Beginner question
-
- Posts: 2818
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:59 am
Re: Beginner question
"But when we apply force to a body, how is that force transferred to overcome inertia? The answer is ‘electrically’ by the repulsion between the outer electrons in the atoms closest to the points of contact. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass strongly suggests that the force of gravity is a manifestation of the electric force."
Thornhill
Hi Nick, OM , et al,
Many theorists over the years have posited 'gravity' as a repulsive, rather than attractive force; from before Tesla on through the recognized pioneers of "EU Theory".
Thornhill was absolutely brilliant, although a graduate of an earlier academic electrical paradigm.
That 'atomic' model of electron 'points of contact' is an inherently reductio view of Electricity
and it manifold modes of effect and form.
Charge is the nearest we have come to a quantization of electro-aetheric 3D space, hence its empirical basis for the entire SI table of units and measure found in the back cover of every standard physics textbook.
Protons are the building 'blocks' of all matter, and its intermediary fractionation/fractalation, measured on a very broad sliding scale of energies/velocities/temperature,
is conventionally called the Electron.
Using the concept of Charge as the primary driving force of the cosmos as we know it,
probably the best understanding of gravity is put forth in the many works of
Miles Mathis.
imo
Thornhill
Hi Nick, OM , et al,
Many theorists over the years have posited 'gravity' as a repulsive, rather than attractive force; from before Tesla on through the recognized pioneers of "EU Theory".
Thornhill was absolutely brilliant, although a graduate of an earlier academic electrical paradigm.
That 'atomic' model of electron 'points of contact' is an inherently reductio view of Electricity
and it manifold modes of effect and form.
Charge is the nearest we have come to a quantization of electro-aetheric 3D space, hence its empirical basis for the entire SI table of units and measure found in the back cover of every standard physics textbook.
Protons are the building 'blocks' of all matter, and its intermediary fractionation/fractalation, measured on a very broad sliding scale of energies/velocities/temperature,
is conventionally called the Electron.
Using the concept of Charge as the primary driving force of the cosmos as we know it,
probably the best understanding of gravity is put forth in the many works of
Miles Mathis.
imo
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm
Re: Beginner question
thanks Sea,
"Many theorists over the years have posited 'gravity' as a repulsive, rather than attractive force; from before Tesla on through the recognized pioneers of "EU Theory"."
That's a pretty fundamental change in perspective. The idea that mass generates gravity, and therefore the more mass, the more gravity, it presupposes that something is generated in the center of a point of mass that results in an eventual collapse of all things into that point as a pull from the 'magic' that happens in that point.
But if gravity is repulsive, then describing the points where gravity is pushing towards is hard to describe without implying that point is creating the attraction to it, and therefore pulling. Tricky mental exercise to figure out an analogy. If I think of it as 'pockets of vacuum' then the pockets are doing the attracting. Even if I think of it as points of opposite charge, it demands a definition attached to push and pull, having to be strictly assigned as one of either positive or negative, that is if there is any correlation of charge sign to direction of gravity. If not, though, then I'm at a loss.
Maybe this impulse to simplify to analogy is hamstrung by a fundamental misunderstanding of basic electrical principles in nature? What do you tell a child in school, who is learning fundamental axioms of nature, that would lead them to better understand the idea of gravity being a pushing force?
"Many theorists over the years have posited 'gravity' as a repulsive, rather than attractive force; from before Tesla on through the recognized pioneers of "EU Theory"."
That's a pretty fundamental change in perspective. The idea that mass generates gravity, and therefore the more mass, the more gravity, it presupposes that something is generated in the center of a point of mass that results in an eventual collapse of all things into that point as a pull from the 'magic' that happens in that point.
But if gravity is repulsive, then describing the points where gravity is pushing towards is hard to describe without implying that point is creating the attraction to it, and therefore pulling. Tricky mental exercise to figure out an analogy. If I think of it as 'pockets of vacuum' then the pockets are doing the attracting. Even if I think of it as points of opposite charge, it demands a definition attached to push and pull, having to be strictly assigned as one of either positive or negative, that is if there is any correlation of charge sign to direction of gravity. If not, though, then I'm at a loss.
Maybe this impulse to simplify to analogy is hamstrung by a fundamental misunderstanding of basic electrical principles in nature? What do you tell a child in school, who is learning fundamental axioms of nature, that would lead them to better understand the idea of gravity being a pushing force?
-
- Posts: 2818
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:59 am
Re: Beginner question
OM wrote:
"But if gravity is repulsive, then describing the points where gravity is pushing towards is hard to describe without implying that point is creating the attraction to it, and therefore pulling."
>>>
It's a matter of ingrained perspective, conditioned from early childhood, like with the conventional cartoon
concept of magnets.
Examining the math, the equations for determining impact of a mass/body upon a larger mass/body
are straightforward.
Plotted in a spatial reference grid, 2D or 3D, the vectors of force are always
directed radially inward toward the larger body.
