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.

 

Gravity finally explained

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParaShredder
I see your point, however a wind mill and a steam engine does very little to power an aircraft or a spacecraft or submarine. or homes when there is no wind. steam engines still require wood or coal or some other hydrocarbon to burn. As for the pyramid power: no comment.


So in escense, you didn't see his point...

A few problems in your OP:

1- What is an 'outgoing quantum wave', no, better yet, what is a 'quantum wave'? If you are going to make a theory about anything at all, you might want to start by defining your own terms and supporting your assumptions. Even if one day your new theory of gravity won you a nobel price in physics, you will leave everyone with the dilema of explaining 'quantum waves' - what are they, where do they come from, etc etc.

2- If your 'quantum waves' were real and acted the way you describe, wouldn't gravity separate two objects instead of pulling them together?

( ( ( (Satellite)))))) Earth
---------------->

See, higher, not lower, frequencies on the side facing Earth mean that the satellite is moving towards Earth. Also, how do you accoung for satellites orbiting Earth? Doppler effect exists if and only if an object is moving towards or away from another object. If your quantum waves caused a doppler effect on a satellite, but the satellite never fell on Earth, then this is not a doppler effect.

Another problem is that if gravity is simply inertia caused by a 'doppler effect' which is in turn caused by nothing more than the frequency of your quantum waves, then why is gravity weaker at longer distances? It seems that under your theory the higher the frequency the weaker the gravity pull. So now you have another problem, you'll need to prove that waves automatically gain frequency over time - else your quantum waves are not waves.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by daniel_g]




posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zzombie
Pretty heavy stuff. How can you physicist be sure your not chasing ghosts.

From the new scientists link.....

...........


So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs boson exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.




The really cool thing is that current research is being conducted with real world experiments that do not include the LHC. Through experimentation engineering models can be made. This is what Carver Mead has been doing in developing quantum computing. This is great because we end up with more than just theory.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


First off, this is not my theory. This is the work of many PHD level physicists and Engineers such as

Dr Erwin Schrodinger
Dr. Milo Wolff
Dr Richard Feynman
Dr. Carver mead
Dr Yuri Ivanov
Gabriel La Frenuiere
and Even Albert Einstien in his latter years working with Schrodinger.
and many more

If you would have read the links I provided you would have known this.

As for your questions I gave a link that explains with many pages what quantum matter waves are. They are waves in the fabric of space time.
Just a basic study in wave mechanics is all you need to get a better grasp on the subject. Quantum waves do not push on anything. instead they interact with other quantum waves resulting in action.(force)

If you really want to know how it all works read these links:

www.spaceandmotion.com...

www.quantummatter.com...

www.mirit.ru...

glafreniere.com...








[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]

[edit on 3-5-2010 by ParaShredder]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParaShredder
reply to post by daniel_g
 


First off, this is not my theory. This is the work of many PHD level physicists and Engineers such as

Dr Erwin Schrodinger
Dr. Milo Wolff
Dr Richard Feynman
Dr. Carver mead
Dr Yuri Ivanov
Gabriel La Frenuiere
and Even Albert Einstien in his latter years working with Schrodinger.
and many more


How about next time you start a thread you give proper credit to the people who deserve it n the very first post. Oh wait, they didn't say anything remotely close to what you said, you just played around with words, made up your own terms, and ended up creating a mess.



As for your questions I gave a link that explains with many pages what quantum matter waves are. They are waves in the fabric of space time.
Just a basic study in wave mechanics is all you need to ...


Oh God, where do I start? First off, they are not called quantum waves. Secondly, the fluctuations happen 'inside subatomic particles, not outside. Third, wave mechanics say nothing about vacuum fluctuatons, nothing.



If you really want to know how it all works read these links:
www.spaceandmotion.com...
www.quantummatter.com...
www.mirit.ru...
glafreniere.com...


Tell me which one says vacuum fluctuations are called quantum waves, which one says vacuum fluctuations spread outside subatomic particles, and which one says gravity is caused by the doppler effect, and I will read them in that exact order.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
i really like this idea. i have a question to help us see if this makes sense:


if there were an object in the vicinity of my body which formed approximately the same spacial and size relationship of the earth to a satellite, then would that objects quantum wavelength be affected by my body's debroglie wavelength in a similar fashion?


i would think the answer is "probably not".


this leads me to think that, if this theory is true at all, then there may be a threshold wavelength that must be reached. such a threshold frequency would give it even more a resemblance to the electric universe theory, which seems to be where this thread is heading.


thanks, OP, for this food for thought.





posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ParaShredder
 


Indeed you are correct but I feel the way you explained it might not convey things adequately to most readers. No disrespect to you at all, it is pretty difficult concept for most to grasp (at first) and even more difficult to explain.

I would recommend readers of this post look up "spherical standing wave theory". I am convinced this is the true nature of physics. So simple and obvious in many ways but so able to explain our observations. I think the best website is www.spaceandmotion.com. Very comprehensive.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Its amazing how some people dont want to learn something new, but get much more enjoyment out of arguing and making themselves feel superior
. I just thought I would like to share some information with others and provided some links where they can learn more if they wished to do so.

As for the terminology, if you read through all the links, there are so many researcher in this new field that are using different terms to mean the same thing and they admit so. Vacuum fluctuations, quantum waves,matter waves, waves in the fabric of space time etc.. all pretty much mean the same if you are familiar with the reasearch.



[edit on 4-5-2010 by ParaShredder]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OZtracized
 


You are absolutetly correct. I should have started with "spherical standing wave theory" but that is a whole thread unto its self. I was trying to focus on Yuri Ivanov's Gravitataion theory(Rhythmodynamics) and offered links to the other sites for the more detailed information.
www.mirit.ru...

a really good book to read for "spherical standing wave theory" better known as WSM theory is Schrodinger's universe by Dr Milo Wolff. He puts it together really well and ties together the whole history of how the research first began.
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272993614&sr=1-1






[edit on 4-5-2010 by ParaShredder]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by ParaShredder]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


I think the electric universe theory(EU) and WSM theory go hand in hand. WSM theory just explains what an electron is and how the natural forces work. EU theory explains things on the macro scale.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   



Oh God, where do I start? First off, they are not called quantum waves. Secondly, the fluctuations happen 'inside subatomic particles, not outside. Third, wave mechanics say nothing about vacuum fluctuatons, nothing.



Yes, they are called quantum waves and sometimes quantum matter waves by Dr. Milo Wolff himself. and these fluctuations focus inside "particles" as spherical standing waves and extend out to the ends of the universe, this explains quantum entanglement otherwise known as Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" as well as all the other forces of nature.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParaShredder
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Its amazing how some people dont want to learn something new, but get much more enjoyment out of arguing and making themselves feel superior

The why the hell am I asking questions? I have read every single link you posted, none answer any of my questions, none say anything remotely similar to what you are saying except for the russian report one which makes a claim but does not provide any scientific evidence.



As for the terminology, if you read through all the links, there are so many researcher in this new field that are using different terms to mean the same thing and they admit so. Vacuum fluctuations, quantum waves,matter waves, waves in the fabric of space time etc.. all pretty much mean the same if you are familiar with the reasearch.


No, they are not pretty much the same. What is a matter wave? Are they referring to the wave-particle duality of matter, or are they referring to the vacuum fluctuations that create particles that make most of a subatomic particle? (HINT: They are not the same)

Quantum waves? It's the first time I have ever heard that word. Again, which of your sources calls vacuum fluctuations quantum waves? I'm not even asking for a quote, just the link, how difficult can that be to answer?

If you are going to create a new thread and claim that gravity is finally explained, you might at least try to defend your claim by answering questions that pop up in your thread. Up to this point you have answered none of my questions.


