The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Altering the speed of light doesn't mean it's not constant, it just mean it can be altered.
Sigh

a reply to: KrzYma

Look, the theoretical BLACK HOLE can slow down light so it can not escape, do you think before you answer ??

Besides being wrong about black holes slowing light, I thought you don't believe in black holes? Why mention them (unless attempting to disprove their existence)?

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Vector99
Ok yep took my flag back. The guy in the video said the speed of light isn't constant.

please show me it is !!

Look, the theoretical BLACK HOLE can slow down light so it can not escape,
do you think before you answer ??

How do we communicate with deep space satellites? Just start beaming a non-constant signal into a cosmic haystack and hope the satellite gets it, then in return the satellite does the same towards Earth?

Do YOU think before you answer?

- Electromagnetic energy is stored in the resonant orbital structure of all subatomic particles and manifests as their mass.


this realization i like very much (I came to the same conclusion myself), energy or temperature really is IN all matter, carried with it, inside its atomic confinement. the smaller mass is, the smaller a particle its own dimension, the more effect the same temperature has on the total of the particle (hot makes light on earth only, but all is weightless in space, so does cold (slow atomic movement, less inner friction, less temperature) make heavy ?). so actually it is temperature on a sub atomic scale, that makes weight of mass relative (if we take the perspective of weight mass feels heavy in space up to a point). we feel weight. we measure mass. but in space all is weightless. space is the normal, planets and rocks are the exception. so I know energy can be radiated, but I then still think even the smallest atoms and smaller particles inside it are carriers of temperature, I think all mass rubs against each other (conduction between visible and invisible mass) even though some we cant see. if a particle builds inside pressure so much that it has to release energy, or temperature from the inside, then it will radiate energy, the faster it releases energy, the more visible a particle gets to us, super fast release might be light, but can this happen in cold -270 degree space. I think neutrinos get fired from the sun that become so cold after leaving the sun that it no longer is able to radiate in space, until it hits the atmosphere where it re-ignites into a photon. inside our atmosphere is a ionized zone where light can exist, no photons have ever been even found in space so the concept of a photon is actually theoretical still. all we see is scales of temperature, one more visible than the other. only 0.035% of light lies in the visible range. remember when Nasa had to outfit the capsules with special windows to brake up light so things became visible in space? I think our atmosphere does the same, create light (that humans can see) inside it like a prism/lens. if there is no light we can see, it does make all heavenly objects a sort of a projection on our atmospheric border. the Thermosphere is super hot up there, would it bend light? like a hot desert road? would an atmospheric lens be the reason light bends, in stead of gravities pull? if light its mass (I know Mass is not found in photons because we only find photons on earth where they are low massed and light giving super fast state) was relative heavy in space, light might not be the fastest thing, or even be fast for nature it self, we just don't see stuff that moves faster than light... an atmosphere might be a lights velocity limiting entity.

Einstein said energy is movement. I say Energy is movement of mass (vis and invis) carrying temperature, flowing from absolute point A to absolute point B in space, depending on whether it is possible to leave its own dimensions so it can come to its preferred rest state.

Well, at least they have a possible reason for gravity. I studied this subject a bit and they seem to know how to measure gravity pretty well and they sort of say how it works but I could not find any evidence to actually properly show what gravity is. They don't actually lie, they do let us know that they are not sure what gravity is for sure.

The electric universe theory isn't bad, better than the nothing we presently have. But here is the reality, there could be weird forces that we have not yet discovered so we possibly cannot properly comprehend what gravity is yet. The electric universe opens a dirty window so we can see that there is something out there we could not see because of the dirty glass.

I'm hoping that they will discover what is really going on before I die and that I will still be able to comprehend the information. Our minds sometime deteriorate too.

a reply to: dennisarends

Einstein said energy is movement.

No. He didn't.

I say Energy is movement of mass

Yes. Well, kinetic energy is anyway.


BTW, paragraphs are your friend.

Egregious use of the term "resonance" for no obvious reason is a clue the material is woo.

a reply to: KrzYma

ook, the theoretical BLACK HOLE can slow down light so it can not escape,
do you think before you answer ??

Ask yourself the same question.

Black holes (which are real, not theoretical), do not reduce the speed of light by so much as a whisker. The escape velocity of a black hole is greater than c, so the photon goes into orbit round the singularity, inside the event horizon.

Clearly you are not very well versed in physics, which is why you think the video you posted has any merit at all.

Electric-universe theory is utter bunk.

a reply to: KrzYma

I hope you do understand that speed or velocity is a comparison of position change between two points in space over time ??

Again, a clear demonstration that you are innocent of any education in physics. This is grade-school stuff you're getting wrong now.

Speed is the rate of change of position of an object with respect to a frame of reference, regardless of direction.

Velocity is the rate of change of position of an object in a certain direction. It is a vector, whereas speed is a scalar.

They are not the same thing at all and neither of them is what you claim.

Black holes do not slow light down. The velocity of photons in the direction of the singularity ultimates slows to zero, but their speed remains exactly the same — as does their velocity in the direction of motion, though this is constantly changing since the photon is describing an orbit around a centre.

a reply to: rickymouse

Well, at least they have a possible reason for gravity.

And General Relativity does not?

a reply to: KrzYma

Please write up the equation for a dipole field.

If you can't, you are absolutely not in a position to understand what they are talking about, and why it is total nonsense.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, at least they have a possible reason for gravity.

So do I: invisible flying monkeys.

The electric universe theory isn't bad, better than the nothing we presently have.

My invisible flying monkeys idea is better.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Altering the speed of light doesn't mean it's not constant, it just mean it can be altered.
Sigh

If you reason like this, than in your opinion everything is a constant.
Observations are made by alterations

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: KrzYma
Here some very interesting facts from Electric Universe conference 2015.

Having read what you learned...I have to ask.

Did you pay money for this? I am missing a great opportunity.

I'm not sure what you're asking ?
what money, WHY money ??

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KrzYma

Look, the theoretical BLACK HOLE can slow down light so it can not escape, do you think before you answer ??

Besides being wrong about black holes slowing light, I thought you don't believe in black holes? Why mention them (unless attempting to disprove their existence)?

Yes, sometimes I have to use the same language, otherwise nobody will understand.

I said the theoretical BLACK HOLE

here again, the mathematical creation of an black hole, and it works on paper...

originally posted by: Astyanax

Electric-universe theory is utter bunk.

if you think so...
then why bother and answer if it's clear for you ?

I don't comment threads about God and Religion or other crap I know is bunk, not any more...



I see you don't know what light is at all, for you it's some particle traveling in space or rotate around something.

Do you think there is something that changes position in space as EM wave propagate ??
please tell me your view what light is and how it "travels".

a reply to: KrzYma

What if it doesn't travel? Just like waves in the ocean, where force and motion are just being 'transferred'? But then you have to believe that the ocean is the aether?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Altering the speed of light doesn't mean it's not constant, it just mean it can be altered.
Sigh

How does that even begin to make logical sense to you?

If it can be altered, then it is not constant.

That means throughout the Universe the speed of light can be different.

which means distances might be interpreted incorrectly sometimes (arp's redshift?) maybe, due to the wrong interpretation of light, and its information carried, and even from which point on it can even give us information. light might be instant, we have never had a photon gate at the sun( all tests to lights speed are done partly in the light enabling atmosphere under a certain atmospheric pressure), and we never even encountered a photon in space is what i have read .. i think there is only a photonic emitting state local to the sun, and then by re ignition after collin in space re igniting here into light humans can see(400-700 nm is a very small band of things happening we can't see), friction from the higher density of our planet's neighbourhood( in relation to frictionless space) , or ionized zone the atmosphere. our atmosphere is a fluid, it is dynamic, if it in fact does work like a prism/lens, it is not even spherical, less temperature by the angle from the sun is on the earth poles, thus less pressure upward to cool then where the direct impact is, if we are inside some sort of glasslike fluid fishbowl, would a perfect orbit around us, not look like a ellipse? all the most important discoveries by astronomy have been done from within our atmosphere, if the refraction was stronger on certain parts of the lens, the sun would look differently sized, the eclipses between moon and sun would sound more logical, because they always meet in the same angle we see them, if they meet they are in the same magnification appearing just as big. if the atmosphere works like a light enabling prism, (only 0,0035% of light is visible? would you call 0,0035% apple even an apple?) then if there's no visible to human light in space the heavenly phenomenons would be sort of like a projection, is this why nasa must always give us compositions? would we see from further out a reversed light reflection on the atmosphere? if we project light ourselves, then our atmosphere is the thing that bends lights direction, do we project the northstar ourselves with the highly blue reflective surface we have here?


if light could vary in speed, is it even fast for nature? does nature care?.... can temperature give mass its weight? like on earth how a balloon works, is that how particles behave? all their own place or height from the core where they can exist, because of their respective mass and contained temperature for their own favored rest state? becoming lighter the more charge, energy or temperature they have inside them? it seems in space all is weightless, but not massless. space is the normal, planets the exception, i mostly think from natures perspective. in cold space we only see massless, we don't see an increase of mass because we always measured first on earth, and have no real perfect ways to measure mass in space, i've looked in to it i forgot the machines name, but would we even notice an increase in mass its weight per particle in -270C space? i think we are not precise enough yet to measure super small particles masses in space right? its like all temperature is carried inside the dimension of a (per)particle, like all particles actually only are conductive whether we can see them or not they pass on temperature, an invisible small particle can be next to another visible particle.., the faster a particle lets energy out of its tiny dimension, the more visible or measurable to humans. the tinier the dimensions, the more effect on this exact particle the same temperature would have? i think a photon seems massless, because everything in space is. and maybe the light emitting is what happens only on earth and is precisely what makes it so massless on earth BECAUSE it is shedding, emitting smaller and smaller particles, on earth while we look at it... something low massed becoming even more massless (at super high velocities for humans but for nature? does it care?)on earth, because of friction with the higher density surroundings of the neighborhood of a planet, or ionized zone where light can exist within our atmosphere.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: rickymouse

Well, at least they have a possible reason for gravity.

And General Relativity does not?

No, GR does not. General Relativity simply gives us a way to describe gravity, it doesn't explain it. What is that saying? "GR explains gravity but doesn't explain itself".