# Why does it matter?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### Wolf28

First, ether is necessary as a medium for transmitting electromagnetic waves, and although it is a physical necessity, most scientists deny it exists because of the Michelson and Morley experiment, but I am convinced that it is really everywhere, it is the space itself!!!
Let's explain my hypothesis from the beginning
Logically, It is not possible for a body to affect another object far from it without a change in the medium between them, This is a very important rule, and it is more important than any experiment.
. Suppose you are now in space far from the earth. It is clear that the material of the Earth does not touch you while you are far from it, so how can the Earth pull you towards it without touching?
The only solution from my point of view is that there are strings between you and the ُُEarth, and here if the Earth moves in space it will pull you with it, and this is the first case.
Now, how can the earth pull you towards it without it moving? The only possible solution is that the strings are elastic, and here, those strings may contract and here you will approach the ground
Thus, you can also move away from the ground if those strings are stretched
It is known that a body far from the earth has a greater potential energy than an object placed on the ground, and here we can conclude that these strings must lose energy in order to contract and gain energy in order to expand, so they contain energy, and here we may also solve the problem of dark energy !! .
Likewise, if you try to calculate the gravity of an object far from the surface of the earth from Newton's law of gravity, you will see that the mass of the earth is constant no matter how far away the other body is, and this means with a little imagination that the mass of the earth is not in its material, it can exist in the surrounding space, and this means Mass and matter are two different things, not one thing as we have learned
I will be satisfied with this amount now so that things do not get mixed up for you, and i Wait for your questions
How do you explain the Voyager missions? Those spacecraft have left our solar system and not because of any fuel or propulsion. They spent their fuel many years ago, but their momentum continues to carry them outward, away from the sun and they will not return. If they were attached by elastic strings wouldn't they eventually slow down - or already have done so a long time ago and get pulled back in towards the sun?

How do you explain orbital trajectories? Things don't just get "pulled back". They spiral in.

Many of general relativity's theories about gravity have been proven. Light bends around massive objects. Time slows down at high velocities. Objects of different mass fall at the same speed. These are proofs that Einstein and Newton were correct. You have not explained any of these things yet. You simply say that elastic strings exist but miss many ways that simple concept can be disproven. Why haven't the Mars Rovers get pulled back by now? Have they somehow attached themselves to Martian strings now? How? And at what point did that happen in their flight? The engines that sent those missions to Mars were shut down for most of the voyage - why didn't the Earth strings haul them back before they could be captured by the Martian strings? And what about orbits? How is the moon slowly receding? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof no matter how you may be convinced. You must convince others with proof not exclamation points.

#### abdelhalimhosney886@gmail

How do you explain the Voyager missions? Those spacecraft have left our solar system and not because of any fuel or propulsion. They spent their fuel many years ago, but their momentum continues to carry them outward, away from the sun and they will not return. If they were attached by elastic strings wouldn't they eventually slow down - or already have done so a long time ago and get pulled back in towards the sun?

How do you explain orbital trajectories? Things don't just get "pulled back". They spiral in.

Many of general relativity's theories about gravity have been proven. Light bends around massive objects. Time slows down at high velocities. Objects of different mass fall at the same speed. These are proofs that Einstein and Newton were correct. You have not explained any of these things yet. You simply say that elastic strings exist but miss many ways that simple concept can be disproven. Why haven't the Mars Rovers get pulled back by now? Have they somehow attached themselves to Martian strings now? How? And at what point did that happen in their flight? The engines that sent those missions to Mars were shut down for most of the voyage - why didn't the Earth strings haul them back before they could be captured by the Martian strings? And what about orbits? How is the moon slowly receding? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof no matter how you may be convinced. You must convince others with proof not exclamation points.
In the beginning, I am happy with your questions, but as I explained, I was presenting part of my hypothesis, and it certainly does not mean that I am not famous that I am stupid, so surely I have an answer to these questions and therefore your conclusions are not correct, and I can tell you that I, with the help of God, have narrated all your questions. If I fail even in one, this means that my hypothesis is incomplete or wrong. Returning to your question about Voyager that it continues to move because of inertia, this mysterious concept. So if I ask you now, as you say it moves without any fuel, what is the force that drives it? !! Theoretically, if you throw a stone into space, it will continue to move indefinitely, so what is the force that makes it move after it leaves your hand? Now you have to answer my question, and then I will answer your questions directly

#### vincenzosassone

a connection between two bodies cannot occur without a change in the medium between them
Alright, now I can follow you. Making an example, yesterday I thought that the gravitational waves weren't made of particles, and for this reasons I felt them very far from this type of communication, a communication without any contact. Today, in the morning, I had the time to read something about gravitons and I discovered that this type of waves have particles and with you I also discovered this stuff of contact. Many thanks, your speech is linear and persuasive!
In those days I'll try to understand more and I'll be glad to make some question to you.

