You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How Gravity Produces Electromagnetism and Redshift per Distance
Your textbook is failing against the real universe .
It's just theory and dos not ad up to the real thing .
The false law of gravity tells me that the moon would cling to earth .
Electric powers keep the balance , gravity is some kind of electro static effect .
Red shift ? black holes ? dark matter ? al theory , so debateble .
Go see some educational Thunderboltsproject movies .
No tin foil hat nonsense , real scientists with other views.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA
To judge something , always try to know all stories .
The electric universe is backwards; gravity causes electromagnetism, not the other way around. Thanks for judging me as if you know what I have exposed myself to. rofl.
Hmmm, do you know ?
Did we humans ever physical measured anything out there ?
I know nothing , it's al theory , and we don't know what we don't know .
We create explanations to thing we can only guess . Even Einstein admitted
that his work was not complete , just something to work by for now .
But ill put your theory in my mind , cause , i don't know , you somehowe could be wright :-)
I do know. I use logic and Occam's Razor as a basis for why what I am saying is true and not just my opinion. That electromagnetism can be explained as the result of gravity is non-trivial. In fact, it is the most significant argument that can be presented against all current models and that is why I lead with it, even though I only realized it after understanding how gravity could be argued to produce all distant redshifted galaxy observations.
No other theory provides a tangible explanation for how redshift per distance is produced outside of the current "expansion of space" and "dark energy" models; however, none of these motion-based interpretations follow Occam's Razor and are thereby critically flawed.
Yes, I somehow could be. I know the odds of a theory on the internet being right is low, and it is filled with many theories that are so outrageous that it is near impossible to take one seriously enough to see it for what it is, but I know I know what I know. And I know there is a distinct difference between knowledge and opinion. In this case, what I am presenting is knowledge. I just need the scientific community at large to consider it, which is nearly impossible for obvious reasons. No one expects that someone making the claim that they know how the universe functions actually knows.
My razor logic would also shop off redshift and gravity or the way we think it works . I just don't throw the cut of pieces away jet .
So if your logic isn't formed by someone's opinion or info ? then howe do you know anything ? Very confusing , well good luck , hope you get the nobelprize someday .
peace to all
Redshift is just something we see that is the result of something else. Logically, there needs to be at least one force in the universe for the order that we see to arise, but there doesn't need to be more than one.
My arguments are formed based on hypotheses that I've had over the years where I did not accept ideas that appeared to be the results of jumping to conclusions. I would argue to you, if you say "2+2=4" do you say "I think 2+2=4"? We know things because every other piece of evidence in the universe supports it. This model is the same; every observation can be considered in view thereof and demonstrated to be the result of the simple model presented herein; Infinitely large/small masses + gravity = universe. That is why I say I know, because I have gone through the observations and carefully considered them and they only reaffirm that it is the case.
Thanks, appreciate your words, sorry to be defensive in my responses.
Peace to all indeed! :)