[nilak]

Except all waves of the spectrum travel at c.

But this is what my concept says, all waves travel at c, only front waves go slower because of the twisted trajectory which is non linear.

Gravity as an interference of waves is also similarly in a way particles following geodesics because the waves apear to change direction with no force acting on them. Photons in a OAM light beam twist as if following geodesics. Gravity could arise just like the orbital angular momentum does.
On the other hand the radiation I have described looks like a graviton beam from QFT.

[GoC]

Except all waves of the spectrum travel at c.

But this is what my concept says, all waves travel at c, only front waves go slower because of the twisted trajectory which is non linear.

As a wave packet c there would not need to be a slow down in the front. If it remained slower it would stretch. This is not what is observed.

Gravity as an interference of waves is also similarly in a way particles following geodesics because the waves apear to change direction with no force acting on them.

No force we can detect. We can never detect c directly only indirectly as photon distance.

Photons in a OAM light beam twist as if following geodesics.

Dilation of space the 3d spherical version of the 2d curve used as an example in relativity. The tenser is actually an energy gradient of less density as it approaches the center of mass. If the mass is a sphere the gradient is sphere like.

Gravity could arise just like the orbital angular momentum does.
On the other hand the radiation I have described looks like a graviton beam from QFT.

Gravity sucks. Angular momentum has a flow in equal forces and not directional.

[/quote]

[Quantum Antigravity]

Firstly, I feel it is important to not look at the attractive side of gravity, but to look at why things don't compress to a complete solid making everything dense.

I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge. 

What do you think?

I think you are generally correct.
 
Like you, I feel it is important to look at the repulsive side of gravity.
 
That is the reason that I have come up with the Experimental Quantum Antigravity HYPOTHESIS :

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70629.0

Naturally, there should be both, the attractive, as well as repulsive gravity. 
   
The Solar system is a perfect example :

QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/

HAVE YOU EVER PONDERED DEEPLY ENOUGH WHY THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAS BEEN SO PERFECTLY STABLE OVER SUCH A LONG TIME?

HAVE WE EVER OBSERVED ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS RESULTING FROM ANY POTENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM’S INSTABILITIES, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE:

•     PLANETS FALLING ONTO THE SUN;
•     MOONS FALLING ONTO THEIR PLANETS;
•     PLANETS ESCAPING THE SUN;
•     MOONS ESCAPING THEIR PLANETS.

IS THIS PERFECT LONG-TERM STABILITY REALLY THE EXCLUSIVE RESULT OF A FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES AMONG THE SUN, THE 8 PLANETS, AND OVER 170 MOONS, NOT INCLUDING PLUTO, ITS 5 MOONS, AND THE PLANET NINE so massive that it tilts the entire Solar system by 6 degrees?

COULD THAT HYPOTHESIS OF FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES SOMEHOW BE SUBJECTED TO EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION, OR FALSIFICATION? WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE 4 SPECTACULAR INSTABILITIES TO OCCUR IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM?

Considering that the age of the Solar system (derived from the study of meteorites which are thought to be the oldest accessible material around) is estimated to be close to 5 billion years, have the angular velocities of all the planets and moons been slowing down? Have they been slowing down at the same rate, or at different rates? In either case, how long will it take before any one of the above 4 spectacular instabilities is going to finally occur?

Well, I will not hold by breath, and if none of the above 4 spectacular instabilities had ever happened even once, not to mention that all of them could have happened more than once, then it would follow that the present Solar system stability hypothesis of FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES is correct in small part only. play-roulette-liveNo orbit in the Solar system is perfect, like a spinning roulette, and since chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the Solar system, whatever the reasons of its stability, they cannot be fragile, and in order to be able to compensate for the variety of these chaotic dynamics, they need to be robust enough.

QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/
 
“ Scientific discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought. Scientific discovery must be, by definition, at variance with existing knowledge. During my lifetime, I made two. Both were rejected offhand by the Popes of that field of science.”
 —  Nobel Prize Laureate, 1937

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

Firstly, I feel it is important to not look at the attractive side of gravity, but to look at why things don't compress to a complete solid making everything dense.

I personally feel that charge stops total compression of matter because charge is opposed to charge. 

What do you think?

I think you are generally correct.
 
Like you, I feel it is important to look at the repulsive side of gravity.
 
That is the reason that I have come up with the Experimental Quantum Antigravity HYPOTHESIS :

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70629.0

Naturally, there should be both, the attractive, as well as repulsive gravity. 
   
The Solar system is a perfect example :

QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/

HAVE YOU EVER PONDERED DEEPLY ENOUGH WHY THE SOLAR SYSTEM HAS BEEN SO PERFECTLY STABLE OVER SUCH A LONG TIME?

HAVE WE EVER OBSERVED ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS RESULTING FROM ANY POTENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEM’S INSTABILITIES, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE:

•     PLANETS FALLING ONTO THE SUN;
•     MOONS FALLING ONTO THEIR PLANETS;
•     PLANETS ESCAPING THE SUN;
•     MOONS ESCAPING THEIR PLANETS.

IS THIS PERFECT LONG-TERM STABILITY REALLY THE EXCLUSIVE RESULT OF A FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES AMONG THE SUN, THE 8 PLANETS, AND OVER 170 MOONS, NOT INCLUDING PLUTO, ITS 5 MOONS, AND THE PLANET NINE so massive that it tilts the entire Solar system by 6 degrees?

COULD THAT HYPOTHESIS OF FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES SOMEHOW BE SUBJECTED TO EMPIRICAL VERIFICATION, OR FALSIFICATION? WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE 4 SPECTACULAR INSTABILITIES TO OCCUR IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM?

Considering that the age of the Solar system (derived from the study of meteorites which are thought to be the oldest accessible material around) is estimated to be close to 5 billion years, have the angular velocities of all the planets and moons been slowing down? Have they been slowing down at the same rate, or at different rates? In either case, how long will it take before any one of the above 4 spectacular instabilities is going to finally occur?

Well, I will not hold by breath, and if none of the above 4 spectacular instabilities had ever happened even once, not to mention that all of them could have happened more than once, then it would follow that the present Solar system stability hypothesis of FRAGILE BALANCE BETWEEN GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND CENTRIPETAL FORCES is correct in small part only. play-roulette-liveNo orbit in the Solar system is perfect, like a spinning roulette, and since chaotic dynamics are pervasive in the Solar system, whatever the reasons of its stability, they cannot be fragile, and in order to be able to compensate for the variety of these chaotic dynamics, they need to be robust enough.

QuantumAntiGravity.wordpress.com/solar-system/
 
“ Scientific discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought. Scientific discovery must be, by definition, at variance with existing knowledge. During my lifetime, I made two. Both were rejected offhand by the Popes of that field of science.”
 —  Nobel Prize Laureate, 1937

 Try to think about orbits this way:
  "the "material planet/moon/sun" is not important at all"
  They are only masks, a meaning to an end...
    Consider that the thing orbiting the sun is exclusively the atom at the center of each of those objects, and that solar systems are all about:

   "space anomaly A interacting and resonating with space anomaly B, and the field is space..."
  Space interacting with space....
  Although a planet is required to envelop space "away from c", I believe what a planet serves for as casualty, the density splits a portion of space, isolating it from the exterior one...  At that moment one have space outside in and inside out...
   I understand space cannot be separated like a tangible material, but it can be slowed down by density far enough to reverse...

     Some consider earth as being a dynamo at the center, I save the speculation that our "dynamo" is not metal at all but in fact empty space(space/energy) spited from the other layers due pressure and then infused with radiation, to the point it starts to expand, but the only way to release is to start to spin and convert it into acceleration, just like a Black hole engine...
  Although one that never effectively interacts with the external space, one that is not self sustainable as a neutron star should be, therefore earths singularity never reaches it's full potential...
   
 Question, start a black hole from inside out a rocky planet and make sure that there is no interaction with the exterior, would it "devour" the planet from inside out?
  i do not thing so...
  Black hole + direct interaction with space = Event horizon
  Black hole + Rocky planet = Inner core

  Just try to frame, one inner core (space) interacting with another and so on and on... At the end the conclusion is that our density is blinding us to a possibility: It was space interacting with itself all along, we were just the meanings to...