#### abdelhalimhosney886@gmail

I am happier to talk to you, and now I will answer your question about Voyager, how does a vehicle without fuel move without any force that drives it to move? It is a strange mystery.
Newton's first law states that an object remains in its state of rest or movement at a constant velocity in a straight line unless a force affects it.
Remember that I said that the stone falls to the ground due to gravity, so could gravity be the reason for the movement of all bodies, even Voyager that is launched into space? !!
The answer, yes of course, we can consider all movements as a result of gravity, so the fall of objects to the ground is a result of the Earth's gravity, while the movement of objects towards space is a result of the gravity of space that pulls objects like Voyager in their direction
What I am talking about is not new. Ernst Mach spoke about it, but he could not explain it, and I illustrate it with an example called the inertia of Spider-Man.
Imagine with me this idea:
Spider-Man is in empty space, and a monster pushes him, and here Spider-Man will have little resistance and he will move easily.
Let's now make Spider-Man stand between the earth, the sun and the moon and connect to them with his strings, here the resistance of Spider-Man to movement becomes great and moving it is similar to moving a large-mass object because moving it requires moving the earth, the moon and the sun, or cutting its strong strings
Now let's imagine that Spider-Man stood in the center of the Milky Way galaxy and then released its strings to catch the terrible stars, and here it would be impossible to move, as its mass might equal the mass of a large star, although its material did not change.
Here we can conclude important things
First, there is a difference between mass and matter
Second, the mass of an object depends on its location in space, not its substance
The most important thing from here that the mass of the giant black holes resulting from their location in the center of the galaxy, and they were not previously giant stars, but acquired this mass from their place (this is a prediction for my hypothesis as you requested)
Finally, if Spider-Man is located between the earth and the sun, for example, and is connected by its strings to each of them, cutting the strings between him and the earth or stretching them without resistance (by adding energy) will cause him to move towards the sun without any external force (this is an interpretation of inertia as a kind of space gravity) An interpretation of the Voyager movement
I hope that I answered your questions and i am ready to answer any other questions
Greetings , thank you

#### Wolf28

In the beginning, I am happy with your questions, but as I explained, I was presenting part of my hypothesis, and it certainly does not mean that I am not famous that I am stupid, so surely I have an answer to these questions and therefore your conclusions are not correct, and I can tell you that I, with the help of God, have narrated all your questions. If I fail even in one, this means that my hypothesis is incomplete or wrong. Returning to your question about Voyager that it continues to move because of inertia, this mysterious concept. So if I ask you now, as you say it moves without any fuel, what is the force that drives it? !! Theoretically, if you throw a stone into space, it will continue to move indefinitely, so what is the force that makes it move after it leaves your hand? Now you have to answer my question, and then I will answer your questions directly
It's not a force that keeps the rock going, it's the lack of a resisting force to stop it. Since space is a vacuum, if there are no sufficiently massive enough objects around to "capture" it, the rock will continue on it's way. On Earth, air acts as the braking force through friction. But in space, all it required was your initial propulsive throw to get it moving. Now something needs to slow it down or stop it. Absent some other guiding, repulsive, attractive, resisting force, the rock will go on forever. That's how we get objects from outside our solar system come flying by with no apparent propulsion except for whatever initial blast or sling shot effect sent it on it's way. Not a mysterious concept, just a lack of brakes! Now please answer why Voyager is not being pulled back.

Last edited:

#### Wolfshadw

Moderator
Now please answer why Voyager is not being pulled back.
Not entirely sure, but I would think it's the same principle that keeps space craft/satellites in orbit around Earth without expending fuel. Given a specific distance from Earth and a specific speed, an object stays in orbit. Go any faster and it escapes Earths orbit. As for Voyager, given it's relatively small mass, high velocity and trajectory, it does have the necessary speed to escape the pull of the Sun.

