[fleep]

This will be a very short first expedition. I am merely postulating, and I need very pointed, challenging questions about my own conclusions. I need absolutely no well-intentioned "explanations" about why my theory can not be true, (as compared to convention). I will participate with individuals who understand and accept that my theory is a BASE theory, like Newton's was at first. I am starting with Newton's apple, and adding an ingredient he could not consider back in the 17th century. Hierarchical theories arising from his fundamentals might well be wrong because he was missing the "Dark energy" factor.

Introduction: History could not have known that Negative Pressure/Dark Energy fills the entire envelope of the universe, for it was not discovered until the year 2005, by the Supernova Legacy Team. Up until 2005, Newton, Einstein, and all the other great minds of Physics and Astronomy have played some beautiful hands, even without being able to include the “table” on which the whole game appears to depend. A reappraisal of Newton’s BASE theory is not an unfair request, in this new light.

The Benign Gravity Theory© needs far more explaining than what follows, but I am fishing for reactions. I see gravity as a much simpler thing than it has grown to be.
================================================== ========
(B.G. Theory says:) - Gravity is a “property” of atomic mass, not a “force”, and thus, has no influence that can affect other masses in any way, either in close proximity, or at a distance. (Gravity is not “valence”, and electrons and orbits are not a “part of the nucleus”).
Gravity is “stability” in the neutrons, by the union of the positive pressure of the protons, with the negative pressure of the universe, which is, ostensibly, like a “completely universal negative environment” in which all nuclear positivism resides.
The actual weight of a mass, being a property of that mass, is never absent under any stable condition. Weight IS Gravity. This “stability” is the 3rd Law satisfaction that must be achieved all the way down to the nuclear level for Newton’s 3rd Law to be “completely true”. Mass can not be “stable” when falling through the vacuum and exhibiting “weightlessness”, because although the actual weight of each mass is still contained within each mass, there is no possible way for it to be weighed.”

(B.G. Theory says:) - There is no “normal force”, or “reaction force” in a mass, because each of the atoms in the mass of the object have their own exclusive benign gravity, existing there as a property of each atom. Regardless of its composition, each and every atom in a mass individually fulfills the 3rd Law reaction, at the atomic level. It does not need to be fulfilled again at the whole-mass level. This is because the positivism of each nucleus, plus the “universally environmental presence”, (so to speak), of Negative Pressure, is the universal combination that stabilizes all mass. The pressure balance IS GRAVITY. i.e. – W=M, M=W


This is a BASE theory. Endless hierarchical theories that have arisen from the medieval must fairly be re-examined if gravity is a property, (and not a force), because no sound logic makes this new “starter” responsible, to disprove old theories.

In the B.G. BASE Theory, gravity is theorized to be much simpler than ever supposed: Because –

Benign Gravity does not accelerate anything.
B.G. could neither create a “field” nor “act” across distance.
B.G. would influence nothing, nor act upon anything else, but does enable weighing.
B.G. would not “pull us down”. Our body/mass weight, alone, holds us down in our atmosphere.
“Microgravity” and “Weightlessness” would both mean “non-scalability” only.
“Zero G-force” would neither mean nor equal anything but “matterless vacuum”.
“Weight” would be the sum total of atomic weights in a mass; i.e. – W=M, M=W.
It could not “pull” our tides. The moon’s weight, alone, bends our atmosphere down. **

** Electron orbits “belong” to their nucleus, as moons “belong” to their planets, and planets “belong” to their sun.

*The moon’s weight, alone, belonging as it does to the Earth’s OrbitalFieldRange, would be realized as an “additional burden”, bending the top of our atmosphere as it goes by overhead. The atmospheric burden is thus increased at sea level by 16%, or 1/6th more than normal, thus pushing large tidal areas ahead of it on approach, which recede when the moon “goes ashore”. (This might be quite easy to verify, with constant sea level atmospheric pressure variation readings, taken beneath a passing moon.)

================================================== ======
Wikipedia is the reference source to use for common terms included anywhere in my theory.

O.K. - Fire away please.

Fleep

[mkirkpatrick]

First things first fleep,welcome to the toequest community,and greetings to you from
the United Kingdom,now prehaps this is coincidental but I have just been looking at a site
which is reporting about the search for "gravity waves" and they are confident that they
will be "discovered" within five years.Have you any thoughts on this?

You say that gravity is not a force,what would you say it is then?To me it is an effect of
the spin of vortexial fields of rotational force.



regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Welcome to ToeQuest Fleep.

Gravity is a topic that has been discussed extensively here on ToeQuest. Your post indicates you have many misconceptions of gravity and the science terminology associated with it.

1.. Dark energy and dark matter are only theories, not facts.
2.. Weight is the effect of gravity on objects and thus you would weigh more on the earth than on the moon. Mass is not gravity dependent; it remains the same regardless of the gravitational environment.

I get the impression that you are a young man new to the study of physics. Here is a site that will provide downloads of physics text books: http://lightandmatter.com/
There are also several useful links here on ToeQuest you may find helpful in your quest.

Michael;
It will be quite difficult to find gravity waves; they don’t exist. Gravity is not a function of wave action or interaction.

[mkirkpatrick]

David I saw a link this afternoon which said that a science project was searching for a gravity wave,and further predicted that they would find it within five years?



regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Michael;
Gravity cannot be defined by a wave but as a progression of wave functions from randomized spatial wave function to the harmonic and wave symmetry of the strong nuclear force of structured matter. I’ve heard you state it as being a field vortex; descriptive, but not quite accurate.
I would predict that their science project will simply waste time and money since they know not what they do.

[fleep]

Wait, now. Right off the bat, the first replies I see are ones that try to steer me back to conventional Newton hierarchical stuff. Remember, I said mine is a BASE theory. I am viewing Newton's first theory as incorrect, only because he did not know about the negative pressure of the universe, which is dark energy. I am starting from scratch as Newton did, but I'm not going with his first findings. Mine are new and original, as his were.
I'm not arrogant enough to say that I'm absolutely correct, but I am saying that he was wrong about gravity being a force, and I'm asking people to consider this. I'm not interested in learning about a new theory about "gravity wave force", because I already have concluded that gravity is not a force.
Please go back and re-read what I started with, and consider it along with this latest answer. I am asking for mine to be proven illogical; not in the light of existing theory, but when examined in the light of Pascal's Law and Newton's 3rd Law. I never said at any time that Newton was completely wrong in everything he did, but gravity is not a force, to me.

[dleviwing]

I may find your ideas interesting if I had the confidence that you actually comprehended existing classical and quantum physics. Your post tells me you don’t. Am I wrong?

[fleep]

Hi David;
Are you reading what I'm saying to understand what I am saying, or are you reading to find openings for ways to exhibit your obvious intelligence? Have you looked up Pascal's Law to try to follow the thread of my thinking? I will never insult your thinking process by challenging your intellect, and I don't expect anyone to do it to me. I did not stipulate what grade level anyone must have achieved to "have the honour" of being able to spar with me.
I apologize for taking a run at anyone, anytime, and I accept any apologies that arise from the introspection of those who will confer with me without feeling a need to "win". The "prize" in education is learning something. Even if I am wrong, I still win.

[fleep]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick First things first fleep,welcome to the toequest community,and greetings to you from the United Kingdom,now prehaps this is coincidental but I have just been looking at a site which is reporting about the search for "gravity waves" and they are confident that they will be "discovered" within five years.Have you any thoughts on this? You say that gravity is not a force,what would you say it is then? To me it is an effect of the spin of vortexial fields of rotational force. regards michael.

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

Greetings from Canada Michael;

Sorry for delay in responding to your specific question. Gravity is a property of matter, like a colour is a property of a crayon. A property does not do anything. It is benign, and thus it can not be a force, or a pressure, or a wave, or a field, or anything else.

Because gravity is in matter, it "allows" matter to have weight, and so gravity and weight are the same thing. When you add up all the molecular weights of all of the (mixed) elements of an alloy, for example, you get the weight of the mass. Weighing of course can only be done inside an atmosphere, where a mass is not falling at an excessive speed, as it would be in space. Thus, in space, an object has gravity in it, and it has the potential to exhibit weight, but only if it was back within our atmosphere. But since it can not be weighed in space, it has no weight to be displayed, so it is called a "weightless" object.

When the ship and the object slow down in our atmosphere at re-entry, the object and any other "loose stuff" in the ship would fall to the floor. Look over my first message. My logic invites all questions.


Best wishes;

Phil

[HappytheStripper]

Originally Posted by fleep gravity is not a force, to me.

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..??

Originally Posted by dleviwing Michael; Gravity cannot be defined by a wave but as a progression of wave functions from randomized spatial wave function to the harmonic and wave symmetry of the strong nuclear force of structured matter. I’ve heard you state it as being a field vortex; descriptive, but not quite accurate. I would predict that their science project will simply waste time and money since they know not what they do.

Thanks David