Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:22:50 UTC No. 16430047

First let's start with what causes gravity. Often when discussing the magnitude of gravity, we talk about the "acceleration" of gravity.
This is something that has always troubled me. Imagine a book sitting stationary on a shelf. How could gravity be accelerating that stationary book?
Now imagine driving a dragster. You can feel the acceleration as it slams you into the back of your seat.
Imagine taking the seat out of the car after the race and laying it on the ground on its back. Now sit in it so that you're facing the sky.
It's the exact same sensation as your acceleration during the race. You and the stationary book on the shelf are both accelerating into the sky.
All objects on Earth are accelerating into the sky. But how can that be possible? Why don't we fly out into space?
The answer is that space is accelerating downward into earth at the same (but opposite) acceleration. It is moving past us at escape velocity and I will prove it.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:25:27 UTC No. 16430053

Consider the equations for gravitational potential (GPE) and kinetic energy (KE).
If what I'm saying is correct, that gravity is caused by space rushing past us, then we can consider GPE the same as KE since movement through space is by definition kinetic.
So let's set the equations equal and solve.

[math] \frac{1}{2}mv^2 = \frac{GMm}{r} [/math]
[math] v^2 = \frac{2GM}{r} [/math]
[math] v = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}} [/math]

Thusly, we have derived the equation for escape velocity. Space moves towards matter at exactly the escape velocity.
But this could just be a coincidence so let's verify this using another method.
Given that gravity is just space moving past matter, it would be fair to say that gravitational time dilation is just kinetic time dilation for the same reason GPE is KE.
So let's set the two equations equal to each other again and see what we get.

[math] {\sqrt {1-{\frac {v_{e}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}} = \sqrt{1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math]

The left side of the equation is gravitational time dilation where [math] v_e [/math] is the escape velocity at any given point. The right side is kinetic dilation.
You can see just by looking at the equation that gravitational time dilation is equivalent to moving through space at escape velocity.
This is in agreement with my theory that space moves towards matter at escape velocity and confirms it using two independent derivations.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:27:34 UTC No. 16430054

You might have some questions at this point. I will attempt to answer them.
>If space flows into matter, then where does it go?
It goes to some "other" place. I call this the anti-universe.
>With space leaving, why doesn't the universe shrink? How does it come back?
It returns from the anti-universe via anti-matter.
>What are the implications for gravitons, dark matter, and dark energy?
Gravitons will never be found because they don't exist. Gravity is not a force mediated by particles. It is the movement of space.
Dark matter was invented to explain why galaxies don't fling themselves apart. I theorize that dispersed anti-matter in intergalactic space is exerting a pressure on galaxies that keeps them together.
Antimatter particles can be thought of as spouts that expel space into our universe. As such, are naturally self-dispersing by putting space between themselves and other objects.
Dark energy was invented to explain the expansion of the universe. In my model, the expansion of the universe can be explained by an imbalance in the ratio of matter to anti-matter.
If more anti-matter than matter exists in the universe, then the universe will expand. Something is causing this imbalance and is causing it to worsen with time.
I propose that the imbalance is caused by fusion destroying matter in stars. Since anti-matter does not congregate, there is no similar mechanism for its destruction.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:42:21 UTC No. 16430087

What did I mean by rediscover? Aether theories are nothing new. Newton offered no definitive explanation for gravity, however he often turned to aether theories as a potential cause.
But the main proponent of aether theories that I think we should pick up from is Karl Pearson. He was a prominent English polymath who largely inspired the work of Albert Einstein.
He predicted the existence of antimatter in the 1890s, thats 30 years before modern physicists and 70 years before it was experimentally verified. He called them "squirts" as they squirt out space-fluid.
And it's not just conjecture. His work is supported by comprehensive mathematics in his paper "Ether Squirts". We need to pick up from where he left off. Clearly our current model of physics is at a dead end and it's time to backtrack.

Where do we go from here?
Anyone with a solid understanding of physics needs to re-examine Pearsons work. Unfortunately, the math is gibberish to me.
Furthermore, we need to start looking at observational data that supports this theory that has been handwaved away because of being inconvienient.
A couple things come to mind:
>the Pioneer Anomaly, where the Pioneer space probe was accelerated back towards Earth by an unknown force. I propose that this must have been antimatter.
>the Flyby Anomaly, similar to the Pioneer Anomaly where satellites are pushed towards matter faster than expected (again due to antimatter)

Ether Squirts - https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2369570.pdf
Pioneer Anomaly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
Flyby Anomaly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 02:45:12 UTC No. 16430090

Every /sci/ post should be one of those rants

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:07:39 UTC No. 16430125

>>16430090
Brother, I wish it were merely a simple rant.
But the burden of Truth weighs heavily on me every day.
They do not want you to know the Truth, and will attempt to hide and obfuscate it by any means necessary.
They have invested too much in their lies and are now all in, whatever the cost to humanity.
I will stop them. I will not let the Truth die. We will win in the end.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 03:39:51 UTC No. 16430176

>>16430042
I will only believe in aether if you name a particle after it.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:18:44 UTC No. 16430226

>>16430042
Then how do GPS signals work?
Wouldn't there be a difference between when the satellites are moving forward into the aether and when they're not?
How is it my receiver still knows where it's at be it noon or midnight?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:46:35 UTC No. 16430268

>>16430226
The only perceptible difference caused by moving through aether would be time dilation.
This is already accounted for by satellites as gravitational and kinetic time dilation. According to my theory, gravitational time dilation is kinetic.
Now that I think about it, perhaps this could be a way to test my theory.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the current model of physics, gravitational and kinetic time dilation are considered to be two distinct phenomena.
Both have been independently measured and verified.
There should be no interference between the two, and they should interact in a simple additive manner.

But according to my theory, gravitational time dilation is really kinetic. All objects on earth have a velocity vector (magnitude: escape velocity) pointing away from Earth.
This velocity vector is caused by (and canceled by) space rushing toward Earth and is the cause of what we've been calling gravitational time dilation.
If my theory is correct, then total time dilation would not be a simple additive calculation, and you would have to do vector math to get a total velocity magnitude.
So all calculations for total time dilation should be slightly off, unless an object is moving directly away from Earth.
Then the vector math would happen to be a simple additive operation.
An object moving toward Earth at escape velocity would experience no time dilation at all because the vectors would cancel out.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:48:14 UTC No. 16430270

>>16430268
Right, which would throw off my GPS reading...
Which doesn't happen..

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:50:10 UTC No. 16430273

>>16430268
Also, no, that's kind of the whole point of relativity theory.
If you're in a sealed box, 'gravitational' and 'kinetic' acceleration look exactly the same.
That's the whole deal.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:55:59 UTC No. 16430279

>>16430273
Well if scientists know that they are exactly the same, then they are probably already using vector math to sum them, no?
Hence no GPS errors.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:57:51 UTC No. 16430281

>>16430279
The errors that would arise are due to time dilation.
Your theory doesn't explain why a clock should tick faster in orbit than one on the surface.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:59:49 UTC No. 16430285

>>16430279
Or for that matter, how is it that the products of cosmic ray particles colliding in the upper atmosphere reach the ground?
Literally the only way that can happen is if those particles experience time slower than their surroundings.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:03:34 UTC No. 16430289

>>16430281
It does. The answer is that escape velocity is slower in orbit than on the surface.
Time dilation is caused by movement through space.
When an object moves through space, it gives up some movement through time.
Space moves past you towards Earth at escape velocity.
Movement through space, and space moving through you are the same.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:05:49 UTC No. 16430294

>>16430289
Maybe I've missed something.
Are you just arguing relativity?
How does your theory interpret the Michealson-Morley experiment?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:16:20 UTC No. 16430303

>>16430294
Functionally, I'm not sure that my model would be all that different from relativity.
However, I am interested in the underlying assumptions. What is really going on.
My understanding of relativity is that it models space as being static, but stretchy in a way.
It also models space and time as inseparable concepts.

