[fleep]

Originally Posted by HappytheStripper Hey.. question I have pondered upon reading your posts fleep.. I may also agree on gravity being.. Not a Force .. however.. if not for it being a force.. then what is it.. a field..?? For instance.. if I was to look at gravity as being a field.. I might assume it was an extension of the principle Energy System that encompasses static electricity and magnetism as its fundamental properties.. Now I ask.. does this make it a wave.. or a field of waves rolling one after the other..?? Thanks David

================================================== ======
Hi Ashley:

All right. Let's try this another way.

First, I must ask you:

What strange logic makes new theory responsible to disprove all old theory?

As I said (or implied) in an earlier post; this is a fundamental set of observations that establish first conclusions. They are different from Newton's first conclusions, and must be constructed all the way upwards from my beginning, and not his.These steps are always the route that leads to further questions. (That's how hirearchical confusion got us to where we are, with little possibility of being "able" to return and start over.) The responsibility of declaring gravity to be a "wave", or a "string", or a "fart", or any other unknown something is not mine to determine. I am taking observations, like Newton did, and updating them with the discovery of a factor that Newton could not have known, (negative pressure), and saying:
"Wow! It looks like this is where Newton should have started making his conclusions, (if he had known about negative pressure)". I am not trying to do anything but suggest that the experts start again to examine the conclusions from what I have observed; IF they agree that Newton's basic observation that gravity is a "force" appears to be wrong, based on my updated evidence.

Here is a whole restatement of my first theory format that I entered in Toequest.

Gravity in a Closed Vessel©

A Theory of Gravity, using the Laws of Pascal and Newton
By Phillip J. Turmaine

After many efforts to explain what comprises this new theory, the following “story-telling method” turned out to be the most clearly understandable, in everyday terms. I must extend my apologies to the experts that might be looking for something to be presented in a more technical fashion. Previous efforts have proven to be most difficult to support because of the unreliability of reference material available on the Internet.

===========================

My Theory

The shuttle leaves our atmosphere and goes into the vacuum. The ship has no realization of where it is, of course, or of what is going on.

The ship and everything in it, (discounting fuel consumed), is now exactly the same as it was on the tarmac. Everything had gravity in it, and it still does. The ship is pressurized with the same volume as it was sealed on the tarmac. Everything is exactly the same, until the crew removes their seat belts and begins to float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship.
Back on Earth, they were able to walk to those seats. What just happened here? Why are people floating around?

The ship is sealed with pressure that artificially approximates our atmosphere.
The ship carried away everything that it contained when it was on the tarmac.
The Earth’s gravity is still inside the people and everything else in the ship.
The ship can not “know” when it is falling through space.
There is no friction in space, or any way to physically measure the velocity of the fall.
There is no “concept” of time or motion that the ship can “know”.
The ship does not even “know” that it has left the Earth, or is in a vacuum.
So, why are the unchanged people, in an unchanged ship, floating in the air?

Science ascribes falling through the vacuum of space as a cause of “weightlessness”, but the word itself is only a description of the event. The cause of floating is this:

On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself. In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. Once in space, it surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air.

A real atmosphere like the one on the Earth, weighs downwards from overhead, and it “knows” where matter with gravity in it “belongs”. The bottom 3.5 miles contains half of the entire weight of the atmosphere, effectively, “trapped against the "floor"/surface of the planet”. The other half of the atmosphere’s weight is spread out for many tens of miles above the bottom 50%, all the way out to the vacuum.
It is then, a natural rule of physics that masses throughout the atmosphere have gravity, and they have pressure above and around them, in the very same way that the lower atmosphere does. It is illogical to say that the atmosphere, which is made of “matter”, is being “pressed downwards”, but a bird that is also made of matter, while flying through that material atmosphere, is said to be “pulled downwards”, (according to Newton’s theory).

The bird is supported aloft by aeronautic principles and physical design. If it stops flapping, it falls, because it weighs. All unsupported weight simply falls through atmosphere, in the same way that it falls through space. Gravity is neither “pulling” nor “pushing” downwards. It is inert and benign. It is a property of matter. Gravity just falls.

