1

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 15/05/2021 18:52:53 »

All he has to do is listen and learn
[/quote]


Easier Said, than Done.
Especially in this Case.
🙏

The User has been formulating their Own " Theory of Gravity " since 2015.

Going about Hypothesising this specific " Gravitational Supposition " since 2019.

Travelling steadily in a specific direction & gaining momentum since 692 days...
Nobody should ideally expect the individual to be capable of taking a sudden 180° " U " turn in just a matter of 15 days.
👎
(I am Aware the target has been set by the User himself)

Wish the Individual could have participated a little more in other sub- sections of the Forum.
     
     Would have contributed to the community as well as learnt other relevant things which might have helped in modifying & formulation of their " Gravity Theory " in a harmonious manner in relation to Reality.
👍



P.S. - Really Appreciate your sheer level of Persistence in following what You feel is Right...But, Perhaps being a Realist helps out Alot on a Science Forum.

Tc! Pasala.
🍭

2

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 28/01/2020 13:58:49 »

Friends,

It is true that science developed a lot.  We know several things and we are able to carry out research in space and we are sending rockets to other planets. 

I think there is every need to revise the present existing theories.  I don't think it is so good, going by ants perception,  trampoline  analogy.  Ok, they may be correct, let us discuss to have "What exactly is gravity".

Yours
Psreddy

Gravity appears to be governed by two sets of principles, at the same time; Einstein and Newtonian. In terms of Einstein and General Relativity, as mass accumulates, space-time curves and contracts. Time slows and distances contract in space-time. The black hole, for example, has distance contracted to a point and time has essentially stopped.

In terms of Newtonian, gravity induces weight and pressure. As the weight and pressures increase distances between materials get smaller, in parallel to GR. However, the time variable in the Newtonian aspect speeds up instead of slows. This is evident in matter vibrations and transitional states and the frequency of energy output. In the sun, for example, the core pressure causes nuclear fusion and transitions, with the release of high frequency energy.  This result is the time element in the Newtonian and Einstein each go in opposite directions.

There are two distinct time aspects with respect to gravity.  This makes sense since gravity is a force, while acceleration due to the gravitational force, has the units of d/t/t or one part distance and two parts time.

In terms of an application, a black hole will have space-time contracted to near a point-instant. This is the Einstein leg. The Newtonian leg is connected to the compressed matter and energy transitions close to zero time or extreme frequency  In other words, the black hole should be internally generating exotic particle states similar to early universe. This is unexplored by science, since they do not seem to understand that gravity displays two opposite time vectors.

3

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 28/09/2019 20:44:14 »

In case if it is a gas giant, it is spread in a wide area and more particles are exposed to energy, resulting in curvature.  Though energy is weak particles gets into its grip.

So what you're saying is that it depends on the density of the planet, is that right?

4

New Theories / Re: how gravity works

« on: 15/03/2019 11:42:25 »

My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent.  Same for objects i think.

How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand

Gravitation is described as objects following straight paths through curved spacetime but this is a meaningless interpretation because the curvature of spacetime can only ever be measured (in principle) by the paths of the worldlines though it, so it's exactly the same as saying that objects follow curved paths through flat spacetime. It's not wrong to model it as straight paths through flat spacetime, it's just equivalent to curved paths through flat spacetime. Either way, mass curves worldlines towards it proportional to their distance.

A lot is made of general relativity not including a description of how mass is able to curve spacetime (curve worldlines) but nobody question how energy does the same thing. If it's not an issue for energy then it shouldn't be an issue for mass given we know there's an equivalence between the two.

5

New Theories / What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 29/08/2018 23:41:25 »

What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

The topic of this thread and its content is intended to be kept appropriate for the hard science sub-forum, Cosmology. I will utilize the “edit” feature of the NS software to revise my posts and analytical notes as study into the topic and member comments make that appropriate.

The question, what are they saying about Quantum Gravity, is intended to be a learning experience for me, and hopefully the content will not be over the heads of us layman science enthusiasts. But let’s consider the thread open to both a general discussion on the topic, and to technical content as long as they are accompanied by comments to explain them in terms a layman can hope to understand.

Here is a Wiki link, and the opening paragraph to start things off:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

“Quantum gravity (QG) is a field of theoretical physics that seeks to describe gravity according to the principles of quantum mechanics, and where quantum effects cannot be ignored,^[1] such as near compact astrophysical objects where the effects of gravity are strong.”

