The Secret Of Gravity Revealed - Scientific Experiment Included

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
. I think its a known fact that your entire skin is reborn every 5 years or something.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ALLis0NE]

Kind of off-topic, but yeah. All cells in the human body are replaced within any given seven year period. Great thread, by the way, really interesting theory. Sooooo much better than that one f*ckmonkey who claimed gravity was due to the equal expansion of all atoms at a constant rate. That was ridiculous.

Groovy thread man, this thread is simply dynamite

Originally posted by spaznotz
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
To keep it rudementary and inchoate; darkness is definitely a thing. Darkness is an absence of visible light, whereas light is an absence of "visible dark". Its about actinism and photochemical reaction on your biological storage unit (body) and the reception that it is able to perceive through your retina. We do not and are currently not capable with the naked eye to perceive every spectrum of light.

When we talk about darkness though, aren't we talking about what darkness is relative to us? If we are in darkness, doesn't that mean we are in a place where the is no visible light, as in visible to us?

Oui, Monsieur.

So wouldn't it be true to say that that darkness is the lack of light? What is visible dark?

Lack of visible light relative to what WE can perceive. If we were meant for it we could visibly perceive sound. Instead we see the electromagnetic spectrum, but only limited frequencies (approx. 700 nm to 400 nm in wavelength).

We see objects because light bouces of them, or eminates from them, so, do we not see objects because darkness bounces of them?

Because of how our optics are biologically set up and able to perceive light, the light that we can not visibly perceive, which accounts for what we see as darkness or shadows, allows a contrast so that our brain can decipher between bright and dim. If there was only light we'd be blinded, we'd have no contrast and see nothing else. The obstruction of these physical objects creating shadows or a lack of visible light is what allows us to have a contrast of perception. Also the visible light itself allows for its own contrast because we can perceive it in different frequencies which allows us to perceive different colors.

As stated: there is no "true darkness". "Darkness" bouncing off an object would only be us visualizing a lack of visible light relative to what we can perceive with the naked eye.

When I shut my eyes and put my hands over them, do dark waves start bouncing off objects instead?

No, there's no such thing as "dark waves" unless we're being metaphorical and referring to dark waves as the frequnecy of light that we can not perceive with bare optics, or our naked eye.

Isn't that like saying noise is the lack of audible silence, when silence can't even be heard in the first place? My head is beginning to hurt.

It's like saying what we think is silence is only the noise that we can't hear. There is always vibration because everything is always in motion, ergo there is always sound, we are simply attuned and entotically constructued to hear certain vibrations of sound as well.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

ALLisONE:

Originally posted by ALLisONE
Some how though they manage to stick to other particles because Neutrons are made of smaller particles called quarks. Right? Don't you remember your own theories? They have charges too!

You are right about neutrons made of quarks, it was ten thirty and I was tired, so I was not thinking about quarks; however, neutrons still have no polarity whatsoever, because they are made of one up quark and one down quark. (Up quarks are positive and down quarks are negative.) It is not like binary or on and off though.

The rest of my post is still completely valid, and indeed, as explained above, so is that part.

Originally posted by ALLisONE
I also wanted to mention, that light and dark are the same thing. Just like rich and poor are the same thing. 0ne can NOT exist without the other.

You can also have poor people without rich people, just not the other way around. However, that is in no way germane to the topic, see below for discussion of light.

LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal:

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Force:
12. Physics. a. an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.
b. the intensity of such an influence. Symbol: F, f


No, sir. Light is definitely a force while simultaneously energy. EVERYTHING IS ENERGY, EVERYTHING IS FORCE. YOU CAN'T COMPREHEND SIMPLE PHYSICS DEFINITIONS AND THE WORLD AROUND YOU? You are so obviously uneducated that I am embarassed for you.

If you do not even no what a force is then just stop posting, that is what this thread is about. Force, as you are talking about it, has to do with interactions between masses. The equation is F=(d(mv))/(dt). F=force vector. m=mass. v=velocity vector. t=time. What I am talking about is not force but the forces. They are completely different.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
To keep it rudementary and inchoate; darkness is definitely a thing. Darkness is an absence of visible light, whereas light is an absence of "visible dark".

