• Registered: 2006-03-29

Topic: Gravity Strikes Back

I was inspired by some NR chat the other night.


http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/3586/gravityce6.gif

  • From: The one whirl
  • Registered: 2005-12-15

Re: Gravity Strikes Back

Interesting...

This reminds me of something I read today about the center of an atom.  If one accepts the concept that atoms are really standing waves within an aetheric medium and that the protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks and other particles are just ways of describing counter-rotating geometric forms created by this intricate standing wave, one must rethink what the "center" of an atom truely represents.  If it's not a randomly lumped together mass of particles held together by mesons, then what is it?  Perhaps it's a bridge to zero time and possibly an interface to other densities and parallel realities.  After all, the outgoing waveform that creates the atomic structure has to come from somewhere.  Maybe that's the key to time travel.  Induce a large alternating electromagnetic field (like an atom?), make it large enough and strong enough to create a portal in the center and then use conscious feedback mechanisms to direct it to the point in space/time desired. 

I've got to believe the math to describe this process already exists... somewhere...

Ryan

Doc: Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!
Marty McFly: Yeah, I know, I got a real problem with that.

plasticportal's Website

3 Reply by z3n3rg (edited by z3n3rg 2006-09-27 16:35:12)

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: Gravity Strikes Back

Exactly.

The secret to 3d is spin and momentum.  At the sub-atomic scale, spin/momentum binds waves (energy).  The energy gets trapped within picometre-fields (10Ã‚è ¹ ²) that we call quarks.

Angular momentum thru space and the axis/direction of spin determines how the surrounding energy field is affected.  The more movement, the more energy that is condensed into a smaller space.  Energy condenses to become matter.  The more matter, the more EM fields that are created.  The more EM fields, the more electrons that get caught in the time vacuums.  The more electrons that are caught, the more gravity that is emitted.  (The more stationary electrons spinning on their axis within the Mass-Energy Field, the more pulling effect there is.)

...just some more thoughts.

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: Gravity Strikes Back

I think that gravity is basically a weak magnetic field that propagates over longer distances.  It's longer distance propagation may be directly related to the EM field that surrounds it.

Anyway, just another thought.

  • From: The one whirl
  • Registered: 2005-12-15

Re: Gravity Strikes Back

z3n3rg wrote:

I think that gravity is basically a weak magnetic field that propagates over longer distances.  It's longer distance propagation may be directly related to the EM field that surrounds it.

Anyway, just another thought.

I agree that gravity is certainly like a weak magnetic field or even a weak electric field.  Both obey the inverse square law.  That tells me at some deep level they are similar forces.  At least they are acting in a dimensionally similar way. 

But how would you explain the lack of correlation between a planetary magnetic field to it's gravitational force?  As far as I know there's no correlation.  Unless it's a combination of spin, axis of rotation and magnetic force.  Not only that but magnetic fields are dipole in nature whereas gravity only acts in a single direction.  In other words, the force due to gravity has only been observed as acting in the direction towards the center of mass.  Maybe gravitational poles exist too, but their other side extends to another spacial dimension that we don't perceive. 

I do find it interesting that the value of G, the universal gravitational "constant" can have such a large deviation in values (0.7%).  This constant is measured by a torion balance that measures the rotation of two masses connected to a central suspended by a thin fiber.  The magnitude of the twists can be plugged into an equation to determine G.  These days the measurments can be carried out quite accurately.  What's interesting is that some tests seem to indicate that the value of G varies periodically throughout the day and the year!  It's as if our position in the solar system (perhaps the universe?) at any given moment actually determines the gravitational force we experience.  The change is minor, but I'd speculate it's the reason why we don't have a perfectly centripetal orbit about the sun.  Mass and/or gravity seems to be a fluid thing.  I guess any theory of gravity would have to take this into consideration.  As far as I know, all mainstream theories assume G is always constant. 

Ryan

Doc: Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!
Marty McFly: Yeah, I know, I got a real problem with that.

plasticportal's Website

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: Gravity Strikes Back

My main issue is that I don't have a decent background in Science or Advanced Math.  And this is the main reason why I haven't came up with a full fledged UFT yet.  I can't account for all the different so-called "laws" of science.  Nor can I bust out equations showing that it all fits.  I'm basically working with visualization and logical thinking.  But I will see if I can expand some more.  And I do enjoy the topic so please provide any puzzle pieces you wish.  Oh and I speak as though what I'm saying is correct only because it's the most efficient way of saying it.

But how would you explain the lack of correlation between a planetary magnetic field to it's gravitational force?

At the moment, I'm thinking that the planetary magnetic field has little to do with G.  I see G as coming from the micro.  In other words, I don't think of Earth as having a gravitational field per se.  I see all the countless atoms within earth that emit gravity having a collective affect that gives us our G field.  Putting that micro to the macro and seeing Earth once again as being one object, it's magnetic field comes from it's angular momentum and spinning thru the Energy Field.

Not only that but magnetic fields are dipole in nature whereas gravity only acts in a single direction.  In other words, the force due to gravity has only been observed as acting in the direction towards the center of mass.  Maybe gravitational poles exist too, but their other side extends to another spacial dimension that we don't perceive.

By freezing the electrons within the EM field you stop the angular momentum.  All you have left is spin.  Due to the amount of electrons needed to create a planetary G field, their is no set polarity.  In so much that, not all the electrons will be lined up in the same way.  In fact, I would see the trapping of electrons to be somewhat random.  In other words, the electrons still spin the same direction to cause a pull instead of a push on the Mass-Energy Field but their placement within the Time Vacuum is random and thus there is no set pole.

Mass and/or gravity seems to be a fluid thing.  I guess any theory of gravity would have to take this into consideration.

Hmmm.  Alright, let me see if I have any more logicality left.

There is a certain level of fluidity to the interactions at a quantum level which is where I see gravity originating from.  A stronger nano-EM field could grab electrons from within a weaker one thus changing the state of G.  Changes in the macro-EM field of the planet could affect a large amount of nano-EM fields thus changing the state of G over a broader range of space/time.

Something else I should mention.  I see the strong and weak nuclear forces as nano-EM fields under particular conditions.  I see macro-EM and nano-EM fields as having different effects on the energy field.  But, I haven't read enough on stong and weak to have any really specific thoughts about them.

Does any of that make sense to anyone?

7 Reply by plasticportal (edited by plasticportal 2006-09-28 19:06:59)

  • From: The one whirl
  • Registered: 2005-12-15

Re: Gravity Strikes Back

z3n3rg wrote:

My main issue is that I don't have a decent background in Science or Advanced Math.  And this is the main reason why I haven't came up with a full fledged UFT yet.  I can't account for all the different so-called "laws" of science.  Nor can I bust out equations showing that it all fits.  I'm basically working with visualization and logical thinking.  But I will see if I can expand some more.  And I do enjoy the topic so please provide any puzzle pieces you wish.  Oh and I speak as though what I'm saying is correct only because it's the most efficient way of saying it.

I'm with you there.  I've noticed that most people who haven't been through the wringer of conventional science still have a drop of common sense left when it comes to logical concepts.  Sometimes I think that what is considered "science" today is more akin to modern mythology.  Big bang, point particles, no free lunch... it's all a psychological game about control, no different than any religion.  Anyways, I think it's cool that people like yourself that don't come from science and math backgrounds are interested in these topics.  Creative visualization is much easier when you haven't already been given a picture.  My background in math and science isn't particularly strong either.  I dropped out of my university's engineering program to pursuit work with computers.  Enough about that though.

At the moment, I'm thinking that the planetary magnetic field has little to do with G.  I see G as coming from the micro.  In other words, I don't think of Earth as having a gravitational field per se.  I see all the countless atoms within earth that emit gravity having a collective affect that gives us our G field.  Putting that micro to the macro and seeing Earth once again as being one object, it's magnetic field comes from it's angular momentum and spinning thru the Energy Field.

I agree.  G should come from the micro...  As far as I know, nobody has been able to measure the gravitational effect of something even the size of an atom.  Theoretically it should have a gravitational force, but according to standard theory it's practically impossible to detect. 

My gut tells me that there is an underlying vibration at the micro level that creates a resonance effect in space.  The vibration would be a high frequency vibration that acts on all points in space equally.  The standing waves this creates have certain geometric properties, maybe like platonic solids or composites of these, that give rise to things we consider subatomic particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.  I don't think any of these things really exist as point particles, just standing waves of different forms.  When they combine they form more complex shapes like the atoms, elements, molecules, lifeforms, planets, galexies... we experience.  Reality then becomes a giant song of sorts.  Gravity can then be seen as a method of attraction where two or more vibrational structures resonate in phase.  This would imply that all observable matter in our realm is in phase.  But at the same time there are probably whole worlds out there that are completely out of phase with us that we don't perceive.  That explains the fluidity of reality, in a sense.  The interesting thing about this analogy is that if you consider what happens to vibrational patterns in a fluid as it changes density, the vibrational patterns become more complex and intricate. 

By freezing the electrons within the EM field you stop the angular momentum.  All you have left is spin.  Due to the amount of electrons needed to create a planetary G field, their is no set polarity.  In so much that, not all the electrons will be lined up in the same way.  In fact, I would see the trapping of electrons to be somewhat random.  In other words, the electrons still spin the same direction to cause a pull instead of a push on the Mass-Energy Field but their placement within the Time Vacuum is random and thus there is no set pole.

I think this kind of fits with my analogy too.  Again, I'm trying to get away from the idea of expressing physical concepts with point particles, but I do see what you're saying.  Maybe when this underlying vibration that gives rise to gravity, atomic structure and other forces slow down and eventually stop, that's how you create a Time Vacuum or a void.  Once that happens, it's sort of like pulling open the curtain to see what's on the other side. 

I truely think that if there is a next breakthrough in science, it's going to take the fluid analogy to the next logical step by having it explain all of our fundamental forces and possibly psychic phenomena.  It would be completing what Maxwell started over 100 years ago.  He derived a set of equations to describe electromagnetism based on the analogy of fluid dynamics.  Right now, it seems like science is too held up on the myth of point particles to take an interest in the idea though.

Ryan

Doc: Marty, you're not thinking fourth dimensionally!
Marty McFly: Yeah, I know, I got a real problem with that.

plasticportal's Website