Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Regarding This Is Great

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by John Reyes on February 9, 2001 15:22:54 UTC

I came to this site to give an alternative view and instead fell into a pit of malice which went against my character which thanks to GwynJ I have drawn my strength back by being reminded of the role of the ambassador .

I having entered this atheist pit I became angered due to the insults , you cannot deny that I came in peace and had stones thrown at me first, a guy can only take so much yet I forgot my objective due to questions that many expected my theories to coincide with todays scientific measurements .

I admit that my physics is not at all anywhere near alexanders or bruce yet how does one go about explaining a theory when the opposition expects a measurement that I personnally can only explain by stating that GR is a theoretical equasion yet is a measurement of the force of light corresponding in equality to the inverse square law , science I believe to be correct with this measurement yet I cannot accept it as relating to the force of gravity as you all know , so I know science has erred and I know how difficult it would be to convince science that light is the answer and I know science has an advantage due to its physics hence why I merely wanted to give an alternative view which went against your beliefs .

I having faith will stand by my God and his light and is a position I hold due to having a serene experience back in 1996 , please do not ask me of this if you seek proof for I cannot give it so as I am not ashamed of God then I am not afraid to mention it now , had I done so earlier then I would have been faced with questions of proof and I just could not let this be tested as it would have classed me as a religious nut .

I believe in God and do so by classing him as an energy a God of no shape or form , from this many can interpret him in many ways , I wonder myself as to who he is , my final analysis is God being an energy which could be the universe or even beyond of which I believe the universe is far greater than man can possibly imagine my interpretation of this and as close as I can imagine it is that the universe is shaped like a Galaxy , the space that is visible to us I believe to reside at the edges of this never ending galaxy of which this space being our visible universe is but a fractional distance to the next star in this super huge galaxy , I guess what I am trying to express is that the CMB is everywhere because there is no knowing how small is small or how big is big with my theory and I believe is just the answer one would expect from a system that cannot simply come about by a spontaneous appearance that would contradict the very reason why the steady state theory was abolished .

Science has its feelers out in many directions searching for answers which history has shown that a theory is overthrown due to this scientific research and is the cause for science to advance , my introduction of a theory that does away the need for gravity can only be accepted as an act of lunacy by science and those who are gripped by the splendour science has portrayed to them with its laws of physics , this I understand and did forget which I guess I was being myself tested for the strength of my faith though I failed myself for displaying a character I truly regret .

However scientific research does not mean that its laws are correct for it is man that has created them in a universe that was there long before man ever came along , man can calculate as far as its law of the planck length but itself gives rise to the question of what is it then that fills up space , whilst I have doubt that gravity exists then those who believe it to be the force that holds the universe intact and by which the motion of bodies move down to the subatomic particles , there seems to me that something is missing , gravity is classed as the weakest of the four forces able to be strongest when tiny particles unite , it is then able to attract at long distances aswell , hence its law must produce a gravitational field that governs the properties of space hence einstein stated that the gravitational mass of a body is then equal to its inertial mass .

So to describe space and its inertial properties must be thought of as existing else space with its metrical properties such as spacetime would then render (what is it that fills up space) meaningless . Space then does not claim to be empty but has a gravitational field which is overall dominant in entire space , what then is the cause to bend a space that is already contained within a gravitational field or is supposed to be made up of such . You can calculate the planck length but somewhere along this line the gravitons must be separated which then suggests that space is empty , if it is not then the gravitons would then form a stew whereby other particles would become restricted from passing through and this would question the existence of the universe .

I still have trouble coming to terms with the above hence light is my only option for it also can be subjected to the inverse square law , do not ask me how , I just know it can for many can calculate the universe and the mass it contains yet fail to realise that in space everything is weightless hence mass has no weight hence light would dominate the effects of gravity because light has a pressure, the blocking of this pressure would then seccumb mass to feel its weight upon eachother and is what is missing in the theory of gravity , a force of attraction it might be classed as by explaning mass attracts mass but only magnets seem to do that , on the other hand light being a tremendous force in space pushing the universe and holding it apart fails me why it just cannot be accepted in a weightless environment when it also complies with the same effects as the inverse square law and I know it just has to.

The questions I have raised with my posts I have done so without calculations or any algebra , my deep reason is that I have no need to explain the laws of physics because I believe that its measurements is the very measurements of the effects of light that has been mistaken for gravity hence though I understand them a little does not mean that I am wrong in my assumptions , I cannot explain measurements that comply to the measurement of what light does so coming here with a theory that to me explains a universe without any phenomena then I can boldly say that I have found my understanding of God and his mind , for me my theory makes a connection and no matter what people think then they can either believe it or not , I have not come here to persuade them to believe in God but I know in myself that light will always be the answer and if anybody is going to explain the universe then it will come from a rank outsider for I believe that God works in mysterious ways .

Saying that then man also works in mysterious ways and I wonder sometimes why newton thought of such a force , was it a divine test for man that is still continuing today or a fluttering idea born out of common sense , does man not realise that newton had little to go on at the time and that is all he could have come up with , he did not know what we know today so it seems obvios that his answer would have been logical at the time,he contructed mathematics to suit observation which has today lead to what we know of the universe , are we then still going to be dominated by a past theory that today still has not shown the whereabouts of the graviton , can man not think that he was wrong , the answer is no because science is in too deep , it really would love a new hypothesis but when one comes along it never expected it to oppose its existing law of gravity and every thing that scientific research has lead science to believe as being true to this law of gravity , a somewhat hard task in itself for a single person as myself to accomplish today when the bending of light around the sun would to many seem as gravity and its effects upon light , yet one cannot realise that the sun would itself create a spherical heat lense that light itself would pass through and curve and is no different to looking at an object through the rising heat coming from a hot road as heat will distort the location of an image here on earth an easy testable fact that could be calculated hence explaning a corresponding measurement of a distortion of an image and by how much .

I may seem stumped by the belief the world has on gravity but what I would love to know is how can science explain such a force by stating it as the curvature of space , if space is made of something then the earth would distort it , there is no doubt about that just like a ball in water , in space however as explained earlier then space has to be defined as empty space else it would according to science suggest that the graviton would at the planck length have to be separated hence they cannot possibly exist else space would be a stew if the gravitons had no space in a dominating gravitational and universal field hence a mass to distort space would then need a theory that can explain how such a mass can create a bending of space after defining what it is made of else this stranger that einstein and hawkings introduce yet they never seem to explain who he is must then be ficticious to bend scientific theory to its own advantage so believe what you wish but remember that light can give an alternative to gravity because if science cannot be sure of its findings then there is no reason why my findings cannot be accepted by those who wish to believe it too .

I now end by giving my deepest apology to alexander and bruce for I had completely forgotten that stones would be thrown with such a theory and that I should have at all times maintained a view that everyone has a different method of understanding hence why I felt confronted in many ways that to me seemed like we were playing a game of mental chess , perhaps we are , who cares I came in peace and I would be wrong to leave in peace , so to me I can soon class it as water long passed under the bridge and as if it never happened , I came here with a theory and also sought an understanding little did I know the reaction I would recieve so guys I have come clean on my part and have had my say so peace be with you all .



regards

John Reyes



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins