Harrison’s Theorem of Anti-gravity
What are presented here are novel ideas on gravity that you are unlikely to find elsewhere. Since Galileo (1564-1642), who is credited for developing the modern scientific method, science has failed to offer an explanation of gravity.
Sir Isacc Newton said in the final paragraph of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses…”
Einstein wasn’t so modest with his “Postulates”. To those who have the patience to understand it, his theory of gravity as a pure geometric effect of curved ‘Space-Time‘ only manages to accurately describe how gravity behaves. Unfortunately Einstein’s two-dimensional rubber-sheet model of a ‘rigid gravity well’, used to explain his concept of the gravitational field surrounding a body in space, relies on gravity as its own explanation. Einstein also postulated that nothing can travel faster than light yet we know that gravity must act seemingly instantaneously to hold our solar system together. Einstein’s esoteric theory of curved space-time has added little to our understanding of gravity in the last 100 years.
Tesla never directly referred to “space-time“, referring instead to the concept of the “primary substance” (ether). He also never used this relativistic “twin” term. He considered time as a mere man-made “measure” of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the “curving” of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the “equal and opposite” reaction of space on the body would “straighten space back out“.
I have a theory of how to create anti-gravity, which stems from how we misinterpret our universe. It’s not complex but requires us to take a step back and look at our universe and electricity differently.
A common misconception is that in space, all things float about weightless. The definition of weightlessness is difficult, in space, even tiny objects may contain enough momentum (mass and velocity) to penetrate steel. The impression of weightlessness is only an illusion where an object’s relative motion is the same as that of another to which it is being referenced.
The following is deliberate simplification and, in many areas, may not be technically correct. There are many precise terms used to describe motion, such as velocity, acceleration, inertia, momentum, pressure, force and energy, to which I mean no disrespect. My ideas stem from the idea that everything in the universe is derived from ‘movement > pressure > density’ and that no object is ever at rest. In time, and possibly with help, I will refine these ideas further so as not to offend the current scientific consensus.
‘Weight’ is a measure of an object’s mass (inertia) and gravitational acceleration, W = mg. Inertia is a property of matter that reflects an object’s resistance to any change in its motion, including a change in direction, speed, or starting or stopping. it is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. In other words, an object wants to keep doing whatever it’s doing. When we pick up a rock, the weight we feel is its inertia.
When the rock is in your hand, the force you exert to hold it up counteracts the force of gravity. In this state, the net force on the rock is zero, so it doesn’t accelerate or move – it stays at rest in your hand.
When you let go of the rock, the counteracting force from your hand disappears. Now the force of gravity is unopposed, resulting in a net force on the rock that’s not zero. This causes the rock to accelerate downwards, in line with Newton’s second law of motion (F=ma).
Gravity
A feather will fall at the same speed as a 10kg weight in a vacuum so we therefore know that gravity itself has nothing to do with ‘weight’ and is simply the measurement of movement or acceleration towards a given mass, in this case the earth. Gravity is an integral part of energy density or ‘mass’, but mass without momentum does not determine weight.
Separating the concept of mass, weight and gravity we can now say that gravity=acceleration though we experience gravity as weight (mass + momentum). This is why our explanations and concepts of gravity often appear confused.
So understanding that Gravity is simply acceleration or movement towards a mass doesn’t help us understand it. Why? What is the object’s impetus? The answer may be staring us in the face. We know in the Bernoulli Principal that as an object accelerates there is a simultaneous decrease in pressure. When we look to nature to see where this is occurring you can see there is exactly this pressure gradient in the electrical field of the earth. Tesla’s ether was “rigidified” by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum, especially in the space near earth, since, as explained by Tesla, the earth is “…like a charged metal ball moving through space”, which creates the enormous, rapidly varying electrostatic forces which diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from earth, just like gravity. Since the direction of propagation radiates from the earth, the so-called force of gravity is toward earth.
The closer you are to the earth the lower the atmospheric voltage (another name for electrical pressure). The electrical pressure of our solar system accelerating towards the earth may explain the “weak force” of gravity. Gravity only appears to be a strong force because our only experience of it is through momentum. In other words, by the time this force reaches the earth everything is moving so fast and is so pressurised that our only perception of movement are the different densities of matter by their weight (mass + momentum). Not unlike a centrifuge where all matter self-organises into it’s natural order of density with each level of density squeezing out or displacing lighter mass.
This indicates what we often call radiation of various kinds is actually electrical energy accelerating towards the earth. There is a concept in this that will completely turn our understanding of the universe on its head. Instead of a mass generating gravity, the above would mean that the electrical pressure gradient would create mass. Our universe is not full of countless lumps of independent mass (ie: stars and planets) but is an electrical storm where the mass is the tiniest by-product. This more integrated or less independent view of gravity better explains how gravity acts at a distance. Without what we call ‘gravity’ (acceleration) everything in the universe would eventually disintegrate into an amorphous mass.
Understanding that gravity is acceleration, creating anti-gravity becomes as difficult as countering centrifugal force. With everything moving in unison we do not feel the motion but it is there. It can only be cancelled by creating an equal and opposite force. This is why science have failed to discover antigravity. We confuse the weak force of gravity with the subtle effects of electricity hoping that we will discover miraculous vibrating beam that will cancel gravity. But with air pressure equalling 1kg per square centimetre at sea level it may be possible to use gravity itself to create antigravity.
To understand gravity better we must first understand energy and in essence there is only one force in the universe. Energy is motion which only exists as a relative measurement. We know that the earth spins at around 1,674 km/h at the equator. The earth travels around the sun at approximately 107,300 km/h. While we rest thinking that we are aware of the earth’s movement through space, what we aren’t aware of is earth’s speed relative to other stars in our galaxy, or, our galaxy’s speed in relation to other galaxies. The point being that ALL movement is a relative measurement.
The idea of something having “potential” energy is nonsense. Something has energy or it doesn’t, either it is moving or it isn’t. To say an object has the potential to move is saying that it has a conscience and is waiting for the right moment. Like a mouse in a trap waiting patiently for the door to open. We have established that weight of an apparent stationary object = mass + momentum, so we know that all objects are moving despite the illusion of being at rest.
So gravity may be a pressure boundary phenomenon. The atmosphere to a stationary object may appear to be not moving yet it is applying enormous inward movement due to its overall density. If the air was removed from a hollow ball it would be crushed. The question is at what point is the movement occurring. As gravity gives us uniform acceleration in a vacuum then we know it has nothing to do with air pressure, but air pressure displaces electrostatic pressure. Is gravity a pressure boundary phenomenon between the earth and the electrical density of space?
Mass itself may be the result of the movement in and around our solar system. If so then gravity would be an integral part of energy density of not only the earth but of our solar system. This would explain why gravity tends to act instantaneously from our sun. It would not be that gravity has the capacity to transverse our solar system at infinite speed but simply at continuous speed. Instead of the sun and various planets being discrete particles they are all part of a single mechanism that captures energy. Gravity or the energy density of the sun and planets is a result of massive and continuous currents of electrostatic pressure from our galaxy or beyond.
If we accept that ALL movement is a relative measurement then we must also say the same of energy. Energy is a ubiquitous term that describes the force one object exerts against another. The textbook definition of Energy is an objects capacity to do work. This is incorrect. Energy is simply movement. While you can argue energy is the result of pressure of force, pressure or force is really the result of movement. Energy is the balancing, dissipating female characteristic of nature.
To correctly understand our universe we need to bring our study of it down to the simplest possible scenario. The study of objects moving in empty space. Although everything can be beautifully explained in terms of energy>pressure>density>mass I will use many more familiar terms such as energy and force to help explain my concepts.
Energy in motion can only be measured from a reference point. If we have two moving objects in otherwise empty space the movement is relative to either object whereas the energy is the same for both objects. Do you see? Even though only one object has been set in motion BOTH objects contain energy because they are moving away from each other at the same speed because there is no other reference point.
Time exists in the same way. Unless there is change relative to another point of reference time does not exist. For example imagine a ball speeding through completely empty space, it’s difficult as you have to almost imagine yourself as the ball otherwise you become a reference point. Without the ball moving away or towards anything or having no other point of reference to measure a relative change in position you may ask does or can the ball even exist. When you introduce a second moving ball, as long as it is moving towards or away from our first ball then you begin to have a relative change, but you then require a third ball to triangulate that change. The point of the exercise is to get you understanding time and energy in its essence. It is well worth spending time pondering this simple scenario to truly understand time and energy. The world is of course infinitely more complex but the same principles of movement>pressure>density>mass keep applying themselves at every level.
Staying with a ‘ball’ idea the next difficult concept in the understanding of energy is what keeps the ball moving in space. Newton’s first law of inertia states that “an object moving in a certain direction will keep moving at the same speed and in the same direction unless another force pushes or pulls on it”. Accepting that an object will keep moving unless acted upon does not answer ‘what’ keeps it moving. This is where nothing actually becomes something. It tells us that even energy can move through space uninterrupted until acted upon by another energy. In this is the entire solution to understanding time, energy, space and matter. To make this easier to understand we may think of empty space as a non-viscous ether. It is undeniable that whether you chose to believe in an ‘ether’ or not, empty space has the properties of a wave medium. Light, or an other part of the electromagnetic spectrum (energy) maintains a wave motion through space in accordance with Newton’s First Law of Motion.
With this understanding we now know that gravity (acceleration), mass (energy density) and weight (mass + momentum) are all products of energy (movement) itself.
Our universe is alive with motion. When we look at the surface of the ocean we can for a moment see energy in seemingly infinite collisions. These collisions are happening constantly in the most subtlest of gasses to the densest of matter. When ‘motion’ collides it becomes pressure, when pressure is balanced it comes density. Thus our entire universe is nothing more than movement and how we experience it. E=MC2 forever expanding outwards and forever expanding inwards for in a non-viscous ether even the concept size is meaningless unless relative. The illusion of time and matter becomes one of relativity.
You could write a book about the concept of a non-viscous ether but here I need to outline the various concepts so we can understand where some of the foundations of modern physics are incorrect and get to an explanation of how gravity works.
We must also throw out our notion of force. It is a very ‘male’ concept. “Forces” in nature do not act in isolation. Calling a “force” electromagnetic, gravity, strong interaction, weak force or x-energy are all descriptions of imbalance which result in movement. All movement in nature is the equalisation of pressure. This means that we should correctly replace the term ‘force’ with ‘pressure’.
Gravity is the result of pressure. Our current understanding is that gravity is a property of mass. If we turn this around to a more female perspective we would need to say that mass is the result of gravity. This would mean that we are looking in the wrong place for our understanding of gravity. It does match in with Einstein’s theory, completely different explanation with the same result.
If we begin to accept that our physical planet has evolved over billions of years in an evolutionary way instead of just being spat into existence then we should begin to look at the forces that shaped it.
What the hell is he talking about. Male, Female is just a way of describing the way nature works.
Male = inward force and pressure,
Female = outward dissipation of pressure and balance.
Nature in this sense is female, and to understand all so-called ‘forces’ we must look at them from a female perspective.
A simple experiment is where sand is vibrated on a plate at a certain frequencies and displays intricate patterns. The pattern we look at is the negative of the movement we are seeing. The sand moves out of the way of the movement. We must begin to see the world in a similar way. Movement and pressure create matter but the dissipation of pressure pushes it out of the way.
Imagine if we apply this concept to our solar system then you can imagine that the earth’s formation is the result of matter precipitating in an area of our solar system where there is the least pressure (E). This may explain why planets form along a plane and are not orbiting the sun in a far more random pattern.
In stating that everything is movement>pressure>density>mass I propose the following math, even though math is far from my strong point and I would appreciate some help here.
I have selected the symbols V, E, P, M which are traditionally used to express Velocity, Energy, Momentum and Mass. I believe these adequately describe the four states of matter i.e. movement = V, pressure = E, density =P, mass = M
Movement: V = MV2/2
Pressure: E = M x V2
Density: P = M x V
Mass: M = E / V2
We can also express movement as V= distance / time. Although a useful equation in our conscious world as both distance and time only exist as relative concepts, as described earlier, at this point I am not sure how V=D/T is useful in describing the above process.
The purpose of the exercise is of course is to show that instead of disparate forces, all forces begin and are related to movement, which in a ‘non viscous ether’ expands infinitely in all directions. Note that I do not say “energy”. An object moving through outer space may have infinite movement but not infinite energy. See?
Gravity is a beautiful and elegant property of mass and is no more mysterious than the forces that make a stone sink in water or a bubble rise. It is a property and function of relative destiny and mass. The key to understanding it is to realise that it is not necessarily one force so it is not so easy to define. It is the marriage of both male and female forces.
Harrison’s Theorem of Anti-gravity
For those sceptical about the possibility of anti-gravity, I urge you to keep an open mind. Despite 400 years of modern scientific pursuit, we have yet to fully comprehend the nature of gravity. Our current method of understanding matter—by dissecting it—may not be the most productive path towards understanding the elegant mechanics of the universe. For instance, breaking down atoms to uncover their components is akin to shattering our Earth and Sun in an attempt to decipher their workings—a questionable approach at best.
Gravity can’t be negated, as it is intrinsically woven into the energy density of mass. However, mass, which is essentially trapped energy, offers an elegant solution to counteract gravity. Mass naturally orders itself according to its density, thanks to inertial gravity. Without Earth’s rotation and the sun’s thermodynamic impacts, our planet would have a neatly layered atmosphere with CO2 at the bottom and hydrogen at the top. This density ordering or pressure differential enables massive ships, over 250,000GT, to float on water—something considered pure science fiction not long ago.
The common misconception is that if we invent anti-gravity, we’d float uncontrollably as if in space. However, the idea of an anti-gravity ‘field’ is science fiction. Objects in space, despite having inertia and mass, don’t just float aimlessly—they’re not weightless. Anti-gravity on Earth would differ from popular belief. Unless an object is vaporized, its gravity can’t be nullified. Although gravity is a weak force, the overall energy density of most objects is substantial. This energy density provides the key to counteracting gravity, something we exploit in everyday physics, chemistry, and combustion.
Consider a heated air mass; it rises due to its lower density compared to surrounding air. A helium balloon behaves similarly, ascending due to its weight difference with the ambient air pressure. Yet, a completely evacuated chamber, despite being subject to over 1kg/pscm of external atmospheric pressure at sea level, remains stationary. This is generally explained by the gas inside the chamber pushing back against the external pressure, creating lift.
However, when applied to an incompressible metal chamber filled with air and immersed in water, this explanation becomes less satisfactory. In this case, we reason that the combined density of the chamber and its contents relative to the external pressure causes the object to float. But why doesn’t an evacuated chamber, with its extremely low density compared to the surrounding air pressure, float in air? These arguments appear contradictory.
The answer lies in the interaction of pressure difference, gravity, and density ordering, which generate lift. The greater the pressure differential, the stronger the lift. Dismissing a vacuum as inert is misguided. Recognizing that a vacuum teems with energy—commonly referred to as the zero-point effect—and disregarding its relevance to macro physics is equally misleading. Physics doesn’t invent new rules within a closed system.
Regardless of whether you call it the ‘zero-point effect’ or ‘electrostatic pressure,’ one must recognize the electrical pressure response elicited when creating a vacuum. This ‘leaky boat’ phenomenon prevents the expected lift in a vacuum chamber. Numerous interpretations exist for this behavior, and the interaction between this electrical pressure response and gravity is hotly debated.
According to my theorem, a vacuum chamber should float in our atmosphere, leveraging the 1kg/pscm atmospheric pressure at sea level. It doesn’t, however, because the energy density simply infiltrates the vacuum, a phenomenon known as the zero-point effect. This leads to my solution for gravity: devise a method to block the zero-point effect, and you’ll create a potent anti-gravity device powered by air pressure.
Skeptics, I ask you to suspend disbelief for a moment. The intricate mystery of gravity, despite 400 years of rigorous scientific exploration, remains largely undeciphered. Our prevalent analytical method, dissecting matter into smaller fragments, may not lead us to the true beauty of the universe’s operations. Attempting to uncover atom’s components by smashing them feels akin to tearing apart our Earth and Sun to understand their inner workings – an approach that leaves much to be desired.
We can’t erase gravity; it’s a core part of the energy density of mass. But here’s the silver lining: mass, essentially trapped energy, offers a graceful solution to defy gravity. Every mass, thanks to inherent inertial gravity, self-organizes according to its density. If not for Earth’s rotation and the Sun’s thermodynamic effects, our planet would have a neatly stratified atmosphere with dense CO2 at the bottom, ascending to lighter hydrogen at the top. This ‘density ordering’ or pressure differential is what allows enormous ships, exceeding 250,000GT, to float on water – an idea once deemed a science fiction fantasy.
There’s a common misapprehension that if we discovered anti-gravity, we’d end up helplessly floating as if in space. However, the concept of an anti-gravity ‘field’ is largely a science fiction construct. Objects in space, despite their inertia and mass, don’t just aimlessly float – they’re not devoid of weight. Implementing anti-gravity on Earth would differ considerably from these common perceptions. Unless you were to vaporize an object entirely, its gravity cannot be nullified. Although gravity is a weak force, the total energy density of most objects is significantly high. This energy density is our gateway to counteracting gravity, something we exploit in everyday physics, chemistry, and combustion processes.
For instance, when air is heated, it becomes less dense than the surrounding air, causing it to rise. A helium balloon ascends for the same reason – its weight compared to the surrounding air pressure is less. In contrast, an entirely evacuated chamber, despite being subjected to over 1kg/pscm of external atmospheric pressure at sea level, remains immobile. This phenomena is typically explained by the resistance of the gas within the chamber against the external pressure, creating an upward force or lift.
However, when you apply this explanation to an incompressible metal chamber filled with air and submerged in water, the logic seems strained. In such scenarios, it’s argued that the combined density of the chamber and its contents compared to the external pressure is what enables the object to float. This raises a puzzling question: why doesn’t an evacuated chamber, with its incredibly low density relative to the surrounding air pressure, ascend in air? It seems we can’t have our cake and eat it too.
Here, the interplay between pressure difference, gravity, and density ordering comes into effect, generating lift. The larger the pressure discrepancy, the stronger the lift. To dismiss a vacuum as being inert is misguided. Recognizing that a vacuum is teeming with energy – often referred to as the zero-point effect – and disregarding its relationship to macro physics is equally erroneous. Physics does not conjure new rules within a closed system.
Whether you term it the ‘zero-point effect’ or ‘electrostatic pressure,’ it’s critical to acknowledge the electrical pressure response that’s generated when a vacuum is created. This ‘leaky boat’ response hinders the expected lift from a vacuum chamber. The phenomenon prompts considerable debate, with varying interpretations and questions about the interplay between this electrical pressure response and gravity.
According to my theorem, a vacuum chamber should ascend in our atmosphere, leveraging the 1kg/pscm atmospheric pressure at sea level. But it doesn’t, largely because the energy density permeates the vacuum, a process known as the zero-point effect. My solution for defying gravity thus stems from this observation: design a mechanism to obstruct the zero-point effect, and you will pioneer a powerful anti-gravity device propelled by air pressure.
To achieve this, we need to create a diamagnetic chamber composed of meticulously layered bismuth. Bismuth, a dense metal with extraordinary diamagnetic properties, is the last stable element on the periodic table. Each layer of bismuth would need to be carefully annealed to polarize the electrical or magnetic flow of the Earth. Additionally, each layer may need to be placed on a stable conductive magnesium/zinc substrate to isolate them for annealing. Each layer should be added with precision to gradually manipulate and ultimately halt the electrical or magnetic flow. From my experimentation, each deflection would necessitate a rotation of each layer by approximately 12 to 15 degrees, resulting in a minimum of 24-30 layers of bismuth. The exact degree of rotation is hypothetical at this stage, but I have devised a simple method to determine the precise rotation for each layer. With today’s advanced technology, this painstaking process, if executed correctly, could offer tremendous benefits. Creating a truly diamagnetic material could bring us to the brink of magnetic levitation, revolutionizing our world.
RH 2008
Please feel free to comment on this article.
Related articles
- Does weight vary according to the force of gravity (wiki.answers.com)
There is a part of my mind that stubbornly thinks about science. I have a life, job, wife and family but without my Van Der Graaf Generator life would be incomplete. I am a great believer that this amazing universe came into being through process: movement >pressure > density > mass. Maybe I believe in an non viscous ether. 
Our Electric Universe... & Anti-Gravity 
what i think that gravitational waves are not the properties of a massive object ,instead it could be property of space by it self, and these waves are being activated as a mass present in space. and G waves and Anti G waves present together but thier behaviour changes as mass present or not. this not as Newton And Einstien theory but it is some thing diffrent. and these G waves are difrrent for Diffrent element.
I agree that gravity is a property of space itself. Not sure that it is a force? Only part of the electric phenomenon of our universe. Therefore no “anti G-waves or any G-waves. Einstein correctly explained the behaviour of gravity, as if space was curved, but gravity is only acceleration.
Hey, this article is way cool. I have often thought of Gravity as the “Pecking order of density” in nature. Density not just being the atomic density of a material but the MEAN DENSITY of an object and it’s occupied space. This is observed when a submarine varies it’s mean density by use of powerful ballast pumps and compressing air along with the water in the tanks or blowing the water out without altering the occupied space to make it sink and rise in water… Archimedes principle, too easy. But for the process of making an object float in air.. Like you said, you can’t just suck the air out of a rigid balloon and make it float on air so… How about kicking the air out of a big bubble blown around an object with a powerful electrostatic field. Obviously the object would need to be isolated in the air in order to build the charge or it would just ground out. But provided we have a sufficient volume of vacuous space blown around the object and it’s generator, provided the generator and power supply could maintain the required electrical output. Then we could make the system as a whole buoyant in air. Do not confuse this with mass cancellation or hot air balloon work, this is simply a way of altering the mean density of an object and it’s surrounding space. I have noted that there are a few tricks in the electrical dept that could serve this purpose.
Hey Paul, You’re getting it! We apply different principals to what I call the order of density in the water than we do to the order of density in the atmosphere. The sheeple happily accept air as a non-dense medium yet it applies 1kg of pressure per square centimetre at sea-level. That’s a phenomenal amount of energy waiting to be tapped. Electrostatics on its own will not magically cancel this dense soup we live in. A vacuum is the starting place. But natures self balancing response to a vacuum is an electrostatic field (zero-point-energy) or what I call a rise in electrostatic pressure. ‘Electrostatics’ being the electrical soup we live in on the edge of our plasma ball called the sun. Adding electrical density will cause a very predictable change. Find a way to prevent the natural electrical pressure build-up in a vacuum and you will find something new.
Your article is interesting. I presume you have exposed/developed the capability of anti gravity in your shed.
I read various web and tech site information. The problem is i get very tired after traveling the 2 million miles
each 24 hours. this would not occur if i could use some anti gravity process.
thanks for your artile.
your perception of gravity and its components was very helpful.Thank you very mach for sharing!!!
Appreciate your interest!!!
r.
I have read your article and feel that there are so many erroneous statements, or statements that reflect significant misconceptions on your part, it is hard to see your discussion through to its conclusion. Four that stick out for me are:
1) “his theory of gravity as a pure geometric effect of curved ‘Space-Time’ only manages to accurately describe how gravity behaves.”: This statement to me suggests a misconception on your part about the nature of GR. The very nature of its “explanation” of gravity obviates the need for a causal agent. His conclusion is that the effects of gravity in 3-D space are an outcome of inertial motion in curved 4-D spacetime. There is no need to “discover the causes”. I certainly agree that it is difficult to have any intuition about 4-D spacetime, but this difficulty does not point to a lack of explanatory power of GR. This was the elegance of his theory. He was able to address the primary perceived flaw in Newton’s conception (the lack of a cause agent) by showing that the question “what causes gravity” was the wrong question. Instead, the question should have been, “why do things appear to be under the effect of a gravitational force”, with the answer being, “it is a natural outcome of the nature of spacetime, in which mass causes curving or bending of spacetime. In 3D space, something curving due to a gravitational field is in fact traveling in a straightline through 4-D spacetime”.
2) “Weight is a measure of both mass and inertia”: This statement is a serious misrepresentation of both weight and inertia. Inertia is a property of matter directly proportional to mass, and is independent of an object motion. Weight is the affect of gravitational acceleration on mass. I think your use of the term inertia should be replaced by the term momentum (product of mass and velocity), but even then, it is not really a correct physics usage of these terms.
3) ” Einstein also postulated that nothing can travel faster than light yet we know that gravity must act seemingly instantaneously to hold our solar system together”. This is nonsense – gravity is not an instantanous agent. If something causes a change a gravitational field, that effect is not instantaneous throughout space. There is a propagation time for the change to reach distance.
4) “A common misconception is that in space, without gravity, all things are weightless, implying an objects weight is solely determined by gravity”. More nonsense – things are not weightless in space, and there is gravity in space. Rather, since everything is falling together in space, the “feeling of weight” (typically the force between an object and the surface on which is in contact) is absent, but that doesn’t mean that weight, or the force of gravity, is absent.
I could go on, but I think at this point I will leave you to the wanderings of your mind and hope you decide to educate yourself a bit more about basic physics before thinking you are discovering huge flaws in our fundamental physical theories.
Paul
I appreciate your comments and taking the time to read my “wanderings”. I’ll be the first to agree that my blog is far from well written and researched, but that’s the nature of blogs, a place to expose our thoughts. I started writing a long response to your comments only to realize that you were entirely right in that my point is completely obfuscated by far too casual and technically incorrect usage of scientific terms.
Your comments have motivated me to rewrite the article and rather than launching into wanderings and showing utter disrespect to Newton, I’ll start with the fundamental physical theories and build my questions on top of them.
The various laws of motion are very well battle-tested and I would not for a moment suggest challenging them. My ideas simply center around 1) A body is never at rest, only balanced or unbalanced. 2) Everything in the universe is derived from movement>pressure>density. and 3) as a consequence of point 2, combining laws of motion such as velocity, acceleration, inertia, momentum, pressure, force and energy. This may sound ambitious, if not impossible, as each term has its use, but it’s fun trying.
My point with GR and 4-D spacetime is that I agree that it is pure genius in describing the mechanics of gravity but offers no clues to its cause. A description as opposed to a model. Yes, I know, I know, there is no need to discover the causes. Is it OK if I have a problem with this? Personally I believe that the idea of “curved-space” akin to the idea of curved nothing. And what is ‘time’ in spacetime? Time is only a relative measure of rates of change. So are we saying that the 4th dimension is the relative movement of three-dimensional things? Doesn’t sound as sexy as 4D-spacetime! And how does relative movement result in curved nothing? And then there is the concept of a ‘gravitational field’ and gravitational waves, which are accepted without any observational support. I’m sure at this point you are mentally beating the bejesus out of me with a blow-up baseball bat, but I have found it very difficult to accept these fairly esoteric concepts. If something moves, as in gravitational acceleration, that there must be an impetus, or the movement is universal, or a universal property of mass. If you still believe I should be beaten over the head with a book, please let me know which one!
best
r.
i believe it is of no wastage of time to challenge the theories that were pre-laid out by intelligent thinkers.
That’s how we evolve and adapt to new ideas, something that happens all throughout history.
Thanks Mike, The world should be a cacophony of different ideas! Free thought is immensely enjoyable though too often suffocated by keepers of the status-quo. We should never be afraid to think or be wrong.
An excellently presented and entertaining video I listened to recently on freedom of speech… http://theforbiddenhistory.com “THE FORBIDDEN HISTORY OF UNPOPULAR PEOPLE”
I came across your web site when doing a search for a spiral representation of the periodic table.
Too make a short story long. I recently came across an old vhs video tape, I had purchased years ago, of the show “In Search Of” that contained an episode called “The Castle of Secrets”. It covered the story of Coral Castle, located in Florida, USA, and the man who built it, Ed Leedskalnin.
I was and still am fascinated by the story and proceeded to dig deeper into the subject. I found that others had performed further investigation of Ed and Coral Castle. There are many websites that cover the material, and you get bits and pieces of information from all.
Examining at what remains of his published work “Magnetic Currents” and news articles http://www.labyrinthina.com/ed.htm. Although they must be looked at in the perspective that he had a 4th grade education, was an immigrant and was performing his research in the 1920’s, 30’s, and 40’s. He even goes so far as to say there are no electrons and gives a real world example using magnetic theory instead.
The main point was he had the devised a way to defy gravity in order to move huge blocks of coral bedrock to construct his home. Pictures show he had strange boxes mounted on tripods and wiring running from these. It is believed he had tapped into the earth’s natural em energy source that is the cosmos and was able to somehow apply the power obtained to manipulate the magnetic fields of the coral blocks allowing him to move them freely…
Another example that seems to tie into all this is the Steven Mark TPU Torridal Power Unit, capable of tapping into the earth’s power stream.
The TPU is able to utilize harmonics within three different coil lengths each containing a component of the desired final resonance signal, which happens to be close but not exactly on the 8 kHz signal. Then he used exact dimensions in his torroid designs, strategic position of a collector coil and solid state frequency control to tap into the unlimited power that is the universe as you say.
The patents were obtained in the 1990’s by a mystery corp. called UEC (probably a front for BP), have not surfaced since. Many attempts to reverse engineer the device have had unconfirmed results, the effort is ongoing.
Mark’s invention was preceded by those of Tesla, Henry T Moray and the like who were trying to tap in, but on a much larger scale and with mixed and or suppressed results.
All of this movement in the universe seems to be perpetuated by the swirling tornado effect contained within magnetic lines of flux. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintronics-The-Secret-World-of-Magnets-2006-by-Howard-Johnson This pattern of motion appears to permeate everything on every level.
Work done with neodymium magnets displaying vortex influences when stimulated under water and visual displays of Ferro fluidics under magnetic fields reveal something of the nature of the forces at work.
So going back to the beginning, I was thinking of what Leedskalnin said about there being no electrons and how the widely accepted periodic table is mainly based on so called number of electrons within the matter.
It made me think there may be some correlation between the harmonics or frequency’s and magnetic forces of the universe and if they could influence the elements a certain way as they were being created/distributed.
Throughout nature there are many examples of vortex’s almost as if on a fractal level, our Milky way galaxy, our solar system, tornadoes, hurricanes, plants and animal life, the way the water swirls down the drain in different directions in the north and south hemispheres to name a few.
So I thought what would the periodic table look like with that pattern in mind. Then I found what you had produced and was astounded at the way things fell together more logically and seemed to be grouped by harmonics in the matter.
Anyway I thank you for conveying your ideas so eloquently and giving real world perspectives and examples. It really made the pieces of the puzzle fall together more closely.
Brett
I thoroughly appreciate your comments, and agree that it is most likely that matter is made up from toroids rather than particles. We are aware of matter energy equivalence but still billions of dollars are being poured into ‘particle’ research. What physicist in his right mind would think of furthering his career studying anything ‘particles’?
What screams at me is that these particles are not happenstance, they have come into existence through process. The trouble is that the process is not as simple as making an electrical toroid and saying ‘here it is, Ive created a XX atom’. All matter in the universe is in a balanced state and any change in that balance whether on an atomic or macro scale is quickly rebalanced. It’s all connected!
I am working on a concept at the moment that will introduce ‘time’ as the scaleable 4th dimension. Sounds complex but it’s not.
Ordinary physics tends to think of time as simple duration put into terms of past present and future. As these different states can be recorded and often reconstructed we consider them enduring and real but, due to the infinite complexity of time, any reconstruction is purely make-believe. Time is simply a relative measure of change. Unless you state a point of reference the concept of past present and future can’t exist.
The most important aspect of time is that it is scalable. As movement is scaled down its relative motion to its point of origin or reference point increases. The increase in speed is a zero sum energy transference as it is a time equation but any measurable increase in speed in a closed system, even if it is only in relative terms, means that there is a pressure difference, the Bernoulli effect. As the velocity increases, pressure decreases. This pressure difference means that there is relative movement between the two systems. This is possibly what we experience as gravity.
You can think of this as the world driven by huge cogs in the form of energy toroids, some small, some monstrous, but at no point is a cog stationary or acting independently.
I could rattle on but I think that humanity has been sent on a wild goose-chase with particle research. Let’s just hope that some scientist in a greater universe doesn’t decide to place our planet earth in a particle accelerator and smash it into a million pieces to see what it is made from.
r.
Bjørn
Hi Rob.
You state that “I am working on a concept at the moment that will introduce ‘time’ as the scaleable 4th dimension. Sounds complex but it’s not.”
Have you made it work?
I am very interested in the technology because I am also trying to alter the “speed of time”.
I have a little something to offer. After witnessing what I believed to be a UFO, not more that thirty feet or so over my head, I began to think differently about garavity. See Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40OxTl8N9f8&feature=g-upl&context=G25de41fAUAAAAAAAdAA Entitled: A changed concept of gravity after witnessing a UFO. In short; If, not only super magnetic elements but all atoms contain some level of magnetic domain principles, then antigravity is achieved by the electrostatic imbalance / isolation of an object by disrupting the magnetic domain of a crafts entire surface. Whereas any atom that is not isolated teathers the vehicle to the planetary congregation and both weak and strong force association of magnetic domain atoms. Wherein by density alone the sizable congregation of magnetic domain atoms create gravity as we know it. Magnetism and gravity are not the same force, but rather the one … gravity, being the product of the other, magnetism + density = alternate gravimetric force. It requires no acceleration.
Ever wonder why hair and lint are attracted to electrostatic. Its not aerodynamic, magnetism, or magnetic levitation. Could it be antigravity by virture of disrupting the magnetic domain properties of the hair, lint, and other small particles?
Well, Miles Mathis is headed in the right direction. We are an unbalanced system as compared to those OUTSIDE our heliosphere.
I found this site while looking to see if anyone else had found what I found.
Years ago I was interested in amatuer rocketry, not black powder Yuppie rockets. I needed the formula to determine the power required to accelerate an object as a function of mass and acceleration. I could find no references to what I wanted, so I solved it myself. The derived formula was (Power in Watts) = (1/2)(Mass in Kilograms)(Acceleration in Meters per second squared)^2.. However, this formula, howbeit correct, defied common sense. At twice the rate of acceleration it would take four times the power, and twice the energy to achieve the same velocity. This is correct, so where is the power and energy going to?
I found the extremely simply answer in a study of linear algebra. I found the answer to gravity, electric charge, magnetism, inertia, and many other curious things about life, the universe, and everything. My apologies to Douglas Adams for that last.
In the book ‘2001, a space oddessy, not the movie, as Dave is entering the obelisk his last words are “My God! it’s full of stars”, that was in the movie. What was not in the movie was his last thought which was, “how naive to think the sequence ended in only three dimensions.”
It is extemely unlikely that before the accounting of time, that our three dimensional universe is all there is. My discovery is that there are an unknown number of dimensions of space beyond our three, but all within the same time. I found that we have a very rapid movement through this multiverse. We cannot “see” outside our reference, but we can “feel” the motion as an extra resistance to acceleration.
This is the simple model. On a sheet of graph paper indicate the distance displaced in one second as a result of acceleration as the x-axis. For the y-axis, indicate the norm of the extra-dimensional motion as pertaining to the extra-dimensional distance displace in one second at a constant velocity. Draw a diagonal line from the vertex, this is the actual distance that was displaced in one second. Now subtract the extra-dimensional constant velocity, and the remainder will be the extra distance that had to be displaced as a result of an act of acceleration. At the low end the distance will vary as the square with acceleration approaching zero, and when the acceleration approaches infinity, the distance will vary directly with the rate of acceleration. Also take note that the terms of the S.I. are calibrated and named for events as occuring in one second.
Any accelerating body is going to cause a warping of space against the direction of movement, however, space will resist being warped. A rotating body will produce a balanced space warp that will continue spinning. Matter is comprised of countless spinning bodies. The mass and charge is related to the velocity of spin, and the resultant gravity is the result of the warped space.
Planets, stars, and galaxies also have rotational motion, and thus produce warped space which will draw in more tightly warped space, i.e. matter.
Anti-gravity is a nothing for nothing effect. If a mass, which is made up of spinning micro-particles derived from space, is vibrated in such a way that the space is locally warped that a “ledge” in the gravity well is created, then anti-gravity will result. This happens all the time in nature. The object will not rise or fall. However, if such an event occured in the area of a traction tire on a semi at 75 mph, ….
A child at an early age learns to warp space. It is called swing set. It is by creating an imbalance in space warps that the child moves the set without an external force. The child does this by controlled body movements.
The expanding universe is just one extra-dimensional component of many. Light does curve in the 4th dimension, if that 4th dimension is centered on the center of expansion.
What Holds In The Real World
The Nobel Prize Committee Is Wrong. There is Definitely NO Higgs Particle. Gravitons are the elementary particles of the universe.
Origin and nature of “may be gravitational waves” are continuously released gravitons since the last big-bang as singularity mass reconverts to energy.
============================
On The Essence And Matrix Of The Universe-Life
The following three sentences are the shortest data-based TOE. Seriously. Very seriously.
The clearer the shorter
Natural Selection to Self-Replication is Gravity
– Self-replication is the ultimate mode of natural selection is the essence and drive and purpose of the universe. Period.
– The pre-Big-Bang singularity is the ultimate self-replication (SR) of the cycling mass-energy universe. Period. (mother of universal SR mode…)
– Earth’s RNA nucleotides life is just one of the myriad modes of self-replication.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/
-The 20yrs development, and comprehensive data-based scientism worldview, in a succinct format.
-The Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes of its higher organism as their functional template.
– Everything in the universe derives from mass-energy duality, from the universe cycle between its two poles all-mass/all-energy.
– The Origin Of Gravitons is the ONLY thing unknown-unexplained in the Scientism Universe.
PS: Spoon feeding
The universe is a (circa 20 hillion yrs?) cyclic affair between all-mass and all-energy poles. NATURAL SELECTION of a mass format mandates energy intake because since the big-bang the resolved mass is reconverting at a constant rate from inert mass to energy, to moving mass. The mass that reconverts to energy SELF-REPLICATES to mass, in black holes, for the eventual re-singularity. The energy-to-mass SELF-REPLICATION process is GRAVITY. All this is enabled and goes on and mandated by/due to the small size and shape and inter-attraction of the gravitons that enable zero distance between them to re-form singularity. Black holes extract the gravitons from matter and store them at low energy level. Singularity is attained only ONCE per circa 20 billion years when ALL the gravitons of the universe are together at zero inter-gravitons space because it takes the totality of their combined low inter-attraction force to form the universal singularity.
I hope that now it is understood what gravity is and why it is the monotheism of the universe…DH
=================================================
Black Holes Whence and Whither
A.
Black Holes Whence
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345481/title/Cohabiting_black_holes_challenge_theory
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/351747/description/Milky_Ways_black_hole_pulling_in_gas_cloud
From
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/13/21st-century-science-whence-and-whither/
http://universe-life.com/2012/09/02/all-the-mass-of-the-universe-formed-at-the-pre-big-bang-singularity/
Galactic clusters formed by conglomeration?
No. Galactic clusters formed by Big-Bang’s fragments dispersion, the released built-in singularity’s stresses, evidenced by their Newtonian behavior including their separation acceleration.
The big bang is the shattering of the short-lived singularity mass into fragments that later became galactic clusters. This is inflation. The shattering is the start of movement of the shatters i.e. the start of reconversion of mass into energy, which is mass in motion. This reconversion proceeds at a constant rate since the big bang as the resolution of gravitons, their release from their shatters-clusters, proceeds at constant rate due to their weak specific force due to their small size.
B.
Black Holes Whither
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/345421/title/Team_glimpses_black_hole%E2%80%99s_secrets
From
http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/
A commonsensible conjecture is that Universe Contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, as released moving gravitons (energy) start reconverting to mass (gravity) and eventually returning to black holes, steadily leading to the re-formation of The Universe Singularity, simultaneously with the inflation and expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.
Conjectured implications are that the Universe is a product of A Single Universal Black Hole with an extremely brief singularity of ALL the gravitons of the universe, which is feasible and possible and mandated because gravitation is a very weak force due to the small size of the gravitons, the primal mass-energy particles of the universe.
This implies also that when all the mass of the presently expanding universe is consumed by the present black holes, expansion will cease and be replaced with empansion back to THE Single Universal Black Hole.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
===========================
The Universe, Some Updates
What Big Banged To Produce The Universe
From : http://universe-life.com/2011/12/10/eotoe-embarrassingly-obvious-theory-of-everything/
A commonsensible conjecture is that Universe Contraction is initiated following the Big-Bang event, as released moving gravitons (energy) start reconverting to mass (gravity) and eventually returning to black holes, steadily leading to the re-formation of The Universe Singularity, simultaneously with the inflation and expansion, i.e. that universal expansion and contraction are going on simultaneously.
Conjectured implications are that the Universe is a product of A Single Universal Black Hole with an extremely brief singularity of ALL the gravitons of the universe, which is feasible and possible and mandated because gravitation is a very weak force due to the small size of the gravitons, the primal mass-energy particles of the universe.
This implies also that when all the mass of the presently expanding universe is collected and stored at very low energy level in black holes, expansion will cease and be replaced with empansion back to THE Single Universal Black Hole.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
====================
Universe Inflation And Expansion
Inflation on Trial
Astrophysicists interrogate one of their most successful theories
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/342219/title/Inflation_on_Trial
Commonsense:
Inflation and expansion are per Newton.
Since the Big Bang galactic clusters loose mass at constant rate. Mass, gravitons, continue escaping at constant rate from their Big Bang fragments-clusters thus becoming energy, mass in motion, thus thrusting the clusters. Constant thrust and decreasing galactic clusters weight accelerate the separation of clusters from each other.
Common sense.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
How can the empty space in our universe be vacuum when there are gravitational waves holding our planets together?
who are you? where are you?you kind of went in the right direction but you’re missing the pure simplicity.my name Is tim. you have my email drop me a line let’s talk I figured it out. Been granted the US patent new method in fluid dynamics. I have proof.
Thanks for your interest. You know something about me from my blog. Who are you?
I am not a scientist. Just getting that out there now so it is clear that I am not stating facts. I spend alott of my time contemplating these kind of ideas as well and followed a similar path as you did. I was certain that the vacuum idea was the answer but for the longest time was missing something. Its just an idea but what if light and energy are the same thing… What if your vacuum sealed device was sealed in outer space in a container that bends light. That would technically, if true bend the energy around the vacuum device not allowing the energy or gravity to enter the vacuum chamber. Causing the vacuum chamber to slip through or repel the surrounding energy basically creating a pocket of null energy. Hence the vacuum chamber would exist in a state which it did not belong. One can hypothesize the results. The first most hope full would be a anti gravity device. The second most hazardous would be an anti gravity device stuck in some form of high speed free fall plowing through objects at the rotation of the planets orbit till its destruction. Or lastly an expensive slightly invisible vacuum chamber… Well either way I am probably wrong in all accounts and would have wasted tons of tax payers money! I view the universe very differently then most people do today and that is how i came to this absurd idea… Thanks for taking the time to read my nonesense! I will be on my way now!
Hi Robert, I agree with the philosophy of pressure differential to an extent. I believe that matter can be caught up in an energy flow which some call aetheric flow and equate with gravity.
When people claim that inertia is an inherent property of matter I can’t help but think of gravitational acceleration as a contradiction. Bodies in freefall are accelerating and they feel absolutely no resistance to said acceleration. There is no deformation of a mass that is accelerating by gravity in a vacuum.
This leads me to believe that all accelerations are not equal.
If one considers what actually happens when one mass accelerates another: energy is conveyed from the first mass to the second. The energy does not propagate instantaneously. Einstein showed that energy cannot move faster than light speed. So it is quite obvious that when one mass pushes another, the energy moves through the second mass at a finite rate or speed but due to acceleration force, the energy keeps increasing.
Increasing tha amplitude of the energy does not increase the rate at which it propagates through a mass.
This implies that the point of contact will always be at a higher energy level than any other point in the mass so long as the energy increases.
In fact as one measures the energy at any point in an accelerated mass it will be lower and lower the further one moves from the point of contact. Interestingly a force we call inertia orients itself towards the highest energy point regardless of the direction of motion.
The same is true of rotation. When a mass rotates, the atoms furtherest from the axis move a greater distance in the same time and thus are moving at a greater velocity than the atoms closest to the axis. Once again velocity equals energy and those atoms are at a higher energy level. This time a force arises oriented towards the highest energy level and we call it centrifugal force.
Finally, when a mass is near a planet, there is a divergent energy field which we call gravity. The closer you get to the center, the denser the energy field. Any mass placed within this field will have the planet-facing side at a higher energy level regardless of how one rotates or re-orients the mass. This gives rise to a force directed towards the higher energy side and we call it gravitational force.
In conclusion, a mass can be self-accelerated possibly though aetheric pressure differential by creating an energy gradient within the mass. If we think in terms of fluids and gases, motion is usually equated with lower pressure. The faster the gas moves the lower its pressure so there could be a link with this hypothesis.
UFOs attain near infinite acceleration by creating within themselves a powerful energy gradient through magnetic Lorentz deflection methods and the UFO will accelerate in any desired direction with minimal energy.
That is the true nature of motion and matter.
Using your theory would it be possible to implement it into architecture? If so how would you do it?
Im a young aspiring architecture student and will soon be doing a thesis on ulterior building foundation systems and an anti-gravitational system will have multiple benefits specially in earthquake zones.
Looking forward to what you have to say or if you could point me in a particular direction to help with my research.
What a funny question. I guess that biggest impact on architecture would be the ability to lift very large pieces of rock or single cast pieces of metal into place. I’ll leave that to your imagination what that may look like. I seriously doubt that any anti gravity system would permanently lock out gravity and therefore become an integral part of any architecture. The analogy would be like a helium balloon where the helium slowly leaks through the membrane. Look at what the ability to move very large pieces of stone had on the ancient Egyptian architecture. Amazing buildings have that lasted thousands of years. My belief is that the Egyptians moved the stones by water. Floating them down the Nile then using a system of locks and pumps to raise them into position. Good luck with your thesis!
Waitlessness of space does not exist. Our own body’s have mass in the waitlessness of space and curve space time as we free fall in the exspantion of the universe.
I am completely baffled by this concept of electrical gravity. EU Wal Thornhill explains that first of all electrical is differently expressed in relationship to the environment. OK
Then he said electricity varies the Mass –here described as object density–of planets. OK
But in our system we see the effects of electrical exchanges as INCREASING GRAVITY only. The planets are then receiving cathodes ONLY. He says that our gravity may well be defined by the edge of our solar system and it is different outside. OK
Under what circumstances would our planet act as a anode? What circumstances would allow our planet to transfer our ‘gravity’ to another body? Wouldn’t that body have to be a nearly completely negative charge? And how would that work? How would a nearly negative charge body make it into the inner system pass all the other bodies similarly charged to Earth to make it to Earth intact able to connect electrically and receive the positive charge relieving Earth of some of her gravity? Since that is clearly impossible, then the only way Earth’s gravity would change is if a large body of negative charge sufficient to alter the entire solar system’s balance of charge to more negative than positive would interact with system.
Supposedly the inner Earth has lower gravity –lower mass—than the surface so would an increase of positive energy stress the Moho layer so much that the planet would explode?
Great article.. i too believe that movement/growth is a result of pressure difference. I care not for references to what is occurring outside our planet as I can’t know for sure (not experienced myself) what is happening. . I choose to look at how nature plays these laws out in front of our eyes. . Victor schauberger learnt from observations of nature playing here on our planet. . And from my understanding we exist in a aether made from vortexes. Varying degrees of viscosity exist from atmosphere to our oceans. My aim is to construct a “wing” which by its shape and material influence the surrounding aether to create “lift”. By creating a negative aether pressure at any point above, below, in-front, or behind. We could control the “wings” movement through such a fluid.. i draw inspiration from the animal Kingdom as by their evolution seem to be able to move through the densist matter with little effort. for example a trout can stay stationery in a strong current and with seemingly little effort can move against this current. I belive this ability is to do with the way it’s body shape and design organise the flow of water (dense aether) around it’s body to create a negative pressure in front of itself. Similarly how a insect who’s apparent ability to generate lift necessary to overcome it’s mass, to enable it to fly. I find your reference to bismuth laminates organised to impede the aether (my interpretation) interesting. Thanks again for your inspiration.
Thanks Nick. i believe you are right in that the answer is more obvious than we think. The ability for a bee to fly with its short stubby wings remained a mystery for decades until somebody found that the bee creates a vortex of air with its wings and times its flapping so it rides on the resulting up-swirls of air.
Impeding the aether is a good enough interpretation. Though I see electricity as the aether, which we only experience through imbalance.
Stay inspired.
Robert
For what it is worth, I witnessed a demonstration in a physics class in the 1960s that heavier than air objects could be made ‘weightless’ by a ‘static’ field.
I would love to know more about this if you have any further information.
Hi Rob. Brilliant article! It’s intuitive and just makes sense. At the age of 12 I came up with a theory called The Theory of Occurrence. It was crude since at that age, my understanding of physics was limited. Basically I stated that time itself doesn’t exist but is rather justified the ‘occurrences’. If nothing ‘happened’ how could we sense time? I theorised then that time is a measurement of occurrence. You have helped me confirm my intuition that this is the case and more precisely it’s ‘change’ that our concept of time measures. Since change requires energy, could we think of time as a measure of energy?
Thanks Daniel, Interesting. Yes, you could probably say that time is a measurement of energy. But energy itself is omnipresent. Energy must exert pressure for it to cause change and the amount of change would vary enormously depending on the medium. Therefore I see time as solely the measurement of change independent of the forces that caused it. We don’t question the energy required to move the hands on the many things we use to measure time. It is only the change we are interested in, see?
Einstein’s work is right I think. I can see how gravity works as well can show how it acts. It’s a form of energy that not only moves at the speed of light but has a shape that looks like the double helix. It’s actually quite easy to explain. The question we need to be asking is if gravity was introduced in a way that it could be accessed and used would we use it the right way? As it stands I can’t find anyone who’s willing to even attempt to understand how it works or even will accept the responsibility of using it properly. If I gave the world gravity would you use it the right way? Did you know gravity is the cause of the ever expansion of the universe? How about that it play’s an integral part in making new matter. At this time the answer to gravity’s mystery is going to die with me. I want nothing more than to give what I know to the world but if you misuse any of what I learned thus far you would only kill your planet. I’m trying to bring gravity to the attention of the world because it answers more than what any of you could ever imagine.
Great article! Have you considered that the positive and negative electrical aspects of the electrical charge if reversed would create an opposite reaction?
Yes!
I agree in passing with your premises. Need more time to consider the change in terms (I understand what you mean in spite of how you are saying it).
“new simpler theory of gravity”
“This [new] equation expresses relative acceleration between two masses as a function of their masses, separation and, now, relative velocity,”
– H. Ron Harrison of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, at City University, London
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-down-to-earth-approach-gravity.html#jCp
A relative of yours? ;-D
Seems to have read your work.
No relative. But like his work.
I came to this sight to research a dream I was on a farm in a garage. The tires on the cars began to inflate until they burst…then I began to feel weightless and unable to move. It was terrifying. Hopefully not a premonition. Could it be an anti-gravity phenomenon?
I agree that time is measurement but only with the past and future. The measurement of the past and future is purely arbitrary. The present, like a point in geometry, has no dimension but is a point that is always moving. The present can not be measured. Time is like a film made up of still pictures, the present is the space between the “still” we just saw and the one to come. The present also omnipresent, existing but without dimension and without dimension how can it relate to energy?
Re comments about vacuum floating in air . The densitiy of that vacuum chamber would be the mass including chamber divided by the volume including the chamber itself . Typically a vacuum chamber would require a dense shell to maintain the volume from caving in and so it may not float due to the density still being greater than air at ground level. If you place a vacuum chamber in water , will it float or sink?
Gravity is the seeking of Thermodynamic Equilibrium in the system of “EARTH” + “SOME PIECE OF MATTER” where POM can be a single atom.
Imagine a single atom of iron drifting in space. Suddenly it reaches Earth gravity and (ignoring atmospheric/electrical/etc. effects) SUDDENLY CHANGES DIRECTION AND begins accelerating.
ONE ATOM. Was the “course change” of both direction and velocity caused by the electrons of this atom? Nope. We have been manipulating electrons for 150 or so years with no sign of anti-gravity effects. Electric current, temperature, nothing allows a chunk of electrical conduit with 10,000 amps of current or 20,000,000 volts of EMF to start floating or neutralizing gravity.
Matter attracts matter. Period. That is how gravity behaves.
What’s in the atom? Electrons and the nucleus.
Well we already know the Electrons have zero ability to influence gravity (see above).
Remember, we’re talking ONE SINGLE ATOM. Here’s where we’re at so far:
1) gravity is matter pulling on matter
2) matter can be a single atom (or trillions)
3) an atom has electrons
4) electrons do not influence gravity
5) an atom has a nucleus
6) given 1 through 5 — all true, by the way — there is no escaping that the nucleus carries part of the bulk of secret of gravity. This sort of makes sense, as 99.95% of the mass of the atom is in the nucleus.
So let’s make this even simpler: one atom of Hydrogen. What’s in the nucleus? ONE SINGLE PROTON. No neutrons.
What about Thermodynamics, 2nd law, and the fact that “a system will always reach its lowest-level energy condition — an equilibrium.”
We have a single proton and a single electron in the Hydrogen atom that got suddenly yanked from its drift through space. Is it possible that the system of “Hydrogen atom” + “Earth” somehow reaches Thermodynamic equilibrium when the two masses are directly adjacent, and not separated? YES.
Think of it this way. The virtual particle field (aka “zero point field”) interacts with mass. Atoms are *not* perpetual motion machines, even though they seem to be (if you ignore the virtual particle field). Any energy they lose is replaced by the virtual particle field.
See virtual particle => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
See Stochastic Electrodynamics at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_electrodynamics)
When our hydrogen atom was drifting through open space, what were the conditions of the virtual particle field? AMBIENT (low activity) CONDITIONS + a tiny bit of interaction replacing energy dissipated by the single Hydrogen atom.
What is the condition of the virtual particle field for Earth’s mass? HUGE, MASSIVE activity. The virtual particle field interacts with Earth’s matter at a much higher activity level than the virtual particle field (VPF) in open space due to the huge bulk of atoms in Earth.
Here’s what I think happens. If the Hydrogen atom was in the Earth’s gravity ‘field’ there must be some kind of Thermodynamic efficiency obtained, some sort of technical condition allowing the VPF to save energy in its interaction with the Hydrogen atom when it is adjacet to Earth, than if the Hydrogen atom reached Earth’s gravity field AND DID NOT FALL.
Assume that when the Hydrogen atom is distant from Earth, X amount of energy is needed to move it to Earth.
Let’s say the VPF saves an amount of energy “Vs” by having the Hydrogen atom as close to the densest part of the Earth’s VPF interaction region as possible.
When Vs – X 0 then the Virtual Particle field, due to the gradient around Earth (see below) causes the Hydrogen atom to fall because it is more efficient to maintain the Hydrogen atom. It’s sort of like living out in the country and having a septic tank because the City doesn’t run its sewer system out that far but when you move to the city and try to install a septic tank the City says “Nope, we ALREADY RAN the sewer lines in the City limits, you can’t have Septic AND City sewer. Since you’re where all the sewer lines are in dense supply YOU GOTTA USE THE SEWER. Sorry.”
WHY DOESN’T THE ATOM, UPON REACHING EARTH, JUST STAY HIGH ABOVE IT? WHY CAN’T THE VPF GET ITS EFFICIENCY SAVINGS THAT WAY? Here’s why.
This is why there is an acceleration that pulls objects from ONE PART of Earth’s gravity to ANOTHER PART.
There is a gradient around Earth of the VPF, as follows. Imagine a sphere E + 1 that is surrounding Earth, and is the size of Earth, plus a smidgen more.
Now imagine a series of energy spheres – “VPF spheres” — of varying intensity of the VPF’s activity with Earth’s matter — spheres E + 2; E +3 ; E + 4…..E + N all surrounding Earth and just a smidgen larger than the previous sphere.
These spheres are at different intensity levels of the ZPF’s interaction with Earth. At the surface of the Earth, the VPF (aka the ZPF) is deeply engrossed interacting with Earth’s atoms. The further away from the surface, the less active the VPF is. There is matter surrounding the Earth up to a certain altitude.
THE SPHERES REPRESENT A GRADIENT of the intensity of activity of the VPF with Earth’s atoms. Gradients, being stronger close to the source (Earth in this case), and weaker further away — IMPOSE AN ATTRACTIVE FORCE on objects that encounter the gradient.
A gradient is also known as a “non-uniform field” and “a divergent field” — look those up if you don’t grok the gradient as an attractive force. Uniform fields do not create movement because no part of the field is stronger than any other part. Gradient fields *do* have some areas of the field that are stronger and thus exert a ‘pull’ on objects.
Gravity is the seeking of Thermodynamic Equilibrium in the system of “EARTH” + “SOME PIECE OF MATTER” where POM can be a single atom.
Gradient as an attractive force doesn’t explain gravity. A balloon under water moves towards the surface air, to the thinner end of the gradient not the denser. Yet a vacuum flask does not move towards space even though air pressure is 1kg per square cm at sea level.
I agree that all matter tries to reach an equilibrium or balance, though to my mind this is the dispersion of pressure. Gravity appears the exact opposite of this. Though it might be a possibility that we simply don’t understand the immense density of energy in our universe.
NOTE: Wish there was an “Edit” button.
Where it says
“When Vs – X 0 then the Virtual Particle field, due to the gradient around Earth”
it should say
“When Vs – X is greater than zero, then the Virtual Particle field, due to the gradient around Earth”