[DWB]

Originally Posted by wisp

Your theory suggests that geometry is important to understanding physics. Does your theory include fractals?

wisp:

It supports patterns that repeat.

[Fredrick]

Too much power is given to gravity. I think gravity is highly overestimated. Though I do place the sun in the middle of a gravitational field of our solar system, I think the planets were lining up more towards each others' gravitational field than to a specific gravitational field of the sun.

Pluto - planet or not - shows that it escaped the gravitational pull of the other planets (possibly helped by Charon) and is circling in its own orbit. Its small size may have helped it as well to escape the gravitational pull by the others - but it did not escape the sun's gravitational pull.

[jeffprice]

Originally Posted by wisp

Gravity is a force that pushes down on matter and results from a compressional force acting inwards due to density variation in the ether. See http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk and go to gravity.

wisp

- particles of nothingness

Wisp,
I presented a paper to my professor postulating a similar (or possibly identical) source for gravity. In my paper I said gravity arises because matter stretches (warps / bends) the “fabric” of space. The amount of stretch could be determined by the distance from, and the mass of, the matter in question. This type of stretching would produce a density gradient within space that would produce motion toward the center of mass. I was told that this theory was incorrect because it required the existence of ether, which had been proven incorrect by the experiments of Michelson-Morley.
However, my belief in my theory has not wavered based on the statements of one professor. Instead, I am trying to determine if any aspect of my theory would explain how the experiments used by Michelson-Morley could have produced faulty results due to its design.
Sorry about my ramblings, now for my question: Is it possible, according to your proposed theory, that matter is a contraction of the fundamental substance of which the ether is composed? Such a contraction would produce the stretching of space (ether) that causes gravity.

jeffprice

[wisp]

Jeffprice

You’re right in that the stretching of the fabric of space causes the gravitational effect. And following that logic would require the existence of ether.
Isaac Newton – the greatest scientist of all time – believe that gravity was caused by density variation in the ether, although he couldn’t get the maths to work for an ether model. And so he stuck with his law of gravitation, in which gravity was caused by “action at a distance”, requiring no further explanation as to its cause.
If you do support the concept of ether, then you are against Einstein’s spacetime concept and almost all professors that teach physics.
When I studies relativity for my degree, I knew relativity was false, but accepted its views, and fully understood its principles and predictions. I later found that an ether model produces better results in which the whole of relativity can be embedded.
The only way in which matter can cause density variations in the ether is if it exists as holes in the ether. Around the hole the structure of the ether changes - its density drops because the ether particles are stretched into circular symmetry. The mass associated with the matter is not within the empty hole but in the surrounding mass of the ether space.
Don’t expect any support form your professors.
Don’t be too concerned about the Michelson-Morley result (two-way light test).
If special relativity wants to prove itself it must be able to stand up to a modern “one-way” speed of light test that uses two clocks and a laser. This test will prove the end of Einstein’s relativity.

[Fredrick]

What has been said about dark matter and ether? Has any link, similarity ever been proposed?
__________________
The difference between a structure containing unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titilating mathematical evidence on-line (see home page) to find out if separation belongs to the basics of our universe - or not.

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by jeffprice

Wisp,
In my paper I said gravity arises because matter stretches (warps / bends) the “fabric” of space. The amount of stretch could be determined by the distance from, and the mass of, the matter in question. This type of stretching would produce a density gradient within space that would produce motion toward the center of mass. I was told that this theory was incorrect because it required the existence of ether, which had been proven incorrect by the experiments of Michelson-Morley.
jeffprice

Gravity is the5-fold icosahdral "fabric of space".

Rybo

[wisp]

Rybo

For a discussion about ether and relativity, see

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58050

This forum is biased towards relativity, but occasionally they allow discussions about the ether and these are interesting.

No one has proven that the ether doesn't exist, and your professor should know that the MMx doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

It is my strong belief that the properties of the ether allow it to form geometrical patterns around matter. And these patterns determine how matter stabilizes and what forces develop. So you ideas are sound.

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by wisp

Rybo
For a discussion about ether and relativity, see
It is my strong belief that the properties of the ether allow it to form geometrical patterns around matter. And these patterns determine how matter stabilizes and what forces develop. So you ideas are sound.

Wisp, what is MMx? I went to PF lik you gave but you and those folks no so much more about SR and GR etc... thatn I that I am sometimes caustious before jumping into those conversations.

I suppose my 5-fold icosahedral gravity matrix is ether-like idea. However, after reving you web site I oppose to two ideas.

1) Im into a contractive inward pulling force of gravity to resulting in many if not all pushing outward forces e.g. EMR etc...and not a pushing gravity force. Pulling is the path of least resistance. Japanese hand tool take notice of this in the design of some of their hand tools. It is also common to some defensive martial art, unlike Karate that is an agressive pushing art.

2) Im not satisifed with a rigid icosahedral gravity but I dont see any good logic as to why a maximally dipsersed photon would travel the, longer geodesic pathways, unless as you suggest, there is a rigid 5-fold, icosahedral gravity, ether-like matrix, already in place. I dunno.

Rybo

[wisp]

Rybo

The MMx is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which many believe gives proof that the speed of light is constant.

I believe that whether you use a contractive inwards force or a push down force depends on what side of the fence you view from. Looking outwards from a body of matter, the surrounding ether forces contract inwards creating the gravitational force. Or looking from the outside, the ether surrounding matter squeezes it creating radial compression force, which is the gravitational force.

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by wisp

Rybo
The MMx is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which many believe gives proof that the speed of light is constant.
I believe that whether you use a contractive inwards force or a push down force depends on what side of the fence you view from. Looking outwards from a body of matter, the surrounding ether forces contract inwards creating the gravitational force. Or looking from the outside, the ether surrounding matter squeezes it creating radial compression force, which is the gravitational force.

Hi Wisp, Im not familiar with the MMx experiment so I cant really speak to it.

There are only three cosminc directions in out and around. Down and up have no scientific meanings.

As to the pull-push controversy we may say that, things are pulled together toward each other from attractive forces like:
1) opposing magnetic poles,
2) opposing electro-magntetic poles(?)
3) strong gluonic force
4) gravity

or we may replace the word "pull" with "push" and perhasp alter the text in some additional way to show that it and external pushing force that cause all four of above.

Pushing inwards is no thte same as pulling inwards.

Pushing apart is not the same as pulling apart.

What is outside of Universe that pushes it together? What is ouside ot the pushing force(ether) that pushes it together?

Pulling in, with resultant pulling apart, is an inherent integral recyclelative system/process, where as, and external force needs another external to keep its integrity pushed togehter i.e. gravity has that integral pulling itself and other things together without the need for, what appears to me to be, and alternate pushing process of infinite eternal forces upon forces after forces after force.....etc.....

Rybo