Yes, they are called quantum waves and sometimes quantum matter waves by Dr. Milo Wolff himself. and these fluctuations focus inside "particles" as spherical standing waves and extend out to the ends of the universe


Sources? (Specific ones please, not a bunch of links with what you think is related stuff)


[edit on 4-5-2010 by daniel_g]



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaShredder
 


One of the pages you linked to stated:
"An electron cannot be made of matter. This site shows that it is rather matter which is solely made out of electrons."

I had a thought a couple weeks ago that perhaps protons were composed of 2 positrons and 1 electron with neutrons have 2 positrons and 2 electrons and anti-protons having 2 electrons and 1 positron.

It doesn't explain why the universe ended up with matter as opposed to anti-matter but it does explain where all the anti-matter went.



posted on May, 4 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
All one has to do to see the oddities of gravity is to spin a gyroscope and experience the loss of weight...or rather a shift in weight; A gyroscope shifts the mass magnetically..there is an attractive force between two objects with mass proportional to the product of the masses and inverse of the square of the distance between them. That is Newtons Law, by the way!!

Now we see toys that float magnetically and use antigrav...the LEVITRON
is the first of what will no doubt be a rash of antigrav devices...cool huh?

www.levitron.com...



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The Hoax is Einstein's wacky version of reality that has been pushed on the public like a religion.

Einstein's theories have failed over and over again.

knol.google.com...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


He summed it up with poetry though... Just barely missed not using a base 9 number system and a little spin:

A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. -Albert Einstein

Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for insects as well as for the stars. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” -Albert Einstein



Plenty of material in here:

www.myspace.com...

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParaShredder
reply to post by daniel_g
 


Its amazing how some people dont want to learn something new, but get much more enjoyment out of arguing and making themselves feel superior
. I just thought I would like to share some information with others and provided some links where they can learn more if they wished to do so.

As for the terminology, if you read through all the links, there are so many researcher in this new field that are using different terms to mean the same thing and they admit so. Vacuum fluctuations, quantum waves,matter waves, waves in the fabric of space time etc.. all pretty much mean the same if you are familiar with the reasearch.


As far as I can tell from Daniel_g's questions, he IS familiar with the research and I think he's asked you some valid questions respectfully, which instead of answering you make vague references like this suggesting he re-read the links and maybe he will understand. The very foundation of science relies on defining terms used. Yes sometimes people use different terms or use the same terms differently, but good scientists go to great lengths to define what those terms mean. If there is any confusion about terminology as you suggest (and I'm not sure there's an much as you imply) then that's all the more reason you should be defining your terms more carefully, instead of "waving your hands" like this reply and just saying "read the links".

@daniel_g, excellent questions, I'm wondering the same things you are. Maybe ParaShredder will be kind enough to answer them for us.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
So I am not sure how many of you know this yet, but it is now common knowledge that China is working on an anti-gravity device that is to be placed in civilian vehicles within the next 20 years. Parashredder is correct in saying that the processes of gravity can be reversed to create a repulsion system.


DTOX X



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Initial question concerning spherical waves of an electron....

If an electron's energy must be replenished through the connected aether as the result of the summation of all apparent surrounding energy sources, such as the sun and stars, what is the source of the sun's and star's energy? In other words, where do they get their energy? Or does it matter since there is enough energy to sustain all electrons in the vicinity?



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by daniel_g
 



Quantum waves? It's the first time I have ever heard that word.


I looked it up and there is no defined term called a quantum wave. This is just some nonsensical word either the OP made up or heard mentioned by someone else whom made it up.


What is a matter wave? Are they referring to the wave-particle duality of matter


I looked this up as well, and it is indeed a real defined term.


Definitions of matter waves on the Web:

* In quantum mechanics, a matter wave or de Broglie wave ( ) is the wave (wave-particle duality) of matter. The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_waves


I agree that this "theory" (read: joke) is nothing more than nonsensical garbage.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
You know, i am no physicist, but the theory makes sense. Especially when applied against things I do know.

Such as the Li/Podkletnov designed experiments, and the proposed "lattice ions".

Outstanding OP. I look forward to seeing this argued on a better level than the "HOAX!!!11" troll that previously posted.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join