Hello I Will Try to Help Your Gravity Problems

[jim_mich]

The larger an object the more force and how could acceleration be constant?

The size of an object has no bearing on the force of gravity. It is the mass of an object that determines its gravity force. A very large one pound box of cotton will weigh the same as a very small one pound box of iron.

Gravity exists because objects shield other object from the pressure flow of Ether Energy. If you don't like the name 'Ether Energy' then substitute another name, for currently there is no agreed upon name for the vibrational flow of force that causes gravity, inertia and certain other forces. See Gravity and Inertia via Radiation by Stanley V. Byers.

MODEL FEATURES

* Prime non electromagnetic non particulate radiation
pervades all space and matter.
* This primordial radiation is designated Prime radiation (Pf) in this model.
* All matter exists as interference patterns or deformations
in the Prime background radiation frequencies of space.
* Prime radiant flow and shadowing cause all remote forces.
* Inverse distance squared formulas remain unchanged.
* Inverse distance squared is applicable for shadow area
and shadow density.
* Gravitational shadowing shows a limit and topical variations.
* Gravity shows total shielding on large planets only.
* Radiation manifests an Inertial and EM spectrum.
* Nuclear shielding occurs for all nuclei.
* Nuclear shielding of mass replaces mass conversion.
* Electrons and ions interact with the EM spectrum and the Inertial spectrum.
* Inertia is due to the Doppler effect and photon (wave group) characteristics.
* Electricity may demonstrate an absolute zero (+), similar to the heat system.
* Magnetic lines are a form of matter.
* Molar heat capacity and Avogadro's hypothesis support this heat shell model of heat.

[BAR]

The size of an object has no bearing on the force of gravity. It is the mass of an object that determines its gravity force. A very large one pound box of cotton will weigh the same as a very small one pound box of iron.

You are indeed correct. I was pretending behavior as a function of area and not mass IF gravitation behaved like particles of gas, which of course it does not. :)

Gravity exists because objects shield other object from the pressure flow of Ether Energy. If you don't like the name 'Ether Energy' then substitute another name, for currently there is no agreed upon name for the vibrational flow of force that causes gravity, inertia and certain other forces. See Gravity and Inertia via Radiation by Stanley V. Byers.

Well this is entirely incorrect. The immediate problem of assuming gravitation is due to radiation, is the finite velocity of light. It is very fast to us but far too slow to keep the planets in stable orbits as I mentioned earlier. The presence of Gravitation is 4th dimensional and timeless, its velocity is practically infinite.
The second problem is any background radiation must be omnidirectional so how can "shadows" be cast all around any material entity? Why would random "pushes" from all directions favor any body of mass in simulating attraction? Also radiation must have a limited wavelength and intensity, so how can such a force NOT be a function of area instead of mass?
Large masses absolutely do not shield gravity. If for example you could travel to Jupiter and occult it relative to the sun does the sun's gravity no longer effect you? Spacecraft sent to the outer planets must always consider the sun's gravitation.

Now what I am going to explain is the first time anywhere on earth publically WHAT gravitation is.

Ever hear of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? This effect is what creates gravitation. When neutral electron masses interact (neutrinos) or any entities possessing mass interacts, their exchange of momentum is not absolute. The uncertainty of the interaction actually possesses geometry and the resultant momemtum associated within this uncertainty geometry has the ability to exist "elsewhere". In essense this force of momentum "leaks" out into the surrounding space that we call gravitation.

Now how does all mass attract with the same acceleration? The reason is nuclei in atoms are of a uniform mass density. This density is about 7.5x10E14 grams/cm3. This rest mass is simply confined energy. The uncertainty momentum of a gravitational field obeys the inverse square law and permeates this nuclei and creates a momentum gradient. This inturn creates an energy density shift and a pressure imbalance through the nucleus. The highest energy density seeks the lowest so the nucleus moves towards the higher energy to seek a balance. This change of position is towards the gravitational source!

When one uses this theory with mathematics the result is the Gravitational Constant!

I had sent this theory and its math to Physical Review many years ago and it was considered Adhoc. Apparently the only thing accepted any more requires physical proof!

[greendoor]

Thanks Bar - this sounds feasible to me. I am 100% convinced in the need for an Aether, and was leaning towards the 'shadow' theory of gravitation, but I have to agree with your comment about background radiation being omnidirectional (which kills that theory).

