Journeys into Gravity Theory

[junglelord]

A very interesting take on angular momentum and gravity and how it relates to Coloumbs force.
http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/index.html
I got started on this because of the hydrogen atom and its geometry that leads to hydrogen bonding.
Of course life is dependent on hydrogen bonding. The relationship of these bonds and the fundamental geometry will help us create a stucture and functional model that is based on angular momentum and three force models in most cases.

This seems to be accomplished at least three ways as far as I can tell. To me, this is just three different ways of viewing the same thing. Infact the point of reference seems to make fundamental relationships between the universal constants.

We have seen that, given the principles of relativity and due to the gravitational conditions of the atom, a small variation in the velocity of the electron unbalances the forces such that, when the point of reference is the proton, the Coulomb force is greater than the centripetal force. This difference is the gravitational force. When the point of reference is the electron, the Coulomb force is equal to the centripetal force, ensuring the equilibrium of the system.

http://www.geocities.com/rolfguthmann/QTG/qtg060.html

[junglelord]

Several models seem to indicate that EM is faster then light.
This is a interesting point of agreement between the different points of reference.
Transverse wave EM is limited to the speed of light, but Longitudinal, Tangential or Vortical EM is not limited to the speed of light.

A Unified Field Theory provides the solution to the mystery of gravity: How was this accomplished? Well, you can't get it from a mechanical theory (such as Quantum Mechanics), since everything must be defined in terms of a field. In this book, everything is defined in terms of electromagnetic forces and the electromagnetic fields. In his book, "The Secret of Gravity", Dr. Vlasak began by analyzing the atom as a rotating electric dipole; something never before done. He discovered that either the wavefront of the moving field must bend, or the speed of light must be exceeded. Now he provides solid evidence that the field wave bends, and that the speed of light is exceeded by the rotating field wave. He provides the derivation of Einstein's energy equation, E = mc^2, in his third book "Secrets of the Atom" from his new model of the atom. This was a result that he did not initially expect to attain, and the proof took only two short pages
http://www.science-site.net/gravity.htm

A major difference between radiating and non-radiating fields is that the level of a nonradiating fields decreases with the third power of the radius (volume), while the level of a radiating field decreases with the first power. The analysis presented here provides evidence as to how and why this occurs. The conclusions are somewhat surprising. It has been accepted as fact that waves cannot move faster than the speed of light. However, it is only the propagation of signals in the radial direction that is limited to the speed of light. Tangential waves travel much faster. Electromagnetic waves are not seen to "break away", but to vary with the high tangential velocity of the field, producing a compression of the wave and a corresponding time delay with distance.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login ... er=1219889

Thunderbolts Electrogravity
‘Instantaneous’ gravity

A significant fact, usually overlooked, is that Newton's law of gravity does not involve time. This raises problems for any conventional application of electromagnetic theory to the gravitational force between two bodies in space, since electromagnetic signals are restricted to the speed of light. Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the Earth. If gravity operated at the speed of light all planets would experience a torque that would sling them out of the solar system in a few thousand years. Clearly, that doesn't happen. This supports the view that the electric force operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, as it must inside the electron. It is a significant simplification of all of the tortuous theorizing that has gone into the nature of gravity and mass. Einstein’s postulates are wrong. Matter has no effect on empty space. Space is three-dimensional—something our senses tell us. There is a universal clock so time travel and variable aging is impossible—something that commonsense has always told us. But most important—the universe is connected and coherent.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

A link to the Sansbury model and literature
http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/

Theory of Gravity by Cotterell
Hydrogen Polarized EM radiation
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html

[junglelord]

Ok I am reading the Sansbury work.

One is led to the conclusion that all the forces of nature including gravity, magnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces are derived from a single force, the electrostatic force.

Bingo, thats what APM says.
I am eager to see what follows.

[junglelord]

I am investigating tangential polorized EM waves and the speed of light limitations for EM velocity. These two gems from the IEEE maybe give some credence to the Hydrogen Atom electrogravity polorized EM tangential theory.

