Just got a web site up and going and enough content is there now for
people to judge its validity.I just got someone to tell me the theory
is invalid but I need more opinions before I go discrediting the
theory.
Many of you must have seen it but most have not really said much about
it.
Theory deals with the idea that the sort of time dilation that occurs
with gravity can also contract matter.The slower time dose the
contracting not the gravity. The theory claims you cant contract
matter without also expanding the surrounding space when gravitational
time dilation is the case.The theory dose an exceptional job of giving
alternative explanations for the creation of a universe to even an
alternative mechanism for gravitational binding energy and even
reversing entropy and more.And why I got so convinced about the theory
is it gives a number of testable predictions and you will note that
the first part of the site looks at one thats a bit difficult to do in
reality but gets the idea across in the simplest way.
I really want some opinions.
www.alttheories.com

On Feb 28, 3:50*am, wrote:
Just got a web site up and going and enough content is there now for
people to judge its validity.I just got someone to tell me the theory
is invalid but I need more opinions before I go discrediting the
theory.
Many of you must have seen it but most have not really said much about
it.
Theory deals with the idea that the sort of time dilation that occurs
with gravity can also contract matter.The slower time dose the
contracting not the gravity. The theory claims you cant contract
matter without also expanding the surrounding space when gravitational
time dilation is the case.The theory dose an exceptional job of giving
alternative explanations for the creation of a universe to even an
alternative mechanism for gravitational binding energy and even
reversing entropy and more.And why I got so convinced about the theory
is it gives a number of testable predictions and you will note that
the first part of the site looks at one thats a bit difficult to do in
reality but gets the idea across in the simplest way.
I really want some opinions.www.alttheories.com


You really posted to the wrong news group for that purpose.
There is scarcely anyone in this newsgroup with an opinion
and the few that have one are too shy to express it.

Sue...

Sue... wrote:



You really posted to the wrong news group for that purpose.
There is scarcely anyone in this newsgroup with an opinion
and the few that have one are too shy to express it.

Sue...

ROFLMAO!!!!!
:-)

On Feb 28, 3:17 am, "Ragnar" wrote:
Sue... wrote:

You really posted to the wrong news group for that purpose.
There is scarcely anyone in this newsgroup with an opinion
and the few that have one are too shy to express it.

Sue...

ROFLMAO!!!!!
:-)

You wouldn't be laughing if everyone here with an education in physics
took the time to explain to you that you have no idea what you are
talking about and shouldn't post again until you know enough
mathematics to understand an average undergraduate mechanics textbook.

wrote in news:96052594-f543-4e75-8e91-2bc1d511ba45
@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

Just got a web site up and going and enough content is there now for
people to judge its validity.I just got someone to tell me the theory
is invalid but I need more opinions before I go discrediting the
theory.
Many of you must have seen it but most have not really said much about
it.
Theory deals with the idea that the sort of time dilation that occurs
with gravity can also contract matter.

1) NO where on your site do you clearly state exactly what your 'theory'
is.
2) the 'three column' format on your 'theory' page is a PITA to read.
3) You need to have someone proof read your text. You relied on a spell
checker and have the wrong word, correctly spelled, in several places.
4) If you look at the Roche Limit and Swartzchild Radius for black holes
the size needed to slow light to the speed you require, you will see that
neither the barn, the pole nor any nearby observers, nor their planet would
survive long enough to make any observations.


The slower time dose the
------------------does---???

contracting not the gravity. The theory claims you cant contract
matter without also expanding the surrounding space when gravitational
time dilation is the case.The theory dose an exceptional job of giving
-----same mistake. The theory seems to be a dose of something. ----

alternative explanations for the creation of a universe to even an
alternative mechanism for gravitational binding energy and even
reversing entropy and more.And why I got so convinced about the theory
is it gives a number of testable predictions and you will note that
the first part of the site looks at one thats a bit difficult to do in
reality but gets the idea across in the simplest way.
I really want some opinions.

Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. But not all should be expressed
in public.

www.alttheories.com

Broken links on first page.

I suggest you read http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf






--
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

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

On Feb 28, 4:55 am, bz wrote:
wrote in news:96052594-f543-4e75-8e91-2bc1d511ba45
@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com:

Just got a web site up and going and enough content is there now for
people to judge its validity.I just got someone to tell me the theory
is invalid but I need more opinions before I go discrediting the
theory.
Many of you must have seen it but most have not really said much about
it.
Theory deals with the idea that the sort of time dilation that occurs
with gravity can also contract matter.

1) NO where on your site do you clearly state exactly what your 'theory'
is.

Actually I have no idea it just seams to lead to so many other
theories that I cant even decide if I can even give it a name or do I
need names and how many.If you don't believe me wait till I get the
rest of its contents up.

2) the 'three column' format on your 'theory' page is a PITA to read.
3) You need to have someone proof read your text. You relied on a spell
checker and have the wrong word, correctly spelled, in several places.
4) If you look at the Roche Limit and Swartzchild Radius for black holes
the size needed to slow light to the speed you require, you will see that
neither the barn, the pole nor any nearby observers, nor their planet would
survive long enough to make any observations.

Actually that would be true but its only an analogy a much lesser
amount of gravity would work but then the amount of time dilation is
also less and would not show the effect as clearly.Suppose you could
argue for 2 tiny black holes that at the center of the barn that would
slow the speed of light to something more extreme like .001 cm a
second at its very center and we just average the speed to 10 seconds
over the whole length. With hypothetical stuff you got lots of
possibles and can go to ridiculous extremes.
But yes if you could somehow keep the time dilating component of
gravity without the gravity then setting up a real experiment would in
principle be more possible but it may not be possible to have time
dilation of this sort without gravity.Its not clear if gravity could
be caused by the very time dilations it causes i.e. 2 sides of the
same coin.
But really no ones going to be able to actually do this experiment
with an actual barn but you might in principle be able to do another
one similar to the way that the experiment that led to the Shapiro
effect was done.


The slower time dose the

------------------does---???
Good point.

contracting not the gravity. The theory claims you cant contract
matter without also expanding the surrounding space when gravitational
time dilation is the case.The theory dose an exceptional job of giving

-----same mistake. The theory seems to be a dose of something. ----

alternative explanations for the creation of a universe to even an
alternative mechanism for gravitational binding energy and even
reversing entropy and more.And why I got so convinced about the theory
is it gives a number of testable predictions and you will note that
the first part of the site looks at one thats a bit difficult to do in
reality but gets the idea across in the simplest way.
I really want some opinions.

Opinions are like noses, everyone has one. But not all should be expressed
in public.

www.alttheories.com

Broken links on first page.

I suggest you readhttp://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Like I said I just got it up and then I got a bit impatient about
finding out more if the theory was any good or really bad after
another poster claimed it was a waste of time.Only so much point to
worrying about proper spelling on a really flawed theory.

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


--
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: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.
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.

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

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.

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 contractions that would
occur it might still be possible that mathematically it could possibly
still be separated out and observed.

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

It has no contradictions that I have been able to find.

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).


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 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 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.

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

Only takes one conflict thats true.


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, 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" 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 now 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.
These predicted white holes would have repulsive gravity but in
reality its a bit like saying
the sky has repulsive gravity.They would be odd in that while they
will
appear in different locations in our universe and 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 the predictions given for wormholes.Shortcuts to other locations
in our
universe.Its possible that we should get the equivalent of cosmic rays
from white holes
as Doppler shifted light or other radiation that randomly 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.