I'm thinking about your idea that momentum exchanges between particles are not absolute ... we've been lead to believe that these exchanges are perfectly elastic ... but maybe not ...?

If this stress in the fluid of space is caused by random movement or uncertainly, why does the sum of these forces not average out to zero? Why does it have direction?

[AB Hammer]

Greetings BAR

I feel like I am in science class again. Have you ever been, or are you a teacher? Well you have your first green reputation dot. I myself am a Blacksmith so I do not have the background but I do have theory.
Thanks

[justsomeone]

Bar, I'm not ashamed to say that's way over my head. LOL
I'll keep reading though.

[jim_mich]

Well this is entirely incorrect. The immediate problem of assuming gravitation is due to radiation, is the finite velocity of light. It is very fast to us but far too slow to keep the planets in stable orbits as I mentioned earlier. The presence of Gravitation is 4th dimensional and timeless, its velocity is practically infinite.

You have failed to fully study this subject. You are making incorrect assumptions. You are just parroting the ideas that you have been taught without taking the time and energy to investigate different possible ideas.

Before you knock a theory please at least take the time to understand it. You state as fact that "this is entirely incorrect" when you haven't even taken the time to study and ponder the whole theory. You are basing your opinion on ideas and concepts that have been taught to you and accepted by you as fact, without taking the time to explore other possible ideas and concepts.

[broli]

Wow and some people wanted you to actually patent this? What's next patenting newton's laws?

This goes to show how closed minded some people are.

As for your theory it sounds promising that it spits out the gravitational constant. But with that in mind do you know what it will take to build such a device? That is like giving someone's newtons law and asking him to build a perpetual motion machine without telling him about all the negative history of it. I would say you have a long road ahead of you but the road leads to some very interesting things. If you can control gravity space travel would be a breeze.

The aether shadowing is also one of my favorite theories.

[Michael]

broli you can't patent a physics principle.

[BAR]

I'm thinking about your idea that momentum exchanges between particles are not absolute ... we've been lead to believe that these exchanges are perfectly elastic ... but maybe not ...?

If this stress in the fluid of space is caused by random movement or uncertainly, why does the sum of these forces not average out to zero? Why does it have direction?

Greendoor elasticity does not matter. The uncertainty of interaction during exchange of momentum arises due to the resolution of the universe. The ultimate particles are electrons and they exchange energy in steps of Planck's constant. The uncertainty principle means that the more one tries to measure energy of an entity, the less we can know about it's position in space and vise versa. This position has an associated geometry and momentum inherent to it. For example in a microscope the shorter the wavelength of light, the higher the magnification. The problem is the shorter the wavelength, the higher the photon's energy. If we wanted to observe an individual electron it gets to a point that the energy becomes so great to observe that it recoils the electron. So now we are uncertain of its place under the microscope. This "recoil" of uncertainty possesses an area of space that has geometry which inturn possesses momentum. This is the basis of gravitation.

You have failed to fully study this subject. You are making incorrect assumptions. You are just parroting the ideas that you have been taught without taking the time and energy to investigate different possible ideas.

Before you knock a theory please at least take the time to understand it. You state as fact that "this is entirely incorrect" when you haven't even taken the time to study and ponder the whole theory. You are basing your opinion on ideas and concepts that have been taught to you and accepted by you as fact, without taking the time to explore other possible ideas and concepts.

Hehe just because I do not agree with that theory does not mean I am parroting mainstream ideas. On the contrary, some 20 years ago I became dissapointed with the lack of mankinds progress in understanding gravitation and how everyone was stuck in Einstein's concepts. Einstein was a extraordinary genius but he failed to unify the forces of nature. Infact several concepts do not make sense in light of what is observed. I tried to accept the radiation theory of gravitation long ago and reading this "new" one it is really no different. The math does not fit observation. Even today mainstream science looks for gravitational waves believing they are emitted no differently than radiation that travels at the velocity of light. This "new" radiation theory or any radiation theory fails because of the observation that the influence of gravity is INSTANTANEOUS. Radiation is always limited by the velocity of light. There are absolutely no exceptions here. For example if one could suddenly remove the sun would the planets go off in straight paths with a delay as the gravitational wave receded at the velocity of light, or would the straight paths become instantaneous? Even with the sun there, if gravitation traveled at the velocity of light orbital changes would still be detectable and stable orbits would be impossible at a distance.