As explained by Power_Semi, you can artificially create true darkness. In any case, the stuff that you call darkness, even you admit, is just light.

Finally,

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I grow bored of these close minded condescending posts filled with half truths and bifurcated fragments of unity.

Learn about the topic before you accuse me of posting half truths and, as you put it in such flowery, useless terms, "bifurcated fragments of unity."

Lets review some facts about energy and matter.

Matter is not made of light and does not emit light, unless a light-producing chemical reaction occurs. Light is made of waves of photons, which is a very interesting and murky topic in its own right. Photons are particals, but they are massless and are not electrically charged.

You and I are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made of quarks, as is all matter. All matter is energy. Beyond that, we get into M theory, and its better not to go there.

Also note that matter, when it is stable, is not magnetised.

Originally posted by Korhyan
If you do not even no what a force is then just stop posting, that is what this thread is about.

Who are you speaking to, you? As if I don't know this? I've been typing in this thread and doing threads like this long before you arrived. You're the one that can't comprehend force.

Force, as you are talking about it, has to do with interactions between masses.

ALL MASSES INTERACT because they are interconnected to everything and force is everywhere. There's no such thing as "isolated and independent mass".

The equation is F=(d(mv))/(dt). F=force vector. m=mass. v=velocity vector. t=time.

Pre-school equations.

What I am talking about is not force but the forces. They are completely different.

No, sir, they are completely the same and completely interdependent.

you can artificially create true darkness. In any case, the stuff that you call darkness, even you admit, is just light.

No, sir. You can't. Yes, it is light, light that we are not capable of perceiving with the naked retina.

Learn about the topic before you accuse me of posting half truths and, as you put it in such flowery, useless terms, "bifurcated fragments of unity."

Sir. Stop embarassing yourself. What you present is bifurcated fragments of unity. What I present is a unified field, who is more intellectual and why?

My flowery, useless terms are what you are presenting. *hands you a mirror*

You bore me, sir. You're a condescending hater, a divider of knowledge, of peoples and of science and ultimately unity, an impediment to the scientific universe and its dispersion of knowledge on Earth. Go spend some time in a garden and come back at me with love, then my flowery terms won't be so useless.

When you can prove to me how any one thing is independent then I'll stop talking, until then you have no evidence of what you espouse.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by Korhyan
Lets review some facts about energy and matter.

Matter is not made of light and does not emit light, unless a light-producing chemical reaction occurs. Light is made of waves of photons, which is a very interesting and murky topic in its own right. Photons are particals, but they are massless and are not electrically charged.

You and I are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made of quarks, as is all matter. All matter is energy. Beyond that, we get into M theory, and its better not to go there.

Also note that matter, when it is stable, is not magnetised.

Matter is not made of light, correct. However light is a VERY versatile waveform, becoming interchangable with electrons on the quantum level. Plasmonics, photonic, etc, utilizes and studies this effect.

Fruther, as you delve deeper in the subquantum nature of reality you begin to see that, aside from the theoretical, protons and other subquantum "particles" don't really exist (at least, not in the classic form we once believed).

I would note, however, that you refer to matter from the point of view of an Earthbound creature. As mentioned in this article, there are fields of magnetic flux around just about everything. Even "dead" Mars has been seen to have an ionosphere.

Magnetism is the fingerprint of what we are made of.

reply to post by Korhyan


Matter is considered to be "frozen light". Matter does emit light. There are many examples.
When some atoms decay into lighter elements there is leftover energy. This is released as photons.
When an electron quantum jumps to a lower state it releases a photon.

Did someone here say the strong force is a force? The name is decieving, it's not really a "force". It's just the exchange of virtual particles between 2 particles that draws them together.

reply to post by thedangler

emev / pmev / F / 10 = .0000116640288484

source

All things have weight, all the time; the more weight an object has and the more massive and dense it is, the stronger its gravitational field.

How much "stuff" (amount of material) something contains will determine weight along with gravity. How much something weighs will determine its gravitic effects and how it is effected by gravity, and also determine its mass.