A major difference between radiating and non-radiating fields is that the level of a nonradiating fields decreases with the third power of the radius (volume), while the level of a radiating field decreases with the first power. The analysis presented here provides evidence as to how and why this occurs. The conclusions are somewhat surprising. It has been accepted as fact that waves cannot move faster than the speed of light. However, it is only the propagation of signals in the radial direction that is limited to the speed of light. Tangential waves travel much faster. Electromagnetic waves are not seen to "break away", but to vary with the high tangential velocity of the field, producing a compression of the wave and a corresponding time delay with distance.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login ... er=1219889

Pulse radar has a very narrow band, so, to describe the state of the signal, it is possible to consider a single pulse as a monochromatic electromagnetic wave, which is completely polarized. A very useful representation of the electrical field is its spinor form which contains the complete information, even the zero phase. The aim of this work is to develop a coherent polarimetric model and to find a geometrical description of a monochromatic wave. The spinor form of the electrical field, its links to the coherency matrix and the Poincare sphere are introduced with the aim of obtaining a geometrical representation of the spinor. It consists, from the `polarization point of view', of the polarization vector and a tangential plane to the Poincare sphere where it is possible to visualize the zero phase
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login ... ber=913881

[junglelord]

I have been looking at several models of gravitational radiation.
This is TT Brown's model

Gravitational Radiation
(Return to Library Index)

Relevant Documents
Relevant Articles | Research Organizations



Townsend Brown discovered over the course of his lifetime, that gravity had a parallelity to electromagnetism in that for every electromagnetic effect (light, radio, heat, etc.) there appeared to exist a corresponding gravitational effect. This section closely overlaps the electrogravitic communications section, as a communication system is one of the most obvious potential uses of gravitational waves.

The current state of modern physics embraces the "Standard Model" of particle physics. A satisfactory description of the Standard Model of particle physics is found at Wikpedia, which begins:

"The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory which describes three of the four known fundamental interactions between the elementary particles that make up all matter [electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and gravity]. It is a quantum field theory developed between 1970 and 1973 which is consistent with both quantum mechanics and special relativity. To date, almost all experimental tests of the three forces described by the Standard Model have agreed with its predictions. However, the Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions, primarily because of its lack of inclusion of gravity, the fourth known fundamental interaction."
The Standard Model of particle physics has several short-comings; however one of the most obvious weaknesses is the assumption that gravitational force must be transmitted in the same manner as the other forces - by particles known as bosons. The theoretical boson responsible for gravity has become known as the graviton, and has been given a number of distinguishing properties. The reason for any uncertainty and assumption here is because the graviton has not been observed to-date.

In an unpublished document, "Part II, Structure of Space," dated 1942, Townsend Brown outlines a theory of the structure of space (hence the name) representing an interpretation of experimental observations. Townsend Brown theorizes gravity as a fundamental effect caused by variations in the permittivity (K) and permeability (u) in space - a theory based on a foundation of electromagnetic properties.

The author of "Defying Gravity: The Parallel Universe of T. Townsend Brown,", Paul Schatzkin, provides his interpretation of the "Structure of Space:"

"In 'Structure of Space,' Brown is contemplating fluctuations in these electrical properties of space, and imagining how those electrical variations might explain the presence of what we call gravity:

Electromagnetic theory assigns real values of K and u to 'free space.' For the sake of simplicity, the 'aether' may be imagined to represent merely these "real values." It follows logically that space may not be uniform and that variations will occur in K and u.

It is logical, also, to assume that space is 'distorted' by the presence of matter and that this distortion actually may be a variation of K and u...

Then, allowing for the deflection of light rays as they pass a massive body in space (like a star), Brown concludes:

...the values of K and u near a massive body are greater. As a matter of fact the gravitational 'field' may be visualized as an area or region of higher K and u. The force of gravitation would then be the tendency to migrate to the higher K and .

As Brown sees it, the presence of 'massive bodies' causes variations in the electromagnetic properties of space, producing areas of 'low pressure' associated with high K and u values, and areas of 'high pressure' associated with low K and u values; An area of 'low pressure' (high K and u) would have a stronger ability to support electromagnetic lines of force than an area of 'high pressure' (low K and u).

Brown then suggests that the force of gravitation is results from these electrical 'pressure' differentials, causing matter to literally 'gravitate' from the areas of 'high pressure' (low K and u ) to the areas of 'low pressure' (high and u)."
http://qualight.com/radiate/index.htm

[junglelord]

Another gravity radiation model from the Blazelabs site

As shown in this animation, the doppler effect on the incoming ultra cosmic radiation gives a physical interpretation to the already advanced spherical wave structure model introduced in the particle section. The energy difference within the doppler shift (DE=h.Df) is equivalent to the frequency of the slow moving matter standing wave, which is equal to the internal kinetic energy of matter (E=mc2). Since the energy input is always greater than the energy output, this model also gives a plausible reason for the always positive direction of time, and a physical interpratation of entropy. The outgoing waves are a reflection of the incoming waves, but are always at a lower energy level (and frequency). This change in frequency is experimentally evident not only in optic scattering studies, but in radioactive sources and in large planets, in which ultacosmic radiation, after undergoing multiple doppler shifts, looses a considerable amount of its energy to be detected in lower frequency bands such as gamma, x-ray and infrared. This theory thus predicts, that if a radioactive substance is shielded from its external ultracosmic radiation, or goes through a low irradiance region in space, its radioactivity would stop! Same applies to our sun... if on its journey throughout the universe, it happens to pass from a region of low ultracosmic irradiance, its activity will drastically slow down, and would perfectly explain the mysterious periodic ice ages, which we have evidence of. If one could compare the temporal and spatial variations of radioactivity measurements with earth's core temperature or the sun's activity, one should be able to find a high correlation, which can only make sense when taking into account the highly energetic cosmic radiation background. When one considers the sun as a shadowing body, it is easy to understand that any extra energy dissipated in the sun will equate to missing energy reaching our planet. In all cases, further shadowing of this cosmic radiation may not only reduce the radiation from the body, but can also effectively reduce its mass and inertia, explaining the recorded variations in the value of the gravitational 'constant' G. Thus, one cannot say that radioactive sources have a fixed exponential decay, nor rely on carbon dating techniques, and certainly not assume that reactors based on such energy cannot show 'anomalous' spikes in their energy output, putting the whole nuclear plant beyond it's normal operating conditions, and thus at an uncalculated risk. In fact, if it were possible to totally shield a particle from its incoming radiation it would cease to exist, in the same way a wave crest would vanish if the water is removed. In the standard model, a particle would continue to exist, independently from its incoming radiation, but we know the standard model is far from being a model of reality.

In this section I have thus shown that gravity is not some mysterious force which have to be merged with the rest of the known fields of science with some yet unknown kind of particles or complex theory. Scientists usually refer to such a theory as the GUT (Grand unified theory). Understanding the contents of this section, makes such a theory unnecessary, or one can replace the present requirement for the GUT by the EMRP gravity theory. This model shifts the enigma of the force of gravity from an unknown source to an effect of electromagnetic fields. In this section it was shown that the source of gravity is the result of imbalance of the background EM radiations, (or photon showers in quantum terms), the main source of which are the highest frequency cosmic electromagnetic rays (blue shifted EM waves) present in our universe. These high frequency photons efficiently impart momentum to the basic constituent particles of matter (whatever they may be) by electromagnetic momentum transfer in the Mie scattering range. We also know that radiation pressure is directly proportional to the magnitude of the Poynting vector in the propagating direction of an electromagnetic wave coupled to the objects radiation pressure coefficient which peaks to a value of two when its diameter is very close to the EM wavelength. The 'force of gravity' at any point in space can be calculated from the vector addition of Poynting vectors of high frequency radiation propagating through that point. The reason that we cannot easiely shield anything from gravity, is simply because we cannot shield anything from extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation. The reason that masses always attract and never repel is simply because the Poynting vector is a cosine squared function and so is always positive. A simple radiation pressure imbalance is created when one object shadows the background radiation over another object. The shadowed side will be in a lower pressure area than the non shadowed side, and the object will thus move towards the shadowed region, that is, towards the other mass. The shadowed area subtended by the shadowing mass varies as the inverse square of the distance between the two bodies, and is in perfect agreement with Newton's equations for the force of gravity between two bodies. The electromagnetic radiation pressure difference finally gives a physical meaning to Einstein's space time curvature, and the electromagnetic radiation shows why gravity cannot exchange information faster than the speed of radiation itself, that is the speed of light.

