On Feb 28, 4:51 pm, bz wrote:
wrote in news:ef8f4c8b-6d7b-4d91-ba68-ee54984a53d2
@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

But these news groups are great for testing out different ways of
explaining problems to see what works best.Even a good theory if it
cant be clearly explained so that both experts and hobbyist can
understand it, will probably go nowhere.
This is really nice of you to help its well appreciated thanks.
Got any ideas on what its a theory of.
Dale

These News Groups are Great for getting flamed and getting an occasional
useful idea.
As for what you have a theory of, at the moment you don't have a theory of
anything.

It might be called a tentative idea of a conjecture of an inkling of
something that might be worked into a theory someday.

Remember, a theory
1) allows you to predict the results of experiments that have not yet been
run.

Not sure what experiments but yes dose predict the results for some
undone experiments.The one with the contracting cubes moving apart
would work but reduction to practice is a factor.But its possible that
even with objects in free fall moving together towards a planets
common center swamping the tiny amount of contractions that would
occur it might still be posible that mathematically it could still be
separated out.

2) is consistent with all known experimental data within its scope.

It has no contradictions.

3) can be falsified. That is the theory can be disproved IF the results

This is absolutely yes.
One of my favorite gedankens is the one about an alternate look at
Zeno's paradox.We all know about the argument where an arrow is 1/2
way to the target and then 1/2 again etc so mathematically the arrow
should never reach the target but of course it dose and this is just a
learning tool for math.But try this again only this time contract the
arrow by 1/2 each time its 1/2 way to the target and try and speculate
about what happens.Remember that if the arrow is 1/2 as long all of
its references that it can use to measure any remaining distances is
also now 1/2 as long.
Well this alternative theory predicts the same thing but of course to
a much smaller amount that will occur when measuring to the surface of
a planet or other massive body.Surfaces will actually measure father
away than what should be possible for a plaint of that diameter. It
wont fit scale drawings of the same planet on paper.
Negative results would prove the theory wrong.Should be possible to
test our own planet but the expansion of space around something like
our planet is going to be really tiny.What are the chances it was
measured already in some unrelated experiment?

that experiment mentioned in '1' are 'wrong' (different than the theory
predicts).

The third condition is important because in science a theory can never be
proved but one (reproducible) experiment can disprove it.

So, if you can not state your theory in a form that is testable, it isn't a
theory.

Good luck in your studies.

--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

An extra point I like about this theory is how it looks at black holes
and gives some predictions on what would be observed if you approached
one.
The 3m level where light is in principle bent enough that it can make
a complete orbit and is also predicted in this theory to actually be a
flat surface. Tried to model how a hypothetical space ship could
measure the curving light beam as it traveled around the black hole
and through the space ship,could he observe the curving of the light
beam and if not why. A possible answer is that anything our astronaut
could use would become distorted, actually strength objects would
become curved to match the light path.Turning the ruler over would
only reverse the curving. But even this would require matter
contraction on the lower side of the ruler.
If true and our astronaut rulers continue to distort as he goes deeper
and remember to him they are actually still straight, curving of his
tools to him will eventually make the hypothetical event horizon
reverse becoming a white hole that to him now curves inwards.Note that
this event horizon now contains a universe larger than the total white
hole surface area is able top contain.
Note how some of our present day predictions for how the most distant
possible views from a hypothetical telescope would see our most early
universe. It would be small patches located at different points.
They would have repulsive gravity but in reality its a bit like saying
the sky has repulsive gravity.They would be odd that while they will
appear in different locations in our universe if you got up close to
one it would reveal itself to actually only be the one object.And the
really interesting prediction is that the surfaces would work just
like the predictions for wormholes.Shortcuts to other locations in our
universe.We should get the equivalent of cosmic rays from white holes
as Doppler shifted light or other radiation that falls into our
universe from white holes.

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes or the theory is again proven
wrong.