-Wolf sends

#### vincenzosassone

On Earth, air acts as the braking force through friction. But in space, all it required was your initial propulsive throw to get it moving
I perfectly agree with you. All of us was taught that in the space there is the vacuum and an object that is in moviment continued to go. I'm not saying that it isn't true but I only want to add something of worth. According to Newton and Galilei, an object that is in moviment, will continue to move (at the same speed) if the forces on it are zero. This is an impossible condition both on Earth and in the Universe because there is always some objects in the Universe that deny the moviment. These objects are the cosmic dustes that are made by particles and have a mass. These objects have not the power to stop the run of a rock, but step by step, they can make the rock run slower. This is only something that I add because all of us learned somenthing that in my opinion isn't correct. Obviously we cannot say that this feature of the Universe is equal to that of the Earth, in fact on Earth this rock will stop too faster if we compare this to the universal rock. I hope that you will not take in account this as a correction, this is only something in addition of what you surely already know.

#### Wolf28

I perfectly agree with you. All of us was taught that in the space there is the vacuum and an object that is in moviment continued to go. I'm not saying that it isn't true but I only want to add something of worth. According to Newton and Galilei, an object that is in moviment, will continue to move (at the same speed) if the forces on it are zero. This is an impossible condition both on Earth and in the Universe because there is always some objects in the Universe that deny the moviment. These objects are the cosmic dustes that are made by particles and have a mass. These objects have not the power to stop the run of a rock, but step by step, they can make the rock run slower. This is only something that I add because all of us learned somenthing that in my opinion isn't correct. Obviously we cannot say that this feature of the Universe is equal to that of the Earth, in fact on Earth this rock will stop too faster if we compare this to the universal rock. I hope that you will not take in account this as a correction, this is only something in addition of what you surely already know.
Yes, thanks for acknowledging that i do know. In fact, my very next sentence was "Absent some other guiding, repulsive, attractive, resisting force, ..."

#### Wolf28

Not entirely sure, but I would think it's the same principle that keeps space craft/satellites in orbit around Earth without expending fuel. Given a specific distance from Earth and a specific speed, an object stays in orbit. Go any faster and it escapes Earths orbit. As for Voyager, given it's relatively small mass, high velocity and trajectory, it does have the necessary speed to escape the pull of the Sun.

-Wolf sends
My question was posed to
abdelhalimhosney886@gmail
I was giving him a chance to explain his theory that gravity is caused by elastic strings.

#### abdelhalimhosney886@gmail

My question was posed to
abdelhalimhosney886@gmail
I was giving him a chance to explain his theory that gravity is caused by elastic strings.
We are simply talking about an old problem, can an object move without a force acting on it? If you caught a ball and threw it in the air.
In the beginning, it was your hand that moved the ball, and after the ball moved away from your hand and there was no longer any force acting on it, the ball was supposed to fall to the ground immediately. Because there is no longer any force driving it, just as it is logical for Voyager to stop once the fuel runs out
This force that causes the ball to move through the air some distance is certainly not the force of your hand, nor is the force that causes Voyager to travel through space not the force of fuel?
We now have two solutions. The first is Newton's solution. The body will continue to move without the need for any force, and the second solution that I suggest is that there is a force resulting from space that pulls either the ball or the Voyager vehicle to move outward, and the second solution is more logical than the movement of an object without any force
Of course, you are not required to believe my words immediately, but for example, where does the centrifugal force originate?
For example, hold a stone and tie it to a rope, then turn it quickly in your hand, then release it, and it will push out. What is the force that pushes it abroad and what is its source?
Search all the scientific references and you will find them saying that centrifugal force is an illusory force despite its real existence by experience. If you find an explanation other than that - I promise you will not find - tell me it.
But the only logical explanation is that the origin of this force is the space that exerts a gravity on the bodies similar to the Earth’s gravity, and this is simply because space has a mass (the dark matter mass) Greetings

#### merrycorsten

Dark matter has a Space in time which the time has a dual. When u settle Down to set the front of this lunatic Space, u might see that the understanding of dark matter is that it uses the Ohm rules. Dark matter is to see the truth reveal itself, not that it says that u have black matters.

#### Ed Stauffer

FYI, post #1 says about DM "Why don't we just forget about it." My observation. The problem in astronomy, DM keeps showing up in stellar motion studies, *at least the interpretation of stars and gas motion moving over immense time spans points to DM*. A good example is the study reported now for the LMC and potential large DM halo, 'Galaxy encounter violently disturbed Milky Way, study finds', https://phys.org/news/2020-11-galaxy-encounter-violently-disturbed-milky.html, “The spiral-shaped disk of stars and planets is being pulled, twisted and deformed with extreme violence by the gravitational force of a smaller galaxy—the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). Scientists believe the LMC crossed the Milky Way's boundary around 700 million years ago—recent by cosmological standards—and due to its large dark matter content it strongly upset our galaxy's fabric and motion as it fell in. "

Other searches looking for specific DM candidates like wimps, ultralight DM, axions, etc., those searches keep finding null record answers Example, 'Searching for axion dark matter conversion signals in the magnetic fields around neutron stars', https://phys.org/news/2020-11-axion-dark-conversion-magnetic-fields.html

There is tension between long distance surveys of stars and gas motion interpretation *using immense time spans* and local searches for DM particles that so far, report null records in the query .
a newer report says that the dark matter is not just rotating but is actually circulating. Just think of the galactic disk as one large gravitational stir stick.

Dark matter circulation
https://usfec.com/2019/04/18/faint-starlight-in-hubble-images-reveals-distribution-of-dark-matter-5/

#### vincenzosassone

If you caught a ball and threw it in the air.
This is a very interesting example, but I don't think that this is important. If you speak about Earth and all the enviroment inside in it, alright, it's all ok. Though, speaking about space, we have to take in account something of very strange and different: the different enviroment. You cannot do an example if this two enviroments that are so distant to each other, this isn't possible.

#### Wolf28

We are simply talking about an old problem, can an object move without a force acting on it? If you caught a ball and threw it in the air.
In the beginning, it was your hand that moved the ball, and after the ball moved away from your hand and there was no longer any force acting on it, the ball was supposed to fall to the ground immediately. Because there is no longer any force driving it, just as it is logical for Voyager to stop once the fuel runs out
This force that causes the ball to move through the air some distance is certainly not the force of your hand, nor is the force that causes Voyager to travel through space not the force of fuel?
We now have two solutions. The first is Newton's solution. The body will continue to move without the need for any force, and the second solution that I suggest is that there is a force resulting from space that pulls either the ball or the Voyager vehicle to move outward, and the second solution is more logical than the movement of an object without any force
Of course, you are not required to believe my words immediately, but for example, where does the centrifugal force originate?
For example, hold a stone and tie it to a rope, then turn it quickly in your hand, then release it, and it will push out. What is the force that pushes it abroad and what is its source?
Search all the scientific references and you will find them saying that centrifugal force is an illusory force despite its real existence by experience. If you find an explanation other than that - I promise you will not find - tell me it.
But the only logical explanation is that the origin of this force is the space that exerts a gravity on the bodies similar to the Earth’s gravity, and this is simply because space has a mass (the dark matter mass) Greetings
I believe that you disbelieve the laws of motion. Those laws say; do not stand in front of a speeding Mack truck. Motion is ENERGY. That is the force you speak of that you believe is missing. When you say "...but for example, where does the centrifugal force originate?" you are ignoring the ENERGY created by your arm/hand/muscles/ the food you eat, as you spin the stone on a string around your head. That is the energy the stone uses to fly off once you let go. It is imparted to the stone by your spinning motion, or by simply throwing it. Spinning it around your head on string simply increases that energy by storing and building it up i.e. potential energy, so that letting it go releases the stored ( potential) energy at once casting the stone further than a simple throw. If you were superman, you could launch that stone right into orbit. He may use kryptonium as energy, who knows. But we're not, so the lesser/limited amount of energy a human can create has only enough energy to cast the stone some yards away. But regardless, this is all known stuff.

I find it is disingenuous of those who want to argue a different opposing theory of something by continually asking others to prove existing theory. Why do you make me explain existing theory in my own words? Are you trying to prove I do not know those theories well? Because your right, I probably don't. But much greater minds have already proven many parts of those theories over the centuries. So please stop asking questions of me that are easily explained by existing theory. Instead, start explaining your theory in a more forthright way. So, the question I asked in my initial reply to you still stands; what is keeping the voyager spacecraft speeding away at 16 K/s if not kinetic and/or gravitational energy?

I know that your trying to prove that gravity consists of strings. But strings does not explain how a star can distort space so that we can see objects behind it. And General relativity does by explaining that gravity distorts space-time. Those theories are more complete. You understand where I'm coming from? You cannot prove your theory by trying to disprove parts of someone else's when your parts do not explain the remainder of their parts as well. It just makes for an incomplete "what if". You keep attacking the laws of motion and energy with this idea of "once a rock leaves your hand" stuff. But that can be easily explained without strings with the laws of energy and motion. But your idea isn't altogether disinteresting or I would have just laughed it off five posts ago and you wouldn't have heard from me again. But I'm getting closer to that because you keep avoiding a simple question. If you can't explain a simple thing like why, if your strings exist, have they not stopped voyager yet, or if they ever will, then how can we use it to explain anything???

Thanks.

Last edited:
vincenzosassone

#### vincenzosassone

I totaly agree with your speech, one hundred per cent! I only want to ask you somethings.
you are ignoring the ENERGY created by your arm/hand/muscles/ the food you eat
My physics prof always said: " remember, you cannot create energy, not even destoy it"
At the beginning I didn't pay attention to this important sentence, but now I continue to ask to myself why we aren't able to do this. We, as you said, create energy thanks to our arms, our muscles, our hands. Day by day, though, I managed to provide to myself a reasonable answer: we have the possibility to take our energy thanks to the food we eat, but there is something else: we are able to take energy from the food!? Is this possible?
I know that this doesn't matter with your question made to another person, but i'm learning more here than at school.

#### Helio

Search all the scientific references and you will find them saying that centrifugal force is an illusory force despite its real existence by experience. If you find an explanation other than that - I promise you will not find - tell me it.
Well, pedantics will favor the use of centripetal force since the rock is more easily understood by noting the rope is pulling on the rock, which is why it doesn't fly away. But for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which allows the use of the term centrifugal force. Imagine what you would experience if instead of the rock being spun it was you. Would you say you are being pulled toward the center or would you say you feel like you are being pushed away from the center? I recall getting in rotating cylindrical walls at carnivals to experience 3 g's of force and I felt like I was being thrown outward not inward.

The rope is pulling on you so that the centrifugal force you feel doesn't allow you to fly away. So it's somewhat an issue of semantics.

vincenzosassone

#### Wolf28

I totaly agree with your speech, one hundred per cent! I only want to ask you somethings.

My physics prof always said: " remember, you cannot create energy, not even destoy it"
At the beginning I didn't pay attention to this important sentence, but now I continue to ask to myself why we aren't able to do this. We, as you said, create energy thanks to our arms, our muscles, our hands. Day by day, though, I managed to provide to myself a reasonable answer: we have the possibility to take our energy thanks to the food we eat, but there is something else: we are able to take energy from the food!? Is this possible?
I know that this doesn't matter with your question made to another person, but i'm learning more here than at school.
Well, our bodies metabolize the foods we eat and converts it into glucose (and other energy source molecules), a fuel our bodies can use as an energy source. It's still matter at this point but I could not do justice to how our bodies convert that matter into energy, so I refer you to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26882/ , which has a good in depth explanation. But yes, just as any other combustive process, or bodies use food as fuel and convert it into energy. Not only are we akin to a combustion engine, we can also store energy, which makes us a battery or capacitor too! Amazing, right?

Last edited:
vincenzosassone

#### vincenzosassone

Well, our bodies metabolize the foods we eat and converts it into glucose (and other energy source molecules), a fuel our bodies can use as an energy source. It's still matter at this point but I could not do justice to how our bodies convert that matter into energy, so I refer you to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26882/ , which has a good in depth explanation.
Now I remember that it was explained to me in school too. As I have already said, here I'm learning a lot, many thanks! Thus, for this reason, we aren't able to create energy and it is alright.
Amazing, right?
Yes, a lot. All the fields of science are interesting and amazing for me!
I would like to think that sciences are interpretations of life in all of his aspects.

Wolf28