Are scientist wrong about how gravity works?

[Larniavc]

It's simple enough for a child, etc.

Mathematical models of the universe are not in the realm of ‘simple enough for a child’.

 

[Neogaia777]

Mathematical models of the universe are not in the realm of ‘simple enough for a child’.

I never said they were. But to understand this concept or idea, or get a "picture" of this, complex mathematics, or mathematical models, are not required to understand this, or get a "picture" of this working or operating, or alive, or in motion, etc. And I should probably say or add that they are maybe only simple enough for a "humble child" only maybe, etc.

 

[Larniavc]

But to understand this concept or idea, or get a "picture" of this, complex mathematics, or mathematical models, are not required to understand this, etc.

Yes. Yes they are. Otherwise you’re simply telling yourself a just so story.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes. Yes they are. Otherwise you’re simply telling yourself a just so story.

Whatever you say man. I'm not here to argue with you like a child, or like children, as I'm pretty confident that someone else is going to pick up on this, and go a lot further than I can ever go with this, and that time will only prove me 100% right about this, etc.

 

[Ophiolite]

I did quite a bit of research, looked very, very closely at other people's often very contradicting ideas and theories, and then came up with one of my own that wasn't contradicting (yet, or so far), etc

This is an entirely different methodology to the one you described earlier. Such a contrast in supposed techniques suggests your actual approach is akin to selecting tiles for your bathroom: you pick one that seems nice.

I have just noticed that you have replied to every one of my posts here. That was kind of you. One does like to be recognised. And yet while you were ready to address each of my lighweight, simplistic questions, you quite ignored the post by @sjastro. Why was that? Would like to comment on their post now?

 

[Neogaia777]

This is an entirely different methodology to the one you described earlier. Such a contrast in supposed techniques suggests your actual approach is akin to selecting tiles for your bathroom: you pick one that seems nice.

I have just noticed that you have replied to every one of my posts here. That was kind of you. One does like to be recognised. And yet while you were ready to address each of my lighweight, simplistic questions, you quite ignored the post by @sjastro. Why was that? Would like to comment on their post now?

I'm not here to pick nits, or argue the finer points of mathematics, or more complex theories, because frankly, he has a lot more knowledge in those areas than I do, but not the same knowledge in all areas that I do, etc, and I just didn't want to try to get into it with him about any of these things specifically, etc. I also like him also, and that's also why I didn't want to try to prove my knowledge to him, as I also think he will acknowledge it in time eventually, etc, just as you all will eventually, etc.

And as far as my "methodology", I think I am only just doing what some of the best thinkers both past and present just simply do most of the time always...?

Contradicting information is most usually false, or is in error, or needs a lot of modifying, or it can't exist, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

This is an entirely different methodology to the one you described earlier. Such a contrast in supposed techniques suggests your actual approach is akin to selecting tiles for your bathroom: you pick one that seems nice.

I have just noticed that you have replied to every one of my posts here. That was kind of you. One does like to be recognised. And yet while you were ready to address each of my lighweight, simplistic questions, you quite ignored the post by @sjastro. Why was that? Would like to comment on their post now?

@sjastro was also trying to show, or was setting out to prove, why negative gravity cannot exist also, and I just wasn't interested, etc. I greatly appreciate him, and his knowledge, but he's not the omniscient being like some of you might think, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Ophiolite

The only place(s) negative gravity can probably really only be measured or observed by us, is probably only in the places in the universe where there is a very great absence of normal matter or material in the universe probably, etc. Like probably only with the vast completely empty pockets of space between all the clusters, superclusters, and strings of normal matter and material (or galaxies) in the universe probably only, etc. (Negative?) Gravitational lensing occurs around them I think maybe, etc?

Probably should make this post to @sjastro as well, just to be fair I guess.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Hans Blaster]

However the universe began, or started out, I don't think it still expanding at the same equal rate that it was originally, if that's truly the way that it all started out originally, etc.

Yes, we know that. That's what the whole "dark energy" thing is about, but this article is about quantizable formulations of gravity.

But and/or anyway, however the universe began, or started out, I now think that there are pockets of "anti-gravity", etc.

Based on what? (And, no, your "I stared at some pictures" doesn't cut it as evidence.)

Which is essentially just only a word to describe a thing/force that works in the opposite way of normal gravity, etc. And where I think these forces are the more present, or are the more profound, while maybe also being present equally everywhere maybe, is much, much more forceful/present/profound where there is next to nothing to make or create normal gravity, etc. And it is my belief that these are now responsible for any of the universes currently expanding, etc. And/or/what/but/while the rest of the universe is still being reigned in or pulled/held together by normal gravity, etc.

Take Care.

A uniform expansion driving (actually accelerating) force is how "Dark Energy" is described, including your "the same everywhere". That "force" is small relative to the expansion rate and does not drive it (though it will eventually be the most important factor in the evolution of the scale of the Universe).

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, we know that. That's what the whole "dark energy" thing is about, but this article is about quantizable formulations of gravity.

Based on what? (And, no, your "I stared at some pictures" doesn't cut it as evidence.)

A uniform expansion driving (actually accelerating) force is how "Dark Energy" is described, including your "the same everywhere". That "force" is small relative to the expansion rate and does not drive it (though it will eventually be the most important factor in the evolution of the scale of the Universe).

I'm betting it's not small and is much more significant in the areas of the universe that are extremely vast, mostly empty pockets of almost nothing, or empty space, etc, and yes, I think it is primarily those areas that are driving most of the expansion among/around/through all the other, much more normal gravititationally bound/attracted to one another, clusters, superclusters, and strings, or much more regular matter/energy/material, of clusters, superclusters, and strings, of much more normal galaxies, etc. And I even think these areas even play a very significant part in them even being able to be arranged that way, etc. The other part is the rest of those clusters/superclusters/strings/galaxies much more normal gravitational pull on or towards one another, etc.

Anyway, I have to go for a while, I'll try to get back to you more later.

Later/Take Care.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm betting it's not small and is much more significant in the areas of the universe that are extremely vast, mostly empty pockets of almost nothing, or empty space, etc, and yes, I think it is primarily those areas that are driving most of the expansion among/around/through all the other, much more normal gravititationally bound/attracted to one another, clusters, superclusters, and strings, or much more regular matter/energy/material, of clusters, superclusters, and strings, of much more normal galaxies, etc. And I even think these areas even play a very significant part in them even being able to be arranged that way, etc. The other part is the rest of those clusters/superclusters/strings/galaxies much more normal gravitational pull on or towards one another, etc.

Anyway, I have to go for a while, I'll try to get back to you more later.

Later/Take Care.

Do you think these things aren't included in cosmological models? The same cosmological models that match the scale distribution of voids and clusters?

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you think these things aren't included in cosmological models? The same cosmological models that match the scale distribution of voids and clusters?

I hope they are? If not, then they might need to be altered, or modified, or changed a bit, etc.

Gnite/Take Care.