What do you think gravity is?

It seems there are quite a few visitors who have their own ideas about one of the great mysteries of our universe, Gravity. Here's a place where all the budding Einstein's among us can wax eloquent on the subject.

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby skyfish » Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:07 pm

Spirals...fractals...like a slinky...now you are talking my language! lol Golden ratio, Fermat spiral...now I see...Fibonacci.
skyfish
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:05 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby FM No Static At All » Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:52 pm

http://care.eng.uci.edu/ufimtsev.htm

Image
Pr. Ufimtsev received a M.S. degree in Theoretical Physics in 1954, the Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering in 1959, and the D. Sc. degree in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics in 1970. In 1987, he received the Professor scientific degree from the Moscow Aviation Institute, Russia. Until 1990, he was a Head Scientist at the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia. In 1990, he was invited to join the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in the USA, where he was subsequently a Visiting Professor and Adjunct Professor (1990-present). In 1995-2000 he was a Principal Engineer at Northrop Grumman Corporation, California.

Dr. Ufimtsev is founder of the Physical Theory of Diffraction which is widely used in antennas design and radar-cross-section calculation. In particular, this theory was used in the design of American stealth aircraft and ships. For his scientific achievements, Dr. Ufimtsev received the USSR State Prize (Moscow, 1990), the Leroy Randle Grumman Medal (New York, 1991), the 20th Century Award for Achievement Medal and the Hall of Fame Medal (Cambridge, U.K.,1996). He is listed in the Marquis editions “Who’s Who in Engineering and Science”, “Who’s Who in America”, and “Who’s Who in the World”. He was a Member of the A.S. Popov Scientific and Technical Society (USSR, 1954-1990) and a Member of the Scientific Board on the Problems of Radio Waves Propagation in the Academy of Sciences (USSR, 1960-1990).

At present, he is a Member of the U.S.A. Electromagnetics Academy (MIT, USA) , a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (USA), and an Associated Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Recent Publications

P. Y. Ufimtsev. ‘New Results for the Properties of TE Surface Waves in Absorbing Layers’, IEEE Trans. Antennas & Propagation, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 1445-1452, 2001.

P. Y. Ufimtsev. ‘Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves by a Metallic Object Partially Immersed in a Semi-Infinite Dielectric Medium’, IEEE Trans. Antennas & Propagation, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 223-233, 2001.

P. Y. Ufimtsev, B. Khayatian, Y. Rahmat-Samii. ‘Singular Edge Behavior: to impose or not impose - that Is the question’, Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 218 - 223, February, 2000.

P. Y. Ufimtsev, R.T. Ling, J. D. Scholler. ‘Transformation of Surface Waves in Homogeneous Absorbing Layers’, IEEE Trans. Antennas & Propagation, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 214- 222, 2000.

P. Y. Ufimtsev, R.T. Ling, J. D. Scholler. ‘Backscatter’, Invited article in the “Wiley Ecyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering”, vol. 2, pp.175 - 186, 1999.

P. Y. Ufimtsev, R.T. Ling. ‘Surface waves in Absorbing Layers’, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Antennas, JINA-98, , pp. 3-12, Nice, France, November 17-19, 1998.

P. Y. Ufimtsev, G. Pelosi, S. Selleri. ‘Newton’s Observations of Diffracted Rays’, IEEE Antennas & Propagation Magazine, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 7- 14, 1998.

P. Y. Ufimtsev. ‘Fast convergent integrals for nonuniform currents on wedge faces’, Electromagnetics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 289-313, 1998.

P. Y. Ufimtsev, R.T. Ling, J. D. Scholler. ‘Propagation and Excitation of Surface Waves in an Absorbing Layer’, Progress in Electromagnetics Research, PIRE 19, pp. 49-91, 1998.

P. Y. Ufimtsev, S. Maci, R. Tiberio. ‘Equivalence Between Physical Optics and Aperture Integration for Radiation from Open-Ended Waveguides’, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 183-185, 1997.

He wrote something concerning "Modifications to Maxwell's Equations" and I think it is important to understanding gravity, or more specifically, antigravity.

I wonder if Dr. Brown and John 'Avrocar' Frost ever met?

Fred a.k.a.
FM - No Static At All
'The only reason some people get lost in thought is because its unfamiliar territory.'

http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/
FM No Static At All
Senior Officer
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Linda Brown » Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:17 am

Fred,

If my Dad and John Frost ever met I was not made aware of it.

See why I remain silent? just haven't a whole lot to say sometimes! <g> Linda
Linda Brown
Resident Mystic
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:22 am

Hi everyone my first post.
Here is a link from Tom Bearden on the missing information on Electric Theory.
Its important reading. The Idenification of Maxwells 20 Quaternions equations was bastardized by Heaviside into 4 vectoral solutions. Quaternions have four degrees of freedom and that is real important.
Cheers.
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/CEM% ... tract4.doc
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Linda Brown » Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:33 pm

Junglelord! Welcome to the Forum!

Checking out your link now but this as you might guess by now is not my strong point. Thats why I do so appreciate your input!

My first impulse in seeing your name here is to code name you " Tarzan" If thats an insult in any way please head me off at the pass! <g>. Again! Welcome and I am looking forward to your comments in the future! Linda
Linda Brown
Resident Mystic
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:06 pm

I sent you a detailed PM Linda, so you would know a little more about me.
Tarzan is perfect.
Kudos to you.

