Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Tovenaar
Guest

Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by Tovenaar » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:50 pm

I've been reading up on EU for some time now and the subject has really changed the way I look at the Universe and it got me thinking about stuff. Whilst EU does explain or highlights the significance of the electromagnetic field it isn't clear about a number of subjects like where gravity stands in relationship to the EMF (I know there are some ideas mentioned but I disagree with those) or wherefrom the power driving electric activity comes from. I have come up with a view which may fil in those blanks and it be nice to get some feedback.

Currently it is understood that all forces when traced back to their source find their origin in the electromagnetic field, that is all forces with the exception of gravity. Gravity is a rather strange force in that it can not be measured or to be more precise any measurement wherein gravity is the sole actor will yield zero. As an example astronauts undergo weightlessness simulations in an aircraft diving towards earth, during this experience they aren't subjected to any force yet they are accelerating with 9.81m/s2. Another example is when a spacecraft is accelerated through a slingshot effect around a planet where it undergoes a tremendous acceleration yet at no time is the spacecraft submitted to any force whatsoever. Compare these examples to powered acceleration, read acceleration caused by EM forces, where because of inertia the vehicle and its passengers are submitted to measurable forces. In science there is a rule which states 'if you can't see it it ain't real', gravity therefore isn't real, its an imaginary force.

As a side note, this makes the discussion about the speed of gravity void since there is no information to be transferred, the object being affected does not notice the affect taking place therefore no communication is taking place towards it.

If looked upon from a system point of view the dissimilarity between gravitation and the electromagnetic field makes sense. In order to have an active system you need two independent actors, an actor cannot act upon it self that would be self referential, it needs an external reference relative to which it can act, think of this as Baron Von Münchhausen pulling himself up by his own hair it can't be done. To be truly independent the two actors cannot have an image in each other, in other words they cannot share characteristics, one must be what the other is not, they must be complementary. They are references towards each other, one is a carrier for the other, meaning that the EMF exists within a gravitational universe and gravitation exists within an electromagnetic universe. If the two actors are fully complementary then those two universes will have exactly the same content because if you invert everything (opposite characteristics) then everything remains the same, you can compare this somewhat to the positive and negative of a picture.
We then are of the electromagnetic universe existing within the gravitational universe. Our sensory inputs are EM and those inputs depict an image of the gravitational universe. We do not interact with the gravitational universe because we aren't compatible with it.

To further understand the relationship between the two actors, gravity and the electromagnetic field, lets analyze their nature.
Gravity is a context independent force, two objects will attract each other in the same way no matter what is in between them or surrounds them. Gravity is also invariable, all it ever does is attracting it will never alter its behavior. An invariable context independent force is a chaos force, it will not create any kind of order because it is blind and even if it wasn't it wouldn't effect any corrections needed to maintain a situation since it won't alter its behavior.
The EMF is context dependent, whether and how objects influence each other is strongly affected by their surroundings since interaction occurs through the field and all objects to some degree modify that field. The EMF is also adaptive it can change the direction and sense (sign) of the forces it applies. As I understand it the electromagnetism is a force which wants not to be active, it has a strong tendency to isolate objects through the use of dual layers and to minimize energy expenditure by following paths of minimal resistance. A force which is context dependent and which has a sense of purpose will create order, it will have preferences and seek to maintain those.
The electromagnetic field then creates order and gravity keeps messing things up putting the universe in a balance between chaos and order.

Now consider a combustion engine. Within a cylinder an explosion takes place, a chaotic event. This explosion can be seen (simplified) as a movement in all directions. The cylinder will filter out the movement vectors in one direction and the cylinder head acts as a mirror giving sense (sign) to that movement thus creating power output. This same functionality can be mapped onto gravity and the EMF whereby gravity provides chaos input and the EMF provides direction via its magnetic field and sense via its electric field. True the functionality is not as absolute as it is in the combustion engine but is is there. Note that no energy is created, gravity exchanges momentum which is energy neutral and the magnetic and electric field will expend energy when providing direction and sense. What happens is that chaos is counteracted costing energy but also creating energy which is then projected to another location through an electric current.
So say you got an object, for example a planet, to/from which an electric current flows then a force will act upon that planet performing labor equal to the power output of that current. It is not that current which is responsible for the force rather it exists to maintain energy neutrality, the force is delivered by the local magnetic and electric field.

Thats my view to date, comments are apreciated :)

User avatar
substance
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by substance » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:38 pm

Interesting idea and I liked the combustion engine analogy. I still prefer Wal`s or Bill Gaede`s EM explanations of gravity. Your idea is too vague and lacking detail at the moment.
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by GaryN » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:57 pm

(quote) Gravity is the inside-outness of energy-as-matter: the integrity of Universe. (RBF)

Always interesting to see what Buckminster Fuller has to say. Though new discoveries may challenge some of his ideas, he was way ahead of his time. Type 'synergetics index x' (where x is the first letter of the word you want to search) into Google and see if there is a reference.

(quote) 541.03 Gravity is omnipresent, omniembracing, and omnicollective: shadowless and awavilinear. Awavilinear means nonwavilinear or antiwavilinear. Gravity counteracts radiation; it is progressively and centrally focusing; and it is always apparently operative in the most economical, i.e., radially-contractive, transformation__the radii being the shortest distances between a sphere's surface and its volumetric center; ergo, employing the absolute straight-nothingness, radial line of direction, which, as such, is inherently invisible.
541.04 Radiation is pushive, ergo tends to increase in curvature. Gravity is tensive, ergo tends to decrease its overall curvature. The ultimate reduction of curvature is no curvature. Radiation tends to increase its overall curvature (as in the "bent space" of Einstein). The pushive tends to arcs of ever lesser radius (microwaves are the very essence of this); the tensive tends to arcs of ever greater radius. (See Sec. 1009.56.)
541.05 The omni-inbound gravity works collectively toward the invisibility of the central zero-size point. The outbound, tetrahedrally packaged, fractional point works toward and reaches the inherent visibility phases of radiation. Radiation is disintegrative; gravity is integrative.
541.06 Gravity's omniembracing collectiveness precessionally generates circumferential surface foldings__waves (earthquakes)__consequent to the second-power rate of surface diminution in respect to the radially-measured, first-power linear rate of system contraction. Gravity is innocent of wave. Gravity is innocent of radial; i.e., linear aberration waves; i.e. gravity is nonwavilinear. The most economical interterminal relationship is always that with the least angular aberration. Gravity is the geodesic__most economical__relationship of events.
541.07 Gravity's awavilinear, collective, integrative, economical effectiveness is always greater than that of the radiation's disintegrative, wavilinear distributiveness; ergo, gravity guarantees the integrity of eternally regenerative omni-intertransformative Universe.
541.08 Radiation is wavilinearly and radially distributive; ergo, it is central-angle partitioned. Circularly, it means a single central angle. Spherically, it means a minimum of three central angles: those of a tetrahedron formed with a circumferential limit of the surface of the speed-of-light radial reach.
541.09 Radiation is tetrahedral. A tetrahedron is a tetrahedron independent of size. There are points and no-points. They are both tetrahedral.
541.10 Gravity is circumferentially omniembracing and is never partial, but always whole. Radiation is always packaged. Gravity is the inside-outness of energy-as-matter: the integrity of Universe. It is the sum of all the no-points embracing all the points; and it compounds at the surface-embracing, second-power rate of the linear proximity gains. All the no-points (novents) are always embracing all the points. All the quanta are local- system, center of-event activity, focal points__fractionations of the whole point: what are minimally, ergo, most economically, packaged, and expanded outwardly and omnidiametrically as three-central-angle-defined tetrahedra. (See Secs. 251.05 and 529.03.)

Radiation is entropy, Gravity is love.(RBF)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Tovenaar
Guest

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by Tovenaar » Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:10 am

Interesting idea and I liked the combustion engine analogy. I still prefer Wal`s or Bill Gaede`s EM explanations of gravity. Your idea is too vague and lacking detail at the moment.
If you are referring to a functional description of how gravity operates than you are correct, I don't explain it at all other than that it should be complementary to the EMF in order for my view to make sense. Should Wallice idea, longitudinal waves right, be correct then that would invalidate my line of thought since then gravity would be electromagnetic. However in my view of things it takes two to tango and the only two possible independent actors are gravity and EM forces, there is nothing else out there.
I'd like to point out that for to come up with a solution there needs to be cause to do so, you can't just follow a 'what if' path because that will lead you straight to Wonderland (give my greetings to Alice). In other words there needs to be some physical evidence that gravity is related to electromagnetism before you can work out how it fits in.

I have been looking for Bill Gaede's explanation of gravity but couldn't find it, could you give me link to a web page related to his work ?
Always interesting to see what Buckminster Fuller has to say.
It is, although I don't tend to think very well in geometric terms so I can't really make judgement on his thoughts it does seem that he too sees gravity and electromagnetism as complementary workings. Nice to have someone looking in from a different angle and coming too similar conclusions.

Tovenaar
Guest

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by Tovenaar » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:59 am

Found
Bill Gaede's explanation of gravity
Ah the rope theory: all atoms connected with each other through EM ropes and gravity a result of tension in the rope.

If I'd would want to criticize this concept then I'd point how these ropes can be persistent and seemingly uninvolved with anything else in an EMF which is bursting with activity. And of course its an awful lot of ropes :shock: .

However my main point still is that from a system point of view you need two actors to have some kind of balancing act.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:27 am

tovenaar wrote:However my main point still is that from a system point of view you need two actors to have some kind of balancing act.
Do you mean by that duality?
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
substance
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:07 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by substance » Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:02 am

StefanR wrote:
tovenaar wrote:However my main point still is that from a system point of view you need two actors to have some kind of balancing act.
Do you mean by that duality?
I think he rather means two opposing "actors", not two versions of the same thing. It seems logical, but in the sensual philosophical way.. problem is, scientists want numbers, observations, predictions, application in technology etc. in order to look into something, especially a new idea.
My personal blog about science, technology, society and politics. - Putredo Mundi

rangerover777
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by rangerover777 » Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:03 am

I wonder what was not said yet about gravity ?
To explain gravity, it required to start with it’s most basic components, I guess
that’s why there is no real explanation for that yet. So your points Tovenaar are
valid and real (by the way earth’s gravity, maybe different type of gravity which
play a role within the solar system).

Electrostatic, like rubbing a hard rubber until it get hot and then it attract grains
of salt, dust and other minute particles, have something to do with how gravity works,
though the term Electrostatic maybe somewhat deceiving.
However, this is only a partial answer since what makes electrostatic in this case is a
much more crucial question and maybe it have nothing to do w/ electromagnetic
or electricity at all but magnetic phenomena alone.

Check this “earth core and gravity” page, see if it make any sense.
http://www.leedskalnin.net/gravity-1.htm

Cheers.

Tovenaar
Guest

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by Tovenaar » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:27 pm

Substance wrote:
StefanR wrote:
tovenaar wrote:However my main point still is that from a system point of view you need two actors to have some kind of balancing act.
Do you mean by that duality?
I think he rather means two opposing "actors", not two versions of the same thing. It seems logical, but in the sensual philosophical way.. problem is, scientists want numbers, observations, predictions, application in technology etc. in order to look into something, especially a new idea.
I can appreciate the need for something tangible in order to take a concept like this seriously, there's a lot of ideas floating around. Still I thought it would be nice to express this insight, there are few decent idea's of how things work on a system level, most stuff tries to deal with details without much thought of how it all fits together. EU does try but as mentioned some elements are missing. I certainly don't give any credence to 'the big bang' as it is in conflict with just about all rules of science (conservation of energy, causality, falsifiability come to mind).
Trying to work it out into a mathematical function. Have been doing so for some time now however towards a subject not obviously related to physics. I was struck by the similarities of the algorithm and physical reality. ETA for this function unknown, if ever, when I do get it to work I might try to do some further work to map gravity and EM onto it.
For now just take what I say as something to broaden your horizon a bit, another angle too look at reality.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: Gravity versus EMF = power projection

Unread post by altonhare » Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:34 pm

Whilst EU does explain or highlights the significance of the electromagnetic field it isn't clear about a number of subjects like where gravity stands in relationship to the EMF (I know there are some ideas mentioned but I disagree with those) or wherefrom the power driving electric activity comes from. I have come up with a view which may fil in those blanks and it be nice to get some feedback.
-Tovenaar

The difficulty in uniting gravity with electromagnetism stems from the lack of physical causal explanations for these phenomena. Thread Theory achieves this:

Light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

Detailed Further Discussion:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =10&t=1174

We need theories based on three dimensional physical objects interacting. Every atom in the universe absolutely must be connected to every other atomn
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests