What do you think gravity is?

It seems there are quite a few visitors who have their own ideas about one of the great mysteries of our universe, Gravity. Here's a place where all the budding Einstein's among us can wax eloquent on the subject.

What does anyone think gravity is?

Postby Trickfox » Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:08 am

Hello again David... Nice to hear your posts again, and I would like to try and understand your point of view on "FIELD" again. I would just like to TRY AGAIN to set some sort of standard comprehension of your basic terms, because you have some rather elegant statements which fill me with plenty of confusion and I would not want to start contradicting you in a less than respectful way... I'm just trying desperatly to make sense of your point of view by refering to some common points of reference.

wdavidb wrote:Linearized dimensions represent a static condition of space, time and motion, yet the universe is not static nor can it be accurately described or quantified in static terms of reference, such as yards, feet, meters, grams, seconds and so on.

David... I believe you attempting to define (or re-define) Euclidean Geometry verses non-Euclidean geometry as it applies to "field tensors"! I believe all of this is covered in Einstein's special relativity and the time Continuity theorem!
If we cannot use any static terms whatsover, there is no foundation at all and the only foundation left -is the definition of time INTERVAL!
This boils down to Minkowski's invariance of the INTERVAL theorem.
See page 37 of this book: SPACETIME PHYSICS by Taylor/Wheeler ISBN 0-7167-0336-x
Here is a scan of the page:
Image
The foundation for this is laid down in the first 36 pages of this book. IT MAKES COMPLETE SENSE and USES ONLY COMMON ARITHMETIC TO DEFINE "dimensions"... ANYONE CAN UNDERSTAND PLAINLY WHAT IS DEFINED AS THE FOUNDATION OF SPACE METRICS and TIME.

The only major point of contention is the Minkowski w quantity which is define as an "imaginary number".
This is where the "Time continuity theorem" begins it's rather complex arguments which are yet to be resolved.

wdavidb wrote:This is equally true of gravity, as gravity is considered to have a linear relationship with mass and acceleration etc.


Actually David, Acceleration cannot possibly be part of any linear relationship because by itself "Acceleration" is "a variable" of "a variable" (motion itself being a displacement of some kind). Acceleration is the "rate of change" of "the speed" of a moving object, and not just the speed of the object itself.
Do you see how confusing your descriptions can be to someone else trying to learn standard definitions described by comon sense?
I understand that a lot of what you are saying about "field" can make a lot of sense ( specially if you throw out Newtonian concepts of FORCE) I am willing to try and rethink everything about field definitions and I am even willing to look closely at your whole theorem, but we HAVE to start with some sort of foundation for TIME, then DISTANCE, then MASS. If you want to use the PROTON as a natural reference for MASS, and perhaps "Planck's constance" for distance, we can define at least the first TWO engineering units we need to define the rest of the "Engineering" units. The only one left is "time".... and that is the sticky one. We all have to share the same imaginary based unit for time.
Otherwise, nothing fits together to create anything useable ( I mean TV, Radio, Computers, cars, etc,)

Gravity is simply a reflection of the field condition in which a given mass is located, whereby the mass will follow the path of least resistance to a further increase in acceleration, which is commonly referred to as free fall.

For a long time I thought that your point of view was just goble-de-gook and made no sense.... Now I'm begining to see what you are describing. You are saying that "FIELD" conditions are dynamic (possibly) and that the metric tensor between two masses is actually "a changing value" which is either "increasing" or "decreasing" depending upon the observer's reference point (reference mass).

If you could see how the Gravitator design is described by Brown and Kitselman, this point of view starts to make perfect sense, and it completely blows away the basic Newtonian F=M.A foundation, -which has been disputed by others recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Does anyone else here understand what I'm saying about a "foundation" for understanding basic notions such as Time, Distance, and MASS????
Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
Trickfox
The Magician
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Quebec or Montreal

Re: What does anyone think gravity is?

Postby Mikado14 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:41 pm

Trickfox wrote:
If you could see how the Gravitator design is described by Brown and Kitselman, this point of view starts to make perfect sense, and it completely blows away the basic Newtonian F=M.A foundation, -which has been disputed by others recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Does anyone else here understand what I'm saying about a "foundation" for understanding basic notions such as Time, Distance, and MASS????
Trickfox


Mr. Trickfox,

At the risk of exposing my skirt, I will answer your question....


....yes....most definitely.

Mikado

PS: Acceleration is never linear for if it were it would be velocity which is constant.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Griffin » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:09 pm

This exchange appears to me to be reflective of the limiting "either-or" perspective. We've been working here on this Flow Forum on moving away from a one-sided over-emphasis on only nuts-and-bolts "accepted" scientific theories. But this process needs to work both ways. It doesn't mean that those theories can be abandoned. While it may be possible and even probable (given the right additional information) to go beyond them, these terms and theories can and have worked quite well in their own contextual frame of reference. They may also be necessary as a stepping stone to move up firmly to the next level.