You see right off that this is a topic that involves theoretical physics, so it may require some technical analysis. Being an interested party, I may offer my personal analysis of and comments about linked material, but my comments are strictly layman level and are not intended to be relied on as known fact, but instead they are intended for discussion and to encourage opposing comments, corrections, and elaborations.

“The current understanding of gravity is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which is formulated within the framework of classical physics. On the other hand, the other three fundamental forces of physics are described within the framework of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, radically different formalisms for describing physical phenomena.^[2] It is sometimes argued that a quantum mechanical description of gravity is necessary on the grounds that one cannot consistently couple a classical system to a quantum one.^{[3][4]:11–12}”

Analytical note: As stated in the Wiki, QG research seeks to describe gravity in environments where quantum effects cannot be ignored, and that means where the effect (force) of gravity is strongest, and were the curvature of space must be the greatest if general relativity is the answer. But GR isn’t the answer in those environments because of known quantum effects that are not yet compatible with GR, referring to the postulates of Quantum Mechanics and the particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The standard model assigns the effect of gravity to the missing graviton particle. So the Standard Model and the Graviton particle will be topics that have to be better understood and reconciled in the QG discussion.

“While a quantum theory of gravity may be needed to reconcile general relativity with the principles of quantum mechanics, difficulties arise when applying the usual prescriptions of quantum field theory to the force of gravity via graviton bosons.^[5] The problem is that the theory one gets in this way is not renormalizable and therefore cannot be used to make meaningful physical predictions. As a result, theorists have taken up more radical approaches to the problem of quantum gravity, the most popular approaches being string theory and loop quantum gravity.^[6] Although some quantum gravity theories, such as string theory, try to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, others, such as loop quantum gravity, make no such attempt; instead, they make an effort to quantize the gravitational field while it is kept separate from the other forces.”

You can see we are getting into some pretty technical material already, but I don’t think it will hurt to follow the Wiki links and get familiar with the terms and topics.

“Strictly speaking, the aim of quantum gravity is only to describe the quantum behavior of the gravitational field and should not be confused with the objective of unifying all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework. A theory of quantum gravity that is also a grand unification of all known interactions is sometimes referred to as The Theory of Everything (TOE). While any substantial improvement into the present understanding of gravity would aid further work towards unification, the study of quantum gravity is a field in its own right with various branches having different approaches to unification.”

That paragraph is helpful, and limits the scope of the QG topic, but still the scope is challenging. I am going back over the Wiki and its links some more, so any analysis I offer is subject to reanalysis as we go, but if you are on top of the topic, feel free to jump in anytime.

“One of the difficulties of formulating a quantum gravity theory is that quantum gravitational effects only appear at length scales near the Planck scale, around 10⁻³⁵ meter, a scale far smaller, and equivalently far larger in energy, than those currently accessible by high energy particle accelerators. Therefore physicists lack experimental data which could distinguish between the competing theories which have been proposed.^[7][8]”


That is a problem when it comes to keeping the content here in line with NakedScientist guidelines, because there isn’t yet much that is known-science when it comes to QG. I will try to keep my comments and analysis within expected parameters, and ask the any participants do the same. Let’s learn together.

6

New Theories / Theory about gravity, mass and time

« on: 11/05/2018 17:33:51 »

I post again my theory about gravity because maybe it is linked with my theoretical device to create/destroy the energy like Opportunity wrote.

Resume:

