Triple Star system may offer clue to true nature of Gravity

reply to post by SLAYER69


According to the Electric Universe theory, which has a far better track record for prediction than the Standard Model - the pulsar or quasar is an extremely concentrated plasma 'engine'. It is in almost every way similar to a star, or even the plasma engines found in planets, except it is more energetic, condensed, and rotates much faster.

EU theory says that such objects give birth to stars, they are actually ejected from the pulsar/quasar along its axis of rotation - and they are ejected due to pulsar eating too much surrounding plasma - they continue to throw out new stars and form either a cluster, or a galaxy.

If they are able to make good measurements, then I think relativity will be contradicted - because I think it is not consistent with observation - and that the current understanding of gravity as an attractive force will also be at odds with their observations.

Although EU theory does not specifically make statements about gravity, I have done separate work, and I have been reading a number of others who are exploring outside of the standard model - and I am quite convinced that gravity is a force that exists in space, and pushes us DOWN - it is not an attractive force.

Basically it is electromagnetic in origin, and it radiates through space - solid objects 'eat' some of these radiant vectors (to power particles, spin, charge and velocity) - so if you are standing on the surface of the earth there are less vectors coming from below you than from above, the imbalance of these vectors results in a downward force - that we call gravity.

wildespace
But I think you can imagine the distortion of time in that video: space lines that are stretched out towards the body also imply the "stretched out" time, i.e. time flows slower near massive bodies.

Its a good video, though the meshed line are getting closer and closer
as they get near the object

vind21
Back to the article, I wonder when a 'neutron star' became an actual defined term solid enough to be used to describe a radio signal from space. When the scientific community doesn't even know what defines a neutron star, it seems pretty daft to use an undefined term to try and discern the nature of gravity.

Considering the only object ever observed that is somewhat like the idea of a neutron star didn't fit the basic requirements and gave birth to 'quark stars' you have to consider if these guys have any idea what they are looking at.

It is estimated that there are 10^8 neutron stars in our galaxy. About 1000 of these have actually been observed by astronomers so far.

Source

Harte

reply to post by Harte

 

From your own source

(Its temperature, size, and brightness are what would be expected for a neutron star. The clinching information, observation of a pulsar, has not been supplied yet, however.)

This purported neutron star is also of interest because analysis of the atomic composition of the supernova remnant (using optical spectra) in comparison with stellar evolution models suggests that the mass of the progenitor star that produced the supernova was 25 solar masses. If this indirect inference is correct, this is the most massive supernova progenitor known to have produced a neutron star (rather than a black hole).

I understand that 'neutron stars' have been considered to be observed as bright spots on a radio telescope. That doesn't change the fact that they have not been proven to exist. They are just as likely oscillating points of energy, between two charged bodies. Those same bright points on the telescope are also referred to as black holes depending on intensity. Science these days has become as much a battle on linguistics, as facts.




I wanted to throw this video up here, because it relates to Wild's video on 3d gravity. While I orginaly said that while I think the video had merit and should be shown to everyone, I disagreed with the representation stating that it would cause perpendicular orbitals against the the ecliptic of the larger central body.

Turns out I was probably very wrong, I was only considering a single dimension of time, turns out there might be 3; that would certainly solve the issue. Check out this little video.

This is a short animation illustrating the concept of 3D-Time then superimposing it onto a Minkowski Diagram with light cone and all. Notice several things:
1). Linear time is a vector of two temporal dimensions,
2). The metric for the temporal coordinates is a complex conjugate of the metric for the spacial coordinates,
3). The center section of the model is a plane or surface and not a point,
4). If we let the center section correspond to a Plank length, then the temporal components can correspond with momentum and the spatial components can correspond with position.