Hi Adrie
First, I appreciate you taking the time to hear my side of it. I just
hope you'll find it interesting. And if you can persuade me to abandon
it, I'll get more time for other things. No harm done. Anyway.
On 2010-09-03 18:41, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
It appears to be very strange , Magnus , but gravity, like light, and
magnetism seems to have and behave like a wave
The waveform is unproven, but predicted by Einsteins general relativity,
many scientists are on the stake-out to find proof for it
For example , the NASA, some sattelite's, and especially lingo, at least i
think the project is called lingo, Kip Thorne, one of Hawkings
acolites and personal friend is one of the promotors of the lingo-project,
they hope to find proof. They do this because of all evidence
is showing that Einstein was wright on gravity having the waveform,...-if it
does , and it probably will, in time, then all laws on light
and speed of light will apply on gravity as well,like the
Uncertainty-principle is also applyable on soundwaves, waterwaves,all
matter with a waveform or karakter.ALL WAVES.
Yes, I've read about LIGO, and I've thought about how it could prove or
disprove a push-gravity, but I don't think it could distinguish it from
a pull-gravity. As you said, it can just measure the effects of gravity,
in the case of LIGO they aim at measuring the waves from two heavy
objects like black holes orbiting eachother, right? But the effects of
that on LIGO would be the same either way, so it would just show that
gravity travels through space like other electromagnetic radiation, not
if it pulls or pushes.
Hmm, conflicting , its not conflicting with gravity itself , because the
mechanism of gravity remains unknown,
it is however conflicting with all proof and representations of gravity,
because the representations and properties known thus far, are proven beyond
any doubt, they are however not reality themselves.
Can you mention one proof or known property of gravity that would
conflict with a pushing gravity?
Okay, the light violating part, the article you pointed at,Faster than light
shows the answer, under "justifications"
read the line, that is why i say to stay away from special relativity,
faster than....special relativity proposes a model that is left, even by
Einstein later on.Tachyons do not exist, nothing can brake the constant. (1
controversial exeption exluded for now)
For very special purposes the special as an add on general R theory is still
used in some models, very dangerous to step from general
to special , and stepping back is limited to very strict environments , Its
better to leave the special relativity for now.
It will only blurr things.
But the thing is, it *doesn't* break the speed limit. Because in an area
where gravity has stretched out space (and you agree that space *can* be
stretched), in that area 1 km is longer than 1 km usually is.
Say you have a 300 km long cylinder in space that has been stretched out
to 600 km. I.e. inside the cylinder, it's still 300km long, but from the
outside, it looks like it's 600km long. Light a laser outside one end of
the cylinder towards the other end. The light will emerge from the
cylinder after 1 ms because inside the cylinder it has travelled 300km,
but outside the cylinder it looks like the light has travelled 600km in
1 ms, i.e. at twice the speed of light.
I don't see any blurring.
The part that is violating gravity's representations.
I repeat, gravity depends on mass, and masses, therefore it is believed to
reside within all particle's, evidence for this is in fact simple.
I don't deny that gravity depends on mass, but it can just as well
originate from space and interfere with mass, than originate from mass.
If it should not be residing in the particle's appearance's then every
object on earth should be moving at lightspeed all the time.
Why?
But the triggering mechanism to give all particle's and
objects(intrinsically) their mass remains hidden, it is nowedays believed to
reside within the Higgs_field or Higgs boson, good search terms , do some
googling.
Yes, I know about Higg and LHC and I'm just as eager as the next guy to
see some results, but it seems it will take a year or so at least.
But now you changed the subject to mass. Of course mass is involved with
the workings of gravity, what I'm saying is that it's not clear if
gravity *comes* from mass and pulls, or if it's attenuated by mass and
pushes.
Actually, isn't it more logical that mass would attenuate gravity, just
as it attenuates light and other radiation? Also, light pushes, so
gravity could simply be some form of radiation we can't detect other
than by its effect on mass.
the violating part lays in the appearance of gravity in empty space , in
your model, all gravity there is is only branched out from stars ,
planets,moving partikels, neutrino's, etc, low because low on mass,.but high
when the masses are high.
"branches out from stars"? What do you mean by that? The whole paragraph
was a bit unclear actually.
Gravity therefore is at its highest value in or near a black hole
,(predicted by Einstein, proven); gravity can grow to an indefinate value
in such a hole. according to the endless mass, you see? so its not in empty
space.
Black holes are actually a good reason to change into a push-gravity
model, because with a pull-gravity model, the physical model breaks down
inside the event horizon.
And of course gravity is at its highest near a black hole, because in a
push-gravity model, much more gravity from the far side of the black
hole gets attenuated by the mass in the black hole.
Okay, if you do some reading it will dawn i think, do i proceed removing
some bugs? it will become a long posting list-your call.
Adrie
Remove any bugs you want. Either one long post or many smaller ones, I
don't mind.
Magnus
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
