Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Einstein had similar ideas when creating his theory of gravity, and it works in a flat spacetime, but eventhough the effects are similar to hurricanes and tornados, the cause has to be different because the universe is non-directional.
A hurricane or tornado is surrounded by dimensions allowing the vortices to form toward the bottom, relative to the earth, but in space itself there is no relative bottom for a vortex to form toward. This is why I propose the functioning is magnetic, not just to change what doesn't have to be changed. |
According to me, the universe is not non-directional in a collective sense, and gravity a force that is based on collective properties. Other than that, I agree with you. While individual parts can be going up-down, left-right, and front-backwards (i.e. non-directional), collectively there is a propensity for matter to move outwardly. The slowing down of circular motion therefore
only needs to take place in that single specific outward direction for accumulation to occur.
I do not oppose the idea of magnetism being part of the picture. As far as I am concerned, gravity is a force based on the collective set of forces. If you examine gray up close, specific colors often appear. Dots of red, blue, yellow, and
whatnot color can exist quite well, as they are, within the larger delivery of what is gray. According to me, gravity means parts of magnetism, parts of electricity, parts strong and parts weak nuclear force (and maybe even form the interactive parts in our materialized universe in connection with dark energy). I cannot be surprised to hear gravity be named in one breath with electricity or with magnetism.
If gravity (including parts of magnetism, electricty, etc) was the only essential aspect in the formation of galaxies, I would expect galaxies to be ball-shaped. Rather, we see somewhat flat galaxies. I think the above story explains that result better than a totally non-directional materialized universe.
I will try emailing Geoff Haselhurst regarding this. I do not know if I should email Ed Witten, for m theory is close to what I propose, but my dimensional picture is different, so much simpler (dimensions is a subject matter I do not want to reveal much about in this thread, since my book must keep some pleasure of being innovative/new for the reader). Thanks for both their names, though.