| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Greysky" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2006 11:39:34 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
"Bill Sheppard" <oldcoot@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26795-43C30A3F-279@storefull-3175.bay.webtv.net...
From Double-A:
Actually, in Newton's day the aether was >thought to be moving in
swirling vortexes >and thus propelling the planets and their
moons.
Cool. So the medium *was* at least recognized as mobile and fluid in
those days. Barring a major derailment, it shouldn't have taken a great
leap to recognize gravity as a pressure-driven, accelerating flow into
mass.
..Newton's idea that the planets were
free to move through a vacuum... was a
great improvement!
That was the major derailment! A tacit ensconcement of 'space-as-void'
in scientific thought.. soon to be joined by Bishop George Berkeley's
'No Substratum' campaign on the religious front.
The static, immobile medium was more
of a 19th century idea.
Even more of a derailment.
Still waitin' to hear Greysky's dissertation on the cause of gravity and
what gravity literally is. C'mon Grey, lay it on us.
oc
Well, many years ago, in the mid 80's, I wrote a paper called, "An Analysis
of Gravity in Mass-Energy Systems". I began with a focused analysis of the
Equivalence Principle and showed how antimatter leads to a modification of
the specific equation we commonly use into a more general equation which is
more powerful. I was able to explain all sorts of phenomena, from the
conservation of baryon number, to the large scale swiss-cheese structure of
our universe. Now, remember this was in the 1980's, before all the
revolution that occured in the mid 90's onwards concerning dark matter and
such. I was ahead of my time, and couldn't get the paper published, which
was too bad (for humanity), because it used straightforward maths and had
concepts others 'rediscovered' wrongly years later. No one still to this day
knows the correct reason for the existance of dark matter - which is more
common than anyone knows. Or the 'mysterious reason' there seems to be so
little anti matter in the universe-starting from first principles I was able
to explain in a simple way all these apparent mysteries. Mysteries which
plague science even to this day. Also as a result, science has taken a
severe right angle turn right into the twilight zone and appears to show no
signs of stopping in its wrongness...
One example of what I mean. No one (except for me, and you after you read
this) knows why gravity seems to be many orders of magnitude smaller than
the electomagnetic force. It isn't. The force of gravity is not weaker. It
can only couple to the changing energy density of a particle which occures
only at its surface. Think of a subatomic particle such as an electron as a
sphere (I know this isn't correct but it is accurate enough to get the
picture across). Inside the sphere, the mass is distributed equally in all
directions, and the mass generates a gravity vector in all directions
equally, so they cancel out. The only place where they do not cancel is at
the surface of the particle, where there is a change from the high
mass-energy of the particle's interior to the low mass energy density of
free space. This creates a vector directed outwards (Feynman called it a
Probability Current), and this imblance creates the gravity field for the
particle. It is also the only region of the particle which can interact with
an external gravity field. So, the percieved force of gravity appears small
because it can only interact with the surface of the particle, while the
elctrical force can interact with all of the mass of the particle. See, the
part of gravity we feel is only generated at a particle's surface and not
its interior so it appears much weaker when it really isn't. I am talking of
fundamental particles like electrons and quarks, not composite particles
like protons which are a bit more complicated. But analyzing an electron, I
was able to determine what percentage of its gravity came from its mass and
what percentage came from its charge. That's something nobody else can do to
this day.
Anyway, this was only one of the many questions I answered over 20 years
ago. Using the same theory, I could also generate an 'anti-gravity' field as
well. This was the explanation for the so called Bifeld-Brown Effect, and
for part of the force created by 'Lifters'. If our Military is devloping
flying-saucer technology, I know how it works. But, in the ancient 1980's,
no one seemed to be interested and I eventually went on to develop a quantum
theory for Superluminal Communications which culminated recently in the
development of my "FTL Radio" technology. So, I haven't been idle :-)
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL Radio. And maybe also a Flying Saucer...
.
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity 1A - Back to the Drawing Board |
10 Jan 2006 10:07:36 AM |
|
|
Greysky wrote:
The force of gravity is not weaker. It
can only couple to the changing energy density of a particle which occures
only at its surface. Think of a subatomic particle such as an electron as a
sphere (I know this isn't correct but it is accurate enough to get the
picture across). Inside the sphere, the mass is distributed equally in all
directions, and the mass generates a gravity vector in all directions
equally, so they cancel out.
What is a "gravity vector"?
What does "mass generates a gravity vector in all directions..." mean?
I think you really have a distorted, not even crank's, view of gravity.
You are framing too many unverifiable hypotheses.
The only place where they do not cancel is at
the surface of the particle, where there is a change from the high
mass-energy of the particle's interior to the low mass energy density of
free space. This creates a vector directed outwards (Feynman called it a
Probability Current), and this imblance creates the gravity field for the
particle. It is also the only region of the particle which can interact with
an external gravity field. So, the percieved force of gravity appears small
because it can only interact with the surface of the particle, while the
elctrical force can interact with all of the mass of the particle. See, the
part of gravity we feel is only generated at a particle's surface and not
its interior so it appears much weaker when it really isn't. I am talking of
fundamental particles like electrons and quarks, not composite particles
like protons which are a bit more complicated. But analyzing an electron, I
was able to determine what percentage of its gravity came from its mass and
what percentage came from its charge. That's something nobody else can do to
this day.
Are you saying that if we charge (or discharge) a body it will float?
hahahahahahahahahahahahah
Mike
Greysky
www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL Radio. And maybe also a Flying Saucer...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
