered that too. The earth isn't expanding per jump it is constantly expanding and so is the moon. Mass equals speed of expansion. Larger objects expand faster therefore you need higher speed to escape them. You don't notice that larger objects get exponentially larger because they distort the space around them so the light gets distorted. Also if you move from space that has one distortion to space that has another you expand/shrink as well, therefore any units of measurement would still stay the same on the Earth and on the moon. Please read the thread, it's all been explained.

I do want to test it.
Just read the thread guys.

>We are talking about expansion not motion.
I'm answering OP's original challenge.
Have fun doing whatever your'e doing.

That is my original challenge, I am the OP.

I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling or being serious. I’ve never heard that mass is the expansion of what we know to be particles. You’re correct that mass is a human measurement, not an independent feature of the universe. I’d like you to elaborate what you mean by particle expansion creates mass instead of mass warping spacetime which affects matter.

>The earth is a sphere that expands faster and faster with an acceleration of 9.2m/s^2
That would mean you're insane, if it wasn't a troll. As the globe expands, point-to-point distances would increase as well. They don't. Also, either mass would have to increase (where does the mass originate?) or the density of the planet would decrease (we'd eventually be denser than the Earth itself).
What kind of nonsense is this?

Then here:

Exactly my point, this is literally a bait thread lmao

If the Earth is constantly expanding then objects in free fall wouldn't accelerate. If the Earth is accelerating in it's expansion, then it would be bounded by c. Also material would eventually spread too thin at the atomic level.

He already explained that everything expands all particles of matter. Thus the earth gets larger essentially but the dimensions stay the same because the components of matter are actually expanding

So in 484 years, the Earth would be big enough to touch the Sun.
Okay. Very sensible.

It's quite simple really. Mass is a property of matter. Mass warps space (we will come back to time in a bit). Therefore mass is a property of matter that warps space. Time slows down for objects in motion. Time also slows down in gravitational fields. Therefore gravitational fields act as motion does. Gravitational fields are the result of the curvature of space. What if gravitational fields are not the cause of the change in speed of time, but both the change in speed of time and the curvature of space are the effects of particles expanding and pushing other particles outwards. If you substitute all equations from what we have to this, the math is still perfectly valid.

This guy summed it up well:
No it's not bounded by c because as it is expanding it is also warping space. Speed is dependent on the curvature of space. If you change what 1m is to what 2m used to be then c becomes twice as fast as well. However this effect is lost on the observer because the observer in the warped space is also enlarged by the same factor. So from the point of view of the observer c stays constant and all the distances on the planet also stay constant.

You’re probably the OP advocating for himself lmao, there’s no evidence whatsoever from our reference point that any matter is expanding. The space between matter is. This is uneducated drivel that plagues society and stagnates any growth. We’re just animals man

Nah nigga the ground hit him. It never misses

The sun is also expanding is what I gather from his theory so is the rest of the universe, space would have to be infinite for this to work

>mfw I know how gravity works due to a mystical spiritual experience I had

Attached: 1548010253276.gif (500x500, 133K)

That wouldn't happen because as Earth gets bigger, the Sun and everything else gets bigger too. On top of it as they get bigger they are also making distortions in space and pushing everything away from themselves. If you look at the sun and earth as 2 objects that are constantly getting bigger and pushing eachother away the earth won't ever become closer to the sun relative to its size, nor can it ever escape because as you are pusing it outwards it would get a spinning motion exactly as it does now.

No, he's not me. I wouldn't pretend to be someone else, we are 167 posts into the thread, if I didn't do it thus far, why would I start now?

>This guy summed it up well:
Huh. Make-believe is fun, but .. .well fine.

>simply

When you reach that word you know it's not worth going any farther.

I’m not advocating OP I’m just following his logic. As a thought experiment it works. Of course we can’t prove it because all measuring devices are growing too giving the illusion of a static state. I don’t OP cares about it being proved just that his logic works. Which I think it does. The idea fits.