We calculate barometric pressure from an overhead column of atmospheric weight, not from a downward pulling force. What we personally weigh is the sum total of all the atomic weights that comprise our individual bodies. There is nothing “pulling us down”. Every atom within our bodies is a “closed vessel”, and they all actually qualify us to be governed by Pascal’s Law.

So where does this notion come from, that gravity “pulls us down”? Sir Isaac Newton theorized it late in the 17th century. It was a theory then, and remains widely taught today, even in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary.

Then, early in the 20th century, Einstein predicted we might someday find a “Cosmological Constant” in the universe. He was proven correct when it was discovered in 2005 by the Supernova Legacy Team, under the leadership of Dr. Ray Carlberg. The phenomenon is actually a “negative pressure” that exists throughout the cosmos, permeating everything; whether matter or vacuum. Some call it “dark energy”. The old gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton then, back in 1687, was postulated without any knowledge of this critically important new factor, establishing the real possibility that the gravity portion of his theory is incorrect. (It now seems fairly obvious that gravity is not a “force” at all.)



Equilibrium between pressures:

Newton’s 3rd Law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.”
While he is correct in this law, and has long been proven to be so, gravity is not a “force” that emanates from mass as Newton theorized elsewhere. Any mass that is balanced under Newton’s 3rd Law has gravity within it, but the positive (atmospheric pressure) force pushes globally inwards, and the negative pressure of the cosmos, as a reverse force, “neutralizes that inward pressure”. The availability of both pressures forms a “force cancellation” which is thereby contained as a “closed vessel”, thus fulfilling both Newton’s 3rd and Pascal’s Law.

The word “gravity” (itself), within a material object, should really be a statement that the mass is inert and stable, and displays the total weight of every atom in that singular mass. All matter in the universe can only be either in equilibrium, (as it is within an atmosphere), or else in some stage of “unbalance”, (as it is within the vacuum of space). Globular masses are “filled” with gravity, and thus are “closed vessels” within the context of Pascal’s Law and Newton’s 3rd Law.

We should have a combination of Pascal’s Law, and Newton’s 3rd Law, and the liberty is taken here to combine both laws and express it in this new way:

“Pascal-Newton Pressure Law” (PNPL):

“A positive pressure exerted towards the core of a mass, is cancelled by an equivalent negative pressure exerting back to the positive boundary, creating a closed and pressure-balanced vessel.”

Yours truly;



Authored and copyrighted by Phillip J. Turmaine, this 2nd day of April, 2007.

Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario
Canada

[quanta07]