Straight in, like jumping out of an airplane on a calm day.
Even if f there is an angle of entry, the curve always progresses in direction of vertical,
trending to right angle contact.
All bodies, by virtue of existence emit charge, meaning all surrounding 3D space is full of (impinging)
ambient charge,
just as the early electrical pioneers described the "luminous aether".
[Nicely explaining the mysterious Solar Heliopause and its electric double layer(s)]
The basic concepts underlying Charge and Gravity laid out since the ~80's by MM ,
require more reading than can be presented here in a few trivial posts;
but one way to view a larger process electrically,
is as all charge, including light, returning to electric Ground.
With magnets/magnetism, it's called the "dielectric plane" or 'point'.
In addition to the many papers, MM had a book out in 2010 called,
"The Un-Unified Field"
"But if gravity is repulsive, then describing the points where gravity is pushing towards is hard to describe without implying that point is creating the attraction to it, and therefore pulling."
>>>
It's a matter of ingrained perspective, conditioned from early childhood, like with the conventional cartoon
concept of magnets.
Examining the math, the equations for determining impact of a mass/body upon a larger mass/body
are straightforward.
Plotted in a spatial reference grid, 2D or 3D, the vectors of force are always
directed radially inward toward the larger body.
Straight in, like jumping out of an airplane on a calm day.
Even if f there is an angle of entry, the curve always progresses in direction of vertical,
trending to right angle contact.
All bodies, by virtue of existence emit charge, meaning all surrounding 3D space is full of (impinging)
ambient charge,
just as the early electrical pioneers described the "luminous aether".
[Nicely explaining the mysterious Solar Heliopause and its electric double layer(s)]
The basic concepts underlying Charge and Gravity laid out since the ~80's by MM ,
require more reading than can be presented here in a few trivial posts;
but one way to view a larger process electrically,
is as all charge, including light, returning to electric Ground.
With magnets/magnetism, it's called the "dielectric plane" or 'point'.
In addition to the many papers, MM had a book out in 2010 called,
"The Un-Unified Field"
-
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am
Re: Beginner question
The idea of black holes and big bangs is fundamentally the wrong perspective as well.Open Mind wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:00 pm thanks Sea,
"Many theorists over the years have posited 'gravity' as a repulsive, rather than attractive force; from before Tesla on through the recognized pioneers of "EU Theory"."
That's a pretty fundamental change in perspective. The idea that mass generates gravity, and therefore the more mass, the more gravity, it presupposes that something is
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:22 pm
Re: Beginner question
"Halton Arp's research showed sensibly the universe is of unknown age and extent. It is not collapsing under gravity or mysteriously expanding. As nature repeatedly demonstrates, it is in balance. Arp realized this raised a serious issue, because it implies that gravity between celestial bodies must be repulsive. Otherwise, balance is impossible." -- Wal Thornhill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4rO7iqxFE
Video time stamp: 14:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4rO7iqxFE
Video time stamp: 14:25
-
- Posts: 857
- Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm
Re: Beginner question
Conrad Ranzan has no problems explaining an infinite universe where gravity is attractive.galaxy12 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:20 pm "Halton Arp's research showed sensibly the universe is of unknown age and extent. It is not collapsing under gravity or mysteriously expanding. As nature repeatedly demonstrates, it is in balance. Arp realized this raised a serious issue, because it implies that gravity between celestial bodies must be repulsive. Otherwise, balance is impossible." -- Wal Thornhill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4rO7iqxFE
Video time stamp: 14:25
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:22 pm
Re: Beginner question
Both attractive gravity and repulsive gravity theories yield identical results in most practical situations. Repulsive gravity introduces the concepts of gravitational shielding and penetration limitations which can predict results that can be more consistent with cosmology. The limits of gravitational penetration into celestial objects can help explain the size limitations of stars, planets and galaxies. If we discover the particles, energy or phenomenon causing repulsion then it may help us explain subatomic/atomic particle development as well as the origins of electromagnetism.
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm
Re: Beginner question
Galaxy12 – “As nature repeatedly demonstrates, it is in balance”, “Both attractive gravity and repulsive gravity theories yield identical results in most practical situations”,
Picturing gravitational ‘pull’ seems to make a suggestion to me that the universe is a delicate balance of subtle forces of gravity that have very low influence at a distance, but conversely have an enormous force with an accumulated mass locally. What’s challenging is that if it’s a push, then if the object of that push force grows in mass from an accretion, then its hard to imagine a push towards that object, when its a key actor in determining how strong that push is, which naturally feels more like a pull, if the actor is responsible for the degree of the force. If Jupiter gets ‘pushed towards’ more than Earth, and it is because Jupiter is more mass, then Jupiter is ‘responsible’ for that additional push, and with causation of the event, then ‘pull’ seems more appropriate, just in a semantic sense.