The "stuff" determines the weight and the weight detemines the stuff, they both determine the gravitic field and vice verse and inversed.

F = mv (F = inertia; m = mass; v = velocity = speed along a given relative axial direction). Everything has inertia.

Matter is a property of mass, it can and will tell us how mass behaves.

"Gravity" permeates the universe. Show me a place with no gravity and I'll show you a place with no weight (impossible).

Everything (the universe) is in motion, everything, and under the influence of itself and everything else, always.

There are only 3 undividable intersecting dimensions in a continuity of transmutation.

Atomic masses are measured by this: e/c^2=m. Ionic current.

Mass: Physics- the quantity of matter as determined from its weight. And: the property of a body that is a measure of its inertia, that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of material it contains, that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field, and that along with length and time constitutes one of the fundamental quantities on which all physical measurements are based.

Weight - Physics- the force that gravitation exerts upon a body, equal to the mass of the body times the local acceleration of gravity: commonly taken, in a region of constant gravitational acceleration, as a measure of mass.

Matter: Physics- Something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

Inertia: the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force. (nothing is at rest!)

Energy: Physics - the capacity to do work; the property of a system that diminishes when the system does work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done; potential energy. Symbol: E

Work: Physics. force times the distance through which it acts; specifically, the transference of energy equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves.

Force: Physics - an influence on a body or system, producing or tending to produce a change in movement or in shape or other effects.

Light clearly has the capacity to do work as defined by energy, and as defined by work it thus clearly has force and is a force.

So what seems to be the problem?

Answer: You are an uneducated, illiterate biological robot who by some unbeknownst reason to myself, can't for the sake of himself understand physics, the definition of physics, and the workings of the universe... and uses this stupidty as his argument against perfection. Now does that make any sense? What are you doing? Brush up on YOUR physics. Korhyan!!!

Free fall: the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity. (everything is "gravitized") ALL OBJECTS ARE IN FREE FALL.

Everything is, does, has and is acted upon by: force, work, energy, matter, weight and mass acting perfectly synchronized, interconnected and interdependent.

I think it's time for me write a book. I get exhausted trying to explain things to noobies. When I do explain it in depth you don't understand. When I don't, you still don't. Either way you're not trying to understand, you just want to argue and protect your scientific Bible and your Einstein God.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

I will dictate my final opinion on this theory and thread tomorrow.

***I will say that it seems the real question here is "What causes gravity?"



Stand by.........................

All this fun talk about light and darkness and God, I thought the thread was about the secret of gravity.

Anyways, this mumbo jumbo that some people are serving here about matter not being light etc, and that it has been proven to be separate (by touching it? ) is silly. Your perception is deceptive and you truly *do not know* what's out there, outside some of your thick skulls.

You *think* you know that you are touching the keys when you are typing on the keyboard because you get a nerve impulse coming from the fingertips and into the brain being recognized as a tactile sense, but that's it. You really *do not know* and anyone who says they *know* is full of it. The reality (-tunnel as Timothy Leary named, and RAW popularized, it) is a perception construct formed throughout the years of your early development.

It has been experimentally proven that all and any stimuli that your five (or six?) senses produce can be faked by either probing with electrodes certain areas of the brain (imagine an open skull and someone touching that mess in your head you call brains) or more novel and recent way, remotely, using EM waves. So the sense is really an electric signal, a light impulse and nothing more.

One last thing, or matter a fact THE reason I wanted to post, as it relates to light, mass, God and you. This gentleman (Maurice Cotterell) is a true genius and I really *really* full heartedly recommend watching the two part video "Secrets of the Super Gods" all the way because what he has discovered is astounding (regarding the Sun, its cycles, human beings, Mayas, Egyptians, etc). I suggesting looking for a .torrent of a better quality video though...

