Understanding Gravity (and more)

page: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Everything you wanted to know about gravity, but were afraid to consider.

en.wikipedia.org...

In a system where information is bounded by strict rules of permitted 'matter' configurations (aka 'elementary particles' as building blocks of 'matter'), some information is always lost. This effect is cumulative, so the more 'mass' there is in a volume of space, the more information is lost, but only up to a limit defined by the exclusion principle -- two 'material objects' cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Notice that photons don't have such exclusion principle (two can exist at the same space at the same time, only producing interference in congested space) and that particle and anti-particle will produce a photon when they occupy the same space at the same time.

This loss of information results in *observable effect* of 'shortening' the distance between the two masses (that is, gravity always acts as an attractive force). In reality, however, this loss acts as (information processing) latency with *effective* propagation along the vector between the masses (truly -- a radial propagation, but that's insignificant since it could only be observed in a universe containing just a single particle). The more mass along the vector, the greater the latency. Hardly observable on a micro scale (between two 'elementary particles'), gravity arises as a much stronger 'force' (cumulative loss) on the macro scale (planetary and larger masses).

Therefore, anti-gravity is a meaningless concept... as is the Higgs boson.

Information... 'stuffing'... on the other hand... may produce very weird effects, some of which could very well be called 'anti-gravitational'.

By now you may have come to a conclusion that this world is a simulation (speaking of information processing and rounding errors), but it is really a sub-limitation of all possible (in theory, infinitely many) 'matter' configurations. The 'sub' part coming from:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

- 12-bit limitation of all possible (again, infinitely many) configurations,
- down to 9 bits when 3 spatial dimensions are set as fixed and are not part of particle information block,
- further reduced to a maximum of 8 bits for 'matter' configurations if minimum distance of 1 is the actual code distance

Thus, there should be no more than 256 (2^8) 'elementary particles' out there. As it turns out, E8 proposes that there are exactly 248 of them (which would mean that 8 of them are 'hidden'; that is, they are also their own anti-particles).

www.newscientist.com...

P.S.
I would very much like to hear if more than 8 particles which are also their own anti-particles have ever been detected in any accelerator.

P.P.S.
Some may notice that if errors in spatial bits are indeed not detected, that may offer some very interesting vectors of attack. For instance, imagine two objects moving *towards* one another, only resulting in the distance between them actually *increasing* (by 'curving' spatial bits along their trajectories).

Hovering above ground without spending a SINGLE drop of fuel trying to repel that massive gravitational pull from the planet just below you?

Completely sudden (out-of-the-blue, so to speak) 90º (or, why not, even full 180º) turns with absolutely NO inertial effects?

Sounds familiar? Already seen it?

Nudge-nudge-wink-wink... say-no-more... say-no-more...




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


Last time I checked...Electrons were Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that are Massless.

How do you propose that they have mass?

Split Infinity



I meant move en-mass as group; not mass mass...But if you still want to go there; an electron does have mass; to refresh you or inform you...a single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10^{-31} Kg. The electron is a point mass...feel free to look it up; told you to leave it alone, and stay on topic pride cometh before a fall.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Anthem0
 


Earth being a sphere:
By way of illustration only was I referring to (hearkening back to actually) the modern interpretation of the standard formula for calculations of 'gravity' as inferred from Newton's age old shell theorem. I.e., for points outside a vacated and uniform hollow spherical shell, the overall gravity would be equal to the gravity of an equivalent point mass at the center of the sphere. I understand this to mean that there could be a very large area within which one might be floating around - weightless.

Theoretically, as one ventures farther outside the sphere, gravity would decrease according to the inverse square of distance from the center. For points inside the hollow shell, gravity is zero.

Insofar as a solid sphere consists of concentric shells, (at least theoretically) the gravity inside the solid sphere at a given radius would be equivalent to the gravity of a 'point mass' at the center of said sphere therefore having the same amount of mass as all of the shells inside that given radius.

If the density of Earth were constant the gravity inside would follow a straight line graph with zero gravity at the center and 1 g at the surface. Beyond that, it decreases as the inverse square of radius. Since the Earth is denser (and not necessarily solid) in the center - the particular graph in question is not following a straight line, but is on a steeper path towards and near to the center.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
When It comes to gravity I like to have a little fun.. The masons have that G in the middle of the compass & square.. G, the 7th letter of the alphabet. 7 = Divine.. The G represents the Grand Architect of the Universe. Some call It God. Some, the creator.. A higher power if you will.

Since the Big Bang, there has and always will be one solitary "force" bringing plumes of gas, molecules, etc together, GRAVITY. The true architect of the universe. A swirling vortex found everywhere. The flow of energy. The force that holds us together, and literally down to this planet we call home. The harmonic frequency we know as the human existence.

The earth with an iron core. Ironically, we have iron in our blood stream. Imagine an iron-less body.. Could we all float/fly? How angelic that would be. Is God, Gravity? One in the same? I'll let you decide!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


If GR is wrong then there is something else doing exactly what GR is doing and as far as I or anyone else knows...that possible something has never been described.

Split Infinity



That possible something will be published in the near future, soon as i can
fix the bugs concerning the big bang and the black hole singularities



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Thought Provoker
 


The strength of gravity field inside body, Earth for an example, has a linear dependence on radius?
Surely, if watched as a lone body, what can be considered, except in case of close other very massive body?
Gauss' law applied, equivalent to the case of electrostatic field? Punctual or shared charges?


edit on 20-1-2013 by dragnik because: grammar misstake
edit on 20-1-2013 by dragnik because: additional text
edit on 20-1-2013 by dragnik because: grammar misstake



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by math101
 


For anti-gravity force you should have negative mass, or negative distance?
I haven't heard of them both.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by math101
 


If existance of more of 3 space dimensions is proven, we should be able to find short-cuts thru the 3 space dimensions our sences are able to observe?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by QMask
 


Okay, no formal education with me, but I do have a thought about this theory.

If it is a repelling force, then doesn't that explain the expanding earth theory?

okay, it seems to me that thought itself is just energy and with that a thought could be used to block a direction of the repelling force allowing movement of just about anything that is energy. [Not saying that I am able to block the force] but having thoughts does.

The concept of vacuum being the vessel of energy suggest taking no thought as a viable force.

Yes I do meditate, and yes, taking no thought is the goal. Sure makes me easier to live with.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by SplitInfinityreply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


If GR is wrong then there is something else doing exactly what GR is doing and as far as I or anyone else knows...that possible something has never been described.
Split Infinity


That possible something will be published in the near future, soon as i can
fix the bugs concerning the big bang and the black hole singularities



Angelic Resurrection
Really? I think your claims are very questionable, especially this one --->.............You state "Yes according to GR, but GR is absolutely and totally wrong"

Comparatively speaking, how do your relatively meager qualifications as an "Engineer, Pilot, Inventor" permit you to say such a thing? Your actual profile is devoid of such a declaration as to your credentials (physics, mathematics, etc.) so would you mind filling us in as to your ability to refute the General Theory of Relativity.

I want to ask you quite seriously - Are you joking around with us here in the thread?
Or worse - are you making claims that on the face of it would seem impossible to back up even to the average person?

Otherwise given your alleged "engineering" background what could possibly qualify you to "fix the bugs concerning the big bang and the black hole singularities?"

Your contentions sound so preposterous to me that I have to call you on it.
edit on 20-1-2013 by TorridGal because: correction



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
It has to be causing garden-variety "magnetic flux" attraction too, something weird about the atomic structure of certain metals (iron, most notably, but several others too) that I can't explain. Some sort of resonance perhaps; everything does vibrate, after all.


It is vibration...

The best example i can give to this would be tuning a guitar.

When a guitar is in perfect tune both the low and high strings resonate at sympathetic frequencies even though they are at completely different octaves.

When tuned perfectly you can place a piece of paper on the high string, and pluck the low string and see both vibrate in harmony (or vise versa) even though the two stings have completely different masses.

The same is more than likely true for the magnetism found in what we know are other constantly vibrating materials.

Magnets attract to certain metals because even though they have different make-ups (or octaves) they may still resonate at similar frequencies.

Excellent post btw!
edit on 20-1-2013 by mutatismutandis because: because im a monkey, not a scientist



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by A1st4Me
 


There is no clean vacuum anywhere, and, in any moment, pairs of particles and anti-particles are being created, and after extremely short time period anihilated, creating energy? Mass into energy, energy into mass...

edit on 20-1-2013 by dragnik because: spelling misstake
edit on 20-1-2013 by dragnik because: spelling misstake



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mutatismutandis "When a guitar is in perfect tune both the low and high strings resonate at attractive frequencies even though they are at completely different octaves."



I think the correct term here is "sympathetic" and not "attractive." It is an important distinction - vibrating strings do not attract one another, so in that sense the term is misleading.


edit on 20-1-2013 by TorridGal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TorridGal
 


Fixed!

Thanks for the catch.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
wow awesome theory and as others have stated very easy to understand . have one question though and thats how would a planet like saturn form in such a situation.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
reply to post by golemina
 

Clouds float because they're composed of water droplets (or ice crystals) so small and lightweight that the wind is easily able to keep them from falling, while electrostatic charge keeps them from clumping together. And once they get too dense they turn into rain and do fall, unless updrafts recycle them because those are strong enough to keep the weightier droplets from falling. That electrostatic charge keeps the cloud from becoming too dense too quickly, but it doesn't keep the cloud aloft. That's air resistance keeping them from falling. Buoyancy. Like leaves floating on a river.
edit on 1/20/2013 by Thought Provoker because: Better simile.




I've got to tell you that SplitInfinity's opium delirium of quantum mechanics make more sense than those babblings.

The ONLY part of that paragraph you got right is that clouds are charged... Plasma charged.

And if you took the time to examine the evidence by DIRECT observation you would see that the 'cloud tendrils' are classic plasma spikes with the so-called water-vapor coloring in the invisible energy matrix.

The cloud charges are an ATTRACTIVE force... Not a repelling one as you are implying...

Yes, clouds are affected by wind & thermal currents... But it affects them as a whole...

When clouds dissipate, it is because they appear to lose their charge. (Schauberger suggests sometime TOTALLY different.
)

Your comments about what you perceive as 'water vapor' floating is a TOTAL crack up, cuz quite frankly the TEMPERATURES involved would preclude that from occurring.

Not convinced... Go flying in a private plane and EXAMINE that for yourself.

Earth to Thought Provoker! Earth to Thought Provoker!

If your postulations had ANY merit... The clouds would be diffuse matts of vapor grouped on local conditions...

NOT an organized structure like a cloud!

I'm sorry... am I annoying you with MATERIAL FACTS...



So you can't be bothered to look at Naessens somatids or look thru his microscope.

And you obviously can't be bothered to go in the field and accumulate your OWN empirical data...

If you bothered to read Velikovsky's paper on the electrical nature of the Universe, you might start to have a clue about why getting a handle on 'gravity' by the establishment semitards has proved SO elusive...

Not to mention, a lead to a plasma based research project, that duplicated Earth's weather systems...



The kind of 'thinking' you are demonstrating is the exact type of PARROTING that has led us to the myriad of indefensible 'Scientific' 'cornerstones' such as 'gravity' (as a force
), the goldie locks zone theory of the sun/earth placement, the sun as an unending nuclear reaction, nuclear half-lifes, the basic nature of radioactivity, ad naseum...

The geocentric model of the universe was disproven quite a while ago...

But apparently the Universe STILL rotates our gigantic human egos!




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnik
reply to post by math101
 


For anti-gravity force you should have negative mass, or negative distance?
I haven't heard of them both.


Do you mean negative energy



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Not very different than the Higgs field theory.
www.higgs-boson.org...

That says Mass and Gravity have the same origin: the curvature of spacetime. In particular, gravity would not be an attractive force between masses but an external pressure force produced by the spacetime curvature on objects that tends to bring them closer to each other. Moreover, this theory, "The Spacetime Model", also explains several enigmas of physics such as the time dilatation, E = mc², the increase of mass of relativistic particles, black holes, black matter... The association "Spacetime Model + Higgs Boson" solves a large part of enigmas of modern physics.

At Edinburgh Higgs first became interested in mass, developing the idea that particles - massless when the universe began - acquired mass a fraction of a second later as a result of interacting with a theoretical field (which became known as the Higgs field). Higgs postulated that this field permeates space, giving all elementary subatomic particles that interact with it their mass.
en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 20-1-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
postulated theory: all this talk about gravity is because we all want to fly......



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I'm not dissing you, TP...enjoyed this anallysis, even if it was a little beyond my grasp at the moment, and in you are offended, there's your attack, signed, sealed and delivered with a kiss, from none other than me. Wait, don't turn the other cheek, I'm drawing back....no worries.....you won't catch my cooties....





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join