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 it 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 moving apart caused by
the contractions that would
occur but it still might be possible that mathematically the two
effects could be separated out and give something observable.

2) is consistent with all known experimental data within its scope.
3) can be falsified. That is the theory can be disproved IF the results
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.

This is absolutely yes.
One of my favorite Gedanken's 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 will 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 farther
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.Its so simple that what are the
chances it was measured already in some unrelated experiment?.Was
probably overlooked as no one would have been looking for these
effects.


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, 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 if this were so. 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, the continuing
curving of his tools "to him are straight" will eventually make the
hypothetical
event horizon appear to
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 now able too contain.
Remember how some of our present day predictions for how the most
distant
possible views from a super hypothetical telescope would see our most
early
universe. It would be small patches located at different points also
oddly matching this prediction.
These predicted white holes would have repulsive gravity but in
reality its a bit like saying
the sky has repulsive gravity.They would be very odd in 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.
A really really interesting prediction is that the surfaces would work
just like those predictions given for wormholes.Shortcuts to other
locations in our
universe.Its also possible thought that we should get the equivalent
of cosmic rays from white holes
as Doppler shifted light or other radiation that randomly falls from
the previous universe into our universe from white holes.

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale

wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.


Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.





--
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

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


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 it 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 moving apart caused by
the contractions that would
occur but it still might be possible that mathematically the two
effects could be separated out and give something observable.

2) is consistent with all known experimental data within its scope.
3) can be falsified. That is the theory can be disproved IF the results
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.

This is absolutely yes.
One of my favorite Gedanken's 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 will 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 farther
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.Its so simple that what are the
chances it was measured already in some unrelated experiment?.Was
probably overlooked as no one would have been looking for these
effects.

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 around a black hole is where light is bent enough that it
can make
a complete orbit, is also predicted in this theory to actually be a
flat surface.
I tried to model how a hypothetical space ship in free fall in some
measure of a temporary orbit could he
measure the curving light beam as it traveled around the black hole
and through the space ship, and if not why. A possible answer is that
anything our astronaut
could use would become distorted, actually straight objects would
become curved to match the light path.Turning the ruler over would
only reverse the curving if this were so. 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, the continuing
curving of his tools "to him are straight" will eventually make the
hypothetical
event horizon appear to
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 now able too contain.
Remember how some of our present day predictions for how the most
distant
possible views from a super hypothetical telescope would see our most
early
universe. It would be small patches located at different points also
oddly matching this prediction.
These predicted white holes would have repulsive gravity but in
reality its a bit like saying
the sky has repulsive gravity.They would be very odd in 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.
A really really interesting prediction is that the surfaces would work
just like those predictions given for wormholes.Shortcuts to other
locations in our
universe.Its also possible thought that we should get the equivalent
of cosmic rays from white holes
as Doppler shifted light or other radiation that randomly falls from
the previous universe into our universe from white holes.

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale

On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
When it dose this it becomes a purely relative thing if its the space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

Needs work.
Dale


--
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

wrote in news:2d2169e8-4537-414f-b8ff-
:

On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
When it dose this it becomes a purely relative thing if its the space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

Needs work.

Yes, but that is a start. Now, you need to specify, preferably
mathematically, what 'in such a way' means and exactly how it 'expands the
surrounding space'.
The second phrase 'When it does this....' need a lot more work.

--
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

On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

--
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

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
A result of this is it becomes a purely relative thing if its the
space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

Needs work.
Dale

On Feb 29, 2:32 pm, bz wrote:
wrote in news:2d2169e8-4537-414f-b8ff-
:



On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
When it dose this it becomes a purely relative thing if its the space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

Needs work.

Yes, but that is a start. Now, you need to specify, preferably
mathematically,

Thats getting beyond my abilities as I am just a hobbyist but I do
have some ideas.Modeling with light and a co traveler so he can see
no change in the length of the light pulse suggest that time dilation
of say 1000 times would also contract our ruler by 1000 times its
length but remember thats for a rod.A cube would be 1000 times along 1
side but cubes have more side so you end up with 1 billion times less
volume.