But if you cannot spare a two hours of your (busy?) life to learn something new, then please rewind to 46:00 and watch his wonderful explanation of God (as light, coincidently):

Google Video Link

I haveskipped some pages in this thread so if theese videos have been posted already... sorry in advance

Gravity Behaving Badly:

Video 1

Video 2

It is funny how people of even the highest educations seems to rely on falsified/paradox filled theories when trying to explain gravity, and yet dismiss other well-documented theories,because they "shake" their "learned" scientific beliefs.

if you have learned something is that the same as absolute thruth? what if there are unknown factors not yet handled in the science you have learned?
If an equation is made that can explain certain phenomena, does that mean it has to be the only thruth? Or could there possibly be other correct answers explaining the same phenomena just as well or even better?

One thing is for sure... NOONE knows the truth about gravity yet, but one thing is for damn sure... standard science with its Quantum physics and curved spaces are of target when it comes to gravity.

Originally posted by Matyas
reply to post by thedangler

 

emev / pmev / F / 10 = .0000116640288484

source

HOLY COW! That was an OUSTANDING link, my friend.

I am going to have to go sit by myself for awhile to my mind can wrap around this.

reply to post by Bluess


Any one set of Equations and theories do not equal the final truth. No scientists actually think that.
Until a better model comes along that contains a more complete description of reality general relativity is the current working model. A new theory of gravity complete with equations may replace GR. It will hopefully unify gravity with quantum mechanics and will explain gravity BETTER than GR does while also accounting for the things we already know. Newtons gravity explained the math behind gravity but did not account for "why does gravity exist". Mercurys perhillion was also a huge hole in Newtons gravity. GR explained both conceptually and mathematically. I don't understand the anti-science undercurrent here. Science is not religion, it's not about upholding truths. It's about replacing old ideas with new ones. It's just that GR is such a powerful piece of mathematics and correctly predicts so much about the universe that it's not going to be disregarded easily. Even that took several decades to be fully accepted.

It's like MMA. There are many people who say they can beat Fedor. But until someone shows up and kicks his ass he is the king. But everyone would welcome a new champion.

reply to post by Bluess


Oh geez. That gravity 1 video is very mis-leading. Couple examples: That quote from Paul Davies is regarding Einsteins ideas on quantum mechanics not gravity. I have all of Paul's books.


"Can empty space be curved?"

There is no such thing as empty space. Space is a "thing". It is not empty. It is dynamic and energetic, full of virtual particles blinking in and out of existence every trillionth of a second. So yeah, that can be curved.


"...factored in time as a physical dimension"

He didn't. The time vector is imaginary (i). In other words it's NOT a spacial dimension. It is however a real dimension.

I think it's important to learn the rules first. Then we can break them. I don't see how mis-information is helping to lead us to new ideas.

reply to post by joelrivard


No, sir. you are also being misleading, falling into the very detestable aparatus that you mention.

No energy pops in and out of existence. Energy is existence. It is eternal, without beginning and without end, it can neither be destroyed or created.

I'm starting to wonder, if there's not a God... then who sent me here on this mission to cleanse Humanity of its horrid ignorance?

It's knowledge that will grow.

Re-read everything you've read.

Re-watch every movie you ever watched.

You will see.

I tripped out on the movie "The Last Mimzy".

All is One, if i take an object and spin it , add the proper magnetic field to perswade the opposing field out of the way would i have lift , like a bubble rising through water? or do i need to link into the opposing field to climb out like a gear? is that too ignorant? thanks

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Well that's not exactly "me", that's quantum mechanics. Heisenberg, Bohr, etc..

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle predicts that there is a probability that particle/anti-particle pairs will pop into existence out of nothing and quickly annihilate themselves. It turns out that it does happen that way.

The video is misleading because it is mis-using quotes and actually making false statements. The least it could do is use the correct information and then say "this is why I think it's wrong". If I was using video references to validate my ideas and someone pointed out that the information was incorrect I would be very interested. The goal here is to discover new things not win an internet debate. At least for me. Do you not feel virtual particles are a valid phenomenon? If not then why?

It is true that modern science feels energy is never created and destroyed. Virtual particles do not violate this principle. The creation of new particles is balanced out by the annihilations so everything comes out even in the books. Quantum mechanics has some very strange features like that.
The video suggests that space is an empty no-thing and therefore cannot be bent. The point is that space is not empty, is a "thing" and can be bent.