[RascalPuff]

Special Effects by Austin P. Torney

"The 'thump' of a great apple, in the stillness of a crisp October morn,
motivated only by the mere necessity, of perfect ripeness". - Hawthorne

Newton himself, understandably had difficulty accepting the existence of an 'invisible force' which he describes as 'occult', having the power to move apples and planets. Above all, he (very specifically) found - proved - the large force of the orbiting moon directly linked to the same mysterious force applying to the apple's inspiration for falling, above and upon the earth's surface. The aquatic, atomospheric and terrestrial tides. The planets orbiting the sun.

It was formerly thought that gravitational forces acting on earth were much different than forces acting elsewhere in the larger realm of solar system and universe.

Newton, established for the first time, that it - the universal realms of the large and small - is all connected by a singular, commonly acting, unidentified invisible force. That is the gist of Newton's proven discovery - the proven extrapolation of the same force that causes relatively miniscule apples to fall, also causing the orbiting of the relatively enormous planets.

Newton, finally acknowledged the conditional existence of gravity; only because his own newly invented calculus confirmed that, indeed the same force that motivationally generates falling apples, does likewise generate and sustain the orbits of planets. Yet, as we are about to be reminded, Newton took great care to point out that he did not know or purport to know the identity of gravity, and that his mathematical address to gravity is not concerned with or dependent upon its causal identity, or, its direction...

Newton’s thoughts on ‘the occult (pre ‘Field Physics' recognized) force (Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field, omnidirectionally projecting <in the pattern of a spider-web> at light speed out of all material entities)’:

“Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” - Isaac Newton, On Gravity.

As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:

I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:

“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."

That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'

It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.

Special Effects by Austin P. Torney

It is difficult to over-dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force.

Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied?

That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

In the first quarter of this (the last) century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.

The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states:

'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown').

Refer, Structure & Dynamics of Maxwell's Electromagnetic Field

Special Effects by Austin P. Torney

Re: Total Field Theory http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

Best regards,
- RP

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Rascal,on a level playing field,the aether abouts covers it all don't you think?


regards michael

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Thanks Rascal,on a level playing field,the aether abouts covers it all don't you think? regards michael

_______________________________

Looks like we're still orbiting the Tao adage of 'action-reaction', Michael. Equal & Opposite.

Illustration copyright 2007, by Austin Torney

The opposite of matter being non-matter, the - aether - occupant of 'empty space'.

Seems to apply to 'zero point' omnidirectional vectors as well...

The fields (force) from isolated, individual charges look like this:

(Google - negative & positive charges)

Reminiscent of the painting artist in a meadow by the seaside, commenting:
"It all looks like waves and fields to me". (Austin P. Torney)


Percolating regards of alternating current,
- RP

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Try seeing it as a bit of both, and the picture becomes clearer...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Special Effects by Austin P. Torney "The 'thump' of a great apple, in the stillness of a crisp October morn, motivated only by the mere necessity, of perfect ripeness". - Hawthorne Newton himself, understandably had difficulty accepting the existence of an 'invisible force' which he describes as 'occult', having the power to move apples and planets. Above all, he (very specifically) found - proved - the large force of the orbiting moon directly linked to the same mysterious force applying to the apple's inspiration for falling, above and upon the earth's surface. The aquatic, atomospheric and terrestrial tides. The planets orbiting the sun. It was formerly thought that gravitational forces acting on earth were much different than forces acting elsewhere in the larger realm of solar system and universe. Newton, established for the first time, that it - the universal realms of the large and small - is all connected by a singular, commonly acting, unidentified invisible force. That is the gist of Newton's proven discovery - the proven extrapolation of the same force that causes relatively miniscule apples to fall, also causing the orbiting of the relatively enormous planets. Newton, finally acknowledged the conditional existence of gravity; only because his own newly invented calculus confirmed that, indeed the same force that motivationally generates falling apples, does likewise generate and sustain the orbits of planets. Yet, as we are about to be reminded, Newton took great care to point out that he did not know or purport to know the identity of gravity, and that his mathematical address to gravity is not concerned with or dependent upon its causal identity, or, its direction... Newton’s thoughts on ‘the occult (pre ‘Field Physics' recognized) force (Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field, omnidirectionally projecting <in the pattern of a spider-web> at light speed out of all material entities)’: “Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” - Isaac Newton, On Gravity. As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified: I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA. From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote: “For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain." That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .' It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force. Special Effects by Austin P. Torney It is difficult to over-dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force. Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied? That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. In the first quarter of this (the last) century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date. The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states: 'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown'). Refer, Structure & Dynamics of Maxwell's Electromagnetic Field Special Effects by Austin P. Torney Re: Total Field Theory http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie Best regards, - RP

[RascalPuff]

"Try seeing it as a bit of both, and the picture becomes clearer...

Lloyd".

__________________

Yes, Lloyd, gravity does seem to manifest as both a repelling and an impelling force. In accordance with the work of Newton, and that of Einstein. Pointing this out is a primary objective in all of my work on gravity.

- RP

[MJA]

Dear RP,

The work you have done on gravity is extraordinary!
Perhaps you will find interest in some of my own findings on the subject of gravity.

I believe now that The General Theory of Relativity is flawed from it's foundations of the two postulates that Einstein started with: the principle of relativity, and the constant of the speed of light. I have much work to do on it yet and will hold any further comments until I have reached a conclusion.

I will say that the equivalence factor that you refer to is the key ingredient to unifying fields as well as everything else. Equal is naturally TOE, do we both agree?