I would not be investing so much on this theory if it did not explain
so much so well.Mainly the one where it gives the same predictions as
inflation theory but this theory gives a predicted mechanism for it,
what were the chances of that.

But what I really don't get assuming its really right is why is
something this simple so overlooked for so long and many of the
posters even in this measly newsgroups here, are brighter than me.

what 'in such a way' means and exactly how it 'expands the
surrounding space'.
The second phrase 'When it does this....' need a lot more work.

I have to wonder a bit about this as even the idea that space time
curvature is the cause of gravity. Vast amounts of time have been
invested in this claim and some even devote much of their lives to
that claim but I doubt thats all there is to gravity.What if gravity
were mostly due to the differences in the quantum vacuum as this
theory tends to suggest and then the gravity is the result of a slower
time as the result of that difference and it causes space time
curvature too.What about this quantum vacuum or ZPE how does it
work.The point is there may well be lots of different things working
together to make gravity and space time curvature might be an
essential part but if so it makes no more sense to say that space time
curvature causes gravity then saying that one side of the coin causes
the other side even with the essential connection.
It looks to me like a cheat to make it look like more is known than
what is actually known and implying that no significant new
discoveries need to be made.
Its as if elaborate math validates an idea beyond what it really
deserves.
Dale


--
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

On Feb 29, 2:32 pm, bz wrote:
wrote in news:2d2169e8-4537-414f-b8ff-
:



On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
When it dose this it becomes a purely relative thing if its the space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

Needs work.

Yes, but that is a start. Now, you need to specify, preferably
mathematically, what 'in such a way' means and exactly how it 'expands the
surrounding space'.

Thats getting beyond my abilities as I am just a hobbyist but I do
have some ideas.Modeling with light and a co traveler so he can see
no change in the length of the light pulse suggest that time dilation
of say 1000 times would also contract our ruler by 1000 times its
length but remember thats for a rod.A cube would be 1000 times along 1
side but cubes have more side so you end up with 1 billion times less
volume.

I would not be investing so much on this theory if it did not explain
so much so well.Mainly the one where it gives the same predictions as
inflation theory but this theory gives a predicted mechanism for it,
what were the chances of that.

But what I really don't get assuming its really right is why is
something this simple so overlooked for so long and many of the
posters even in this measly newsgroups here, are brighter than me.


I could be wrong but have to wonder a bit more about this idea where
more math is needed as for example even what appears to be the common
opinion that Space time
curvature is the single main cause of gravity that is so strongly
based on math and yet it must be so incomplete. Vast amounts of time
have been
invested in this claim and some even devote much of their lives to
that claim but I doubt thats all there is to gravity.What if gravity
were mostly due to the differences in the quantum vacuum as this
theory tends to suggest and then the gravity is the result of a slower
time as the result of that difference and of course it causes space
time
curvature too.What about this quantum vacuum or ZPE how does it
work.The point is there may well be lots of different things working
together to make gravity and space time curvature might be an
essential part but if so it makes no more sense to say that space time
curvature causes gravity then saying that one side of the coin causes
the other side even with the essential connection.
It looks to me like a cheat to make it look like more is known than
what is actually known and implying that no significant new
discoveries need to be made or at least thats the impression I get
from watching these news groups and what I read.
Its as if elaborate math validates an idea beyond what it really
deserves.Its as if all the math was to prove away all other possible
causes, but then again I could be wrong about all this and its just my
impression.




The second phrase 'When it does this....' need a lot more work.


It is a work in progress but really to be honest I probably should
spend less time on it not more.Its probably just web site content if
no one else cares.I got other ideas and projects etc to work on too.
Dale

--
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

On Feb 29, 2:32 pm, bz wrote:
wrote in news:2d2169e8-4537-414f-b8ff-
:



On Feb 29, 12:51 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:6872d254-2c70-4d63-addc-efd93fb19de2
@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Sorry about this part being even more speculative but
This theory also predicts white holes and while finding them might be
a bit hard in principle finding none will disprove the theory
wrong.