Any questions about the related material and I would be glad to help.
I work best with mental image and natural relationships.
It works as a teacher. I may be able to make some complicated jargon very easy to understand.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby kevin.b » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:32 pm

Junglelord,
Welcome, what a boost to see your post, sort of uplifting.
Kevin
fibonacci is king
kevin.b
The Navigator
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:30 pm
Location: oxon, england

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:34 pm

Your the reason I am here my good man Kevin. I value your insight and intelligence and friendship.
Thanks for the heads up. I feel at home already.

Linda I read on another post just now your PM is not working. Is that still correct?
I have a PM I sent you. If you cannot access it I will send it to you another way.
Maybe I could just post it for everyone.
:?:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Linda Brown » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:06 pm

Tarzan <g>

If you don't mind sharing that message with everyone here it would be fine with me because I am still having problems and am anxious to see it. If you don't want to do that then I hope tomorrow I will get this thing figured out.

I get the strangest of leads sometimes. No real explainations but before you logged on I had been thinking of some of the toys that I used to play with when I was a kid ( about seven or eight I think). I didn't ever care for dolls but collected those plastic toy horses that were so popular in the fifties.) Strangely I thought of the first two and recalled them down to the smallest detail ... Midnight.. pure black .... and then a palomino which I called " Tarzan" For a reason that remains a mystery to me. Maybe I was a fan too of Edgar Rice Burroughs because I was quite a reader .... but the moment I saw your " Junglelord" I felt that I had had a sort of a " heads up" and Tarzan was the only thing that came to the top of my brain again. Strange isn't it?

Thank you for the time that you spent in telling us a little bit about yourself. You have used some phrases that I don't even know yet so I am really pleased that you have joined us, just give me a few moments to catch up with your meanings...... I can be fantastically ahead of the curve in some situations and woefully behind in so many others! Linda
Linda Brown
Resident Mystic
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:50 pm

That seems odd, your story about the horses and Tarzan. I actually grew up on a horse farm. I had some intuitive feeling that your my spiritual sister since yesterday....
:?

Maybe you are.
:D

I have been tutored by Dave Thompson on the Aether Physics Model (APM) this year. It has been a huge revelation for me.
It has a quantum structural model based on quantum constants. I think that gravity maybe a dipole and that matter and antimatter may repel. Thats the premis of APM. However recent insights also point to the model of TT Brown and pressure gradients as being proper. I think the two views are complementary.
:D

Here are several post I made over at Thunderbolts forum on gravity models. I hope its good information for this group too.
The Hydrogen atom has been speaking to me last week and thats where I begin.
Last edited by Junglelord on Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:17 am

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
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:18 am

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 or radial waves are 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/



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.
:D


Theory of Gravity by Cotterell
Hydrogen Polarized EM radiation
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:21 am

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
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:22 am

I have been looking at several models of gravitational radiation.
This is of course TT Brown's model which we can compare to the Blazelabs model of gravitational radiation
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


Another gravity radiation model from the Blazelabs site, which interest me greatly as they have shown that the valence band configurations of atomic elements to be Platonic Solids, either the Tetrahedron, Octahedron, or Cube.

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


Here is a third Gravity Radiation Pressure Model I came across today....it looks pretty good. Follows the work from Blazelabs perfectly.
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/index.html
Last edited by Junglelord on Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

Re: What do you think gravity is?

Postby Junglelord » Thu Oct 23, 2008 12:48 am

Since my living for 15 years as a Soft Tissue Therapist was using gravity as a tool to integrate the human structure with its relationship with gravity, I am forever more interested in gravity then most. I have some interesting links to provide. They are about the human field and Rolfing/Structural Integration (one of my specialities). Biophysics 101. Rolfing was shown to amplify the human energy field. A Rolfer uses their hands and gravity to achieve their results. Its all about integration. Since the human body is a liquid crystal and has all the properties of a liquid crystal, then we must be fully aware of all these relationships with piezoelectric and pyroelectric functions as well as its relationship to the colloid aspects of the fasica, its gel/sol transitions, and the interplay between these different parameters and the field of gravity as it relates to structure and function.

A study with Structural Integrators, Patients, and a person who could see aura's and equipment to validate the senses of the aura reader. The results are startling. What the aura reader saw, was immediaty recognized as specific waveforms per colour. What was more interesting, the rolfer's aura would change colour to harmonize with the patient. The results of rolfing showed a creamy colour white light aura that was the new field of the patients after ten hours of rolfing. A aura she had never seen before! Six months later she met a patient and they still had the odd creamy coloured white aura! Her aura teacher explained that only harmonicaly balanced individuals have this organized field.

Rolfing is connective tissue work, with the purpose of integration of a tensegrity structure aligned with gravity. The organization of the liquid fluid colloid crystal of fascia, and the neural network that supports it will amplify the human energy field. Rolfing changes your posture, that changes who you are, even your energy field... You cannot seperate structure from function.

A Study of Structural Integration
from Neuromuscular, Energy Field
& Emotional Approaches,
Dr. Valerie Hunt and Wayne Massey,
UCLA Dept. of Kinesiology, 1977

http://www.rolfing-craig-tracy.com/UCLA_5yr.htm

Certainly my studies into the distance the EM field of the heart projects is close to 10 feet from the body. I would imagine that the scalar longitudinal waves of EM from the conscious mind would actually work across more space then one can imagine.

Another great example of using gravity as a tool. This is a example of how to build a Stonehenge by one man alone. Something I had learned while jumping on large rocks as a boy. Large rocks can pivot given the right circumstances.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFRO ... re=related
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla

Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Junglelord
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 2:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to Gravity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron