Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: chuckspirit on 04/03/2010 17:26:27
-
Does anyone know where this idea came from?
Quite simply, Gravity is NOT a pull, Gravity is a PUSH from the zero point energy field into mass.
Think of it as bubbles under water where the water is pressing on the bubble trying to implode it. In the case of matter, zero point energy pushes into the neutral centers of mass to not only create it but also give it materiality.
We are held to the planet like wind pushing flies against a wirescreen. As zero point energy flows into the neutral centres of mass, the effect of gravity and weight are produced.
-
Good ideas, but Gravity is a sticky kind of topic, because if it is found that it is not curved space/time it will throw a big monkey wrench into the bigbang theory. Please see what some very gifted scientists think about gravity here http://photontheory.com/pte.html Thanks,
-
"As zero point energy flows into the neutral centres of mass"
Why isn't it full yet?
-
Oh dear. I think we'll have to move this topic to "New Theories"
-
I can understand the attractiveness and relevance of this idea that is that gravity is like the Casimir effect for electromagnetic processes that is the presence of matter denies some of the states that the universe could possibly occupy in an area and therefore creates an attractive force. this may be valid but the overall results would be no different from what we see now because the laws are clearly valid so why worry!!!
-
This seems a basic dichotomy between matter and energy: matter tends to converge and come to rest; energy tends to diverge and keep going.
That's a pretty d*mn good way of putting it.
-
It's New Theory time.
-
Robro, Photons now have mass?
Can anyone explain the structure of an atom and the particles moving around in them?
With certainty not theories?
-
Does anyone know where this idea came from?
Imho, this idea came from Einstein's geometric gravity that twist like a space-time vortex (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/16nov_gpb.htm) in a frame-dragging effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging), the idea could be traced to have been originated from "Vortex dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_dynamics)" of Hermann von Helmholtz.
Quite simply, Gravity is NOT a pull, Gravity is a PUSH from the zero point energy field into mass.
This is the mechanical explanations of gravitation without the use of any "action at a distance" in classical physics in an aether-filled three-dimensional Euclidean space with a temporal dimension of time.
Btw, WMAP in its empirical observations asserts that Euclidean geometry is experimentally true with high accuracy throughout most of the Universe; this is contrary to GR. Google this you will find it.
Einstein's cosmology with the cosmological constant describes gravity is a push-in effect of negative pressure. This explanation for gravity is not a PUSH from the zero point energy field into mass, it is a push-in from the zero point energy field into matter, this render the effect of mass.
"The Universe appears to have a smooth space-time continuum consisting of three spatial dimensions and one temporal (time) dimension. On the average, space is observed to be very nearly flat (close to zero curvature), meaning that Euclidean geometry is experimentally true with high accuracy throughout most of the Universe." - Excerpt from wikipedia in a section on "Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe)".
Think of it as bubbles under water where the water is pressing on the bubble trying to implode it. In the case of matter, zero point energy pushes into the neutral centers of mass to not only create it but also give it materiality.
We are held to the planet like wind pushing flies against a wirescreen. As zero point energy flows into the neutral centres of mass, the effect of gravity and weight are produced.
I fully agree with your above proposition that comprehensively explains the causality of gravity, you only need to make a distinction for matter from mass.
-
Good ideas, but Gravity is a sticky kind of topic, because if it is found that it is not curved space/time it will throw a big monkey wrench into the bigbang theory. Please see what some very gifted scientists think about gravity here http://photontheory.com/pte.html Thanks,
It posits invariant space and time in classical sense to describe photons such that everything in the universe must necessarily be a natural consequence of photonic interaction. Imho, it is on a path in the correct direction.
-
"As zero point energy flows into the neutral centres of mass"
Why isn't it full yet?
This sound like it keeps raining and why Earth isn't flooded till the peak of Himalaya.
Its saturation in a cyclical motion for zero point energy that flows into the neutral centres of matter in perpetual motion, rendering the effect of mass.
-
I can understand the attractiveness and relevance of this idea that is that gravity is like the Casimir effect for electromagnetic processes that is the presence of matter denies some of the states that the universe could possibly occupy in an area and therefore creates an attractive force. this may be valid but the overall results would be no different from what we see now because the laws are clearly valid so why worry!!!
Imho, although in equivalence principle the overall results would be no different for applied science, it could lead to entirely different conclusions in meta-theories on how nature works.
Physics laws that are valid do not tantamount to being truth, in delusions of physical laws that are not true they would lead to the illusion of knowledge in extrapolated theories similar to metamathematics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamathematics). Examples are the falsified geocentric model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism) and the apparent retrograde motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_retrograde_motion).
Most people might think that physical laws that are not true are issues of distant past, imho, it is still a plague at large in modern physics.
-
It's New Theory time.
Thanks for bringing the thread here, I like this thread starter in the New Theory section.
-
Can anyone explain the structure of an atom and the particles moving around in them?
With certainty not theories?
For atomic particle moving around atom, see a report by Science Daily on "An electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080222095358.htm)". Watch also a video clip on this "Electron's motion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo&feature=related)".
Imho, electron is vortical motion at resonated location of coalesced electromagnetic field. The geometrical structure of an atom is an electromagnetic vortex that is driven in perpetual motion in the microcosm by the macrocosm. For further elucidation, see a UVS topic on "The geometrical structure of an atom (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20geometrical%20structure%20of%20an%20atom.htm)".