Gravity could be a repulsive force followed by an attractive force, the mean not at zero. You can imagine the matter like an electrostatic+electromagnetic rotor, each matter is a rotor, more or less in phase with others matters at distance, it depends of the distance. There is the electrostatic rotor and the electromagnetic rotor. The matter does not rotate itself, but something inside each particle that could create an electrostatic and electromagnetic field, I don't know what exactly. The electrostatic field is used to synchronized the matter at distance with to be in phase with the others matters around it, and the electromagnetic field is there to give what we call gravity. issuu.com lbu19011971 docs tgbe. The amplitude of the electrostatic field is very high, high like the sum of the all electrostatic positive (or negative) charges inside the matter, but the period of the signal is very small, small like the "dipole" that creates that field and that dipole is very small, smaller than the particle itself. The sign of the phase angle of the electromagnetic field varies from -1 to +1, so gravity can be attractive or repulsive. Maybe a simple electrostatic dipole {+/-} could be in rotation in each particle creates that fields. With that, gravity can change its sign or its value with the phase angle, and we don't need the dark matter. So, the mass doesn't exist. Nor the kinetic energy, it could be the deformation of that dipole, like deform an electric capacitor changes the potential energy. So, look (with good eyes ) the shape of that dipole and you could have the absolute velocity of the matter, yeah the straight velocity could start at 0 to 'c'. The dipole could be deformed by the straight velocity: the dipole is turning and it moves in translation too, one part of the dipole moves in the same direction than the rotation, the other part moves in the contrary direction than the rotation, but the velocity is limited by 'c' so the shape is deformed more and more with the straight velocity. It could explain the relative time too, the time to rotate one turn is what we call the relative time, more you move in translation, more you need time to make a round, it is like a quartz of a microprocessor, I supposed all the characteristics of each atom is linked to that rotation of the dipole, even sure, the chemistry. And with that, there is an absolute time, what it that absolute time? I don't know. It could explain inertia or repulsive galaxy too. It could explain the attraction of a photon. OK, someone said to me I need an energy if something inside the particle create an electromagnetic field, I'm not sure, if I suppose all the matter have at start (big-bang) its own electromagnetic field, after, it is just exchange the electromagnetic field from each others. Or maybe he's right and I need an energy so my device to create/destroy the energy is welcomed, and in that case the mass is only the energy created by the dipoles ?

7

New Theories / Re: Effects of Gravity

« on: 16/04/2018 19:40:37 »

By creating vacuum, it only reduces force or pressure of gravity.

No it doesn't. Gravity pulls on objects just as hard in a vacuum as it does in air. The only difference is that air resistance slows objects down in accordance with their drag. Look at the following video. It shows that the metal object falls at the same rate in air as it does in a vacuum:

Things such as TNT that can explode very easily, still explode in vacuum, yet it may not as it is in the open area

The presence of oxygen aids TNT's combustion, so you're right in that case. 

In fact perfect vacuum is possible in between two solar systems only.

Not even that is a "perfect" vacuum. 

It is true and known fact that energy travels with maximum speed in vacuum.  So even if you create vacuum there is energy, only thing is that it may not be able to group or concentrate.  This is the reason, if we light a candle and close it by a glass, still it burns for some time.  Some of the things such as candle needs high pressure to burn.

A candle needs an oxidizing agent such as oxygen to burn. If you held the candle under a 100% oxygen atmosphere at one-fifth normal atmospheric pressure, it would still get just as much oxygen as it would in normal air. The reason that candle eventually goes out is because the oxygen gets used up.

When E=MC2 is correct and if total TNT is converted into Energy, it must be equal or the same at all places.

TNT doesn't come even remotely close to 100% conversion of mass to energy.

It is incorrect to say, there is no climate on moon.  Only thing is that it is weak and particles are not raising as it is on Earth.

The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it is so extraordinarily thin that it might as well be ignored (it is over 300 trillion times thinner than Earth's atmosphere).

8

New Theories / Re: Theory on Space-time

« on: 30/09/2017 00:24:46 »

Thank you for your response but you have raised another issue that is not defined.  Consciousness, which is the consequence of perception.  Perception needs definition, which I have done in a so far 24 Chapter book I have more than half written. Structure is there but need to flesh out understandings in discussion pieces. I found that trying to define perception, I was forced into the need to address the issue of the existence of Time and its origins, although this was not the initial intent of my tome. My thoughts on this was what has lead me to this Naked Science blog.  Back to your point.  If you do not perceive, you would not have consciousness, or even awareness which precedes it.  Consiousness is the consequence of Universal and cognitive structures of the perceiving entity.  This then introduces the concept of "pelop" ... viz the Perceiving Entity's Limits Of Perception.  All of these things need definition from an originating basis of Postulates and Corollaries which are, in mathematical terms, trivial and incontrovertible which is why I turned my thoughts to originating definitions (see my post in this blog "How justified is your understanding of the foundations of the Universe?") which is one of my attempts to do just that.  My goal is self-consistency of structure of these postulates and corollaries.  Please note the word 'goal', hence the fact that the first edition of my book is not yet completed. Within this self-consistent work is the expectation that application of independent verification methods for what we compare to the Universal properties is the way we validate perceptions as Universally consistent (Universally being the adjective I am using to relate anything to the Universal structures and processes, not human agreed perceptions). I lack your confidence of the non-existence of God or Gods.  Without evidence, I cannot either confirm or deny the existence of God(s) without an agreed definition of what a God actually is.  Something that has caused wars and conflict throughout the anthropocene without resolving that definition, and which is still bringing out species to the brink of extinction by our own hands.  So I am not a theist, atheist or any other related believer without the evidence to prove, or otherwise, that what is believed in has transitioned from a belief to a matter of fact by means of matching its reproducible validity to those incontrovertible processes of the Universe through application of independent methods of verification. Please note that I have said method(s), since others are needed due to the nature of the perceiving entities.  Hope this gives you something to ponder.  I will always welcome constructive comments to both inform me and maybe amend what stage of Universal understanding I have gained so far.  Any comments on my other topic in this New Theories blog "How justified is your understanding of the foundations of the Universe?" would be appreciated. Thank you for your time to reply.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE:  Whilst typing this response, I have noted you have added more.  Having read your work, I would like you to consider my suggestion that you are doing what most scientists are currently devoted to... utilising our mathematical language and its surrounding structures to describe and justify what we perceive by increasingly try to add to this body of work.  With respect, you are describing processes based on current perceptions and scientific lines of enquiry, not origins for those processes.  Nothing I will say will contradict anything that has been established scientifically as relationships that are validated by a process of scientific method and peer-review.  We absolutely need these current efforts to continue.  But so do we need to consider the establishment of the next generation of ideations required for investigating our Universe underpinning our next human advances (limiting comments to humans here), which needs alternate ideas or threads of ideas to achieve this goal. Please refer to my response to Psreddy above, especially noting that no change in understanding or technological advancement (as we humans call it) has come from thinking the same.  Sometimes we have to examine the seemingly absurd to arrive at the next leap of understanding our Universe.  How many scientists in the past have been crucified, literally, for trying to demonstrate something we now recognise as fact i.e. actually matching wha is happening in the Universe?

Please accept my apologies for any typos.

9

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 31/10/2016 17:23:33 »

I am a firm believer in Relativity.

Simple correction to your statement, if there is no gravity then the things will float.

That is the consequence of no attraction to a lower energy state if you follow Relativity.

At the centre of the earth, where dilation of energy is more, it pushes existing gravitational waves, resulting in weak gravity.

Differences in dilation is gravity. In the center of dilation there is no gravity. There are no gravity waves in GR. There are Doppler waves in SR that would appear as gravity waves. GR is just a gradient attraction to the center of gravitational masses lowest energy potential. No attraction in the center. Your mass becomes the center of gravity afloat in space same as outer space but less energy more dilated than outer space.

It is not due to centrifugal force but due to dilation of energy only

Mass gravity creates a dilation curve like an onion of gradient dilation to the center of mass. Centrifugal force is the creation of mass curving through the straight lines of space energy. The space energy resistance to the curve of mass creates attraction of mass from the front to the back of the curved position wanting to go in a straight line of space. A curve is a resistance to space energy. There is no such thing as a circle in 3d space.

These are new ideas proposed me within the frame work of new gravity theory proposed by me.  Most of them completely deviates from GR and SR and they have no relevance at all.  If further research is taken up in this angle, most of them will be proved.

Since relativity has never failed to explain an observation it is the mechanics of Relativity that need an explanation not yet another relativity denier without a understanding of relativity.

10

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 31/10/2016 15:10:43 »

About time dilation:

It is true that Einstein proved in his General relativity that time is not a universal law of physics and it dilates from
place to place, it may be due to gravity or velocity.  He has taken two places, one point A on the top of a hill station and the other, point B low lying area.  He compared ticking of clocks at the both places and found variations.

True

Here, time dilation is due to gravity.  On the high hill area where gravity is weak, ticking of clock is faster. Where as on the low lying area, where gravity force is high ticking is slow.  This is due to gravity effect on the clock.

 
This is false. g=a in equivalence between SR and GR. Gravity is stronger on the hill not weaker. You are confusing increased dilation with gravity and that is just wrong. Many scientists view this the same as you do. In GR dilation is the greatest in the center of mass and reduces to the surface of mass. You would be weightless in the center of the earth no acceleration at all. More dilation of space energy the slower the tick rate. Clocks would tick the slowest in the center of the earth.

Here is the SR equivalence to show gravity is not due to acceleration. Acceleration of a space ship causes gravity and the increase in speed slows your clock. The clock remains slow with vector velocity. Now you decelerate and produce gravity. Your clock speeds up in gravity until you are at relative rest from the starting point.

So increased position in more dilation in GR reduces potential energy by reducing attraction. Dilation causes gravity. That is Einstein's curved space.

But, here we have to remember one important point that high hill area is not  free from gravity.  It is also reeling under gravity pressure only.  But when we move to low lying area, gravity pressure/force increases.  Due to this pressure/force, ticking of clock is slowed down. 

Once again backwards gravity attraction is lower in the valley and greater dilation of potential energy of space.

Let us presume that we are in a zero state of gravity.  Here, how clock works is an important point.  In zero gravity, everything is in free state.  Suppose if we are using atomic clock.  Here, basic function of atomic explosion is controlled by the gravity.   Electrons released due to atomic explosion, have no control over atomic clock. Here we have to remember one important point that without gravity force/pressure electrons never splits automatically

Fission creates its own temporary dilation of space.

In fact very functioning of the atomic clock depends on the gravity.  It is in the grip of gravity.  Existing energy rays in the open area, have already deeply penetrated into the clock.  When the electrons are freed, they joins the existing rays and pushes them in upward direction.  It is due to this force/pressure that clock is working.

Gravity starts with the very first atom and electron. The electron flows out into space and dilation decreases causing more resistance to the electron in the form of friction. This causes the electron to curve when the velocity reaches the resistance point where it returns to more dilated space. The electron returns to the proton. This pushes out another electron for the cycle to start again. More atoms increase the total dilation of space and cause an increase in the electron travel distance. The creation of light with the longer travel distance is the red shift.

In low lying area, where there is high gravitational field, pressure/force on the clock is increased.  Energy rays in the open area are more potential when compared to the inside the clock.  So, naturally pressure/force towards clock is more when compared to pressure/force of electrons.  Here electrons have to gain more strength, when compared to outside pressure to come out and to move the clock. 

This is the reason why at the centre of earth, gravity is less when compared to poles.

Gravity attraction is non existent in the center of the earth.

Einstein used this function simply to compare how time dilates from place to place.  If we understood, "what exactly gravity is", so many things will come out.

On this we agree

11

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 21/10/2016 03:10:03 »

Jerrygg:   Photons are energy configurations which are linear planar with spins. The same stuff when in spherical type configurations have mass. Photons becomes mass and mass becomes photons. It is all geometry How this violates relativity I do not know. Of course to me relativity is a good mathematical analysis of space time problems but not the solution to all things.

 I read it all twice, my first thought is, he knows...
 Let me ask you something, to see if I understood your ideas correctly, more specific in relation with the photons...
  Something like photons being a construction of space, most likely a spiral "shape" that is constantly happening wherever the light is present, although when on the absence of dense atomic structure/matter(absence of macro mass), the light(photons) remain possessing a special configuration, that enable the energy to be carried at "C" trough space?
  One rudimentary and simplistic assumption, you do not say it loud: Light is the source of gravity?
 Or better, the way space reacts to the energy(spectrum), creating (photons) on itself eventually forming waves and colliding with macro mass, there on the presence of the macro mass the photons, constantly colliding at "C" against the macro mass, start to re-adapt their structure, in resonance with the atomic structure. Photons traveling at C, photons rearranging their configurations, rebounding one back over the other, mixing configurations, source of dark mass energy/space energy?
 Reading your description, I'm wrong to assume that the constant rearrangement and rebouncing of this photons, from light on space, to mass on dense atomic structure, as being the true source of the interaction that results in gravity? Light photons, interacting with mass photons, the constant for behind "C"? Also photons as being a shape/configuration of space(itself) in the presence of light, the rebouncing between spiral light at C, against "photonic mass?!", the reasons for behind the dilatation, when near massive objects?
 I'm not presuming, only trying to glimpse further on your concept, is occurring to me that state that mass is able to dilatate space-time, could not be more incorrect on your suggestion, when infact, and I'm simple wondering that, (mass) is (photon mass), mass is the dilatation of itself?
 " Mater have never directly produced mass as a source only as a calatizador, when a planet is causing dilatation on space-time, what's really happening is that the refraction of photons against matter is changing the configuration of "light", releasing the energy from the spiral configuration of light, directly infusing it on the surroundings, resembling and aura, this process of reconfiguration of light, the true source of mass( dark energy?!), and mass not causing dilatation of space, "mass" being the dilatation?
 Cause if photon is a shape, a carrier (on space and of it) able to change configuration ( I did not knew that the configuration could affect the behavior), will one end up with something like (Gravity/mass/motion) "everything was the light"?
 I would really appreciate if I'm diverging to far from what your idea of photon/mass, are leading to?


One other question, about parallel universes, I do not tend to believe o that, but from your perspective on one simple example: A solar system, could be interpreted as a universe, although this "universe" is existing (inside?!) a larger universe (galaxy),. The question is could this mechanic layers be interpreted as what they suggest as coexisting parallel universes? And if it is possible, could this correlation of opposite charges, existing on different dimensions, that do not interact, have as possible being result of a correlation between light and electromagnetism?
 Could the jump of the electron, from inside the heliosphere, be different from the outside, but here it is, where is inside the galaxy and where is outside heliosphere? Both are not the same, although both are coexisting, could this sort of parallel coexistence, take place over "hidden dimensions"?

12

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 13/10/2016 15:22:51 »

   The real confusion in science, what exactly is energy. Mass has no energy in and of itself. What we measure as time is actually fundamental energy. Mass attracted to mass, atom attracted to atom is a reduction of energy c as space time energy reduction in space. Heat is just friction between mass and fundamental energy which is energy removed from space that mass occupies. Space energy move electrons. At rest it is a stable flow that expands energy (dilation) to a less dense dark mass energy (space energy). Attraction is caused by this less dense energy base (space time energy) by entropy. Mass has no energy not given to it by fundamental energy. The dilation of space energy is the gamma term in Einstein's relativity. In a planet there is a gradient like an onion ring where the center of mass produces the largest dilation and the gradient is being reduced as you get closer to the surface. Gravity is the difference in gradient dilation which causes the curvature of space time. Space is a fluid c spin. Everything to understand physics is in relativity mathematics. It is merely the mechanics that elude us.

We have let the standard model confuse us with its interpretations. We need to start fresh with fresh ideas. And I am glad to see this new ideas coming from all of you in this discussion. We have to question the opinion of others even to their base understanding. The MMX set science on the wrong path in my estimation. While it proved there was no static Aether it failed to prove there was no sub electron matrix. Everything below the electron has to be detected orthogonally. This is the spectral range of waves on the matrix. Mechanically by relativity mass cannot contribute mass to the spectrum identity. This is ok because the dark mass energy (space time) propagates spectral waves on itself always at c. Mass creates friction on space time which is the cause of macro mass energy. Remember space time energy move the electrons or they are moved by magic. Its your choice to have faith in magic or understand reality as mechanics. Rather than a top down mechanics are always from the bottom up. Relativity postulates that follow all observations so far are the key to understanding the mechanics. The current standard model forces all observations to fit the model. This is a invalid process for science and causes such terms as virtual photons. Relativity math does not allow a reduction of macro mass or the photon to have mass. This is enough to dismantle the standard model. Photons transfer energy by waves is the observation. Virtual waves cannot transfer energy but this fact is glossed over in favor of the standard model.

The Big Bang model is also a fabrication of magic. A top down approach that violates mechanics. Once again reality is a choice of magic or mechanics. My understanding follows mechanics of relativity and not the magic of something from nothing. Macro mass comes from space time energy same as a black hole comes from macro mass exposed to gravity in excess of the speed of light attraction. A black hole is atoms combined into a super element. In the single atom (H) the relative distance its electron travels is a football field compared to a marble. Energy keeps the other atoms at bay but at the same time attracts other atoms. At the speed of light attraction the football field is filled with marbles. The lack of energy this produces in space causes a massive dilation in the energy state of space. Entropy of mass is dilation of space and the cause of gravity.

   Suns create macro mass through their lifetime in the form of (H) atoms from dark mass energy (space time)  similar to black holes in a fractal universe where black holes are electrons.

Magnetism is the rotation of the fluid energy c caused by electrons being coiled or natural magnets in open faced molecules where there electrons line up in a rotational column. Right hand rotation in and right hand out. Mirror images of each will be opposite spins. There is no Plus or minus just flow and rotation.

Back to the BB interpretation of expansion of the universe. Relativity actually has an interpretation different from expansion of the universe. Back to dilation of space. The accumulated dilation of space in the center of galaxies creates a type of lens astronomers use to expand the light of other galaxies behind the lens. This expansion is the accumulated dilation of space that keeps the galaxy together as a solid type of rotating disk or ball. 75 % of the light comes from 25% of the center of a galaxy where it is most dilated. From our perspective 75% out from the center of our own galaxy we are in a much less dilated space. So we view all galaxies as gravitationally red shifted. Even Andromeda is gravitationally red shifted from our perspective. we only know it is moving towards us is because of the arm moving towards us is more blue shifted than the one moving away is red shifted. Now we have the issue of increase in red shift by distance. Our concave and convex lenses may be causing the increased red shift as an artifact similar to a prism effect. The wave becomes more flattened and expressed over more of the lens with distance causing the red shift with distance. There was an astronomer that knew two galaxies were in the same neighbor hood and they gave two different red shifts. He was ignored in favor of the standard model of red shift SR and not Red shift GR.

Reality is smaller things create larger things. Distribution of the larger things are our universe.

13

New Theories / Re: What exactly gravity is?

« on: 11/09/2016 15:23:56 »

Well, it is not requesting your help, but expressing happiness over sharing of mine ideas with the world. At the early
school days, I am not a bright student,  but i use to counter the lessons.  For example, when the teacher start explaining electromagnetism, i use to rewrite them, saying if the electricity start developing into magnetic waves than how and where the electricity is flowing.  Later these type of ideas and some of the incidents that have happened in the early days, paved the way for writing these theories. 


Let us see the principle, E=MC2:

where E is the energy of a physical system, m is the mass of the system, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. In words, energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. Because the speed of light is a very large number in everyday units, the formula implies that any small amount of matter contains a very large amount of energy.

01  Where this energy is stored.
02  If it is in the small atoms, than how it is stable.
03  It is also true that as long as the energy is remained within the atoms, it is not multiplied.
04  It is only after coming out from the atom that it is multiplying.

Here we have to remember one key point that as long as the energy remains within atom, it is not multiplied and it is only when ignited and after coming out into open area that it is multiplying.  So, there is no mass and energy relationship.

01  It is multiplying only after coming out from the mass.
02  Here, It is the energy in the open area that plays key role.
03  So, it is energy to energy relationship only.
04  So, we can take this formulae E = EC2.
05  This is the reasons why explosions vary from place to place.

SPEED OF LIGHT:
Light is nothing but charging of ray only.  At present we are of the opinion, if we switch on battery cell it gives light.
Actually, no fresh energy ray is created each time.   Few electrons released by battery cell is not having any capacity to create any fresh energy rays.  It against depends upon the energy in the open area and that is why it varies from place to place.  If the battery cell releases more electrons, the pressure/force on the existing energy ray increases and thus speed.  Suppose if the battery cell is weak, electrons released by it is also few only.  These weak electrons pushes energy ray slowly and thus light. This is the reason, why we get more sun light at the centre of the earth, where there is huge concentration of existing energy.   As we move towards north and south poles, where earth is not releasing so much energy and thus concentration of energy on the earth and there fore light is developed slowly.  Here light is so weak that if the support from sun is lost for any reason, light goes sharply.

Yes, as you said, lack of maths and formula have badly affected my theories. Actually all the theories written by newton or Einstein, have its base, taking previous ideas/theories and they have extended formula, maths.  But my theories are not having previous base/extension. I had started with huge amount of energy present on the earth and in the universe for which i can give logical/reasoning explanation only and  i cannot give any maths.  Hereby i request the scientific world, not to rely on the mathematical presentation alone for any judgement, but to give importance to new ideas and logical explanation.

We will discuss your point later.

Yours
Psreddy

I am not a scientist and this is only an opinion , but a valid opinion, energy has nothing to do with c but rather the opposite and the slowing down of c to form compression and the process of energy.


E=c compression not c squared blah blah.

14

New Theories / Re: what exactly gravity is?

« on: 04/12/2015 23:20:42 »

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65064.0