We've been working toward a method of bridging the divide between contemporary, so-called hard science and the more mystical, traditional old school/ancient school science. Of course, futuristic science –- to be defined –- is also always on the agenda, as an outgrowth of what has gone before as well as “x” ingredients to be added. It's well to avoid making statements that are too exclusionary -- especially when the excluded material is evidenced as being at least conditionally valid and still quite useful, imho.

Griffin
Griffin
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Mikado14 » Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:07 am

Griffin wrote:This exchange appears to me to be reflective of the limiting "either-or" perspective. We've been working here on this Flow Forum on moving away from a one-sided over-emphasis on only nuts-and-bolts "accepted" scientific theories. But this process needs to work both ways. It doesn't mean that those theories can be abandoned. While it may be possible and even probable (given the right additional information) to go beyond them, these terms and theories can and have worked quite well in their own contextual frame of reference. They may also be necessary as a stepping stone to move up firmly to the next level.

We've been working toward a method of bridging the divide between contemporary, so-called hard science and the more mystical, traditional old school/ancient school science. Of course, futuristic science –- to be defined –- is also always on the agenda, as an outgrowth of what has gone before as well as “x” ingredients to be added. It's well to avoid making statements that are too exclusionary -- especially when the excluded material is evidenced as being at least conditionally valid and still quite useful, imho.

Griffin


Mr. Griffin,

.....uh, what are you trying to say?


Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Griffin » Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:52 am

I'm agreeing with Trickfox on working to find a common ground to communicate.

Merry Christmas!

Griffin
Griffin
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby wdavidb » Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:25 am

Linda Brown wrote:Hello wdavidb!

How nice it is to see your post!

I have a simple question attached to this part of your message:

"Such a structure would have its own condition of field (visible universe) but still be capable of functioning within the field (visible universe) of the earth, which gives us a field within a field. But as there is a non-uniform differential in energy (underlying energy) existing between the field of the earth and the field of the people made structure there must also be a time/line differential as well. This means the two fields are out of sync and will affect distortions."

Such a structure..... Do you envision that " such a structure" could be built to effect this " field". And once that has happened .... would the builders know then what they have? I would suspect yes.... but I would love to hear your predicition. Or do you think this has happened already? Linda


Linda,

Yes, such a structure could be built and the builders would most definitely know what they have otherwise they would not know how to engineer the controls.

Do I think this has happened already, meaning have people of this earth done this already? I honestly don't know, but if I was to ponder a guess I would say they are close, but not close enough.

You have to keep in mind that even if, let's say Dr. Brown had the right idea, it does not follow that the idea would be of any use to another individual who did not share his perspective or perception of the concept. It's not something you can simply pick up, read the notes, and go sure sure I get it. Otherwise everyone would get it and we would have already moved to the next level.

Even with a working model it would be the same problem.......the common response would be, what the hell is this?

Skyfish speaks of a gravitator, which I am not familiar with, but if he is referring to a magnetic motor as such he is on the wrong track. A magnetic motor comes at this from the wrong angle, very much back to front, which should not be taken as an affront but simply an observation.

This is not a mechanical process even though it involves nuts and bolts hardware, which is the stumbling block to further progress.

Keep in mind that even though Dr. Brown may have achieved things others did not and do not understand they would still keep it secret. And the second anyone actually duplicates the physical thing capable of controlling gravity they will be somewhat shocked to discover how limiting their life has suddenly become.
wdavidb
Junior Birdman
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Salt Spring Island BC Canada

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby wdavidb » Thu Dec 25, 2008 8:30 am

Merry Christmas Trickfox, may the new year be good to you.

I think as always you are trying too hard......but I will give it a go.

No, we do not abandon our linear system of measure because we need it to build something or anything.

But, in relation to what we are attempting to achieve....the process, yes we must adopt another format.

Space/time is said to be the same for everyone, okay, but this is simply not true nor is space/time even uniform in relation to the condition of universe in which we are presently situated.

If time is different for every system of universe, from atoms to stars etc. space/time is not the same for everyone everywhere.

The field is the condition of universe remaining relative to the system of reference, an example of which could be our planet earth. There is a field condition of universe remaining relative to our earth and that field encompasses everything from the core of the earth to the visible boundary of universe.

The problem as I see it is that I am very informal in my choice of words.

In terms of our localized perceptions the linear references work, but only to a point. I am not trying to be difficult, but the idea that we can measure the universe using clocks and rulers is just too primitive to be taken seriously, even the Egyptians knew better.

If you accept the idea that time is actually different say between the earth and the moon you have a problem to overcome. You cannot achieve a uniform access to the moon with a rocket, but with a rocket you can achieve a historical point of access, meaning you are out of sync and have access to a condition of the moon which only exists relative to the earth as your system of reference. You cannot change your system of reference by means of linear travel. You are stuck in the localized condition the underlying energy of the earth provides where all systems of universe remain relative to the earth.

In relation to what Taylor and Wheeler have to say about Minkowski; they say that space and time are not the same because we measure space in meters.

(Maybe we are getting somewhere; I hope so) Of course we can't say space and time are the same if we are of the opinion that space is measured in meters. What I am saying is that we can't use meters to measure space because the value or quantity or quantum value of space keeps changing and this change is driven by an underlying force which is time (not to be confused with clocks and durations) in the sense of the changing conditions of universe.

If as Dr. Brown suggests the universe is in fact simultaneous a measuring stick is not going to be very useful in attempting to measure space, outer space. The space of an office sure, but not the big space in the sky.

In other words the driving force, (energy), of universe is time (maybe not the best choice of a name tag) but very descriptive of change and the relative rates of change.

The expansion of universe is accelerating, which is driven by an accelerating force of energy where the rate of acceleration remains proportional in both directions, inward and outward. Outward is expansion of universe while inward is a positive increase in energy focused to the core of the earth. But the expansion of universe is only relative to the earth as our system of reference.

Sure, there is also a force of energy focused to the core of the sun, but the sun is a separate system and the only aspect of the sun to which we have access is that which remains relative to our planet earth. The condition of universe remaining relative to the sun is something else, a different condition of universe which is only accessible to the sun and we know nothing about that condition nor do we have any method by which to access that condition.

Time, the rate of change, remaining relative to the earth decreases with distance into space which may appear incomprehensible at first glance, but the expansion of universe is a relative effect of time accelerating to the core of the earth. In other words we are simultaneously moving away from the far reaches of space at a rate proportional to the accelerative expansion of universe. Like looking in the rear view mirror to see where you've been, but in terms of a simultaneous universe.

This would explain the slowing of Pioneer 10 & 11 as they will continue to slow, as do comets. If they hold together they will eventually reverse direction and head back towards the earth accelerating as they come.

The multiverse is as real, each of them, as this one and there are zillions of them. Too many to count.

In the long haul gravity control is a secondary consideration to achieving inter field access, but you can't have one without the other. Gravity control is just the start, but an important step forward, which can be achieved by means of focus through the controlled modulation of the underlying force remaining relative to our people made structure.

The Great Pyramid is a prime example of a focus structure and if you think about it that structure was designed to last for a very long time, to one day show us the way, but in order to build something that would last it was built as a representation of the process allowing us to figure out the rest of it. In my opinion it is upside down and inside out, plus square rather than round, which is the only way it could be built to last this long, but still maintain a true representation of its original purpose.

If such a people built structure is actually built you will end up with a structure capable of a pulsed frequency and the French downloaded a beautiful picture of a pulsed saucer and if you count the pulses and know the time exposure of the camera you can figure out the frequency. If I remember it shows 5 or 6 pulsed images in one frame, which is an amazing shot.

So, yes our clocks and rulers have many uses and we must continue to use them, but only for those applications to which they are applicable.

And one more thing, this idea that time travel is impossible because you could go back in time and kill your mother and invalidate your own existence is rubbish......if you time travel you disconnect from your own time line. You leave one condition of universe and enter another. Time line differentials are very real and they are not linear differentials, as both past and future exist simultaneously.

I hope this is of some help.
wdavidb
Junior Birdman
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Salt Spring Island BC Canada

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby kevin.b » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:07 pm

The more I read this link, the better it gets.
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm
kevin
fibonacci is king
kevin.b
The Navigator
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:30 pm
Location: oxon, england

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby skyfish » Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:07 am

It sometimes seems to me that these things appear just as they are
brought up in this forum.....

wdavidb wrote:
If time is different for every system of universe, from atoms to stars etc. space/time is not the same for everyone everywhere.

Article released today:
http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html

Physicists at Indiana University have developed a promising new way to identify a possible abnormality in a fundamental building block of Einstein's theory of relativity known as "Lorentz invariance." If confirmed, the abnormality would disprove the basic tenet that the laws of physics remain the same for any two objects traveling at a constant speed or rotated relative to one another.


Spotting these minute variances is another matter as the differences in rate of fall would be tiny because gravity is a weak force. The new paper catalogues possible experiments that could detect the effects. Among them are ones studying gravitational properties of matter on the Earth and in space

Possible experiements????.....I think we already know the answer to that!

skyfish
skyfish
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:05 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby skyfish » Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:36 am

Verification of the Casamir force is validation for the zpf.

