Journeys into Gravity Theory

[SpaceTravellor]

Forget the orthodox theory of Gravity.

The basic 2 movements in the Universe is Concentration AND Expansion - so working with just 1 theory of seemingly contractive forces does not provide logical answers for both these 2 movements.

You have to have an explanation which can describe BOTH movements in order to understand what is going on.

- The contractive movement of matter is coursed by a stellar explosion in a neighbourhood of a molecular dust cloud. The outgoing electric force from the stellar explosion is coursing vortices in the cloud. All matter and gas heats up when accelerated in the vortices and when the this concentration/acceleration reaches the sufficient state, the gas and matter melts and explodes, and because of the original whirling effect, all gas and heavier matter is thrown out in the 90 degree plane of the original swirling, still having the moment of swirling effect after the explosion.

This explanation goes for both the creative inwards and outwards movements in Galaxies as well as for the creation of Solar Systems.

With this explanation, BOTH the basic movements in the Universe are logically and naturally explained as a Cyclic Movement of Creation – which of course debunks the totally illogical “Big Bang Bluff” and other theories based on orthodox “laws of gravity”, the linear perception of “time” and “space-time”, etc. etc.

The Spin of Planets in our Solar System, and other stellar systems, is logically coursed by the original whirling in the dust cloud and the coursed explosion in the gas and matter which leaves a still rotational movement in the Sun.

For more natural explanations, look here: http://www.cosmology-unified.net/

NB: Don’t be fooled by the simplicity of this explanation – sometimes the best explanation is the simplest . . .

[junglelord]

double post.

[junglelord]

Cool and correct.
There are only the two forces, push (compression) and pull (tension) = Tensegrity.
The Ultra Cosmic Radiation Pulls In Continuious Tension.
The Planets Push Out Discontinous Compression.
Gravity is the balance between...Tensegrity.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Ivar,

Bravo!

[junglelord]

Sounds like my own words. Linear concepts drilled into our heads to make us forget.

"DARK matter fills 99,9% of the Universe but everything in it can GLOW".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is really and basically wrong with the Newton and Einstein Equations and several other modern Cosmology Hypothesis?

The Universe is EXPANDING, so it's said. Why then, do modern Cosmologists accept the quite opposite CONTRACTING Law at all? That´s illogical!


The traditional Cosmological concept of Time is Linear, but al movements in the Universe are spiraling and bending. The Time-Space Concept is illogical! It makes no natural and logical sense!

The "Big Bang" theory is connected to the illogical Linear Time/Space Concept and therefore it makes non sense!

[junglelord]

I HIT THE MOTHER LOAD.


Buckminster Fuller on Radiation Gravity.
Electromagnetic Membrane Tensegrity Gravity.
From his work Synergetics 1
Gravity is not a linear radial force but is a circumferentially tensional embracement force.
Fuller 1052.81

Thats moving from 2-D Linear to 4-D Distributed.

1052.80 Radiation-Gravitation: Electromagnetic Membrane


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1052.81 Membrane Model: The reason why the second-power rate of interattractiveness gains in respect to the arithmetical rate of variation of the relative proximity of remote bodies is that gravity is not a linear, radial force but is a circumferentially tensional embracement force.

1052.82 We will think of two spheres inside a closed elastic membrane so smoothly intimate to each that, when the two spheres are tangent to one another, they appear as two clearly independent spheres momentarily in kissing tangency, the membrane continuity between the two being so intimately clinging as to be observationally subvisible. But as the two spheres are pulled apart, the elastic membrane is locally stretch-pulled away evenly from the surface of each sphere, and the membrane tube running between the two contracts to a progressively invisible, fine-line, spider-thread tube stretched between the two spheres. As the two spheres are pulled further apart, the tube between the two remote spheres will appear to be an invisible line-of-sight perpendicular to each of the enclosed spheres.

1052.83 Since the nuclei of the atoms are not touching one another and only the cosmic totality integrity mantle is cohering the atoms, they can be singled out in space and time array in the same manner as the much larger molecules can be thinned to a film of a single molecular thickness, cohered only by the mass interattractiveness like the vast multiplicity of atomic interattractiveness (as we have seen in Sections 644 through 646.03).

1052.84 As the spheres are next allowed to approach one another, the everywhere self-together-gathering proclivity of the elastic membrane providing the elastic tube between them will redistribute its perpendicular linear multitude of atoms back in both directions, yielding equally to the two stretched membranes around each sphere in much the same way as atoms in a thin stream of viscous maple syrup impinging vertically on a stack of pancakes will spread out in all directions to envelop the pancakes. Thus the two- way flowing stream of stretched-far-apart atoms of the omnihugging elastic membrane tightly embracing the two reapproaching-to-one-another spheres flows outwardly at 90 degrees to their perpendicular impingement to reenvelop thickly each of the two spheres. This means that the linear length of the tautly stretched tube reopens itself at the point of tangency to enclose each of the tube's separate spheres. The atoms previously invested in the remote-from-one-another, stretched-out tube of tension between the two spheres have now returned to the two spheres and have rejoined their nearest neighboring atoms around the elastic-membrane spherical sheath of the two tangent spheres.

1052.85 What had been a linear requirement becomes a surface requirement for the elastic membrane. Surfaces of omnisymmetrical geometrical objects are always second powers of the object's linear dimensions. If we were to remove one of the spheres from the omniclingingly embracing sheath, the elastic membrane would snap-contract to enclose only the remaining sphere, but the rate of atomic population gain of the spherical, surface- clinging membrane derived from the previous intersphere linear tendon is of the second power of the arithmetical rate of linear contraction of the elastic tendon. Soon the thickness of the membrane on each sphere would multiply into a plurality of closest- packed atomic layers, and the volume of the atoms will thus increase at a third-power rate in respect to an arithmetical rate of distance-halving between any two spheres. This two- sphere-embracing, few-atoms-thick, clinging elastic membrane fed into, or spread out from, an intersphere tension may be thought of as an electromagnetic membrane acting just like electric charges fed onto the convex surface of a copper Van de Graaff sphere or a copper wire (electric charges always inhabiting only the convex surfaces).

1052.86 Please now think of all the tensional forces of Universe as one single membrane containing all the radiational, explosive forces we have enumerated. Now think of the original compression sphere exploding into many parts inside the endlessly stretchable membrane, whose rate of ductility-adjustment-to-stretch equals the speed of light or radiation, c2. Inside our tensile membrane unitary bag would be a number of individual, exploded-apart, spherical mass components, each of which is tightly embraced by the membrane__leaving only intervening perpendicular linear tubes. (See Fig. 1052.86.)

1052.87 To understand the linear expansion rate think of making soap bubbles: Deeply layered molecules get stretched into a single layer as the single atoms guarantee the interattractiveness integrity of the area-stretching thin-out of the atoms. We now come to the balancing of the vectors of the vector equilibrium and the arrangement of the 24 external vectors end-to-end, closing back upon themselves__in four great-circle planes, constituting an "additional" vector force magnitude of 24, embracing the outwardly and separatingly exploding 24 internal vectors, which now operate in increasing independence of one another__each thus producing a force of only one. We have the surface net drawing on a force resource of 24__multiplied by radius frequency to the second power__ while the originally-24-force, radially explosive events separate out from one another and thus produce only separate first-power effectiveness. Hence the gravitational force's geometrical progression rate of gain__i.e., its second-power, surface-embracing finiteness closure is always at a high-energy effectiveness advantage over the disintegrative, linear, first-power, or only arithmetical progression rate of gain in force.

1052.88 The second-power rate of gain in interattractiveness occurring with each halving of the intervening distance of two heavenly bodies recalls Pythagoras's whole, rational-number, harmonic-octave integrity progression (or regression) occurring with each halving of the length of the tensed cord (thirding results in sharping or flatting key progressions); wherefore the gravitational-radiational, second-power, spherical surface rate of gain occurs in respect to the radial linear rate of identification of omnidirectionally propagated sound waves__at a gain of the second power of the linear. This gravitational omnisurface-embracement mathematics apprehending coincides with harmonic resonances:

Arithmetical rate of symmetrical system's radius
E = Mass (linear radial) (shortening with) (system contraction) {^2} = Newton's gravitation

E = Mass (linear radial) (lengthening with) (system expansion) {^2} = Einstein's radiation

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... ml#1052.80

[SpaceTravellor]

@ junglelord,

Quote:
There are only the two forces, push and pull.
The Ultra Cosmic Radiation Pushes In.
The Planets Push Out.
Gravity it the balance between”, end of quotation.

- In my opinion, there is NO PULL anywhere in the Universe. On the contrary, everything seems to be PUSHED . . .

The seemingly contractive forces in the Universe are just cosmic accelerated swirl/vortices caused by electric beams from exploding stars ect.

The planets in our Solar System does not "pull out", they are originally slinged out from the Sun as gas and matter and, afterwards formed as planets, still are being PUSHED out by the Solar Wind.

All interactive movements between planets and their moons are just "shading and not shading" effects on eachother from the outgoing force of the Solar Wind. The Moon does NOT pull at the Oceans. The Moon influence on the rhythm of the Tide is just shading and not shading effects of the Solar Wind which itself are the main cource of the Tide rhythm.

All planets - and the Sun - are foremost balanced in the local Solar System by the OUTGOING FORCE from our Galaxy, the very same force that creates the Pioneer Spacecraft anomaly.

When leaving the influence from the Solar Wind and the solar sphere, the spacecrafts meets more and more influence from the OUTGOING FORCE from our Galaxy which cause a breaking force "in the direction of the Sun" as measured and mentioned in the report of the anomaly.

Regards Ivar

[junglelord]

LOL, Your thinking in 2-D.
PS.
I got caught in a 2-D Reference Frame Terminology explantion.
I did a verbal step down into 2-D slang. In so doing I lost the Leverage Principle
2-D has no leverage.


Electricity is Constant Tension. The EU. 4-D. Leverage will be Important to understand this level of thinking.


I notice you took the quote before I made an edit.
(I am still learning to always speak in 4-D.)
Thats good. Notice I said that Ultra Cosmic Radiation Pushes In.

There are only the two forces, push and pull.
The Ultra Cosmic Radiation Pushes In.
The Planets Push Out.
Gravity it the balance between”,

Its a way of seeing this as both push.
Its not incorrect to say thats it two pushes. I did it myself.
I jumped from 4-D to 2-D in one sentence.....DOOH!
Its 2-D terms with no Leverage. Ok for 2-D thinking.
But the connection is lost due to the mixing of terms and dimensional analysis, both mentally, and verbally.
A Grammer Police I respect.
Telling me to talk up....thats much better then always being asked to come down.


Therefore the one push is Tensional Pull in more precise dimensionals terms.
In Tensegrity Terms or 4-D.
We must therefore add the terms Continuous and Discontinous.
Therein lies the Leverage Principles and the more complete explanation.


There are only the two forces, push and pull.
The Ultra Cosmic Radiation Pulls in with Constant Tension.
The Planets Push Out with Discontinuous Compression.
Gravity it the balance between, The Tensegrity Elecromagnetic Membrane Field.
That is Gravitational Radiation Synergy, 4-D.

Leverage is due to the fact that Tension is Continuous Pull
Compression is Discontinuous Push.
With Leverage Prinicples Understood, and there are 12 of them,
One can understand 4-D and all systems leverage points.
Application of Leverage on the 12 Vector Equilibrium Matrix EM Charge Distributed Gyroscopes
will explain all motions in the universe, from the quantum to the universal.

Learning to always speak and see the universe in 4-D.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Ivar,
I would very much like to second Vincent's 'Bravo'.
On your two websites, you appear to have done what I have been attempting, i.e. to show that the ancient wisdom, as recorded in myth and religion, is at least in part an attempt to describe the workings of the cosmos. I have struggled because I do not have the requisite scientific knowledge (nor do I particularly want it).

Thanks also for your version of the Nordic creation myth which is one of my favourites (must be the Anglo-Saxon in me). Your explanation of what Ratatosk is about was a missing piece of the puzzle for me. I hope you can find some time to continue or expand this article on your website.

Your interpretation of myth etc will probably draw you some flak from the Saturn theorists here, it did me . The myth related threads live down in the underworld in the New Insights and Mad Ideas section.

Thanks again,
GC.

[Grey Cloud]

Does this help in the push-pull debate?

The Principle of Polarity?

[altonhare]

Hmmn. Here we see the short-comings of logic. You begin by assuming that a physical explanation, by which I assume you mean an explanation of physical connections, will produce the final word on the matter. From this you assume that Physics is the only, or at least the prime, discipline (or route) to finding the answer. Lastly, you assume that that which connects everything is physical.

-GC

As opposed to a non-physical explanation? How do you define "physical"?

Physical: That which has shape

That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing". An explanation that is non physical is called an "explanation of nothing". If you would like to explain something using nothing be my guest. If you disagree simply propose your definition of physical for the rest of us. The rest of us physicists will be working with somethings while you are studying nothing.

Reason tells me that any 'physical' object is in fact 99.999% space and that I, the 'physical' observer, am also 99.99% space, so therefore the answer probably lies in the 99.999% space not the 0.001% 'physical' part.

-GC

This is in error. Not a single physical object is composed of space. There may be space between physical objects that comprise a larger collection of physical objects. At some level there are only continuous objects, the fundamental constituents. The mistake you have made is to draw an imaginary surface around a collection of continuous objects and stated that, because this imaginary surface encloses a region of space, the object itself must be composed of space. It is completely illogical, irrational, and inconsistent to say that any object or some fraction thereof IS space. The classical view of an atom is a bowling ball with an orbiting bead, not some arbitrary region of space that encloses them.

Also, you said you don't care about language/semantics? How do you accept/reject theories, a flip of a coin? I will not ignore an illogical or nonsensical sentence anymore than I will ignore an incorrect equation! The onus is on the proponent of the theory to give me reason to accept it.

IMO, JL knew his grammar, he might not be using established terminologies, however, in a breakthrough concept to describe the gravity theory he is proposing, familiar coined terms are inevitably lacking for general understanding.

-Vincent

I will NOT ignore a fallacious sentence anymore than I will ignore a fallacious equation. If his posts contained 0 sentences and were only equations and numbers I would object just as strongly. My objections are all entirely valid. One does not equal two, A is not B, A is A, etc. I agree that words are not always adequate, they can be limiting. In the end nothing beats a good movie or demonstration. Everyone can watch and understand a movie or demonstration.

I understood JL postulation on "The universe is made of spin", it is meaningful to me, I can empirically show you with a hypothesis backed with empirical observations and supported with evidence that the universe is vortically weaved into form in spin.

-Vincent

I'm not as concerned with empirical and experimental evidence, I want to see a movie demonstrating the theory or an explanation in which the words are defined in a single way and used consistently. After that we can get to the experimentals. What exactly is the hypothesis btw?

To share with you how one of my vortex buddy describe the elusive spin in nature: " "If you walk into any of the many vortices that we see everyday and scoop into the effect with a test tube, you will not find any something that can be seen or studied that could be called a vortex particle. Yet we can see with our own eyes, the effect the vortex has on the material, that becomes involved as both the cause and effect, of this something that is a nothing (Paradoxical Vortex)."

Once you have realised the points as mentioned by JL, everything on anomalies of gravity clears up amazingly; you will find the meaning in the statement describing uncharted arenas for gravity.

-Vincent

No offense to you but your friend's explanation sounds like a line out of a religious text. Something that is also nothing? Direct self contradiction. I'm at odds with mainstream science and religion for this very reason. Bill Gaede offers a theory of magnetism, gravity, and light that contains no contradiction and involves no mysticism. I am open minded but I will not give up "A is A" and "A is not B".

I can give JL the benefit of the doubt that what he says does have meaning, but he has a long uphill climb. Again, it does not matter if uses words, equations, or sends my monitor blinks of light that obey some set of rules like morse code. He can use English, Spanish, Italian, binary, hex, C++, I don't care. Just follow a set of consistent rules. So far he has not. The declaration by me, Plasmatic, or anyone else that the theory he espouses is a failure is entirely his own fault.

To give you an idea of the way I evaluate a theory and what I object to, you may want to read my criticism of Cotterell's theory of gravity here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1077

I describe precisely where and why his theory fails conceptually.

Best to you and sincerely hope that the UVS hypothesis would clarify the issue on gravity theory for you.

-Vincent

Thanks, you've presented a lot of links that will take me some time to get through. While I apply my time and effort to your scientific endeavors I would request likewise from you. Please watch the series of videos by Bill Gaede on youtube in which he explains magnetism, light, and gravity physically. Just search for "Einstein's Idiots" on youtube. Additionally Bill Gaede's website would help you understand where I am speaking from:

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/

A table leg is solid to my big toe but if I put the table leg under a microscope it is 99.999% empty space (as is my big toe).
Logic is not the be all and end all of anything. Logic lives in the left hemisphere of your brain. If you restrict yourself to logic and the left hemisphere you are only using half of your toolkit. (I would say one third). Homer, for one, fettled this one over two and a half thousand years ago. Read the Iliad.

-GC

Fallacious reasoning. There is "0% space" in any object. It makes absolutely no sense to talk about what fraction of an object "is space". You can talk about the volume an imaginary surface around an object encloses and compare this to the volume of each individual entity composing the object. The table is composed of smaller entities. Just because you imagine a hypothetical surface around the table and calculate the volume enclosed by this surface does not mean that volume IS the table. The table is a bunch of interconnected continuous entities. Your big toe happens to be similarly constructed. When there is 0 distance between continuous entities they collide and repel each other. Simple.

But I suppose such minor things as consistency and rationality don't matter to someone who doesn't care about logic. Why do you have a problem with mainstream physics and religion again?

Yet Id add that it is the mark of a fool to not dismiss arbitrary and contradictory propositions as valid expressions of what is.

-Plasm

Very good corollary to Aristotle's quote.

In response to Junglelord:

Plasmatic said it all.

[junglelord]

Does this help in the push-pull debate?

Pushmi-pullyu.jpg

A Push-Me - Pull-You.
A Tensegrity Biological Evolution....LOL.
Welcome to the Looking Glass Alice.
Cool Dr. Seuss.

[SpaceTravellor]

@ Vincent and Grey Cloud,

Thanks for the

Grey Cloud: I found the Thunderbolt Forum by googling "alternative cosmology", and I was thrilled that finding someone (Dave Talbott & Rens van der Sluijs) working with Mythological symbols and compare these to modern science. I have contacted both and I hope to find some kind of cooperation.

I know that the good people in EU interprets everything they can, accordingly to the very fine and accurate plasma theories, but it’s my opinion, that the good people also undervalues the ancestral knowledge and old symbols, especially regarding the Story of Creation from cultures all over the World, which is, in my pinion, the most convincing part of my website http://www.native-science.net

Grey Cloud: "Your interpretation of myth etc will probably draw you some flak from the Saturn theorists here, it did me . The myth related threads live down in the underworld in the New Insights and Mad Ideas section".

I’ll take a look at the "mad section" - and prepare to meet the Saturn theory flak . . .

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,

That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing".

Right then, so thoughts are nothing - thank you for clearing that up.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton and Plasmatic,
As you both seem to have liked my Aristotle quote, I thought I would give you another:
“We never learn anything we didn’t already know.” Aristotle