Okay, clearly you are improving very rapidly on gravity, your question are becoming difficult and valid , most of them, not to say all On light and lightcompression i can see major misconceotions, but it is becoming interesting, mind this , the answers will move away from entry-level also.
The biggest leech for now is this part 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. Comment Adrie, the role of the observer, subjective objectivity-objective subjectivity, strange eh? Look closely at what you just wrote, you imported an observer standing in a different set of coordinates, "IT LOOKS" is the voice of the observer, standing ,observing elsewere. The observer is observing the so called "relative doppler effect"distortion, yes the red or blue-shift, and so that it appears to be as if the light is getting compressed or stretched, forth, or back towards the observer. The error is that the observer is not in the system of coordinates of the observed, ie Twice the speed.......No, only the wavelenght and so the amplitude of the observed light is compressed or streched-so for the solution, ))))it only appears to be so that....etc))) The speed of light is not affected by the observer nor by the relative position of these. Give you the link, think of it as this , in regards of general relativity, do not follow the leads on red or blue shift as examples , they are only simplifeid models to explain some basic principels, what you really need is the relative doppler effect , and to get rid of the observer, it is a distorted observer, i will go into this later on, if you remind me of this. link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect superb interpretation, but do mind , simplified model.if you can understand it ,you will be correct on relative and relative speed of... Magnus > 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? Adrie, well gravity keep us at our places , we would be floating around, all objects would, in absence of gravity. But you can see it in a spacelab, astronauts floating around, if it was not for the walls and the ceilings of the spacecraft they would be truly keep on accelerating endlessly, same goes for us and all objects around us , air resistance would prevent it on earth to happen in absence of gravity, but this aside. all would be speeding up indefinite, gravity prevents it.this is not my model , Magnus , it is common knowledge. Push and pull is for tomorrow, yes both exist and direction is very easy to point out adrie 2010/9/3 Magnus Berg <[email protected]> > 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 > -- parser 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
