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.

 

The anatomy of gravity wave propagation in advanced extra terrestrial UFOs

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I just want to make sure you actually understand what I'm saying here...

In your example (according to my theory)
1 assumes total push force from the same source.
2 assumes total push force from the same source (remember, pulling a car is actually pushing it from behind...)
3 assumes half push force from one source and half from another push force.

So what I'm saying is that the reason it doesn't influence the math is because the 'pulling' you describe doesn't exist in physics.


Well I half agree with you. As I said I think you're the one obsessed with the words pulling and pushing, I don't even see any benefit in using either one, when I can just draw a vector arrow to describe the direction and magnitude of a gravitational force, and it's mathematically accurate whether someone calls it pushing or pulling.

It was worth going through that thought experiment though because now I understand we don't agree on the definitions of "push" and "Pull". They are irrelevant terms regarding gravity so I don't think it's essential to resolve that discrepancy from my perspective, as long as we agree on the math which apparently we do, that's what really counts.

But as for "(remember, pulling a car is actually pushing it from behind...)" that's where you lost me, I can't remember that because I never knew it, and still don't grasp the concept. I said the person was in front of the car pulling on it, so there's nobody behind it to push in my thought experiment.

Anyway my recommendation is, just stop using the words push and pull and all our misunderstandings go away since we agree on the math, and that's what's important. I'm glad to see we agree on the important points my friend!




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
LOL okay, I'll stop trying to explain it.

We do agree on the math.

My obsession with the words push and pull is due to fact that I want great thinkers of this generation to be able to undertake thought experiments like Einstein did a century ago. It's taught to everyone at a young age that Gravity is a pulling force, and that, in my view inhibits the ability of these individuals to formulate thought experiments that present gravity in any other way.

I admit, it's a bit of an obsession with me.

In my engineering work, I do a lot of math, but I also do a lot of hands on applied sciences. The latter half of my mind controls how I understand physics LOL. I can fathom the math of most theories, but I need to feel the whole process with my hands in order to truly understand it.

Lacking the ability to really do that with the Gravity issue, thought experiments have served the great thinkers of our race, and so I turn to them often, conducting step by step experiments in my mind, and thinking about each aspect of the experiment as I progress.

At any rate, sorry for the dogheadedness about the push pull terminology. As long as we agree that its a force acting upon an object, that's good enough to make accurate predictions from. I just hope that there are those out there who can 'postulate both the positive and the negative' and 'see both sides of the equation'. I've found that from such individuals, (like you, and nablator for example...) real understanding of the actual mechanisms involved might eventually arise


-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
If the universe is truly flat (as current science predicts...)

It's not. Expansion is accelerating. Don't know about the dark energy factor.


... then I don't see why the origin point for gravity might not merely be some sort of friction (can't think of a better word) working against the expansion of the universe itself...

So there would be no gravity without expansion ? I don't understand.

The best way to date to understand gravity is to get into general relativity. That doesn't explain the why, only the how. The way gravity propagates is still a mystery. The speed of propagation is unknown too. Gravity waves have not yet been observed by the experiments such as LIGO :
en.wikipedia.org...


I'd at least read the theory, if you can find it around online...

It's on his website :
www.s178783976.onlinehome.fr...

You have to register to get the documents. My advice: don't bother. It's an interesting idea, and UFO-related, but actually (very) old, and it's been refuted very convincingly. Some problems with Lorentz referentials IIRC... There is a PDF online by a Pr. Auguste Meessen from Belgia. I have the link if you are interested but it's all in french.

[edit on 2009-9-16 by nablator]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
When you grab something with your hand, and 'pull' it towards you, you are merely exerting a 'pushing' force on the back of the object, pushing it closer to you.

Yes because the valence electrons of the object push (repulsive force) the valence electrons of your hand.


Likewise, Centrifugal force is a myth, an illusion of the actual pushing force involved, Centripedal force.

Inertial forces (centrifugal and Coriolis) don't exist, actually. They are only a convenient way of describing what happens in a accelerated referential frame with the same law (Newton's second law).


I merely think it's possible that Gravity could be a similar such illusion (from the Human perspective), and that we're just looking at it exactly backwards.

Gravity is an illusion, the result of the curvature of space-time being affected by mass according to GR.

[edit on 2009-9-16 by nablator]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by nablator
 


Holy crap Nablator! Thank you so much for thinking those points through and confirming their reality in physics.

You describe things much better than I do LOL.

Just for clarity, I don't argue with Einstein's curved spacetime observations whatsoever.

It's the 'how' I'm puzzled with, the propagation method, the origin point, and the specific interaction between the force and mass.

The thought experiment (putting your physics on an everyday human scale) involving actions that humans refer to as 'pulling', was merely meant to demonstrate in non-physics terminology that pulling is just a word we humans use to describe pushing something closer to us...

I firmly believe that the more folks who understand how everyday interactions really work, the closer our race will get to understanding Gravity, and other great mysteries of physics like dark energy and dark matter.

Thank you very much for supplying some of the physics involved that support the thought experiment.

You are absolutely right about Lorentz, IMHO, any theory of gravity must be reconciled with Lorentzian Relativity as well.

That's one of the reasons I find Tom Van Flandern's work so interesting. He does this.

I don't speak french, unfortunately, but thanks for the link anyway!
Maybe google's translator will give me a rough read...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Nablator, regarding this exchange:


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
If the universe is truly flat (as current science predicts...)



Originally posted by nablator
It's not. Expansion is accelerating. Don't know about the dark energy factor.



Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar... then I don't see why the origin point for gravity might not merely be some sort of friction (can't think of a better word) working against the expansion of the universe itself...



Originally posted by nablator
So there would be no gravity without expansion ? I don't understand.


I was describing the shape of the universe, not inferring that it was contained...

I absolutely agree that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion seems to be accelerating.

The theory that there would be no gravity without expansion would be an accurate prediction, a priori, if it proved true, but I see no way to test it...

I really don't know the origin point for gravity, nor the method of propagation, just merely thinking out loud, that it's possible that gravity is merely an illusion, resulting from the expansion through the medium (which may exert some sort of Cosmic drag, as observed by Sir Martin Reese...)

Just a theory, thanks for taking the time to really think about it!

I have no idea if it's true, or how to go about testing it at this point...

-WFA



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join