I thought you might enjoy this bicycle story that I recently experienced. It has to do with gravitation.
I’m an avid cyclist, and have logged many miles. I don't race, but ride only for exercise, enjoyment, and necessity; as I no longer drive a car due to obvious Earth concerns. When riding on an open road it is standard to be passed by another faster cyclist, as well as passing many others myself. Absolutely every time a bike goes by, there is a natural pull that occurs. It is both mental and physical, and I believe both equally natural. So powerful is that attraction, or gravitation, that I now believe the physics of bicycling equals the physics of gravitation; that two cyclist are equal to two particles of the science of physics. I will try to explain.

I was riding the other day when a cyclist went by. I had just gotten started on a short 40 miler when he passed me. I decided to resist the gravitation and not catch him. I wanted to ride simply my own pace. Again, and as usual, I found I could not. I was being pulled or drawn by the momentum or inertia of the other cyclist, by a mysterious invisible force. He had gotten a little way ahead when a truck passed me. It was traveling faster than I, (estimated 30 mph, versus my 25) but again it wanted to pull me alone. There it was again, that force. I got directly behind it and drafted. Drafting is a well known tool of racing, riding in a vacuum of air. But is it truly a vacuum of air, or the force of gravitation? Rather than increasing my peddle speed, I had to brake. It was pulling me along. And what of the now distant other cyclist, surely it was to far away to create a vacuum, yet there was still a real force to recon with. Eventually the truck turned off and a short while later I found myself directly behind the other particle, cyclist. I experimented with this force for a while by separating myself and the other bike with distance, again and again. Each time I experienced this same force.

I pulled up next to the other cyclist who I am sure by this time, must be thinking: this guy’s crazy.( sometimes I do too) I asked him if he liked Einstein? He said: "to a degree." I said, "Hmm, measure, degree__ that's relative." I told him that two cyclist traveling similar directions at relatively similar speeds were united by the natural force of gravity. Then added that we were simply two particle of mass drawn together by the force of inertia, or motion, which in other words is the force of gravity. That it wasn’t a vacuum of air but rather simply nature itself. He seemed to understand, and agree. He said his name was Tom. The road split shortly there-after, and so did we.
I believe now that I have the empirical experience to define gravity. Gravity is the natural unification or equivalent force of everything.

E (energy) = G (gravity) = M (not mass, rather motion, inertia) = E (everything) = Toe (truth).

=
MJA

[RascalPuff]

Dear MJA:

Sincere thanks for your compliments.

Moving right along, as it were...

I will avoid being sardonic with you at hazard of chancing that you are being sardonic with me.... I presume you're being serious and sincere...

When riding on an open road it is standard to be passed by another faster cyclist, as well as passing many others myself. Absolutely every time a bike goes by, there is a natural pull that occurs. It is both mental and physical, and I believe both equally natural. So powerful is that attraction, or gravitation, that I now believe the physics of bicycling equals the physics of gravitation; that two cyclist are equal to two particles of the science of physics. I will try to explain.

I was riding the other day when a cyclist went by. I had just gotten started on a short 40 miler when he passed me. I decided to resist the gravitation and not catch him. I wanted to ride simply my own pace. Again, and as usual, I found I could not. I was being pulled or drawn by the momentum or inertia of the other cyclist, by a mysterious invisible force. He had gotten a little way ahead when a truck passed me. It was traveling faster than I, (estimated 30 mph, versus my 25) but again it wanted to pull me alone. There it was again, that force. I got directly behind it and drafted. Drafting is a well known tool of racing, riding in a vacuum of air. But is it truly a vacuum of air, or the force of gravitation? Rather than increasing my peddle speed, I had to brake. It was pulling me along. And what of the now distant other cyclist, surely it was to far away to create a vacuum, yet there was still a real force to recon with. Eventually the truck turned off and a short while later I found myself directly behind the other particle, cyclist. I experimented with this force for a while by separating myself and the other bike with distance, again and again. Each time I experienced this same force.

With no intention of digression or flippancy, MJA, do you mind my asking your age - how old are you?

I ask, because in my experience of riding bicycles, motorcycles, driving cars, trucks and walking (for tens of thousands of miles) I have experienced what you describe, but without thought or contemplation of any (discernible) gravitational interactions between myself and other vehicles or people. Drafting and otherwise being influenced by partial vacuums of air is all that ever measurably occurred to and with me. I ask your age because it may be that your naivete has something to do with your questionably grounded conclusions.

Post Script:
It's my considered opinion from reading your posts that you are waywardly obsessed with the import of finding - and making - everything equal; that you perceive things the way you wish to see them, rather than the way that they are...

Thank you for your post.

I am, respectfully,
- RP

[MJA]

Dear RP,
Have you ever seen the simple light of truth in a child's eyes? Can you remember yourself? The light of truth before it is dimmed by the complexity of confusion, the untruth of theories and faiths, caused by the misdirection and misunderstanding of people like you. How terribly old and confused, blind, dark and dimmed, you must truly be.
Truth is much more simple than thought.
The light of truth can shine at any age.
I doubt sadly, you will see it again.
My condolences for you,

=
MJA

"Life is like riding a bicycle." Albert Einstein February 5, 1930
Age 51
Wow, same as me!!!

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by MJA "Life is like riding a bicycle." Albert Einstein February 5, 1930 Age 51 Wow, same as me!!!

There is a famous photo focused on Einstein riding a bicycle.

If really counted up to February 5, 1930, then, Einstein was nearly 51 on that date (birth day: March 14, 1879).

Anyhow, the word "Wow" indicates that there is at least a 10 year difference to the age 51.
If younger, likely to at least 15 years younger.
I guess either younger than 36 or over 60.

Best Regards. Bottomlander