For the first time, researchers have measured a long-theorized force that operates at distances so tiny they’re measured in billionths of a meter, which may have important applications in nanotechnology as scientists and engineers seek new ways to create devices far too small for the eye to see.

http://www.physorg.com/news150557049.html

Where does this energy come from...more than expected!

Could it be the....ether????

"The universe really threw us a curve," Kogut says. "Instead of the faint signal we hoped to find, here was this booming noise six times louder than anyone had predicted." Detailed analysis ruled out an origin from primordial stars or from known radio sources, including gas in the outermost halo of our own galaxy. The source of this cosmic radio background remains a mystery.

http://www.physorg.com/news150569765.html

skyfish
skyfish
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:05 am

Read it twice.......

Postby Mikado14 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:50 pm

skyfish wrote:Verification of the Casamir force is validation for the zpf.

For the first time, researchers have measured a long-theorized force that operates at distances so tiny they’re measured in billionths of a meter, which may have important applications in nanotechnology as scientists and engineers seek new ways to create devices far too small for the eye to see.

http://www.physorg.com/news150557049.html

Where does this energy come from...more than expected!




......and I still can't find a mention of zpf in the article. Where are you getting the validation of the repulsive Casimir effect as validation of the zpf? I tried all the links, what am I missing?

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby skyfish » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:51 pm

Hello Mikado,
My bad. I thought that it would be understood that the zpf and casimir effect have been linked for some time.
An interesting feature of the article is the effect of dissimilar materials that produce a repulsive effect...
Gold being one of them. Possible gravitator application?

Until now, however, researchers have only been able to measure the attractive Casimir force, which, in some cases, has created headaches for nano-engineers because it can cause the components of tiny devices to stick together. Discovery of the repulsive version of the Casimir force can potentially help researchers overcome this problem.

“When two surfaces of the same material, such as gold, are separated by vacuum, air, or a fluid, the resulting force is always attractive,” explained Capasso.

Instead of using gold-coated materials, Capasso and colleagues swapped out one of the gold surfaces for one made of silica, then immersed them both in a liquid, bromobenzene. That combination did the trick, switching the attractive Casimir force to repulsive. The Harvard researchers have filed for a U.S. patent covering nanodevices based on quantum levitation.


Zero Point field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZPF

The existence of such a zero-point field has been confirmed experimentally by the Casimir experiment, i.e. the measurement of the attractive force between two parallel plates in an evacuated, near-zero temperature enclosure.[3] That force is found to be proportional to the inverse fourth power of the distance apart of the plates; it has been shown that such a result can only be produced by a zero-point field

skyfish
skyfish
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:05 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Mikado14 » Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:52 pm

skyfish wrote:The existence of such a zero-point field has been confirmed experimentally by the Casimir experiment, i.e. the measurement of the attractive force between two parallel plates in an evacuated, near-zero temperature enclosure.[3] That force is found to be proportional to the inverse fourth power of the distance apart of the plates; it has been shown that such a result can only be produced by a zero-point field

skyfish


Thanks Mr. skyfish, I did not run across that before.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby skyfish » Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:09 am

Mr. Mikado,
You are welcome. When I equate zero point energy with the ether,
I am accepting that the zpf has been substantiated.

Again...this comes to mind. This is from a Nobel prize winner
in physics...2005, and he supports an ether theory!
From something he told me a few weeks ago...

a. Even in classical Maxwell electrodynamics, one has field energy (proportional to the sum of the squares of the electric and magnetic fields). Also, the energy of charged particles receives a contribution that depends on fields -- or, more accurately, potentials. In quantum field theory, which is the foundation of the Core, particles themselves are a secondary concept, and all energy is associated with field excitations. For example, what we ordinarily call an electron, and once regarded as a fundamental ingredient of reality, is now best regarded as an excitation in a field (electron field).

Of course in many circumstances localized excitations (electrons, photons, protons, ... ) have a useful degree of stability and integrity, and we can use the old concept of "particle" as an approximate description.

b. One can also have field energy that is *not* localized. To describe that case, the particle concept may not be a useful point of departure. The ultimate example is energy that is completely uniform in space. A uniform distribution of energy can be consistent with the theory of relativity, if it is associated with negative pressure. (This is discussed at length in "Lightness of Being".) In its gravitational consequences, such a uniform distribution of energy provides a realization of Einstein's cosmological term.


All energy associated with field excitations...
Particle concept not a useful point of departure...
Uniform energy field that is not localized...

So he is saying that it is non-particle energy, that can be linked to gravity and the cosmological constant.
The zpf, ether, gravity...and more as you know. This makes perfect sense, because we have
been seeing the cosmological effects of the ether, but did not recognize them for what they are. The ether
should fit in with the big picture. It is just natural.

skyfish
skyfish
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:05 am

Previous

Return to Gravity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron