The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
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?

that's the thing...

For electromagnetic waves, propagation may occur in a vacuum as well as in a material medium. Other wave types cannot propagate through a vacuum and need a transmission medium to exist.

I say even EM waves need a medium to propagate in, a thing that Einstein has destroyed first but then admitted to exist, without Eather, his theory makes no sense


Now, to understand what the difference is between speed ( scalar value ) or velocity ( directional vector * scalar magnitude ) and propagation...

particles like electrons move in space changing location over time
position A at T0 ---> position B at T1

EM wave propagates, but nothing changes it's position, what changes is the value of that field at the specific space location in time.
position A at T0 has value X0 ---> position A at T1 has value Y0
position B at T0 has value X1 ---> position B at T1 has value X0

here one explanation

* I think I need to do a better explanation myself some time

photons have speed because they are mathematical constructs and not reality.
It is very useful tool to calculate however, but unfortunately without any connection to reality as it happens.
There is no particle traveling from the source to the observer. The "information" about a "change" in a field is what propagates...
here an example..

this zeros represents the field in space
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0

now, the field changes into
1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0

next time step the field looks like this
0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0
than
0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0
than after a while
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0
and finally
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1


particle movement is like this

1...............................................
.1..............................................
.............................1..................
................................................1


i really don't know how to explain it more simple than that

originally posted by: dennisarends
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.

could you please make some drawings/pictures of what you mean ?
I'm not sure how to start with that...

originally posted by: KrzYma

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 ??

The material is total bs. It's not even particularly GOOD bs, just a lot of sciency words.

If people are willing to pay for sloppy pseudo-scientific crap, what could I get them to pay for a better product? Maybe it's time to stop doing the real thing and just make up turbo-encabulator level nonsense.

originally posted by: KrzYma
I say even EM waves need a medium to propagate in, a thing that Einstein has destroyed first but then admitted to exist, without Eather, his theory makes no sense...

Well, you say wrong. You also don't understand that when Einstein's talking about his new 'aether', he's not describing a luminiferous aether, which is what he discarded. He's talking about distortable space-time.

The LCD you're looking at is a really elegant stomp to the face of luminiferous aether, which requires EM to be longitudinal, like sound. Since light is polarizable, it cannot be longitudinal, and there is no aether for EM. QED.

a reply to: Bedlam

You come off as if you know exactly what gravity is, what causes it, and how it all works.

...and we all know that is BS.

So until you know, who are you to say someone else is on the wrong path?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes

What about astrophysical jets? They seems to escape a black hole without any difficulties?

I also wonder, when you ask someone what is a black hole? 9 out of 10 you get the answer, it's a thing/place/hole where the gravity is so strong that even light can't escape from it.

So do I get 'sucked' into it? I don't emit any light?
or
is the gravity of light immensely high?

I mean, If every galaxy has a black hole in it's center, why is there still a universe?

You don't emit light eh? I beg to differ

The Aura around humans is partly composed from EM (electromagnetic) radiation, spanning from microwave, infrared (IR) to UV light. The low frequency microwave and infrared part of the spectrum (body heat) seems to be related to the low levels of the functioning of our body (DNA structure, metabolism, circulation etc.) whereas high frequency (UV part) is more related to our conscious activity such as thinking, creativity, intentions, sense of humor and emotions.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: Bedlam

So until you know, who are you to say someone else is on the wrong path?

When they're saying something demonstrably wrong.

Would YOU pay for this 'symposium'? Or the material? How much would you be willing to pay?

I promise I can reveal all the secrets of reality. What "they" don't want you to know. It involves sacred geometry, fields, quantum, vortices, vibrations, energy, auras, and chakras. Oh, and frequencies and resonances.

eta: for $29.95. If you want exclusive access to our "forbidden secrets of the ancients" online video symposium, it's another $39.95. It's got aliens in.

originally posted by: Bedlam
When they're saying something demonstrably wrong.

Are they saying something demonstrably wrong, or are you interpreting it wrong? Perhaps because of your unwillingness to listen or understand their entire theory you are jumping to conclusions.

I don't see you demonstrating anything.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: Bedlam
When they're saying something demonstrably wrong.

Are they saying something demonstrably wrong, or are you interpreting it wrong? Perhaps because of your unwillingness to listen or understand their entire theory you are jumping to conclusions.

I don't see you demonstrating anything.

Of the statements in the OP, only one or two are right, and it's not EU cant.

I challenge you to prove that surface electric charge varies mass in any way, for instance.

They did, however, copypasta the definition of the London force correctly, though.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: Bedlam
When they're saying something demonstrably wrong.

Are they saying something demonstrably wrong, or are you interpreting it wrong? Perhaps because of your unwillingness to listen or understand their entire theory you are jumping to conclusions.

I don't see you demonstrating anything.

The fact that KrzYma and you don't actually understand what this EU guys are claiming in this video, while feeling the need to defend their nonsense, is the most funny thing here.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Of the statements in the OP, only one or two are right, and it's not EU cant.

That is because you are reading a completely new set of theories, and trying to fit them into your current understanding of a completely different set of theories...

They are putting together a new puzzle, and the OPs statements are pieces of that puzzle. You have already started a completely different mainstream puzzle that has been provided to you via old books for many years now, and you are complaining because their completely new and different puzzle pieces don't fit in your old puzzle. Understand?

originally posted by: Bedlam
I challenge you to prove that surface electric charge varies mass in any way, for instance.

In "any way"? You sure about that? Ok...

Electrons have mass right? Right... You still want me to continue? Ok...

An object that has a negative surface electric charge will have more electrons (more mass). If it has a positive electric charge it will have less electrons (less mass).

With that said... Did you know the potential energy of a system contributes to and or subtracts from a systems mass? It's not just about the number of particles it is made of. E=MC^2 right?

a reply to: WeAre0ne

An object that has a negative surface electric charge will have more electrons (more mass).

What if the atoms which compose it have fewer protons? It will have a negative charge and less mass, right? What happens to the mass then? Do the number of neutrons matter? They have mass but no charge, right? Fewer neutrons, less mass, no charge. More neutrons, more mass, still no charge.

E=MC^2 right?

As far as that partial equation goes, yes. But I don't see a value for charge in it. What's up with that?

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: Bedlam
Of the statements in the OP, only one or two are right, and it's not EU cant.

That is because you are reading a completely new set of theories, and trying to fit them into your current understanding of a completely different set of theories...

"theory" in science means something different than "stoner theory". In that you actually have to show that it fits observation, and goes past "whoa, what if, like, there's an atom in my fingernail that's like another solar system and the electrons are like planets. Whoa".

An object that has a negative surface electric charge will have more electrons (more mass). If it has a positive electric charge it will have less electrons (less mass).

SMH. Your EU guy says that the fact that it has a net charge affects the mass. Not that you're adding particles. They are saying that charge itself is gravity, which is ridiculous on the face of it, but their statement is that a net charge IS mass. Not potential energy, not base mass, no, they're saying that net charge is mass. Most of the points are to this end, because it's the basis of their claim.

So what they are claiming is that if you REMOVE electrons, it increases the mass, because it now has a net charge.

And yes, I'm fully aware of potential energy and mass, since I have a physics degree or two. That said, it doesn't enter into this claim, so I'll say that bees smell fear, and the human head weighs about 8 pounds.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

I'd also like to see the proof for the new "law" that you can't shield electric charge because "matter daisy chains dipoles".

If all gravity is due to induced electric dipoles (ridiculous on the face of it), then why doesn't your electric field deflect charged particles? Electric charge/fields are easily detected, to be honest. If gravity was all electric field interactions, it would be child's play to demonstrate clearly. They make a lot of claims like that that are easily dismissed, to be honest.

a reply to: Bedlam

My EU guy? Just FYI, I don't subscribe to the EU model. I have my own T.O.E.

You challenged me, so I accepted. You didn't say what theory I should use. And there are more than one.

Anyway, I am simply defending that sometimes when you start over from scratch and try to explain an entirely new set of theories to explain the entire universe, its not so easy trying to explain it to a bunch of wannabe know-it-alls who really know nothing. They always attempt to pick apart small pieces of the whole theory by trying to compare those pieces to what they think they already know, and they cry when they don't understand the parts, because they don't try to understand the whole.

There are several theories why dogs sometimes spin around in circles before they lay down... More than one of them may be true.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

They always attempt to pick apart small pieces of the whole theory by trying to compare those pieces to what they think they already know, and they cry when they don't understand the parts, because they don't try to understand the whole.

See, that's the problem. When you start with parts that don't make any sense, it doesn't matter what "whole" you end up with. When you start with parts to create a "whole" you need to start by showing that those parts are valid.

But you are correct, "new ideas" are picked apart. With good reason.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

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.

If something alters it. 1000/1000 times the lunar laser reflectors will provide the same exact results. Same as deep space contacts. Light has a constant speed or those things would never work.

a reply to: Bedlam

Why don't you try to find / contemplate the answer(s) and proof(s) to these questions you have in context of the new theory? Is it because it is easier for you to dismiss? Or because you don't feel like using your brain?

Just for a minute, entertain the theory and any questions you might have that you think disproves the theories instead of pretending you know it all and instantly dismissing it. As far as I am aware, science hasn't stopped.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

As far as I am aware, science hasn't stopped.

Where is the science in the things you have said?
You've started with made up "facts." How is that science?

a reply to: Phage

Some parts are meaningless unless you understand the whole.

It's like trying to understand how a complex computer program works by only studying the functions by themselves, and not how the functions are used.