What I did was dump most of the concepts I was taught long ago and thought how can things be in this reality? How can 11 dimensions be in 3? How can space be material and yet have no mass? I had to keep the observed laws and evidence. Eventually it all fit very nicely. Space is immaterial, it does not warp or bend. There is no ancient term of the Aether that exists but the gravitational field is very close. :)

[Michael]

For my two cents, and I hope this helps, the reason the big picture isn't fully seen is because time is often considered the foundation events are measured on. Instead time should be regarded as being a product.

[greendoor]

Space is immaterial, it does not warp or bend. There is no ancient term of the Aether that exists but the gravitational field is very close. :)

Then what - in your mind view - is a Field? For me, the existance of fields and waves in a vacuum requires a medium which can be stressed/waved/warped/bent. You can't stress or wave pure 'nothing'.

This rest mass is simply confined energy.

There is nothing simple about energy - it's probably the most ill-defined 'thing' that exists. For a start - because we are taught that energy is proportional to the square of velocity, energy (as defined) must be Relative (or is that Relative Squared) and not the Absolute that it is made out to be with the bogus law of Conservation of Energy.

But what is Energy? To some people, it is motion. Which implies the requirement for matter. Of course we all know E=MC^2 - but I am finding this hard to swallow. Sure - the bomb proved there is a lot of energy in matter, if we choose to smash it. But exactly E=MC^2? The speed of light varies - for one thing. And hyper-lightspeed communication appears to be possible (and gravity appears to be faster than light anyway ...).

The concept of Aether (or insert whatever word spins your wheels) seems the only logical option left for me, and it certainly fits in with my spiritual world view. Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient - scarey concept for some.

[BAR]

Greetings BAR

I feel like I am in science class again. Have you ever been, or are you a teacher? Well you have your first green reputation dot. I myself am a Blacksmith so I do not have the background but I do have theory.
Thanks

Hehe AB Hammer I could never have the patience of being a teacher, believe it or not I am simply a researcher like you. The only difference is your quest for free energy machines, mine is solving the mysterys of the universe. There is still much to be discovered. :) These reputation voting dots are these really necessary?

Then what - in your mind view - is a Field? For me, the existance of fields and waves in a vacuum requires a medium which can be stressed/waved/warped/bent. You can't stress or wave pure 'nothing'.

Greendoor you are correct, you absolutely can not stress or wave nothing and there is no medium through the universe that is experiencing that effect. It is not required. The concept of distance in 3 dimensions as "space" is nothing. Material bodies fills space and changes position across it. The trouble people have in grasping waves of photons or fields like gravitation is the scale of the particle for the photon or the extra dimension with the gravitational field. Charge and magnetic fields possess both 3 and 4 dimensions because their fields are a product of the electron and gravitation. To understand how the 4th dimension behaves as an example setup a video camera. Record throwing a stone and measure it's trajectory and time until it rests on the ground. In real time we can see the stone is a 3 dimensional entity that follows a path through space over a period of a few seconds. However, what happens if you can play back the video and loop it forward and back 100's of times faster than normal? Now it appears as if the stone is "smeared" across that path it took like it is a wave. This is the analogy of the 4th dimension where a material entity can exist at all points because time is no longer a discreet continuum of steps. All the continuum of steps become one, all the events of time occurs simultaneously. A cube has length, width and depth. Now add another dimension, it becomes a hypercube of infinite size.

There is nothing simple about energy - it's probably the most ill-defined 'thing' that exists. For a start - because we are taught that energy is proportional to the square of velocity, energy (as defined) must be Relative (or is that Relative Squared) and not the Absolute that it is made out to be with the bogus law of Conservation of Energy.

But what is Energy? To some people, it is motion. Which implies the requirement for matter. Of course we all know E=MC^2 - but I am finding this hard to swallow. Sure - the bomb proved there is a lot of energy in matter, if we choose to smash it. But exactly E=MC^2? The speed of light varies - for one thing. And hyper-lightspeed communication appears to be possible (and gravity appears to be faster than light anyway ...).

Yes I see there is much confusion about energy and momentum here. So I will explain. A mass must experience a force to change position in space and have displacement. Work is then done on the mass. Momentum is a mass with non zero velocity inertia. It takes some form of energy or force to cause a mass to have momentum. Even though it takes work (kinetic energy) to cause momentum, momentum is not work and hence energy. It is simply mass with velocity and direction. Momentum IS a form of potential energy. Momentum contains energy but in itself is not energy. This is why momentum can be conserved and kinetic energy can not, because kinetic energy can be transformed into heat, light and sound. These other forms of energy possess a higher number of entities with mass and momentum so that is why they are different.

Newtons first law :
"A body persists its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." Newton's first law is often referred to as the law of inertia.

The velocity of light does vary through different mediums but it's highest velocity is in a vacuum. The velocity of light can be shown as a limit as a function of a mass entity distributed through it's inherent gravitational space. When one uses the mass of the electron it gives this value, proving the electron is the smallest mass that can exist and the velocity of light is the highest possible in 3 dimensions.

[Michael]

Can I?

momentum is not work and hence energy. It is simply mass with velocity and direction. ( Relative )
Momentum IS a form of potential energy. ( Relative )

Momentum contains energy but in itself is not energy. This is why momentum can be conserved and kinetic energy can not,
Hold it, this is wrong. There is a reason why "conservation of energy" is quoted by the science community.
because kinetic energy can be transformed into heat, light and sound.
( which are themselves kinetic energy, hence the conservation of energy principle; energy cannot be created or destroyed ). And of course kinetic energy can be transformed into potential energy, again relative.


The velocity of light does vary through different mediums but it's highest velocity is in a vacuum. The velocity of light can be shown as a limit as a function of a mass entity distributed through it's inherent gravitational space. When one uses the mass of the electron it gives this value, proving the electron is the smallest mass that can exist and the velocity of light is the highest possible in 3 dimensions.

I agree with that. Have you considered though that our measured speed limit if light, c, might be as one octave on an infinite scale, with other octaves of light existing above at much faster yet at unmeasurable speeds relative to us?

[BAR]

Momentum contains energy but in itself is not energy. This is why momentum can be conserved and kinetic energy can not,
Hold it, this is wrong. There is a reason why "conservation of energy" is quoted by the science community.
because kinetic energy can be transformed into heat, light and sound.
( which are themselves kinetic energy, hence the conservation of energy principle; energy cannot be created or destroyed ). And of course kinetic energy can be transformed into potential energy, again relative.

Hehe, different forms of energy does not imply nothing is conserved. If all the forms are captured in any interaction, the total quantity of mass and energy remains constant. Other forms of energy do contain kinetic energy BUT they are NOT kinetic energy, they contain only momentum once created and require kinetic energy to dissipate or change them to another form again. This includes photons, compression waves through molecular collisions as sound and random collisions as heat. Kinetic energy only occurs during a change of momentum in the mass of an entity. The only exception to this is with that of rest mass energy and quantum effects where motion and acceleration is continuous. Even a photon with its momentum during collision gives up its kinetic energy to bring it's electron to "zero" velocity. Kinetic energy only exists during a change of velocity. During a continuous velocity kinetic energy is stored as potential (inertial) energy. This is why kinetic energy has a squared velocity equation to imply a change in time by acceleration.

I agree with that. Have you considered though that our measured speed limit if light, c, might be as one octave on an infinite scale, with other octaves of light existing above at much faster yet at unmeasurable speeds relative to us?

Faster velocities than light are simply impossible in 3 dimensions unless an entity with a mass less than the electron exists. Anything is of course possible but I have yet to see or read about it.

[Michael]

Hold it Bar, lets not divert this from the intended comment. You stated momentum is conserved, and energy isn’t

This is why momentum can be conserved and kinetic energy can not,

when in fact it is energy that is conserved. I don't need to post the long list of internet resources up do I?
Saying momentum is conserved is a misappropriation of terms when compared to energy. I throw a ball up in the air. It has momentum. It has just enough to reach a ledge where it falls onto and rests. Where is the momentum now? Poof. Itsa gonna. Where is the energy? It sits as potential - stored. Momentum is gone, energy is maintained.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The only thing that can happen with energy in an isolated system is that it can change form, that is to say for instance kinetic energy can become thermal energy. Because energy is associated with mass in the Einstein's theory of relativity, the conservation of energy also implies the conservation of mass in isolated systems (that is, the mass of a system cannot change, so long as energy is not permitted to enter or leave the system).