Originally Posted by fleep ================================================== ====== What strange logic makes new theory responsible to disprove all old theory? As I said (or implied) in an earlier post; this is a fundamental set of observations that establish first conclusions. They are different from Newton's first conclusions, and must be constructed all the way upwards from my beginning, and not his.These steps are always the route that leads to further questions. (That's how hirearchical confusion got us to where we are, with little possibility of being "able" to return and start over.) The responsibility of declaring gravity to be a "wave", or a "string", or a "fart", or any other unknown something is not mine to determine. I am taking observations, like Newton did, and updating them with the discovery of a factor that Newton could not have known, (negative pressure), and saying: "Wow! It looks like this is where Newton should have started making his conclusions, (if he had known about negative pressure)". I am not trying to do anything but suggest that the experts start again to examine the conclusions from what I have observed; IF they agree that Newton's basic observation that gravity is a "force" appears to be wrong, based on my updated evidence. Here is a whole restatement of my first theory format that I entered in Toequest. Gravity in a Closed Vessel© A Theory of Gravity, using the Laws of Pascal and Newton By Phillip J. Turmaine After many efforts to explain what comprises this new theory, the following “story-telling method” turned out to be the most clearly understandable, in everyday terms. I must extend my apologies to the experts that might be looking for something to be presented in a more technical fashion. Previous efforts have proven to be most difficult to support because of the unreliability of reference material available on the Internet. =========================== My Theory The shuttle leaves our atmosphere and goes into the vacuum. The ship has no realization of where it is, of course, or of what is going on. The ship and everything in it, (discounting fuel consumed), is now exactly the same as it was on the tarmac. Everything had gravity in it, and it still does. The ship is pressurized with the same volume as it was sealed on the tarmac. Everything is exactly the same, until the crew removes their seat belts and begins to float in the artificial atmosphere of the ship. Back on Earth, they were able to walk to those seats. What just happened here? Why are people floating around? The ship is sealed with pressure that artificially approximates our atmosphere. The ship carried away everything that it contained when it was on the tarmac. The Earth’s gravity is still inside the people and everything else in the ship. The ship can not “know” when it is falling through space. There is no friction in space, or any way to physically measure the velocity of the fall. There is no “concept” of time or motion that the ship can “know”. The ship does not even “know” that it has left the Earth, or is in a vacuum. So, why are the unchanged people, in an unchanged ship, floating in the air? Science ascribes falling through the vacuum of space as a cause of “weightlessness”, but the word itself is only a description of the event. The cause of floating is this: On the Earth, the crew was surrounded by, and sitting under an overhead pressure. The pressure chamber of the atmosphere had a “floor”, which was the Earth itself. In the ship, they are now surrounded by a like rate of pressure, but not in a like chamber of pressure. The pressure is fairly identical, and is coming from every direction all over their bodies, but, it is a pressure that has been given no “orders”. Once in space, it surrounds the floating crew, with no physical reason, no definable direction, and no identifiable “surface” upon which the pressure is “instructed to set people down”. The pressure has no “floor”, so stuff floats in the air. A real atmosphere like the one on the Earth, weighs downwards from overhead, and it “knows” where matter with gravity in it “belongs”. The bottom 3.5 miles contains half of the entire weight of the atmosphere, effectively, “trapped against the "floor"/surface of the planet”. The other half of the atmosphere’s weight is spread out for many tens of miles above the bottom 50%, all the way out to the vacuum. It is then, a natural rule of physics that masses throughout the atmosphere have gravity, and they have pressure above and around them, in the very same way that the lower atmosphere does. It is illogical to say that the atmosphere, which is made of “matter”, is being “pressed downwards”, but a bird that is also made of matter, while flying through that material atmosphere, is said to be “pulled downwards”, (according to Newton’s theory). The bird is supported aloft by aeronautic principles and physical design. If it stops flapping, it falls, because it weighs. All unsupported weight simply falls through atmosphere, in the same way that it falls through space. Gravity is neither “pulling” nor “pushing” downwards. It is inert and benign. It is a property of matter. Gravity just falls. We calculate barometric pressure from an overhead column of atmospheric weight, not from a downward pulling force. What we personally weigh is the sum total of all the atomic weights that comprise our individual bodies. There is nothing “pulling us down”. Every atom within our bodies is a “closed vessel”, and they all actually qualify us to be governed by Pascal’s Law. So where does this notion come from, that gravity “pulls us down”? Sir Isaac Newton theorized it late in the 17th century. It was a theory then, and remains widely taught today, even in the face of the obvious evidence to the contrary. Then, early in the 20th century, Einstein predicted we might someday find a “Cosmological Constant” in the universe. He was proven correct when it was discovered in 2005 by the Supernova Legacy Team, under the leadership of Dr. Ray Carlberg. The phenomenon is actually a “negative pressure” that exists throughout the cosmos, permeating everything; whether matter or vacuum. Some call it “dark energy”. The old gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton then, back in 1687, was postulated without any knowledge of this critically important new factor, establishing the real possibility that the gravity portion of his theory is incorrect. (It now seems fairly obvious that gravity is not a “force” at all.) Equilibrium between pressures: Newton’s 3rd Law of motion states: “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.” While he is correct in this law, and has long been proven to be so, gravity is not a “force” that emanates from mass as Newton theorized elsewhere. Any mass that is balanced under Newton’s 3rd Law has gravity within it, but the positive (atmospheric pressure) force pushes globally inwards, and the negative pressure of the cosmos, as a reverse force, “neutralizes that inward pressure”. The availability of both pressures forms a “force cancellation” which is thereby contained as a “closed vessel”, thus fulfilling both Newton’s 3rd and Pascal’s Law. The word “gravity” (itself), within a material object, should really be a statement that the mass is inert and stable, and displays the total weight of every atom in that singular mass. All matter in the universe can only be either in equilibrium, (as it is within an atmosphere), or else in some stage of “unbalance”, (as it is within the vacuum of space). Globular masses are “filled” with gravity, and thus are “closed vessels” within the context of Pascal’s Law and Newton’s 3rd Law. We should have a combination of Pascal’s Law, and Newton’s 3rd Law, and the liberty is taken here to combine both laws and express it in this new way: “Pascal-Newton Pressure Law” (PNPL): “A positive pressure exerted towards the core of a mass, is cancelled by an equivalent negative pressure exerting back to the positive boundary, creating a closed and pressure-balanced vessel.” Yours truly; Authored and copyrighted by Phillip J. Turmaine, this 2nd day of April, 2007. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario Canada

Welcome to TOEQUEST fleep,
You appear determined to understand ‘GRAVITY’, so I will not critic what you post. I will tell you what I know about it. This ‘GRAVITY’ is a label used to communicate an understanding of the observed behavior of mass within an acceleration field. The shape of this field is spherical. The direction of the vectors of this field is inward, converging toward a center point of a spherical acceleration field. The label ‘gravity’ describes a spherical convergent acceleration field. When we observe the presence of mass within this field, we define the label ‘weight’ as mass times the value of the acceleration vector.

Weight = m*g weight=mass times acceleration

Earth ‘gravity’ at mean sea level is about 9.8 meters per second squared. g=9.8
The observation of ‘weight’ is described as a force due to ‘gravity’.
W=F=m*a where a=g.
The acceleration field of our moon ‘pulls’ the tidal cycles, not ‘push’
On the micro-scale…….
Each atom has a convergent field of acceleration about the outside of the nucleus.
Unless you are currently perusing your doctorate in physics, you may not be aware of an effect that acceleration produces in nature. The effect is called “the quantum effect” and is described within this document….
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-pure-mathematics-space-time.html

The quantum effect creates convergent acceleration fields, ‘GRAVITY’, and is responsible for the formation of nuclei and subatomic particles.

On the Macro-scale,Our universe……
There are regions in our cosmos that appear to “yield energy from a vacuum”. The cosmos behaves much like “rising bread dough”. Galaxies comprise the texture, the “dough”. It is the holes in the “dough” that are expanding, growing larger. Some call this ‘dark energy’ and claim this effect could be caused by the presence of ‘dark mass’. The observed behavior is the functional equivalent of 3 dimensional divergent acceleration from a ‘center point’ of a ‘hole in the dough’.
When we examine expansion as a function of acceleration, we see that the acceleration domain of expansion is 5 dimensional, A(t^5)/120, therefore the existence 3 dimensional divergent acceleration requires the existence of a 2 dimensional plane of convergent acceleration. Within this 2 dimensional plane is the sustained existence of galaxies, each containing a 3 dimensional point convergent acceleration object, a ‘black hole’. The existence of a 3 dimensional convergent acceleration object requires the existence of a 2 dimensional divergent acceleration plane. Within the galactic divergent acceleration plane are 3 dimensional point divergent acceleration objects, stars, which require the existence of a 2 dimensional convergent acceleration plane. Within each convergent plane, around each star, are 3 dimensional point convergent objects, planets, each with a 3 dimensional point convergent field, gravity. There seems to be No ‘dark energy’, ‘dark mass’, ‘vacuum energy’, just the behavior of a 5 dimensional acceleration component within a function of expansion.
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-pure-mathematics-space-time.html?garpg=2

Some believe the holes are the remnants of an enormous ‘big bang’, resulting in the creation of galaxies. Currently each galaxy appears to be accelerating away from a localized center of a ‘hole in the dough’, and most galaxies appear to be separating within our local group, with one exception that should be noted.
Our local group is moving toward the Virgo cluster and on the way, some galaxies will merge. The andromeda galaxy, a large spiral galaxy, is accelerating toward our milky way. Eventually, within 3 billion years, the black hole in andromeda and our milky way will merge. When this occurs, there will be new and much larger galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda-Milky_Way_collision
The distances, just between stars, stagger the imagination. To reach the stars requires a different approach. We currently have placed a great deal of development in aerospace technologies, yet we still use rocket power. The ion propulsion engine is a step forward but not good enough. What is needed is an acceleration engine, a propulsion device that generates constant, controllable acceleration. This project is my current endeavor.