Unfortunately, the movement of masses being pushed towards each other was misinterpreted for long enough years, as an attractive force originating from the masses themselves. In a similar fashion, the darkness generated at the core of matter, due to itself shadowing its core atoms from external radiation, generates a low EM pressure (shadowed area) within it being misinterpreted as the centre of gravity of the object. This internal shadowing also explains the non linearity of mass increase with increasing atomic number. Francis Aston (1877-1945) investigated the phenomenon of atoms weighing less than the sum of their particles. He calculated the total weight of the hydrogen atoms and neutrons that would be produced by the atom breaking apart minus the weight of the original atom. The mass of the constituent parts of an atom to the mass of the whole atom showed a slight difference. Aston termed this difference the packing fraction. Albert Einstein termed the difference between the sum of the mass of the atomic particles and the mass of the atom as a whole as the mass defect, and its equivalent energy, the binding energy of the nucleus. The more neutrons and protons are closely packed inside the nucleus core, the more shadowed and invisible the central parts become. So, EMRP perfectly explains the so called mass defect in nuclear physics.

Also the gravitational constant G has to be variable and depend on the luminance of the background radiation at the point in space being calculated. The sun and mostly, high temperature stars play a very important role on the actual value of G, and this constant can be said to depend on the neighbouring stars energy and relative positions as already discussed here . Einstein's theory would thus become only a special case of EMRP gravity theory, a case in which G is assumed constant in the short range. The fact that gravity and electromagnetism are unified by this theory is a very strong indicator of the correctness of this model, and make this model itself an important piece of a grand unification theory.
http://blazelabs.com/f-g-grp.asp

[altonhare]

I've been reading about Guthmann's quantum theory of gravity. He, very nicely and elegantly, applies the mathematics of both relativity and quantum mechanics to the hydrogen atom. His starting point is the uncertainty relation so it, too, will be mine.

The first question is, is the uncertainty equation an artifact of measurement or is it real? I know this question has been asked many times, often by neophytes to quantum mechanics, but it is still an important question. I am not a neophyte to QM.

To answer this question we must analyze the origin of QM. Originally, before Heisenberg formalism, the electron and proton were assumed to be particles where the electron could only occupy specific "orbits". De Broglie imagined that, if the electron were some kind of kinked string then it would only fit around the nucleus with an integer number of "kinks". This explained why the electron did not fall into the nucleus and the "quantum jump" phenomenon. QM then takes a step backward by returning to the discrete particle when Born proposes that electrons are discrete particles without a well-defined position/momentum. The picture of an "electron cloud" is misleading because what is actually being described is a REGION of space WHERE WE CAN FIND a discrete particle known as the electron. De Broglie's kinked string was no longer discussed, neither was any other physical hypothesis.

The indeterminacy principle (if one translates it literally from the original German) ultimately rests upon the assumption that the electron is a discrete particle. It does not matter if its position is inexact, the hypothesis is still a discrete particle. If this hypothesis is wrong, if the electron is not a particle, then indeterminacy can be thrown out. In point of fact, it has been consistently shown that the electron is not a discrete particle. The reason indeterminacy HAD to be inserted into the mathematics was to make up for a failing of the corpuscular hypothesis. Heisenberg's indeterminacy did not "prove" noncausality or that QM is "correct", it is a mathematical device that quantitatively makes up for the theory's qualitative lacking.

Indeterminacy is a way to reconcile measurements with faulty assumptions, it is nonphysical. If the electron is a kinked string as De Broglie imagined it, or a 3-D version that looks somewhat like a yarn ball, then indeterminacy goes out the window. Indeterminacy did not EXPLAIN wave/particle duality, it PRODUCED it. It is not the "answer to the problem", it is the problem. If the electron is not a particle there is no duality! The particle is an assumption! Observation has routinely demonstrated that it is neither particle nor "wave" (whatever their wave is). I always have to ask, what is waving...?

So, a new and correct theory of gravity absolutely cannot rest upon quantum mechanics and especially not on indeterminacy. These are mathematical devices, they are designed to "get the right answer" without any regard to WHAT they're actually talking about. The author also applies relativistic "time dilation", which again is an erroneous concept. Besides the fact that time is a concept and not an object, the relativistic time dilation term is a correction on Newtonian time. Anyone who has read the original "Relativity" or Einstein's papers can see that, plain as day, Einstein starts from Newton's original equations and adds in correction factors. These are mathematical corrections that cancel out the faulty assumptions of Newtonian time. If, instead, we start with relativistic assumptions, we get the correct answer without a nonlinear "dilation" term.

