It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Gravity?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I feel that gravity is another form of space itself. The duality of the fabric of space, if you will. When in the force state, we experience it as gravity. Otherwise, we experience it as a unit of space. As a particle of matter migrates from one unit of space to the next, the unit is displaced/converted into gravitational force. As the force acts on the particle, it is transformed back into a spacial unit, allowing the particle to move to the next unit.

But to really figure out all the aspects of gravity would mean unification... good luck.




posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   


Gravity is an electromagnetic wave and like any wave has amplitude and frequency.

...

Gravity is instantaneous and is not, as mainstream science have you believe ‘just a little faster’ than the speed of light. Any gravitation force exerted by the earth will be felt instantaneously anywhere else in the universe


John, if gravity is a wave with amplitude and frequency how can it also be instantaneous?



The frequency of a wave refers to how often the particles of the medium vibrate when a wave passes through the medium.


Here is a source.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by zoopnfunk]


apc

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Gravity is not instantaneous. This has been repeatedly demonstrated.

There's a few links in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And allow me to pimp my own thread on an implication of gravity having a fixed speed:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
johnlear:

I read your post and thought, well, interesting.

My theory is based on two types of gravities and one of these could possibly be the combination of two similar separate ones (ie three total).

robertfenix:

Well, what you have said is also very close to my theory, however the semantics are somewhat different.

----------------------

It's interesting when I read how some websites explain how the earth's magnetic field is like a bar magnet. They are half right.

I think you'll find that when it's revealed, people are going to say "oh, that's how it works?"

...and wonder why it took man so long to figure it out


Cheers

JS



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I had a dream about gravity a long time ago when I was a kid. Unfortuately, I never learned enough mathematics to develop a formula about it.

All I can say is that gravity is a trans-dimensional force that at its smallest level behaves a lot like surface tension in water. "Blobs" of gravity float around matter and in-between dimensions, and "stick" together when they interact. It's a little hard to explain and visualize, exactly. The blobs "reach through" different dimensions and are attracted to each other, pulling the mass together along with them. They have poles, like magnets, but only one pole exists in our 3-D/4-D space, the other extends "down" (?) into another dimension.

The information was visual, and I don't know exactly what these gravity things were or why they interacted the way they did. Whoever sent the information into my brain unfortunately got the wrong guy, since I am unable to do anything with it. I assume that it/they sent it to more people than me, so maybe one of them will figure it out. But maybe that information is lost forever when I'm dead. Too bad.




posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace

robertfenix:

Well, what you have said is also very close to my theory, however the semantics are somewhat different.



Semantics I can understand that, as it is a concept in my head that I am trying to express, terms are just that, like Agua and water the explain the same "thing" or concept.

What I see in reality is a ball "atom" and two arrow head leads from the ball that are attached to the ball on one end and at the other have a colored arrow head one is blue and one is red. In space or in the absence of any gravitational "pull" these arrow head leads writher around like snakes trying to point themselves to the closest gravitational "pull".

Planets are then either RED or BLUE, as well as all bodies in space.

If a strong RED body is near then the "space atom" red arrow will straighten like a tight direction rod and the atom will then be drawn to the red body in space. This is the strong force alignment. If the closest was a blue body then the blue arrow would point and then the blue mode would be the strong force alignment.

When two or more atoms connect to each other they exchange only one and one, one red for one blue and one blue for one red, but they act as a sort of conduit for the strong force of the planet (lets say gravity in the atmosphere) acting as a super highway for the matching gravitons that have been emitted by the planet core to return back to the planet core. This is the Mode Value or gravitational force of the planet.

to visualize draw two circles. one above the other seperated by three inches. like this

O



O


Then on left make a two make interchange and on the right the number of "pipes" equal to the mode value or gravitational force (lets say 5)



O
| ! ! ! ! ! !
| ! ! ! ! ! !
| ! ! ! ! ! !
| ! ! ! ! ! !
O


The right side then is the amount of Pressure/force/strong force/ bonding/ compression that each atom has on the next atom in order to exchange the same amount of RED or BLUE gravitons in the direction of the center of the planet core.

The right side gravitons are being thrown out from the core into "free air" and are absorbed by every atom and returned back to the core at the rate of the mode value or gravitational force which is determined by the mass, density and composition of the core material.

To make the atom go anti gravity then you have to switch the mode of the atom in regards to which one the atom uses for strong and weak force



O so now these two atoms can not pass through the free air
! | ! ! ! ! !
! | ! ! ! ! !
! | ! ! ! ! !
O


These two atoms then would part the other atoms above them much like a ships bow through water or a plane wing in the air, the other atoms that are not switch will seek out other not switched atoms to bond with to continue the conduit of passing the strong force gravitons back to the core.

The more you switch atmospheric atoms, the more that get drawn to your anti g machine, the more mass you can counter act against the pull of the core.

much like floating an opposite pole magnet or how the maglev train works

but in a maglev you are introducing electrons to excite the magnetic field strength, instead of attracting "graviton density" to counteract gravity.

A maglev uses an inefficient third force (electrons) intead of force counter force.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
APC


Abstract. Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order.

General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2x1010 c.

Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.

www.metaresearch.org...


It's a VERY interesting paper that i read some time ago and as scientist go Tom has quite the record imo ....

Get whatever you normally use, to calm yourself in times of crisis, ready as this might very well be somewhat unsettling.


Stellar


apc

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
1998 vs. 2002 and 2003... hmm...

If I fully understood the math we could probably duke it out

As I do not, I'll go with the more recent findings.

>
ooh! plus, 2x1010C isn't even warp 9! certainly not instantaneous. psh!



[edit on 3-8-2006 by apc]



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace

It's interesting when I read how some websites explain how the earth's magnetic field is like a bar magnet. They are half right.

I think you'll find that when it's revealed, people are going to say "oh, that's how it works?"

...and wonder why it took man so long to figure it out


Cheers

JS


May I ask then 'how does it work?'

namaste

Raphael



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   
yes these are very deep and interesting, man...

can anyone vouch for a small and sort of albert einstein way of saying a short answer, although it is big, make it smaller for better consumption.


apc

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   
... sure.

What goes up must come down.

More Newton than Einstein though.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
A Simplification

Hmmm... well I tried an Einstein by giving a thought experiment - that was the real Einstein way - but let me try something simpler:

Space-time is like a mattress. When something heavy is on the mattress, the mattress sinks, and any object wants to fall towards the heavier object.


That's the extremely simple explanation - but that's an oversimplification - and because of that, it's not entirely accurate.

Why? Because in the mattress example, as stated, we're still relying on gravity to explain how something falls, even though it moves towards the surface (we're saying it rolls down from a higher to lower point).

In truth though, it's that the path that an object is taking is changing.


Perhaps a better example then would be to say,

Space-time is like the fabric of a cloth. From our perspective the fabric's material is woven in straight lines, and cutting it with scissors would give us a straight line through it. However, the fabric actually curves into a circle, and as we look back at our cut, even though the cut seemed to be straight, we realize that it turned inwards, our cut eventually led us towards the center of the cloth.

So it's not that we're "falling" inwards, or that gravity is "pulling" us down - it's that the path we're taking is actually changed. When we jump into the air, we don't come back down because of a string that pulls us back. We come back down because, slowly, the direction of "up" changes into "down". The force in our jump remains constant during the entire trip, but direction of that force is changed, until we find ourselves back where we began.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Gravity is simply the distortion of spacetime.

Why matter distorts spacetime is actually unknown. But the distortion proves that the void is not really a void, because if it was, the distortion would not work.

My favorite and personal theory is that it is not matter that causes gravity, but the void. This theory (that the gravity is a push, not a pull, force), explains a lot:

1) the accelerating expansion of the universe.
2) the Cassimir effect (when the two plates get together, the void between them ceases to exist).
3) the spherical shape of celestial bodies (those formed out of gases).


apc

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
It should be noted that "distortion", "bending", "warping", etc, are all human descriptors designed to give our brains something to relate the four-dimensional concept to. Space is not actually "bent" in the way we think of bent, but it is something our limited brains can comprehend.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Perhaps(probably) I am not reading or comprehending these theories incorrectly, but many of them appear to be saying that the standard model is incorrect(or perhaps limited/incomplete?). Is this the assumption/idea you are proposing? If it is, I am not saying that the theory is wrong, I am just wondering.

(Forget this, I was misunderstanding the theory that i was asking about.)

[edit on 4-8-2006 by Liquid Swords1]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   


posted by johnlear

Ragster,
This is what Bob Lazar had to say about gravity. Gravity is an electromagnetic wave and like any wave has amplitude and frequency. There are 2 types of gravity, Gravity A which works on an atomic scale and is the strong nuclear force . . Gravity B holds us on top of the earth, the earth and all the planets in orbit around the sun . . Gravity is instantaneous and not as mainstream science have you believe ‘just a little faster’ than the speed of light. Any gravitation force exerted by the earth will be felt instantaneously anywhere else in the universe. [Edited by Don W]


I’m sure not everyone thinks Albert Einstein knew it all, but he was the one who said nothing exceeds the speed of light, including gravity. I am unaware of anything Bob Lazar has said that is new or is accepted by the scientific community. I’ll have to go with Einstein on speed, Mr J/L. It is almost intuitive that nothing is “instantaneous” in this universe.

I prefer the standard definition, 1) electro-magnetic force which includes light; 2) strong nuclear force - keeps atoms in one piece; 3) weak nuclear force - allows for atomic decay of atoms; and 4) gravity.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Gravity is an effect. Better yet a reaction to the unknown. What happens when two opposite magnets touch. An effect pushes them away. Gravity is the reaction of all the objects in our universe, and beyond. I've always felt that it is a by-product of Magentism. But I'd also love a definitive answer. Where's Hawkings?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix


What I see in reality is a ball "atom" and two arrow head leads from the ball that are attached to the ball on one end and at the other have a colored arrow head one is blue and one is red. In space or in the absence of any gravitational "pull" these arrow head leads writher around like snakes trying to point themselves to the closest gravitational "pull".

Planets are then either RED or BLUE, as well as all bodies in space.

If a strong RED body is near then the "space atom" red arrow will straighten like a tight direction rod and the atom will then be drawn to the red body in space. This is the strong force alignment. If the closest was a blue body then the blue arrow would point and then the blue mode would be the strong force alignment.


Robert I study and compare symbols, myth, religion, iconography and science etc...looking for common denominators.

Red And Blue are significant players throughout.
Please share with me what you know of Red and Blue ... I shall apply a Cosmogony 'constant', patterns I have detected, based on the esoteric representation of numbers, colors, directions, animals etc.

Please.

namaste

Raphael



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
red is always the dominate or strong force and blue is always the weaker return path.

there is no color to gravitons just a way to visually represent which one is which, ie when they shift then the blues become red etc, really the color is only a symbol. but when i see how gravity works in my head it is red and blue to show me the relationship.

to make anti gravity material the only thing you have to do is block and atoms ability to pass the core aligned gravitons.

in this manner an object could have up to infinite mass yet have no weight, with no measureable weight it would take very little energy to move the object.

an ionic airlifter is a great operating sample when you have only a small amount of weight you can create lift by only using static ion discharge.

by going past the netural point and attracting the opposite graviton from free air atom you increase the kinetic energy potential of the opposing forces. the craft can then hyper accelerate, the resulting "stripped" free air atoms cause a distortion and a temporary increase in specific gravity that would effect a very narrow local zone. ie someone observing close by could temporarily black out by the sudden increase in gravity at that spot. They may lose conscienceness and think strange thoughts and "lose time".

A strange paradox then happens, the faster the craft travels the slower it feels to the occupants as the opposite graviton force is built up. Possibly as it nears lightspeed or beyond the net affect may feel like instantaneous travel and for the occupants may appear to be instantaneous. Outside observers would continue on at the normal pace though.

This could spell disaster for space fairing aliens as even short hops of 40 + lightyears (80+ Lightyears round trip) could net 10,000 years or more change on their homeplanet. They could very well return to empty space or a planet vastly changed by wars for long gone only to find no civilaztion and no support to re-fuel their crafts. They may have simply died with no means to travel any further.

The problem is not travelling the great distances of space but rather what to do when you get there and what to do should you try and return to your home planet.

These travellers would be on a one way suicide mission and would become the last living entity of their species. For the odds that their kind would survive in its current civilization level are far more against them.

So an armada of space ships akin to Battlestar Gallactica would appear then to be more of the logical solution. Simply move the entire remanant of civilization from one home planet to the next. Near instantaneous travel would make several hops possible until a new home planet was found.

So the early visitors to this planet found themselves in the same situation, once here and returning to their home planet to report succeful contact with a planet with inhabitants they discovered their very own planet vastly different their new found knowledge of earth lost to possible eons of change. Travelling over 40 lightyears and having no means to send a communication signal faster then their craft could travel meant having to respond in person much like in ancient earth, when man had to the carry the message of the "new world" back to the queen. Because there were no phones in Columbus's time.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
We could thus measure a person's charge, his polarity and determine many aspects of his character, his political tendancies?
From the ground up everything appears to be binary?
To be confused with duality.

Here are two sites you may find interesting.
Graham Hancock is linked to this site.

www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...

and this one is supported by Dr. Milo Wolffe

www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com...

The above site proposes a theory that would replace Wave / Particle duality with a Wave / Wave foundation thus SpaceTime becomes SpaceMotion. 3Dimensions of Space plus Motion.
You may find your frontiers challenged.

Red being a stronger force and blue a weaker return is consistent with my findings using my 'tools'.
My tools also suggest Robert that the macrocosmic wave...the outer infinite boundary is the inverse in magnitude of the smallest / microcosmic wave known as the graviton.
So if the universe is as estimated to be 10 to the power of +35, using man as the baseline, I will suggest then that the graviton can be found using a magnification of 10 power of -35.

Other noted measurements using man as the baseline.
Size of atom 10 -5 to size of earth 10 +5
Size of proton 10 -10 to proximity to nearest star, not our sun is 10 +10

So the ancients were correct when they suggested man is the centre of his universe.
They also said the world / universe was flat
Socrates implies I should take note of patterns.

"As it is in the macrocosm so it is in the microcosm"

Or the Kabalists play around with terms like macroprosopus and microprosopus.

It means 'know thyself' is indeed a great place, a tool to help you start connecting.
Everything is connected without a doubt, and Quantum Gravity is suggesting just that, is it not?

namaste

Raphael


[edit on 6-8-2006 by Kachina]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join