Theory on Gravity (Long explanation)

[OvA]

hey everybody! look at me! I'm an intellectual because I posted in the smart people thread!

Sorry, I just can't stand it when everyone's a f'ing scientist

 

[clarky003]

Presentation< just watch this instead rather than lisen to me, It quite thoroughly and simply outlines O(3) electrodynamic's with diagram's.

 

[Beerdude26]

*Lol's at two replies above him *

 

[TheSomeone]

can you prove my 50 theories wrong? can you!?

I would have to resort to the use of biozeminades.

 

[Beerdude26]

I would have to resort to the use of biozeminades.

Lawlz

 

[Dan]

Energy and mommentum are NOT the same thing. Take highschool physics.

 

[NeptuneUK]

Energy and mommentum are NOT the same thing. Take highschool physics.

whats mommentum? take highschool english#

lawl, momentum

 

[Angry Lawyer]

ZOMG BIOZEMINADES!

Anyways, Clarky, people often bash you for Pseudoscience, but likely one of the reasons people do this is because you tart up your language like mad. Even New Scientist magazine bashes people for doing this. Scale your language for your audience, make it simpler, use lots of analogies. You'll probably get a much more receptive audience that way.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Solaris]

Any thing that goes:

I was just thinking about this and it makes sense
----Followed by something that completely goes against current theorys and has probably already been considered for like a hundred years------

Is usually easilly flawed.

I no I do it all the time.
The other night I was so convinced I'd designed a perpetual motion device, I drew a diagram on my hand at 12pm in case I forgot.

 

[Solaris]

Needless to say it was obviously flawed.

 

[TheSomeone]

ZOMG BIOZEMINADES!

Anyways, Clarky, people often bash you for Pseudoscience, but likely one of the reasons people do this is because you tart up your language like mad.
-Angry Lawyer

I agree. Don't try to look smart by doing that, because chances are you're wrong. And being wrong is prefectly okay, but people will start flaming if you're wrong but you act like your theory is highly intellectual.

 

[AH_Viper]

Light does not bend itself, it follows a straight space-time path.

Around areas of concentrated gravity, space time bends, and hence the light appears to bend, following the curved space-time path.

It's not to do with refractive indexes, that kind of thing is the electromagnetic interaction of light with matter.

Also when light is bent by gravity, it appears to have a parabolic (curved) path, whereas light passing through various refractive media are sharp changes.

To get a parabolic path with refraction, you would need a gradient of refractive indices.

kirovman was 100% right - I was bored so made a picture (images from google)