I am skeptical to read the rest of the treatise since the author is starting from from such inauspicious beginnings.

[Plasmatic]

Alton, its refreshig to have your professional schooling and rational mind hanging around here. I cant wait till you catch up to the E.U. materials.

[junglelord]

There is no problem with disregarding the so called indeterminacy principle, especially if there is no particle.
That whole argument is a particle argument and an extension of QM with particle physics.
If charge is a distributed resonante standing wave then it is a electron charge cloud, not a QM probability with uncertainty basesd on a particle assumption. That takes away any Uncertainty Principle.

Also gravity is not constant. Neither is the speed of light in a vaccum. This accounts for erroneous inference of the red shift. Gravity is a shadow effect from the structure of the vacuum and its relationship to bodies of Mass. The Hydrogen relationship does therefore apply to the relationship of the Structure of the Vacuum to Mass and a gravity field. One does need to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Since the Universe is 90% hydrogen and 99% plasma, then any ability to relate and understand the hydrogen atom and plasma physics is too your advantage. If you feel that 90% of the universe is not important, thats not a position I take.


Gravity is non-local and is superluminal in this radiation pressure shadow effect. It is a constant interplay between the Ultra Cosmic Frequency and its relationship as converging or diverging Radiation Pressures upon a body of Mass and its angular velocity. The angular velocity of the earth is not constant. The precession and axis of tilt of the earth directly relate to these relationships and show gravity to be cyclic in its spin relationship to our own refererance frame and the rest of the universe around us. The reference frame for the earth is .3% the speed of light. One must consider all spin reference frames from Plancks length to the Great Attractor in Virgo and everything in between. Since it is all one holistic harmonicly coupled oscillator, with many interconnected spin harmonic frames of reference, the analysis of these frequency intervals reveals many interharmonic dependencies. The ability to have a Isotropic Vector Matrix that is able to couple with the Ultra Cosmic Frequency is critical if one is to connect Quantum to Relativistic. Plancks length is directly connected to our relationshp to the Great Attractor in Virgo. There is no seperation.

Only a quantum structural approach will marry Quantum Domains to Relativistic Domains. One must leave a particle model behind to progess. QM is a dead end and so is SR and GR. Neither one can account for harmonic relationships. Frequency and Angle are what needs to be considered and properly understood. All harmonic relationships are interconnected via frequency and angle and phase shifts. We need to think in terms of push and pull, in and out. There is no up and down.

[junglelord]

Gravity is connected to the Spin of the Earth as well as the quantum units of Mass.
What makes the planets spin?


This is a important question. One that leaves most stumped.
True knowledge is the ability to answer this question and relate it to all other spins.


The Spin Domains begin at the level of Primary Angular Momentum.
This would seem to be nothing on its own, merely Angle.
Angle with Velocity then creates Primary Angular Momentum and which develops Frequency or is created by Frequency which creates Resonance.

Compton WaveLength, Planck Length, Speed of Light, and their relative relationships would be the lower limits of these Units and Domains. The Great Attractor is the best fixed frame of reference to examine Spin Domains on a Galactic Scale.
http://blazelabs.com/f-u-massvariation.asp

The two levels, Quantum and Fixed Point in the Universe as our greatest spin reference frame, must have perfect balance and be intrinsicly harmonicly coupled. The holistic approach favours this view. The exploration of the sacred numbers involved in these dynamic spin domains are infact related and do indeed have harmonic relationships that govern music, art, geometry, natural forms, and all the rules of physics. Spin is the answer to all knowledge.

Once the spin domains have been examined it is clear that one needs to readdress the question, "Is Gravity constant?"

The force of Gravity is infact cyclic and is based on the relative velocity of the earth which is not constant.

There is an intrinsic harmonic relationship to numbers and cyclic occurances at each level in nature. This harmonic relationship begins with an understanding of Numerology and Casting Out Nines which is then arranged into Vortex Math. With the Prime Number Code and Holotomic Numbers and then all the harmonic spin level ratios from Quantum to The Great Attractor become fully revealed...


One needs to approach the structure of harmonicly couple oscillators with Synergetics and Tensegrity.