My theory models space as dynamic. It is a fluid with velocity and acceleration. If it moves, then clearly it must be governed by time. It cannot also BE time.
If functionally, my theory is the same as relativity, then you might ask: what is the point?
It is what has been stated in the OP. Relativity and the rabbithole Einstein sent us down has led us chasing after things that don't exist.
Gravitons and dark matter etc...
I believe that my theory requires fewer base assumptions, or rather, leaps of faith.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:20:30 UTC No. 16430310

>>16430303
So how does your theory account for the phenomena that dark matter covers?
Also, ide love to see some math at this point

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:22:36 UTC No. 16430312

>>16430294
>How does your theory interpret the Michealson-Morley experiment?
It would not conflict with the Michealson-Morley experiment because we are in a bubble of space that is mostly influence by (flowing into Earth).
And that bubble is surrounded by a bubble flowing into the sun. And so on... This could all be modeled with fluid dynamics.
What matters is the local velocities of space in your area. All the Michealson-Morley experiment did was disprove some kind of universal coordinate system.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:25:27 UTC No. 16430317

>>16430312
Okay, let's see the math.
Einstein isn't sacred to me, I'm willing to consider alternatives.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:39:24 UTC No. 16430337

>>16430310
I posted my explanation to dark matter above.
But to summarize (scratch that - expound upon), dark matter is a made up unicorn designed to explain why galaxies don't fling themselves apart due to centripetal forces.
Gravity, as we understand it, is not sufficient.

Let's review how gravity works under my theory. The "force" of gravity is caused by space accelerating past us as it gets sucked into Earth.
In order to remain stationary, we must accelerate upward to cancel out the acceleration of space.
Accelerating upward causes us to push down on Earth. This is what we experience as "gravity".

If we consider the implications of this, then we must ask where is space coming from if it is constantly getting sucked into matter?
The answer is antimatter. Antimatter is constantly spurting out space-fluid into our universe to replenish our supply of space.
Two factors lead me to believe that dispersed antimatter becomes more and more common in interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic space.
Firstly, matter obliterates antimatter, so it makes sense for it to exist more commonly the further away from matter you get.
Second, antimatter puts space between itself and other particles. It is therefore self-dispersing and more likely to be found in empty places.

Now let me answer your question. Dark matter the effect of dispersed antimatter in intergalactic space adding acceleration to spacefluid as it flows into galaxies.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 05:48:32 UTC No. 16430354

>>16430317
>Okay, let's see the math.
The math proving gravitational potential energy is kinetic energy at escape velocity is in my second reply to this thread.
So is the math proving gravitational time dilation is equivalent to kinetic time dilation at escape velocity.

As far as higher level mathematics. That is beyond me. But I think a good place to start would be Pearson's "Ether Squirts" paper.
Linked in my fourth reply. I think he was very close to figuring this out.

For real world observations, I think the Pioneer Anomaly could be an excellent case study for antimatter pushing on matter as it gets further into interplanetary space.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:55:43 UTC No. 16431008

Heh, they always come crawling back to /x/.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:34:41 UTC No. 16431104

>>16430042
doesnt this like... completely ignore that the earth is not flat? you know, gravity affects you in all directions, how exactly do two bodies of mass relate to each other in this model?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 17:33:55 UTC No. 16431420

>>16430125
I think you may be onto something, OP. I will keep your thread bumped for months.
Are you a Christian, by chance? I hope you make it.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:30:11 UTC No. 16431511

>>16431420
>I think you may be onto something, OP. I will keep your thread bumped for months.
Thanks, I appreciate it.
>Are you a Christian, by chance?
Nope.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:37:31 UTC No. 16431522

>>16431511
I figured you weren't based on the OP pic.
The pursuit of Truth is a noble thing.
Just remember that Jesus claimed to BE the Truth. That is quite the claim which I'd urge any Truth seeker to investigate impartially. Cheers.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:37:42 UTC No. 16431524

>>16431420
>>16431511
This poster is a CERN agent. I am the real OP.
Christ is King.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:41:07 UTC No. 16431529

>>16431524
fucking based.