Gravity (Again)

[perpetual motion]

I myself have a hard time with this Newton gravity mumbo. I do not think
there is a pull on anything, I think that it is all 'push'. That is my concensous
from looking at the magnetosphere all this time.

[Harry Costas]

G'day

How do you explain the clustering from solar system to galaxy to groups of galaxies and so on.?

[D_Archer]

Hello perpetual motion,

You might be intereseted in the EMRP gravity theory by Ir. Xavier Borg from blazelabs, see > http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

As for gravity, newton described it well enough but didnt explain it. In all likelihood; what governs planetary orbits/motion is a two way force, a pull and a push. I guess other members of the forum can explain it in electromagnetic terms.

Kind regards,
Daniel

[Vek]

I myself have a hard time with this Newton gravity mumbo. I do not think
there is a pull on anything, I think that it is all 'push'.

Thanks for that; I've been wanting to see someone type that out for ages.
This is the issue, which in the end led me here, to have my lights turned on in the universe.
As an Einstein fan, I was pondering why gravity had no opposite force and if nature abhors a vacuum; then why were black holes so popular out in space. phrases like near infinite gravity began to bother me. I mean, what the hell is near infinite meant to explain; to me it's either infinite or it's finite and there can be no "we've nearly reached infinity now folks". from there things started to unravel and I started to think if there was any reason why gravity could not be pushing in from somewhere (or everywhere) else, instead of just sitting there sucking. Something shifted inside my mind and all the wheels, that those in the gravity driven universe had grafted on my mind, came flying off. "EINSTEIN WAS WRONG" my brain told me, much to my own shock and horror. My treasured black holes imploded with a soundless pop and a whole load of mainstream maths got sucked in with their last breath. The whole big bang thing became ridiculous to me in this same moment and I saw the stars stretch out to infinity.
Realising the position that I was now finding myself in; I set off down the google bar road, in search of others that I could call, my kind.
THERE WERE OTHERS! Turned out even old Newton himself called gravity "the descending spirit" and had no time for those who said they knew the source and for me now, gravity is not a force but the effect of other forces and if we fall; we fall into the shadow of those forces, on the side where the earth blocks out some of them. (I've also now got a bit worried that it's the same incoming stuff thats making me age at an ever worrying rate.)

With a view of the universe and no real paradigm shelf to set it on; I continued my voyage and after browsing some youtubes on related stuff, I saw the most awesome "soupdragon42" collection. This in turn led me to be introduced to Tesla for the first time and from that point on I could finally lay Einstein and his bendy twisty ideas about nothing to rest forever.
Later, some random beardy fellow on a youtube, seemed to be making a whole lot of sense.
This was Wallace Thornhill; So I found the Thunderbolts forum and the very forefront of human intelligence.
Well done you lot. For a short time I worried that I'd blown a major fuse but I sit feeling kinda smug about it now, as I watch the mainstream descend into its own baffled madness.

[perpetual motion]

I just read the Blazelabs.com article, nice write up, I knew that I may
be on the right track. Anyway you get the sun pushing through the
median along with planets, and the planets are pushing back
against the sun with an equal and opposite reaction and they are
all stabilized in their trip around the galaxy as all the rest of the solar systems
The sun pushes down upon the planets, the energies are pushing down
upon us is why we can't jump very high. Push, push, push goes the plasma!
The planets have neutral ion engines keeping the push alive. Hugh
engines at that, five,six times the size of each planet.

[Harry Costas]

G'day

The closest wave to perpetual motion is the formation of a Soliton wave that jets form and go for millions of light years.

[webolife]

From my standpoint [and the view of RA Smith], gravity is "centropy", a PUSH toward the centroid of any given system. To be a pull, it would have to originate from the center, from atoms, somehow reach out to the peripheral objects and interact with them in some as as to draw them toward itself, and there is no known causative agent or even cogent theoretical structure for this within matter. Neither gravity waves nor the mysterious "graviton" are observable in reality. Gaede's ropes are "conceivable", but leave [me with] too many insurmountable problems, mainly around the fact that though they have theoretical shape/structure, yet these structures don't significantly interact in space. Newton's "attraction" is just a perception, somewhat like the inertia of the earth's rotation leaves one thinking the heavens are rotating above us. The origin of the PUSH is somewhat of a mystery as well, but considering the universe to be finite [in terms of matter] at least points toward an answer for me... I start with atoms, recognizing their infinitesmal size in comparison to their field [sphere of interaction]; planets likewise are tiny compared to their field; stars, clusters, galaxies, etc. occupy tiny volumes compared to the field of activity "governing" them. When we reach the ultimate level of the universe I face the same perception: the universe is a relatively "small" particle with respect to its "field." The conceptual difficulty here for readers may be: How is there a field for the universe if there is nothing "out there" beyond it to interact with? My answer is metaphysical, so for some of you who deny the actual phenomenality of the metaphysical that will be completely unsatisfactory. I will say that it is beyond the capability of scientists to answer this question, even if there is a "physical" reality. I have substituted in my thinking, "What is beyond the universe?" in place of the question I grew up with, which was, "What came before the Big Bang?" Oh well... those who have read my posts over the years recognize my oft-stated belief that we [all scientists] begin with a[n unprovable] premise, then build our scientific paradigms upon that presupposition. So far I have not met a scientist who didn't follow this maxim.

As for soliton wave "jets", I [and RA Smith] hold to the concept that gravitational [and light] action is instantaneous across distance, so I see this particular concept of "jet" as a beam, by which I mean a bundle of vectors, or "rays" of finite diameter. There is no significant time lag between the gravitational [or light] action [eg. at a star surface] and the reception of that action at the planetary [or retinal] surface, in this view. That supernova I [might have] observed last night in the Andromeda galaxy actually was happening as I observed it...

Look for more of this in the NIAMI forum... sorry, moderators...

"Descending spirit"... was that Newton? I thought it was Kepler...

[Vek]

"Descending spirit"... was that Newton? I thought it was Kepler...

You may be right; I had to go looking to where I first read it a couple of year back; when I first started to kick around with these ideas. Turns out it was from that same blazelabs page posted above...

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'

Dug out a couple of old Tesla quotes while I was looking for that, in the nightmare maze that is my desk top. I'll just leave them here, as he's always relevant.:

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
Magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.
________________________________

All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.

[webolife]

Those Tesla quotes are very similar to what RA Smith wrote regarding matter and energy.
He saw matter as being the result of the condensing force of centropy [the unified field... vectors directed toward the polity center], while "energy" results from vectors directed away from the center.