Good luck in yours……..Q7

[fleep]

Hi Q07;

You said:

"You appear determined to understand ‘GRAVITY’, so I will not critic what you post. I will tell you what I know about it."

Thanks for your offering "Q". I not only want to understand it. I want everyone to understand it, and I don't think anybody really does, with all due respect to what people say they "know" about gravity. What people "know' is derived from the hierarchical (upside-down) pyramid of math and sub-theory that got us to the incomprehensible mess that exists today. Nobody wants to back up to the apple tree and start over, considering that now we have the confirmation of negative pressure across the universe, to roll into the equation.
It's very possible that if Einstein had been sitting under the apple tree with Newton, and they each theorized gravity, the world would be a much different place today. The world is full of disagreement with Newton's theory, and there are many alternative theories, so why not start over using everything we now KNOW, not everything we now theorize?


Don't get me wrong. My respect for the genius that got us to where we are is beyond question. What I am saying is that the work all needs rechecking with the addition of a major new consideration that might completely change our directions of understanding.

Garvity is supposed to be a force. I say that if you re-do the logic from the start, with dark energy/negative pressure in the "think mix", you might wind up in a very different place. If gravity is benign, and neither pushes nor pulls, then we had best get on top of what the truth actually does to our knowledge of physics and to the promise of possible new energy considerations.

That's my whole case in a nutshell.

Regards;

fleep

[humanbydefault]

I have my own way of interpreting gravity too, and with great respect for everyone's personal opinion I have 'mixed feelings' about all those "theories."

I'm open to critics and suggestions by the way. One thing every new member of this forum should have always present is that you may not always be right... and even when you were right but you weren't able to 'deliver' the analysis correctly and efficiently to the others, you remain [before the rest] wrong.

Here's my thought:

Is Gravity a force? Apparently an object inside our atmosphere shows a tendency to fall to the surface from a hight. Is this a fact? Yes.
The question is much more complicated than that. Is Gravity an inherent physical property of atoms and molecules [matter in general]?
I disagree with that 100%. Dave was right when he referred to 'm' being the same no matter the spatial position of a mass [the moon surface or saturn's ring].
However 'm' [mass] and this is part of my theory, exists due to a quantum reality that is beyond the limitation of "c" [the speed of light]. In fact, light as being the result of energy after being scattered from molecules depends on the previous existence of matter for its emission.

All of you have probably heard and read many times in the past -I may add- that Gravity had been compared to magnetism in the past for a specific feature: It increases and decreases its magnitude with the 'square of the distance.' This is the key to really understand that Gravity is a "common effect" of the interaction of the 'macroworld' [the eather] and the 'microworld' [the quantum world] in the context of "Time."

Those who have read the last part of my theory [Part six "The Magnetic Field"], could have visialized the "connection" between what I called "real time" and the mechanics between the magnetic poles [North and South]. I've said that the North pole alternates its presence with the South pole in 'one Cycle' or the time-intervale of one wavelength of light. To our 'primitive instruments' both seems to be always present, but they aren't always present and one thing is for sure: they [the North and the South] are never ever present at the same time (!)

Now, let's make a 'jump' from the quantum world and see what could be happening inside the Sun. Let's assume that SYMMETRY [the way I explained to be universal in both the macro and the micro-worlds] is always conserved at the end of one wave-length of one photon of light.
If there was some sort of 'orbital projections' [harmonics] present on space and coming from the sun itself (like the one I draw in atomic shells) those ["FTL"] 'VIBRATIONS' or "spatial resonance patterns" could act much like a giant "engine" responsible for the movement of the planets of our system.

I'm not talking about magnet-like attractions here, do not misunderstand me now, all I'm saying is that for a 'macroworld' object [a planet] and one that is not exposed to the quantum rules, those 'spatial or topografic 'accidents' of a temporal origin, could mean the source of what we experience and named after Gravity.

I think Einstein saw Gravity entirely dependent on the mutual effect of 'mass' from two planets or sun-planet without really addressing the "time factor" as its sole origin.
In my theory ["Bonding Harmonics"] I left Gravity out for personal reasons. I didn't want to include a pattern that I was sure it was common for both the big and the small world at the same time I was trying to deliver my vision of the small one (the atom).

A last word on this, I believe that Gravity is the result of a pre-designed path planets have no other choice but to follow and that path is and will always be produced inside stars. I said in my work that SYMMETRY is responsible for what we could interpret as 'FORCES' [both inside the quantum world and the macroworld alike]. I'd like you to get familiar with what I defined as 'real-time' and you'll see that there is much more there that our 'eyes' can't see.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

OHHHH! Welcome Fleep and good luck among us!

[quanta07]

Hello Fleep,
I believe that EVERYTHING exists in one or more of these spatial properties….Volume Surface area Distance Velocity Acceleration and Impulse. All these properties are merged with multidimensional time, producing EVERYTHING we note in nature. The behavior of these properties depicts and creates our cosmos and our quantum world. EVERYTHING formed and exists within a function of expansion. EVERYTHING is entwined and bounded by ‘C’ and multiples of ‘C’.
There are many theories, just on this site. Attempts to complicate and ‘reinvent the wheel’, attempts to increase sales on their ‘book’. There are people who profess knowledge of physics without knowledge of mathematics…these people I do not believe. You can’t claim to be a carpenter without knowledge of your ‘tools’. You have no claim to understanding physics without the ‘tool’ of mathematics.
Newton’s laws of planetary motion are still used by NASA today. They are the reason we can get to and explore other planets.
FORCE is mass times acceleration….’Gravity’ is NOT a force…gravity is 3 dimensional convergent acceleration generated by the quantum effect. THEORY: Each nucleus exhibits an acceleration field about it, each has a ‘gravitational field’ about it. The combined ‘gravitation’ of all nuclei in earths’ mass results in earth gravity.
‘Dark energy’, ‘negative pressure’ are very poor labels attempting to describe observations of the behavior of 3 dimensional divergent acceleration.

I'm open to critics and suggestions by the way. One thing every new member of this forum should have always present is that you may not always be right... and even when you were right but you weren't able to 'deliver' the analysis correctly and efficiently to the others, you remain [before the rest] wrong.

This is very true, like trying to teach a cat to ‘bark’. I suspect most people are locked to their own views and are incapable of changing these views, even when they no longer make sense, like a square peg in a round hole.
A quest for knowledge is like building a road of understanding. Examine every bit of knowledge for validity. Valid ‘cobblestones’, placed by you, in your road to understanding leads to wisdom. Test everything. For only when it has passed YOUR test can you accept the validity and place another ‘cobblestone’ in your road to wisdom.
There are many on this site who do not do this, They extract and combine pieces of untested and sometimes invalid information with only one goal in mind….’fortune and glory’. The ‘Look how smart I am’ syndrome, the ‘pay me I’m famous’ people, prey on the ignorance and curiosity of the masses for money.
You seem young and eager, while I am an old man, so I wish to share this with you. Education is very expensive; buy it wisely at the best colleges for the subjects you pursue, because your future is worth it. If you wish to study and understand nature and the physics of things, I suggest beginning with a bachelor of science in mathematics. THEN follow it with a full program study of physics. Gain knowledge of the tools required and actually do the work required to validate your research. I am talking about a real quest for knowledge and wisdom, not ‘fortune and glory’.
Please don’t misunderstand; I left 15 years with NASA to enter the private sector research teams for money, a lot more money. In the private sector,(if you are worth it), employers will invest in (pay for) many years of continuing education.
I am not a teacher, therefore any presentation will be direct and to the point. I am a research scientist and as such you are welcome to use the presented information or ignore it. We cannot discard Newtonian physics, nor re-write the laws of motion.
Question: Why do you want to know about ‘gravity’?
Welcome to TOEQUEST Fleep……..happy thoughts…Q7
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-pure-mathematics-space-time.html?garpg=2