: Anybody want to hear me out?

: I formulated a theory about the structure of the continuum which is a bit different than any other present theory. I though it to be correct, so I did a few math equations that "should" calculate the rate which gravity diminishes with distance, if my theory was correct.I created this equation before I knew pretty much anything about physics, I didn't know how physics calculated gravity. I then brought the numbers to my physics teacher, and asked him if he could tell me if the numbers were correct. The numbers matched, so I decided to write out my ideas, and give my physics teacher a copy of the paper.

: He told me that unless I rigorously calculate all the math invloved in the theory that, it would not even be considered in the physics world.

: This seemed to me to be somewhat of a discepancy. It seems that physics doesn't want any assumptions in their laws.

: Then, I ask you this: Do two objects, separated by distance exist in the same moment (simultaneously)? If your answer was yes, then I ask you: Is this a fact, or an assumption?

: Here is my challenge for any physics buff looking for one: Post any proof whatsoever, that two objects separated by distance exist simultaneously.

Maybe you could reword that, because the way it is now phrased the answer is trivial. (Answer: Not always). For example

Let one object be created at x = a and exist there as that object from t = b to t = c at which time it is destroyed. Then let another object be created after time c at another location x = d and exist there from t = e to t = f. There are spatially separated by a distance |d - a|, but never exist simultaneously.

For those into relativity make sure the destruction of the first object and the creation of the second object are timelike events.

• http://hometown.aol.com//zephcochrane/WarpDrives.html

• Rephrased. - Andrew_Robbins/">Andrew Robbins - February 11, 2000 - 20:08 UTC
  • Re: Rephrased. - Zephram_Cochrane/">Zephram Cochrane - February 11, 2000 - 20:34 UTC
    • Re: I concur. - M.D/">M.D - February 12, 2000 - 15:19 UTC
    • Objection - Andrew_Robbins/">Andrew Robbins - February 14, 2000 - 19:24 UTC
      • Re: You Have No Objection. You didn't read my entire response. - Zephram_Cochrane/">Zephram Cochrane - February 14, 2000 - 21:11 UTC
        • Misunderstanding - Andrew Robbins - February 15, 2000 - 04:04 UTC
          • Misunderstanding, This one is phrased right - Andrew_Robbins/">Andrew Robbins - February 15, 2000 - 04:11 UTC
            • Re: Misunderstanding, This one is phrased right - Zephram_Cochrane/">Zephram Cochrane - February 16, 2000 - 07:30 UTC
• Rephrased. - Andrew_Robbins/">Andrew Robbins - February 11, 2000 - 20:09 UTC