No it does not substitute correctly into mathematics. Einstein’s field equations and Freidmann’s are dependent on universal constants in relation to stationary, not expanding matter. Unless you can provide the math to explain the expansion of the universe including lambda and all of the essential components, you may have an experimental theory. However, you’re here out of irrationality and you can’t reason someone with rationality who fundamentally is not rational. I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that one day there is a solution to your wasteful and constantly shifting experimental perspectives. Next you’ll be saying that spacetime expansion just needs to be greater to equate for the expanding particles, which isn’t possible. I’m done now, good luck

Actually someone could prove/disprove it. The thing is, this wouldn't change how the solar system works at all. But it would change how the universe works because due to the accumulation of these pushing forces the universe would expand and accelerate in that expansion. Therefore if scientists actually find dark matter and dark energy, it would mean this is completely false and useless. But if it turns out dark matter and dark energy are only an illusion created by the fact that we think of gravity as a force that pulls instead of a force that pushes, this hypothesis might get some merit. Right now it's just something that sounds like fun to think about..

>2 objects that are constantly getting bigger and pushing eachother away
So why don't we feel the acceleration as the distances increase?
(Kek - Captcha actually required some thinking this time. I guess even Google is wondering why I'm bothering)

your post would lead me to believe that you failed at least one physics course. :-(

I’m not OP but the constants would still be constant and seem to not expanding because according to OP literally everything is expanding down to all of the sub atomic particles that constitute matter therefore dimension would seem to stay the same if that makes sense

That’s what I just said, his logic fits doesn’t mean it’s correct

Because all particles that make up matter are expanding. Op you take this I cant explain well enough

Your problem is that while you accept that some things are relative, you draw a hard line and say anything above this isn't anymore. But in a curved spacetime things are in fact relative all around.

We are feeling the acceleration and we can even measure it. When the moon pushes the earth away for example you can see the acceleration because the inertia of water bodies makes them move slower which then causes them to move towards the moon. Tides.

This guy gets it.

But they'd be getting bigger at different rates. g on Earth is 9.8m/s2, but it's different for every body with a different mass. How would you not see different expansions?

>wat

Attached: 1517978191232.jpg (1366x768, 245K)

Because the expansion is literally occurring at the building block of matter is what I gather from OP. This would mean things are getting bigger but so is everything else relative to their size, so on a human level things are seemingly still the same

>how could something stay in orbit of our planet, like the moon, if you were correct?

>BOOM VOOOM VOOOM BOOOOOM

Attached: 1517642195329.gif (397x302, 1.63M)

Because they are making space itself larger as they expand. So let's say the moon and the earth have been expanding since they exist. That would mean the moon is now much much smaller than the earth (well not exactly because it's also within earths distortion, but it gets quite complicated to explain if we go into it, so we'll just pretend that are in separate distortions). Let's say the difference is so huge that the moon is as small as a head of the needle on earth. Now at this point, you would expect the moon to be invisible on the sky. But this doesn't happen because the space the moon is in is also that much smaller. So as the light comes from the moon towards the Earth it goes through this distorted space and becomes larger and larger. If you take a unit of measure from the Earth to the moon, as you're entering the distortion of the moon so you become smaller and the unit becomes smaller as well. Once you get to the moon it is at the exact size you would expect it to be if it wouldn't expand. Of course the actual difference in sizes is not that drastic because the moon is within Earths warped space and they are both withint the Suns warped space, but I think I explained this.

Because as things expand they are also distorting space and pushing everything away. If you calculate a moon that is becoming larger around an earth that is becoming larger which are pushing eachother away, you'll get to a circular motion.

>no

Attached: 1497492035258.gif (310x325, 1.94M)

I understand what you are saying, it’s logical. It’s basically a theory of reality that would fit how things seem to work but would be extremely difficult to prove. You would essentially have to somehow get into a frame of reference where this expansion doesn’t occur in order to observe it.

You’re clearly OP, I feel bad for you, get some help man

So when the astronauts went to the Moon, they got smaller, and then larger as they returned?
I mean, it's cool science fiction and you've clearly thought about this. But it's fantasy without confirmation, so write a novel based on this - maybe a spaceship that somehow utilizes this form of physics or whatever.
Have fun.

I can't think of a way they could use it though. But yeah, you got the idea.

He's not me.

Yeah I’m not OP I just can follow logic I suppose

See the thing is his theory doesn’t change the way we perceive reality.

The issue with a sphere expanding is that the distance between particles at the surface would need to expand apart from one another faster than those near the center. Your head would need to expand faster than your feet (explains a lot perhaps). So the frame of reference in order for nothing to preceptably change in an ever expanding model would require expansion of every object to be relative to the center of "not gravity" of the mass. This would then require all of these center of "not gravity"s to coordinate their expansions relative to one another with corresponding motion away from each other. If you're contending that the space between objects is also expanding (rather than there being motion), E.g. if you start with 2 2m spheres 2m away, and suppose the spheres expanding to "4m", then the objects would be touching unless the space wasn't occupied by the expanding masses and also expanded to be 4m. If not then what are the objects expanding into to "match the speed of jump"?

Yo lemme refer you to this dude

They don't expand apart from one another. They expand themselves. So you don't have particles of same size with more and more space between them, you have particles that expand themselves.

Not if the expansion is coming from the building blocks of matter, literally all of the atoms are expanding, the fundermental thing that makes up matter

Arc length being depending on the radius requires different rates of expansion, else the surface of the earth would look like minecraft, while the core was normal/smooth.

What if mass is actually expanding inward, and we're constantly falling because of gravity? You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right.

The only thing expanding inward is your dick user, soon you will have a pussy

Mathematically, I'm still getting more puss than you.

Hope OP is pleased, either way I'm tired. Thanks for the gedanken exp. If OP still at it, prove that matter isn't constantly shrinking (rather than expanding). Now apply that same logic to expanding, and you can sleep too perhaps.

What is it like being retarded? I've always wondered..

What happens if 2 guys jump on south- and northpole at the same moment? Where does the earth go?
Will one just fly off into space?

This has been one of the most interesting threads I’ve read on b in years.

Here’s some basic math that I think backs up op’s theory.

E=mc^2
m=c^2/E
c is given a a constant, x, with units meters/second
m=(x meters/second)^2/E

And this is where OP’s hypothesis comes in: he’s basically stating that the definition of the unit “meters” (i.e. space) is a variable that changes relative to the amount mass/energy. You can re-write the formula as:

mE = (x meters/ seconds)^2

This basically means that the object speed of light is variable, but really on the basis of space being variable. The variability in space is proportional to the rate of acceleration we usually define as “gravity”, but is in fact the rate of acceleration of the “size” of matter itself.

What I don’t understand is why matter would have originally condensed into spheres as a result of this property...is the shape of earth really some really funky irregularly shaped mass that appears spherical due to the effects of relative expansion (i.e. gravity) at any given point?

Hmm...guess we might be autosaging

OP here, I wasn't around for a bit, but I am back right now. The spherical shape of planets comes naturally when you have random particles expanding. The thing is, if you view the world in this way the end result on a galaxy scale is almost exactly the same as if you view it in the conventional way. The differences only start to emerge once you get to a really large scale and the main difference is that gravity at that scale won't halt the expansion of the universe but accelerate it instead.

Well, I did read the whole thread and type out a really thoughtful response above, but it looks like i was too late to join the convo. Really appreciate the idea though; will be something i bring up in conversations.

If you really want to bring something to sci, id point out that energy (E) is the only constant in the relativity equation per thermodynamics; mass (m) increasing as a function of c (due to the size of space increasing) really fucking adds up to why we observe red shift and an expanding universe

>The spherical shape of planets comes naturally when you have random particles expanding

Particles aren't expanding retard. Space is.

Don’t apply logic, that’s not what this thread is all about!

Fucking Nerds!!!

Nah, it's never too late. You might are too late for people getting emotional but we can still discuss things.

The whole idea here is that if mass is just the acceleration of expansion of particles then we can view the entire universe in a different way and in that way the expansion of space itself is very easy to explain.

Sweet, i thought the thread hit bump limit, guess not.

So explain the spherical shape due to random particles expanding more.

The way i’m understanding this is that the universe essentially stars with a random spread of matter density, and that “clumps” of matter would aggregate based on the expulsive forces, the measure of that force being relative to the density. But if an expulsive force were driving these interactions, the only way a sphere would aggregate is if the external force was equal from all directions yeah?

This is hard to explain because we are talking about extremely large number of particles.

Generally what happens is if the object becomes large enough as the particles expand, they are all pushing each other. At points where are irregularities those forces will become different, and chunks will crack and might break free at which point the main mass of the object will expand faster than they do and they will "fall" into valleys. Do this long enough and you end up with spheres.

>will "fall" into valleys.
kek

I can visualize your explanation. In this way earth (and other large objects) must be constantly shedding matter from these irregularities; could this be (is this) quantified?

Earth and other large objects are always shedding objects, that's why you have rocks, sand, etc. The entire planet isn't one solid object, it has many smaller objects that interact with each other. This is true for all large objects.

Attached: 1376115431538.jpg (500x375, 34K)

>constant expansion acceleration
Would have to include expansion of space otherwise this is impossible, and if it included the expansion of space also it would not act as an analogue of gravity because no matter how the objects expanding accelerated they would not catch up to the speed of your jump as the space created by the jump would be expanding too.

It's an interesting thought experiment. Gravity has been experimentally verified to act predictably on objects with mass that this expansion model could not explain, however.

I meant like, shedding into the vacuum of space. I realize it would be, like molecular or atomic atmospheric components for planets, but what about objects like the moon, without an atmosphere? Wouldn’t there be some kind of molecular or atomic trail left from these infinitesimal surface irregularities that are repulsed off the surface? I suppose that other interactive forces, e.g. polarity/magnetism, might counter-act these anti-gravitational forces, but 1.2m/s seems awfully strong in comparison...tho maybe not at the atomic/molecular level? I dunno, id need to run the numbers.

>The interesting part is that when it comes to time, the gravity has the exact same effect on it as speed does. Which means gravity does equal speed.
Except being in a gravitational well dilates time regardless of inertial frame of reference and motion dilates time only according to inertial frame of reference. They behave very differently.

What's there to prove? Everyone knows that flat objects don't have gravity, so how can there be gravity on Earth?

>be me
>love science
>it really motivates me as my life as a vegetable is quite boring
>spent most of my life studying many kinds of space science
>in my early days it was slow and frustrating
>data took alot more time to crunch
>technology advances and I downs my time coming up with theories and other small breakthroughs
>spend the rest of my life trying to give black holes a medium or at least equation to to better analyze the data
>black holes everywhere
>just can't find the missing piece of the puzzle to put it together
>as time goes on black holes are a reality to most people with out ever technically being discovered
>time passes and I'm nearing my end
>leave the world hoping what I gave it would eventually help then in the long term
>not long after my passing into the ultimate unknown I check back on the world's internet, as I am connected to everything of course
>something
>a. Jpg
>headlines
>a picture of a black hole is now sweeping the internet
>they did it

Attached: https___specials-images.forbesimg.com_dam_imageserve_ede0b47b489847b6907843ac2d3f4cba_960x0.jpg_fit= (960x687, 63K)

Surely someone as genius as you can support your theory with numbers, observations and actual math?
You can't "prove" your theory with pure reason alone.
That's stupid.
Plato did it and he was a fucking loser wrong on all accounts.

facts!

prove your theory first before I even start to disprove yours

> escape velocity
> the way light acts around black holes

This almost made me cry user. To deep to soon

Seems to be a correlation to Lorenz force. It depends on mass, speed rotation und frequency. As time it is a product of frequency. In Bible this was called word... Simple

How do you explain the Earth not reaching the speed of light, if we're accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2?