Spin can be argured over till the cows come home, but the sooner you can identify the harmonicly coupled spin relationships to each level the sooner you will see the big picture. All forms are the result of spin harmonics and standing waves of distributed charge. This marries Structure with Function via spin. This is indisputable as Nature is the architect.

We merely observe her cyclic forms and fractal patterns. The couple harmonic relationships are inbreed into the system.
There is a point where numbers are real representatives of space and frequency. This harmonic coupled tuned oscillator is of specific geometric design which repeats. This is again indisputable and dependent on the creed "structure and function cannot be seperated". Fundamental strutural units of spherical and toroidal distributed charge with never ending angular momentum encapsulated within. A Stator and Rotor arrangement. An electric motor from the first quantum domain.

The cause of spin?

That would be the measureable and identifible Gforce of APM (Aether Physics Model)>
The cyclic nature of frequency requires a galactic and universal Push/Pull as its Driver.
The universe is nothing without its harmonic spin relationships. It is dependent on these relationships and cannot exist without them.

Numerology, Vortex Magic Cubes, Synergetics, Tensegrity, Prime Number Code, Holotomic Numbers. Each one interconnects to fully reveal the relationship to spin and all cyclic patterns in nature and the universe.
The understanding of frequency, spin, harmonics and how these couple is the identifiable numeroligical resonace of the universe. You can find links to these ideas on this page here.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &start=135

This is the importance of spin. It explains and determines harmonic coupling at every level.

Many debates here have occured over spin.
Is it a dimension, is it intrinsic, is it a noun, (yes it is especially in physics).
Therefore it is a "thing" and not a device of the human mind.
Leave it unresolved at your own peril.

Infact the relative velocities of each spin domain are haromonicly linked and thats what you discover as you learn the list of concepts I referred to.

I can tell you off the top of my head the relative velocites of each spin domain.
I know them because they related harmonicly and have numerical value. That is frequency.
Its a good thing to know and comprehend.


They are not mere concepts, but the actual template for structure and function.
Synergetics and Tensegrity are the engineering properties and principles and structural forms of nature.
This allows us to have identifiable relationships to the concept of numbers as real and a valid property exhibited in the relationship to Synergetic Structures and harmonicly coupled frequency functions which also shows frequency to be real and not a concept. The Synergetic Isotropic Vector Matirx.

[altonhare]

The Spin Domains begin at the level of Primary Angular Momentum.
This would seem to be nothing on its own, merely Angle.
Angle with Velocity then creates Primary Angular Momentum and which develops Frequency or is created by Frequency which creates Resonance.

- JL

I think I can make some sense out of this. A body rotating around another body, or a body spinning around its axis, indeed has angular momentum by virtue of its angular velocity and possessing a quality perceived as "mass". This spinning or rotating certainly occurs with a fundamental frequency related to the body's angular velocity. Two such systems can be spinning/rotating perfectly in phase (resonant) or out of phase (dissonant). While the phrase "frequency creates resonance" is semantically and logically nonsensical I think I have translated it correctly.

The Blaze Labs article was a good read. In effect it states that the observed gravitational constant will fluctuate due to fluctuations in earth's absolute velocity. The error made in previous experiments was that the earth's inertial mass (resistance to motion) was assumed constant simply because its countable mass (quantity of matter) is constant. It is obvious that a body's resistance to motion increases as its velocity increases, although the body will still possess the exactly same quantity of matter. The calculations are elegant and make the points clearly and concisely. One must not confuse this fluctuation in "G" with an actual fluctuation in the laws of physics. If two discrete masses are the only masses in the universe they will accelerate toward each other uniformly and, as their velocity increases, so will their "inertial mass (resistance to motion)". The factor G will remain constant but the objects' inertial mass will increase. An observer taking a measurement, assuming constant inertial mass, would erroneously conclude in a fluctuating G.

