Need Help Understanding Gravity

[Horus_Risen]

I recently finished chapter 6 in Book 1 of the Wave. Many aspects of gravity that I never considered were introduced. Now, my knowledge of physics stops somewhere around what I learned in high school. Up until an hour ago, gravity was just something I took for granted, as part of the ambiance of the world, so to speak. I thought that gravity was produced by the mass of an object or particle.

Now, I am to understand that gravity is everything and is created by everything. Light is a product of gravity. Gravity binds the physical to the ethereal. Anti-matter is the gateway to the ethereal. "Gravity is God." Some of it makes sense on some level that I can't explain, but my monkey brain can't wrap itself around the ideas presented fully.

Suggested follow-up material? Aside from finishing chapter 7. ;)

 

[Laura]

I perceive you are having a bit of fun, yes? I'll ask Ark if he can point you toward a book or two, or boil it down into a few words. Suffice it to say, he's been working on this for some time...

 

[ark]

Now, I am to understand that gravity is everything and is created by everything. Light is a product of gravity. Gravity binds the physical to the ethereal. Anti-matter is the gateway to the ethereal. "Gravity is God."

The above is not how physicists look at gravity today. The above may serve as an inspiration for research and for creating a theory of gravity for tomorrow - if someone is willing to follow such a path. That is how I look at it, and this is one of my projects - on my drawing table. However, I will try to find something for you to read among the popular books dealing with the subject of gravity from a somewhat larger perspective than it is presented in the textbooks. It may take a while.

 

[Horus_Risen]

I perceive you are having a bit of fun, yes? I'll ask Ark if he can point you toward a book or two, or boil it down into a few words. Suffice it to say, he's been working on this for some time...

Fun, indeed! And something much, much more. I feel like Neo in the Matrix when he starts running through the accelerated learning programs. "I know kung-fu." I even had a dream about you about 2 nights ago, ha ha. I have been lying awake at night with my mind going a million miles an hour. Strange sensations as well, akin to "experiments" I have done previously with OBEs. FUN!

I'm a musician by trade, so astrophysics and sub-atomic physics aren't precisely my strong suits. But I told my wife I'm going to be a physics professor by the time I'm finished this series of books. ;D

Thank you Laura and thank you too, Ark. Taking time out for little old me. I truly appreciate it and feel genuine warmth from both of you. You guys kick posterior!

 

[wanderer33]

I have a question.

What is the difference between late 19thC aether theory and the concept of the Higgs field?

Are they both an attempt to describe the same theoretical field?

 

[John G]

I have a question.

What is the difference between late 19thC aether theory and the concept of the Higgs field?

Are they both an attempt to describe the same theoretical field?

Well I know of at least one physicist who would answer yes to that.

from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/QOphys.html

Since the unit Quaternions form the Lie Group Sp(1) = SU(2) = Spin(3) = S3, Maxwell's use of Quaternions in Electromagnetism anticipated the SU(2) Weak Force and the SU(2)xU(1) ElectroWeak unification, and Maxwell's consideration of a compressible general elastic Aether medium anticipated the Higgs mechanism and Torsion Physics.

 

[durabone]

Hi all;

divergence (which Maxwell called convergence)

Now I have immediate interest in this, serendipitous timing!!! What happened is a sign reversal, right?

Is their any truth in these ideas:

There was an ugly fight around this notion in the late 19th century, where Yale contemporaries Oliver Heaviside, Willard Gibbs, and Lord Kelvin, et al. strove to boil their math down to three dimensions, ie., space composed of two-dimensional planes (see “A History of Vector Analysis,” Douglas Crowe). James Clerk Maxwell on the other hand, had derived his theory of Electrodynamics from 20 four dimensional equations. He based these on the algebra of William Rowan Hamilton(see Maxwell: A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field ) who had spent the better of his life on a failed quest for a system of mathematics based on three variables. When Ely Oliver Heaviside was pressed by academia of his day, he agreed that although Maxwell and Hamilton were correct with their four-dimensional equations, he offered that they were ‘too hard to learn.’ For you Sir, maybe. In fact, he pled in the name of the children that the cleaving of the quaternion product found in Heaviside’s vector algebra was a necessary tool of learning, that should be adopted against Hamilton’s & Maxwell’s ardent objections. Thus today our system is converted from the original:

Hamilton -> scalar / convergence :: Heaviside -> dot / divergence
Hamilton -> vector / curl :: Heaviside -> cross / curl

He advocated a simpler system “for the student”, and make no mistake. The cross and dot product of today’s vector algebra were acknowledged by all as being derived from Hamilton’s work.
Heaviside pled his case for years, and the debate was a central subject among scholars of the day. The outfall was a significant diminishment in the usage of the full extent of Hamilton’s and Maxwell’s work. Coke et Pepsi, only this time, Pepsi won. The big prize of course being the insertion of a sign reversal (ironically from plus to minus) into the foundation of 100 years of human endeavor. Hamilton was known for uniting the vector and the scalar. It was Heaviside along with fellow skull-n-bones Yale scholars who cut that union back to what it was before, preserving the status quo, and effectively eliminating the breakthrough. So it largely remains, today.

? Thanks!

 

[wanderer33]

I always considered that the abandonment of the electromagnetic theory of nature at the turn of the 20thC was a tragedy for science.

Its been a long struggle back onto the path.

 

[John G]

Maxwell was discussed here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1320.0

Basically (via Ark) Maxwell's use of quaternions exists today in the form of Clifford Algebra. One could then make a case that Clifford Algebra was ignored for too long but one could also probably make a case that the best work (aka Einstein's 1938 paper) was put behind the scenes and worked on secretly.

 

[durabone]

bluelamp: that was me, toybot that started that thread yrs ago!
Obviously, my interest in this topic runs deep and has been far from static. I think I have every book ever written on Quaternions. My interest these days though is on the Convergence Model of Electrodynamics. I just wish I could focus on it better.

 

[wanderer33]

I'm no mathematician. I scraped through electronic engineering. But it was enough to let me study the history and philosophy of science
and understand the process and the arguments. I received a lot of grief at university for pushing a revival of aether theory and arguing for a reinstatement
of the electromagnetic theory of nature. One professor refused point blank to supervise my thesis. As a result I finished university and moved on and dropped the whole thing. I really feel vindicated as a result of the work that is carried on by Ark and others here. Thanks for restoring my faith in science.

 

[Turgon]

Now, I am to understand that gravity is everything and is created by everything. Light is a product of gravity. Gravity binds the physical to the ethereal. Anti-matter is the gateway to the ethereal. "Gravity is God." Some of it makes sense on some level that I can't explain, but my monkey brain can't wrap itself around the ideas presented fully.

I understand what you mean. I've tried wrapping my brain around the same concepts multiple times. You kind of get a sense of it, but hard to conceptualize. Maybe I can help piece some stuff together that are along the same lines essentially so we can both learn from it while Ark is searching for some material for you to read.

Q: (L) Gravity seems to be a property of matter. Is that correct?
A: And.... antimatter!
Q: (L) Is the gravity that is a property of antimatter "antigravity?" Or, is it just gravity on the other side, so to speak?
A: Binder. Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves!!!
Q: (L) Is antimatter what we refer to as "ethereal" existence?
A: Pathway to. Doorway to.
Q: (L) Do unstable gravity waves emanate from 7th density?
A: Throughout. There is no emanation point.
Q: (L) So, they are a property or attribute of the existence of matter, and the binder of matter to ethereal ideation?
A: Sort of, but they are a property of anti-matter, too!
Q: (L) So, through unstable gravity waves, you can access other densities?
A: Everything.

A: Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence!

Q: (V) Okay, what is energy? I know the atom and the nucleus, and I basically understand the physics of energy, but is that what you're talking about?

A: Take an example: Light is an energy expression of gravity. Utilization of gravity "generates" light.

Q: Today, the exchange was as follows: Ark wrote: C's once said that EM was an expression of gravitational energy. I said: they said that light is an energy expression of gravity, that EM was the same as gravity, or, more precisely, intertwined. And, this would incline me to believe that the total spectrum of EM is the 'stuff' of the 'balloon,' that is the balance to the 'non-balloon,' of gravity, being that which emerges out of non-being, and that the various separations of EM into waves such as light, radio, and other frequencies are energy expressions. In other words, EM IS the unstable gravity wave, so to speak. Was this correct?

A: Close.

Essentially it seems that Gravity is everything, which explains how it could be 'God' in the sense that God is the Creator and the Creation - which is all of existence. So then if EM is unstable, expressing energy in different ways, then gravity is constant, in a sense unmoving, or everywhere, all the 'time'?

It seems to me that gravity, EM, light, are peas from the same pod. As if they are all ‘relatively’ the same thing, yet play slightly different roles in the way they interact with physical space (3D existence at least), and that’s why we see and experience the differences when we interact with them. For example, strong gravitational pulls keep us from leaving the atmosphere, causes the earth to revolve around the sun, whereas light ‘travels’ allowing us physically see what’s around us. How can you describe the difference between light and gravity in the ether if there is no space/time, so there is no distance or separation, everything is 1, yet 0, yet everything??

 

[wanderer33]

It is only lately that we have been able to see clearly that the effects known to us as Light, Heat, Electricity, and Magnetism are caused by pulsations or rills of different rapidity in the Ether (this will be referred to in a later View); it is also probably the cause of what we call Gravitation, and we shall see that the action of Gravitation may, after all, be not in the direction of a pull but must be looked upon as a pushing force. Gravitation is common to all matter; in common language, every particle attracts every other particle with a force directly proportional to[Pg 105] its mass, and inversely to the square of its distance; it is a very weak force compared with others we know, and difficult to measure except when a large mass of matter is involved. Perhaps this will be clearer, and not far from the truth, if I say that the force of Gravitation exerted between two masses of matter compared with that which we find acting between the constituents of matter—namely, in chemical affinity, is comparable to the difference existing between the density of matter and the density of Ether.

The latest calculation of the pressure of the Ether is almost inconceivable—namely, about 25,000 tons on the square inch, or 3,600,000 tons on the square foot; it may well therefore be that, in the degree of permeability of matter by the Ether, when we can calculate it, will be found the explanation of what we call Gravitation between two masses; they are each shielding the other from Ether pressure, in its own direction, with an obstructive force equal to its mass. The reason why the earth appears to attract us, is that it is shielding us from a certain amount of pressure in its direction; and we know that we are also apparently attracting every particle of the earth with a force proportionate to our mass, because we are, however slightly, shielding the earth from pressure in our direction; if this is the true [Pg 106]explanation, Gravitation is a phenomenon of the Ether; it will be seen to be a movement of matter in the line of least pressure, and is therefore a push and not a pull.

This is a quote from 'Science and the Infinite or Through a Window in the Blank Wall' Author: Sydney T. Klein (1912)

I found this book years ago. It contains a very good description of the problems with the human senses and their limitations.

It is available at the Gutenberg Press


http://www.gutenberg.org/files/25931/25931-h/25931-h.htm



Can it be proven that gravity is a pulling force rather than a pushing force?

If its everything like light and EM what makes it different in this respect?

If one was to do the math, how does the math prove that gravity is a pulling rather than a pushing force?

Edit: quotes

 

[John G]

Can it be proven that gravity is a pulling force rather than a pushing force?

If its everything like light and EM what makes it different in this respect?

If one was to do the math, how does the math prove that gravity is a pulling rather than a pushing force?

If you include dark energy with gravity then you do get "pushing" also but it's very different than the push gravity theories. Dark energy relates to aether/ether/vacuum energy and future effects past causality and it kind of does this for both gravity and EM. It's really its own degrees of freedom.

It seems to me that gravity, EM, light, are peas from the same pod. As if they are all ‘relatively’ the same thing, yet play slightly different roles in the way they interact with physical space (3D existence at least), and that’s why we see and experience the differences when we interact with them. For example, strong gravitational pulls keep us from leaving the atmosphere, causes the earth to revolve around the sun, whereas light ‘travels’ allowing us physically see what’s around us. How can you describe the difference between light and gravity in the ether if there is no space/time, so there is no distance or separation, everything is 1, yet 0, yet everything??

To really see gravity and EM as one you likely have to be at a higher energy with the extra spacetime dimensions as big as the normal four. This united gravity/EM could be the binder, the links between vertices of a spacetime lattice. Perhaps at really really high energies, ones and zeroes are all you see in conventional terms.

My interest these days though is on the Convergence Model of Electrodynamics.

Sounds like an attempt to fix perturbation theory maybe?

 

[adamos]

Hi all,

I will be not oryginally but I need help understand gravity too but at first I would to know how gravity is modyfiing space time. Some time ago I wrote on Forum about my point of view (just general principle) - I was inspired by C's words ( session 12-26-98). They talk to Ark about tethrahedrons and bending space time by gravity. Here is the link http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9609.195 - my post is on the end of page 14 (whith drawings).

Imagine that cube on the Fig. 1 (see link) is a very little fragment of space (or space time) and beside source of gravity the red edges (Fig. 2 ,3 ,4) become shorter. Stronger gravity (or closer to source of gravity) - shorter edges. Imagine that space (space time) is fragmented in shape plenty of little cubes where neighbouring cubes have common edges and imagine source of gravity in distance more, more grater than lenght of cube's edge. Others cube's edges will be shortening in others way - depending on relative positon to source of gravity. In effect - space (space time) is distorted as superposition of bending and tortion (Can You see this ???!!!) - it looks like a "allaround" mass (gravity source) vortex (wirlpool).

Can You tell me what do You thik about this idea ? Maybe someone try to use math to describe this idea (my knowing of Math is poor just like knowing English lungage :( and I'm srorry for this) or maybe someone will make a mathematical computer model ? Maybe Ark will look on this ?

Best regards