Dale,

Can you make a short, concise statement of your theory? Not its
implications, but the theory itself.
How about stating its basic postulates? Einstein's theory of special
relativity had two. How about you?

I still get no idea of your basic idea.

I will give it a try.
It postulates that the type of time dilation one gets with gravity
will contract matter and or all references on length or volume in such
a way that it also expands the surrounding space.
When it dose this it becomes a purely relative thing if its the space
that expanded or the objects tools etc that contracted.

Needs work.

Yes, but that is a start. Now, you need to specify, preferably
mathematically, what 'in such a way' means and exactly how it 'expands the
surrounding space'.
Thats getting beyond my abilities as I am just a hobbyist but I do
have some ideas.Modeling with light and a co traveler so he can see
no change in the length of the light pulse suggest that time dilation
of say 1000 times would also contract our ruler by 1000 times its
length but remember thats for a rod.A cube would be 1000 times along 1
side but cubes have more side so you end up with 1 billion times less
volume.

I would not be investing so much on this theory if it did not explain
so much so well.Mainly the one where it gives the same predictions as
inflation theory but this theory gives a predicted mechanism for it,
what were the chances of that.

But what I really don't get assuming its really right is why is
something this simple so overlooked for so long and many of the
posters even in this measly newsgroups here, are brighter than me.

I could be wrong but have to wonder a bit more about this idea where
more math is needed as for example even what appears to be the common
opinion that Space time
curvature is the single main cause of gravity that is so strongly
based on math and yet it must be so incomplete. Vast amounts of time
have been
invested in this claim and some even devote much of their lives to
that claim but I doubt thats all there is to gravity.What if gravity
were mostly due to the differences in the quantum vacuum as this
theory tends to suggest and then the gravity is the result of a slower
time as the result of that difference and of course it causes space
time
curvature too.What about this quantum vacuum or ZPE how does it
work.The point is there may well be lots of different things working
together to make gravity and space time curvature might be an
essential part but if so it makes no more sense to say that space time
curvature causes gravity then saying that one side of the coin causes
the other side even with the essential connection.
It looks to me like a cheat to make it look like more is known than
what is actually known and implying that no significant new
discoveries need to be made or at least thats the impression I get
from watching these news groups and what I read.
Its as if elaborate math validates an idea beyond what it really
deserves.Its as if all the math was to prove away all other possible
causes, but then again I could be wrong about all this and its just my
impression.

The second phrase 'When it does this....' need a lot more work.

It is a work in progress but really to be honest I probably should
spend less time on it not more.Its probably just web site content if
no one else cares as long as my stuff is not plain out wrong.I do not
want to have a web site filled with false information but speculative
stuff is ok if its clamed as such. I got other ideas and projects etc
to work on too but if others become interested in this it will
encurage me to do more.
Dale

--
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

wrote in
:

Yes, but that is a start. Now, you need to specify, preferably
mathematically, what 'in such a way' means and exactly how it 'expands
the surrounding space'.

Thats getting beyond my abilities as I am just a hobbyist but I do
have some ideas.Modeling with light and a co traveler so he can see
no change in the length of the light pulse suggest that time dilation
of say 1000 times would also contract our ruler by 1000 times its
length but remember thats for a rod.A cube would be 1000 times along 1
side but cubes have more side so you end up with 1 billion times less
volume.

I would not be investing so much on this theory if it did not explain
so much so well.Mainly the one where it gives the same predictions as
inflation theory but this theory gives a predicted mechanism for it,
what were the chances of that.


A theory without math is useless. No one else is going to 'be inspired by
your idea so much that THEY do the math for you'. Those that might be able
to do that have their own ideas that they are trying to describe in math.

IF Newton had just said 'all things fall because of something called
gravity', he would have never been famous. But, he described HOW things
fall, with math.

In fact, he 'invented' calculus in order to describe how things fall.

I suggest that you take a couple of years off from writing and talking
about your theory and study math and physics.

Come back when you can tell people exactly how your theory works.

Or take up a different hobby.

Good luck.





--
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