0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
100 years after Albert Einstein Unveiled General Relativity, a new interpretation surfaces. One that fills in the gaps and answers the questions still unanswered in 100 years. An interpretation that provides answers even to questions we would not normally have thought in General Relativity's influence. A simple modification to what we thought General Relativity was telling us, that is going to have far reaching consequences for all of Physics, Astro Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Theory, Most of science...
I will start here at the beginning of your post, ''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True''Not true, gravity is a constant force, any change in free fall is a change in acceleration,
''GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False''True that is false, because we say mass is attracted to mass
''GRAVITY IS: A force... False''Untrue, gravity is a force,
'GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''''False. acceleration is a product of force and gravity is the force.
A change in free fall is a change in acceleration? Really? Only if you consider a change from "0" acceleration at free fall.
An object falls for the first meter a9.82m/s, the second meter it falls a9.82m/s*2 , the third meter it falls at a9.82m/s*3 etc etc, until the falling object reaches terminal velocity. That is what acceleration is, Have you ever heard the expression F=ma? Force=mass * acceleration
Matter is that of physical substance (things), and you may be confusing this with the ordinary use, definition of mass, but in physics the definition and use of the word mass is different, it means a property of matter that science uses to measure force etc.
Lol you have obviously not read any of my posts, I am pretty much known has the anti-science, no need to get defensive I will come to the rest of your post in all good due time. Mass attracted to mass is experimentally proven by the Cavendish experiment, it is hard to deny this when it is hard evidence .
What? Rockets are propelled by the huge output of energy from their rear ends, its called thrust.
No I have not as yet read any of your posts. If indeed you are anti-science I would prefer that you wasted someone else's time.If you had understood what Flow Theory is saying and applied it to the Cavendish experiment, you would have got the exact same results for different reasons. The Cavendish experiment proves Flow Theory as much as it proves curved space.I will help you, consider moving an object, space itself pulls together to fill the space with space where the object was....and objects contain space and energy, energy pushes, space pulls.
Maybe I chose the wrong Forum to post this...
I prefer a good critical analysis of what I am presenting. I have been trying to make this theory fall over for a couple of years now and failed. I now want others to have a go but not with BS. Criticise with logical thinking and observational evidence.
All the other forces of nature give off energy when matter lowers potential with these. All roads lead to Rome as matter finds ways to return to the C reference, while lacking the direct path offered by anti-matter. If anti-matter appears matter will gladly take that path since this is the fast lane back to C.
Just the claim of either push or pull is useless without a mechanism to explain gravity in the first place. What is pushing?
I suspect gravity does not have a speed.
It would just be a dilation of space as a field that moves with mass when mass moves.
There are claims that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. I think that error comes from applying general relativity to a hypothetical vanishing star's gravity. Suppose the star's mass is suddenly released as a uniform sphere of light, expanding at the speed of light. Freeing the energy from its bondage in massive particles does not eliminate the the gravitational mass of the star. Instead, each photon carries away its share of gravitational mass. From Newton's shell theorem, we surmise that an observer outside the expanding shell of light will continue to feel the same gravity as before the star vanished;be he will be observing the gravity of expanding light sphere, not the gravity of the vanished star. As soon at the light sphere envelopes the observer, the shell theorem says he will no longer feel the gravity of the light sphere. That explains why there should be a speed of light time delay if a hypothetical star could suddenly be converted to light equally in all directions.
Newton's shell theorem, however, tacitly assumes that the speed of gravity is infinite.
Math is God? I think not. There is a deeper reality.