I understand that zero-point energy, gravitons, and such are hypothetical as well, but more plausibly valid than most (so, allowed to be thought of under the principle of Occam's razor). But it does make me feel better to know it's possible my brain isn't just throwing absolute garbage at me but...
Thank you for that. I was taking it to heart, thinking I was referred there for thinking like that. I appreciate this more than you probably understood I needed to hear this.
As an example, here I posed a rumination. But, I learned about the differences between dark substances and found they are not related in any known way other than their naming. I also learned that a photon is its own antiparticle. Information was exchanged. I also learned that this "discussion"...
Wow. I just looked at the link.
I really am sorry if that's how I come across. I promise I don't believe what I present to be true just because I presented it. I'm actually HOPING people will tell me it's nonsense so I don't focus on frivolous things and can study enough to not have to ask such...
I wouldn't call it a waste of time as long as information is exchanged. It's certainly going to save time for me because I can then return my focus to my studies quicker. In some senses it will hinder progress but, as long as it is meeting a goal, it does not waste time, in my perception...
Ok. I didn't realize about the rule. But, I wasn't actually just proposing my own theory, but trying to understand the principles it would require to be valid/invalid.
From the comments here, I learned that "dark" is not a type or subset, but more of a term meaning (if I'm interpreting...
Yeah, I made the term up, but only to try to explain a concept. I didn't know it was already a term being used (guess I should have googled it first). And, I knew that anti-particles were different from Dark Substances, but I did not realize dark substances were not part of the same thing...
There are anti-protons and anti-electrons (anti-neutrons, too?), and "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" and, presumably, a "mirror version" of everything in our universe. I don't know a GREAT deal on this subject and I wondered: Is there a "Dark Gravity" that is throwing off our calculations with...
I think I get what Standards guy is saying. Space is a vacuum and holds all of the laws of the universe (because it basically IS the universe), so any artificial vacuum - like Torricelli's - would have those same traits, including fields.
In that case, space is the experimental evidence of a...
Yeah, I need to study more. It makes sense. I appear to have concepts mixed up. I didn't realize G_k had a different dimensional property though, now I can see how I should have known from reverse engineering the math.
Ok. So it looks like I'll be hitting the basics again to solidify the concepts.
I am confused to how this is different than what I said: "...where G is the magnitude of gravity, Gk is the constant force of gravity, or the equivalent of 'a' in F=ma, and 'm' is the product of two masses per the square of their radius."
If G_k is not F, and {m_1 m_2\over r^2} is not F, then G...
I'm sorry about the tough questions thing. I didn't know they would be tough when I asked them.
I'm just trying to piece things together. I haven't been near information for very long and am trying to catch up.
On this matter... Doesn't that mean that a "field" IS the aether they were looking for? I mean, they were looking for the medium light is carried through, and we now know it is carried on fields, so we basically just renamed 'aether' to 'field', right?
And, I did not know about this...