One point I must raise is the issue of the word "mass". There are two ways this word is used. There is the "quantity" definition and the "inertia" definition. The "quantity" definition is a matter of counting, number of hydrogen atoms, number of protons, number of whatevers. The "inertia" definition is a matter of measuring an objects resistance to motion. Einstein "showed" that an object's resistance to motion (inertia) increases as it moves faster. Anyone with a firing neuron knows that, the faster something moves, the more difficult it is to deflect it from its path. We didn't need "relativistic mass" or Einstein's equations to tell us this, it is inherent to an object. See the attached excel spreadsheet. In uniform acceleration any unit increase in velocity (at high velocity) will be a proportionately smaller increase than at lower velocity. So Einstein's "relativistic mass" is nothing mysterious nor does it imply that an object somehow acquires more atoms or more matter out of nothing, it is simply an expression of an object's inherent resistance to motion as a function of its velocity. Again, anyone with a firing neuron can tell that, if you assume c is the speed limit of everything at the outset, an object at c must appear to have an "infinite" resistance to motion to be consistent with your assumption. Anything else would be a self-contradiction. This follows from the assumptions of the theory and, again, is nothing mystical.

If, instead of light emitted by a body, I measured the helium nuclei emitted by a body I could erroneously conclude that the body could not travel faster than the velocity of the helium nuclei! The "speed limit of c" is an artifact of measurement. There is simply no reason to hold c as a physically inviolate speed limit. Indeed, a classical (physical) mechanism of FTL motion is conceivable. Imagine two ladders each a light year across. Imagine all the rungs are removed except for one rung at either end. One ladder is slightly wider than the other. You slide the thinner ladder in between the posts of the wider ladder so that you have an "X" shape, but with the bottom of the "X" much smaller than the top. The ladders are perpendicular to one another. You place a ball (larger than the ladders) in the crook of the bottom of the "X". Then each ladder is translated at 0.9c in the direction the other ladder is lying. The result is the original "X" shape inverted i.e. now the bottom of the "X" is large and the top is small. The ball will move foward at >c.

This scenario simply illustrates that "speed limits" placed by equations such as E=mc^2*(1-(v^2/c^2))^-.5 are purely mathematical, not physical.

The force of Gravity is infact cyclic and is based on the relative velocity of the earth which is not constant.

-JL

The observed value of "G" is constant as long as the velocity of the earth relative to every other body is taken into account. Stating that "the force of gravity is cyclic" is misleading. It is the earth's inertia i.e. it's relative velocity that fluctuates, not "G". There's nothing mystical going on here.

The cause of spin?

-JL

This is like asking "What is the cause of up-and-down?". Spin is defined as the rotation of a body about its axis or about another body. It's "cause" is motion in a specific direction. A body rotates around another because they pull each other. Why do they pull? This is a fundamental question of physics. The only way one body can rotate around another is if they are both connected! There is simply no other reason for one body to attract another.

Many debates here have occured over spin.
Is it a dimension, is it intrinsic, is it a noun, (yes it is especially in physics).
Therefore it is a "thing" and not a device of the human mind.
Leave it unresolved at your own peril.

- JL

Oh, you are using a different definition of spin than the rest of the world. Spin is a motion, a verb. If you are using it as a noun you will have to point it out for the rest of us. All nouns can be visualized, they all have a shape. If you want to point at a man running from a house and call this concept "running" you may do so, because when you say "Running increases distance" we all know that you mean "a MAN running will increase HIS distance from THE HOUSE". You have tied your verb to one or more nouns. Therefore if you will use spin as a noun you will have to show us that which is spinning.

However, you may NEVER say that "The universe is composed of running". This is simply nonsense, it's not even a convenient shorthand. It has no meaning. In mathematics it would be akin to saying "the equation is composed of counting". Utter nonsense. Nouns are composed of other nouns, this is not up for debate, this is called a "system of logic" that governs our language.

wtf I can't upload a simple excel file?

[junglelord]

I don't debate words. That is nonsense in my opinion. If you don't like it, thats your problem.
The words stand and the relationships.

The fact is I understand it and can explain it.
I do not need a grammer coach.

Spin must be delt with.
In Quantum Physics "spin" is a noun and that is very clear.
Do a google search.
Thats the first and last talk we will have on grammer.
If you bother to attack grammer and have no rebuttal for the harmonic series,
you can keep that straw man to yourself.
There are many people here who love Ayn Rand and word talk.
You can cover that "spin" with them.