In analogous terms, how can we make sense of a ‘push’, when that push increases with the more mass that is pushed towards it? The only thing I can think of that captures this relationship, while still seeing it as a ‘push’ is the effects on someone as a result of ‘cancel culture’. It seems it starts with a small influence, and evolves into a landslide as a result of how much more easy it is to jump on the bandwagon of critical condemnation, lol.
Hoping we can find a better analogy that paints the universe in better terms. Lol.
But if I simply use that functional analogy, then it seems as though push increases with more mass on that object, as if the increase of mass also increases a charge disparity? Maybe more like water funneling down a drain hole made of sugar. The more water that funnels through it, the wider that drain wears away to a wider opening? Scrambling and mixing analogies here. If anyone has a better idea, I'm wide open.
Picturing gravitational ‘pull’ seems to make a suggestion to me that the universe is a delicate balance of subtle forces of gravity that have very low influence at a distance, but conversely have an enormous force with an accumulated mass locally. What’s challenging is that if it’s a push, then if the object of that push force grows in mass from an accretion, then its hard to imagine a push towards that object, when its a key actor in determining how strong that push is, which naturally feels more like a pull, if the actor is responsible for the degree of the force. If Jupiter gets ‘pushed towards’ more than Earth, and it is because Jupiter is more mass, then Jupiter is ‘responsible’ for that additional push, and with causation of the event, then ‘pull’ seems more appropriate, just in a semantic sense.
In analogous terms, how can we make sense of a ‘push’, when that push increases with the more mass that is pushed towards it? The only thing I can think of that captures this relationship, while still seeing it as a ‘push’ is the effects on someone as a result of ‘cancel culture’. It seems it starts with a small influence, and evolves into a landslide as a result of how much more easy it is to jump on the bandwagon of critical condemnation, lol.
Hoping we can find a better analogy that paints the universe in better terms. Lol.
But if I simply use that functional analogy, then it seems as though push increases with more mass on that object, as if the increase of mass also increases a charge disparity? Maybe more like water funneling down a drain hole made of sugar. The more water that funnels through it, the wider that drain wears away to a wider opening? Scrambling and mixing analogies here. If anyone has a better idea, I'm wide open.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:22 pm
Re: Beginner question
Repulsive gravity is a tough concept to grasp at first. This image from wikipedia helps a bit:
Most proponents of repulsive gravity concepts have envisioned a particle or very small entity that provides the "push." LeSage envisioned "corpuscles" that provide the force. Xavier borg envisioned an extremely high frequency electromagnetic wave causing a radiation pressure. My paper introduces the concept of small particles referred to as "sub-photons." One can imagine small particles traveling through space in all directions, impacting matter and transferring momentum.
This website attributes the pushing gravity to "prime radiation."
https://energy-gravity.com/
The website has calculations for gravitational force based on celestial body cross sectional area (shielded area).
The website shows how gravitational forces increase as celestial bodies approach the size of the earth or uranus but do not increase further as sizes increase more. The website attributes the phenomenon of maximum gravitational force to complete shielding of "prime radiation."
The website lists the gravity limit as 11.2 meters/second ^2. I have not done the calculations myself so I cannot confirm this number though.
I thought the website's graphs on gravity penetration limits were interesting:
Most proponents of repulsive gravity concepts have envisioned a particle or very small entity that provides the "push." LeSage envisioned "corpuscles" that provide the force. Xavier borg envisioned an extremely high frequency electromagnetic wave causing a radiation pressure. My paper introduces the concept of small particles referred to as "sub-photons." One can imagine small particles traveling through space in all directions, impacting matter and transferring momentum.
This website attributes the pushing gravity to "prime radiation."
https://energy-gravity.com/
The website has calculations for gravitational force based on celestial body cross sectional area (shielded area).
The website shows how gravitational forces increase as celestial bodies approach the size of the earth or uranus but do not increase further as sizes increase more. The website attributes the phenomenon of maximum gravitational force to complete shielding of "prime radiation."
The website lists the gravity limit as 11.2 meters/second ^2. I have not done the calculations myself so I cannot confirm this number though.
I thought the website's graphs on gravity penetration limits were interesting:
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm
Re: Beginner question
"The website shows how gravitational forces increase as celestial bodies approach the size of the earth or uranus but do not increase further as sizes increase more"
In stark contrast to the concept of black holes then? Or is it that mainstream cosmology has different gravity rules for planets vs stars?
In stark contrast to the concept of black holes then? Or is it that mainstream cosmology has different gravity rules for planets vs stars?
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:22 pm
Re: Beginner question
Yes. This is in stark contrast to the concept of black holes. If gravitational forces have a maximum limit, black holes cannot exist.
-
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2023 2:22 pm
Re: Beginner question
I have expanded the theory of gravitational shielding and limited penetration to create a model of celestial bodies. The model helps explain production of light and heavy elements in celestial bodies by nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. I may have to revise the model in the future as more scientific data is collected.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests