Gravity v2.0

What about the theory of gravity in respects to mass being attracted to mass?

In a vacuum (space) particles are attracted to other particles, as the particles get larger, they gain more gravitational force and more particles are drawn to them. This results in spherical shapes.

Has this been disproven, too?

I didn't know particles got bigger...

Actually FE can't explain the current creation of the FE model, infact the FE model doesn't produce it's own gravity, instead it accelerates upwards constantly in order to supply the needed Gs.

I can truthfully say that I have never ever seen this happen.

~D-Draw

I can truthfully say that I have never ever seen this happen.

~D-Draw

Have you tried to?

What makes it go up, then?

1.  What kind of particles?  Does everything behave this way?  If so, why is the Universe said to be expanding?

2.  I believe that the commonly accepted force for movement upward right now is dark matter.

You'd have to ask one of the veterans though, as my Flat Earth Theory is very different from theirs.

1.  What kind of particles?  Does everything behave this way?  If so, why is the Universe said to be expanding?

2.  I believe that the commonly accepted force for movement upward right now is dark matter.

You'd have to ask one of the veterans though, as my Flat Earth Theory is very different from theirs.

It's "Dark Energy," and it's not a really accepted force, but it's rather a nameholder, also sometimes referred to as the "Universal Accelerator" or UA. Either way, both of them are just placeholders--as is the "theory" of gravity--since we can't very well go and investigate it at all.

~D-Draw

Quote from: "Astantia"

1.  What kind of particles?  Does everything behave this way?  If so, why is the Universe said to be expanding?

2.  I believe that the commonly accepted force for movement upward right now is dark matter.

You'd have to ask one of the veterans though, as my Flat Earth Theory is very different from theirs.

It's "Dark Energy," and it's not a really accepted force, but it's rather a nameholder, also sometimes referred to as the "Universal Accelerator" or UA. Either way, both of them are just placeholders--as is the "theory" of gravity--since we can't very well go and investigate it at all.

~D-Draw

Ahh, yes that's it.  I am pretty sure the effect was given the name by the same gentlemen who proposed that Penguins were created by the Russians, am I correct?

What is his username again?

And here's where I have a go at the theory.

The Dark matter is 'anti-matter' that is, it is energy.  All particles have a vast amount of energy associated with them, and there are two manifestations of this energy.

1.  The Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, and of light.  It is that which is in the atomic bonds, and is that which is experienced with movement.

2.  The 'potential' energy does not exist in the Real world.  Instead, potential energy exists in the 'anti-world' that is, everything below the disc of the earth.  This 'anti-world' is finite.  It is limited by the mass of this world.

This energy is constantly reacting to the physical world.  When something moves away from the bottom of the world disc, it's 'kinetic' energy is translated to the anti-world.  That is, the kinetic energy and the potential energy are inversely related.  Energy cannot be created, but it can be moved between the two realms.  For our purposes, the stored kinetic energy pulls the object back down.  The anti-world is practically a mirror of our world, but instead of mass, there is just energy.  As things move in this world, their corresponding energy moves in the other.  There is never a mix-up of energy, as two masses in the real world cannot occupy a space at the same time.

The earth is not accelerating upwards, kinetic energy is stored and released.

Again, this is just a quick theory, and I must leave now, but please post your ideas about it, and I will get back to you either tonight or tomorrow morning.

1. The Kinetic energy is the energy of motion, and of light. It is that which is in the atomic bonds, and is that which is experienced with movement.

Unless we want to chuck quantum mechanics, and even electromagnetics, out the window, I'm sorry to say that this is incorrect. Atomic bonds are formed, to a very very rough approximation, by reaching an energy minimum on a graph of potential energy versus bond distance, that potential energy being made up of the sum of the electrostatic attractions (coulomb force) in both atoms and between both atoms (electrons in one atom with the nucleus of the other). Delve into quantum mechanics and theres an even better reason, but this will probably suffice for now.

Light does not have kinetic energy. Kinetic energy requires having mass, light is massless. I have seen somewhere earlier that someone said that because light is a wave it must have a medium. This is not true. Light is composed of orthogonal electric and magnetic fields with the intensity of either field being the transverse wave light is typically thought of as.

Light does have momentum, but momenum is not kinetic energy. If you look into special/general relativity, you find that momenum and energy are essentially equivilent quantities (measured in kg, typically) and that this momentum can be measured (and is proportional to the energy of the photon, this energy is energy contained in the electromagnetic fields I mention above). Note that in relativity, p != mv. This is an approximation, as is F=ma (or dp/dt).

I can truthfully say that I have never ever seen this happen.

~D-Draw

You need to study the dust bunnies under your bed.

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

I can truthfully say that I have never ever seen this happen.

~D-Draw

You need to study the dust bunnies under your bed.

That's not gravity.

The Dark matter is 'anti-matter' that is, it is energy. All particles have a vast amount of energy associated with them, and there are two manifestations of this energy.

Actually, I'm gonna have a go at this statement too. Dark Matter != Anti matter. They are separate phenomena. Anti matter collides with matter and releases E=mc^2 amount of energy. Dark matter is a form of matter all unto itself, made of who the hell knows what.

How do we know that dark matter exists and its effect is observable?

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/12/27/the-top-ten-astronomy-images-of-2006/

Go to number 4. Dark matter is not energy. Dark matter is not antimatter. it is something unto itself. I think this pretty much kills your theory, but especially when combined when my above post.

But then, alot of FE'ers seem to have an especially weak grasp on science in general. So I suspect this won't stop you.

I confirm that anti matter and dark matter are not the same thing.

For one, antimatter can be created in laboratories. We have however never had any opportunity to work with dark matter or analyse it.

I can truthfully say that I have never ever seen this happen

Why should you have seen it?

Why should you have seen it?

Do you have any evidence of particles being "pulled" together in space? Unless someone can see it happen, that seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

~D-Draw

My use of the phrase 'dark matter' was just simply a place holder for the mechanism that pulls things to the earth.  My use of the phrase 'anti-matter' is not it's literal sense, I was simply trying to get the point across that it is not matter, and that it is inversely related to it.
*From now on, both of these phrases will be used correctly and the force that is responsible for the effects of gravity will be called 'Astantian Force.'
My use of 'kinetic' and 'potential' was not exact either, and was used to roughly equate them to the modern theory.  From now on, kinetic will be replaced with 'Physical' and Potential with 'Aphysical.' Here is a better definition:

Only one type of energy can be acting upon an object at once, either physically, (that is, movement) or Aphysically (that is, anti-movement, or the force which brings things down).  As Kinetic energy is expended, the potential energy contained in the Astantian Mass begins it's exertion.  It is more like a vacuum however, in that things move towards it, and not away from it.  Think of it like this, 'energy' is inherent in atoms.  It desires to remain within those atoms, but can be seperated from it.  As things move away from their mirror 'Aphysical mass' in the Astantian Field (that is, the undefined space below the physical plane which contains the 'Aphysical energy') their kinetic energy is used, and potential energy is stored within the field.  As the energy for that object in the A. Field becomes greater than that which is in the object, they begin returning towards it.

Perhaps then, it is not 'energy' as we know it, but a new force.  Astantian Physical force and Astantian Aphysical force.

Pictures are included too:



What we have here is a ball thrown up into the air.  The circles underneath represent the Astantian Aphysical force ascribed to the ball at different heights.  As you can see, the objects distance from the bottom of the Universal plane (the brown 'horizon') is directly related to the 'size' (not physical size, as it is not a physical realm, it is more like 'strength') of it's Astantian mass.  

Now, this is a simplified example of what I am trying to convey, and is by no means trying to explain everything, I am simply trying to explain a concept in my head that is hard to explain.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Why should you have seen it?

Do you have any evidence of particles being "pulled" together in space? Unless someone can see it happen, that seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

~D-Draw

I do, it called the Cavendish experiment.  

more here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

I can truthfully say that I have never ever seen this happen.

~D-Draw

Meteors being attracted to larger objects in space = fake?
Craters on the moon, earth and other planets = fake?
Moons orbiting other planets = fake?
Meteors over-all = fake?
Other solar systems = fake?