Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light
From: Laurent (cyberdyno5_at_netzero.net)
Date: 07/13/04
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: How could space-time be flat if there was mass?"
- Previous message: Laurent: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- In reply to: Mitchell Jones: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:11:32 -0400
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones@jump.net> wrote in message
news:mjones-2A3F4E.19022512072004@chiapp18.algx.net...
> In article <LbedndzK4PVvr23dRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
> "Laurent" <cyberdyno5@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > "Einstein developed this insight, treating gravity as an
> > accelerational field. He realized that being held stationary in
a
> > gravitational field (as on the Earth's surface) had the same
effects
> > on one's measurements as being accelerated in deep space by a
rocket
> > (at 9.8 m/s2). Thus he formulated his principle of equivalence
of
> > gravitational and inertial acceleration (EGIA). However,
Einstein
> > analyzed gravity and its effects subjectivistically, placing
> > observers in accelerated states or in free fall relative to
other
> > observers and considering how their measurements would differ.
He
> > thus failed to see the objective and physical implications of
the
> > EGIA. Let us instead treat space as a physical entity and
presume
> > that like effects result from like causes. Let us presume that
the
> > accelerating space ship and the Earth-surface observer are both
in a
> > state of acceleration relative to their surrounding inertial
space;
> > neither being free to return to the natural state of
> > non-acceleration relative to space. We therefore find that the
EGIA
> > implies that in a gravitational field, inertial space itself is
> > accelerating towards the gravitational attractor. Indeed, an
> > inertial space that accelerates radially towards all matter at
> > GM/r^2 explains the ballistic, mechanical aspects of gravity.
Thus
> > we find that we can improve Newton's theory by transforming his
> > absolute space from a solid to a liquid; allowing it to flow
into
> > matter like a fluid into a sink. Can such a "flowing" space also
> > explain the other effects of gravity--such as the red shift of
> > atomic spectra and the curvature of light? If so, can it be mere
> > coincidence? " --- Henry H. Lindner
>
> ***{OK, Lauren, you posted the above quote and Lindner isn't here,
so
> these questions are for you:
>
> (1) If we postulate that "space" flows into masses to explain
gravity,
> then what do we postulate to explain *why* the "space" flows? Do
we
> postulate gravity, perhaps? :-)
>
> (2) Where does "space"go after flowing into a mass? Does it flow
right
> back out again? If water flows out of a bathtub, it does so
because the
> drain is open. If the drain is plugged, or if there is no drain,
then it
> doesn't flow out. Do you claim that there are drains in masses
through
> which inflows of "space" can drain out?
>
> (3) If the "space" doesn't drain out, then it must remain in the
mass
> into which it flowed, right? Therefore, as more and more "space"
flows
> into a mass, the pressure difference causing the flow ought to
become
> less and less, right? And eventually, the pressure should
equalize,
> right? In other words, as time passes the gravity of a massive
body
> ought to become less and less, until it eventually falls to zero,
right?
>
> If satisfactory answers to the above questions cannot be found,
then the
> "space flow" theory of gravity is in ruins, is it not?
>
> --Mitchell Jones}***
>
> [snip]
"Gravitation is the centripetal pressure of all the photons in
the cosmos flowing into vortical centres. Gravitic centres are
located by phase and frequency, and the material which gravitates to
each field centre in the cosmos is selected by phase/frequency
tuning. As a consequence, all planets and stars are not created of
the same kinds of material in the same recipe. Phase tuning is a
function of particle velocity/momentum; the geometry describing the
phase/frequency tuning of gravitic field centres yields the very
same results as the established equations based on mistaken or
limited concepts...
[...]
Now, if you wonder why only the centripetal phase of the radial
electromagnetic wave produces a gravitic acceleration, it is because
all the matter in this cosmos is defined by vibrating in tune with
the centripetal phase of the ambient electromagnetic radiation; all
matter tuned to the centrifugal phase can be regarded as antimatter,
and it has long gone over the event horizon to its proper
antigravitic centres in the hyperspacial antipodes. When seen from
the converse perspective, all the material gravitating in our part
of the cosmos has antigravitated from the opposite hemihypersphere.
A third view sees radiation from here condensing into gravitating
material in the hyperantipodes, and radiation from there condensing
into gravitating material at this side of the universe, to keep the
universe unfolding as it should.
Gravity accelerates all bodies equally because gravitic
pressure is produced only by photons tuned to massive, nuclear
particles. Nuclear particles are as minute in atomic space as stars
relative to galactic space; the infinitesmally fine gravitic photons
penetrate all material bodies like breeze through a fishnet to
strike every nuclear particle with about the same accelerating
force. Moreover, all protons and neutrons have the same dimensions,
so all matter is accelerated equally by gravitic pressure. A
sufficiently massive body, however, will stop enough gravitic waves
to cast a gravitic shadow in the lee. It is the gravitic shadow
cast by the Moon that allows the tides to rise, not any inexplicable
attraction from the Moon." --- Thomas Pawles
- Next message: Mitchell: "Re: How could space-time be flat if there was mass?"
- Previous message: Laurent: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- In reply to: Mitchell Jones: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- Next in thread: FrediFizzx: "Re: The size of the shortest wave depends and is determined by the speed of light"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