Gravity being an artifact of Radiation pressure is cyclic due to the earths changes in velocity over 12 months, which makes it vary in cycles of 6 months by .7%

Natures Cycles of Harmonic Resonance relate to the intrinsic properties of hyper-spherical harmonics. It is the music of the spheres. If you can understand what spin is at every level, and also know the harmonic series, which the universe is very explicit about, then anyone can determine that the sun is cyclic in a sinewave pattern of about 26,000 years with the galactic core. That why the Mayans and others knew the universal harmonic code. They did not pass down 26,000 years of observations.


I too know the code and I learned it from hyper-spherical spin harmonics. Which is not nonsense.


This is derived from Plancks length, which is of course the limit of quantum spin in a quantum moment.
The Harmonic Coupling Effect is universal and needs to be so for it to exist as well as us.
If there is no frequency there is no life.
Time is money and is the control of the masses.
Frequency is freedom and is limitless in its potential due to harmonics.
The identification of spin, frequency and their relationship to the numbers 1-9 are quite real.
The Harmonic Sequence of each domain is known.

Whats the Frequency Kenneth?


What is the Harmonic Relationship between Us, the Earth, and the Universal Frequency Constant?
The Schumann Resonance and Alpha brain waves are base ten of the Universal Ultra Cosmic Radiation Frequency.
7.4X10^42 HZ which is derived from the quantum constant Plancks length.

[altonhare]

Junglelord, LISTEN. This is NOT a matter of grammar it is a matter of CONSISTENT LOGIC. I had never heard of Ayn Rand or objectivism when I came to this forum and I argued this same thing with you. In this context and discussion I couldn't care less about what Ayn Rand or anyone else says. You cannot say "X is composed of spin" anymore than you can say "Michael Jordan is composed of jumping" or "A worm is composed of writhing" or "A tree is composed of growing". A can accept a grammatically incorrect sentence, this is not the same thing as a nonsensical sentence. A nonsensical sentence is NOTHING, it has no meaning. Your statement "the universe is composed of spin" is nonsensical. This can be contrasted with grammatically incorrect but sensible statements you made:

Angle with Velocity then creates Primary Angular Momentum and which develops Frequency or is created by Frequency which creates Resonance.

-JL

This is technically incorrect but I understand your meaning because I'm a physicist:

A body with velocity at an angle with another body is called angular velocity. The body has a quality termed "mass" and the product of angular velocity and mass is "angular momentum". The angular velocity is related to how often the body revolves around the other body, which we term the "frequency of rotation" or simply "frequency". Two such systems that rotate perfectly in phase are termed "resonant".

On the other hand, this statement simply has no meaning:

"The universe is made of spin"

or

"The universe is made of angular momentum"

What you mean (I think) by these statements are:

"The universe is composed of bodies that move around each other and around their own axes"

or

"The universe is composed of bodies which possess a quality "mass" that makes them resist motion; they spin around each other and their own axes and their mass increases as their relative motion (increased motion produces increased resistance to motion)."

Unfortunately, to interpret a nonsensical statement I have to make assumptions. Namely I have to assume you are talking about discrete three dimensional bodies in motion relative to one another. I assume this because it is the most natural for me, you may mean something completely different.

So, is my assumed interpretation correct?

[junglelord]

Sorry dude. I cannot help you.
Your own bias to what is real or what makes something is dimensional analysis.
We differ on what these are.
Your classicaly trained by SI units.
Your therefore ingrained bias to re-organization of the system.
That is your failure to see what I said valid.
The whole issue of spin not being real, making the harmonic relationships invalid actually disputes every SI measurement.
I am telling you why SI units exist.
Your telling me as a Physicst why thats not possible.
You tell me why SI units exist then.

[altonhare]

So, when push comes to shove, you simply cannot produce the goods? You cannot explain to another physicist what you're talking about? You know, the Wizard of Oz claimed a great deal and put on an impressive show, as long as everyone ignored the curtain. I am not ignoring your curtain. You are hiding behind illogical language and a claim that only a few elite (of which you are a part of course) can understand this TOE. You cannot show us the golden eggs you claim because you don't actually have the goose.

And what in the world does this have to do with units? I have not mentioned a single measurement, only objects, their motion, and their resistance to motion (inertial mass). Do you have a problem with these concepts?

I am all for a complete reorganization of modern physics. It is YOUR theories and articles that ALL use relativity and quantum mechanics! How can you be talking about a reorganization of the system if you're still using or ascribing to those century old theories?