Gravity Control Idealism

Gravity Control Idealism attempts to understand the underlyiing dynamics of Universe, whereby it might be possible to control gravity and electromagnetism in a manner allowing for the needs of our planet.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

How many meters?

How Many Meters

I was reading a science magazine about the amazing sights seen through the Hubble and noticed a comment regarding some of the pictures being events having occurred billions of years ago. My immediate response was to say, really, you took a picture of something that happened billions of years ago, what a cool trick.

Now, most people take billions of light years at face value, in that a distant galaxy is in fact situated billions of light years from the Hubble, but is it?

I don't believe in light years, in fact I insist that light is not even in linear motion and if light is not moving like a train or a plane how could it travel all the way from the far reaches of space? The short answer is that it doesn't.

What you see is what you get and that's it, as there are no billions of light years to even consider.

But on the forum Jim brought up an interesting point about the speed of gravity versus light speed, in respect to the question of whether gravity travels faster than light speed, as when the gravity of the sun is checked out, the sun is situated 8 min. ahead of where we see it located, which is thought to be due to the idea that the image of the sun takes 8 min. to reach us traveling at the speed of light, whereas the speed of gravity might be considered instantaneous or faster than the speed of light.

In that time slows isometrically from the center of the Earth and accelerates symmetrically to the center of the Earth, there is a difference between the distance to the sun from the Earth and the distance from the sun to the Earth, as the two are not the same at all. The shorter distance is from the sun to the Earth, with the Earth as the system of reference.

But if you were to reverse the process whereby it might be possible to have the sun as your system of reference, the shorter distance would be from the Earth to the sun.

Consequently there is a differential in dynamic potential existing between the Earth and the sun, with the sun having the higher dynamic potential, which maintains the space between them and their relative motion to each other.

In this respect the sun is moving away from the Earth faster than the Earth is moving away from the sun, while at the same time the sun is expanding faster than the Earth, so we notice very little difference in the size of the sun.

Like light, gravity doesn't move linearly through space, as gravity is a dynamic condition of field which is decreasing in proportion to the acceleration of field.

Gravity decreases in proportion to the square of the distance as does light diminish from it's source in the same manner.

So the differential between the Earth and the sun is roughly 8 min., relative to the Earth as our system of reference, which is continuously increasing.
But when we measure the gravity of the sun, we are measuring the gravity of the sun and not a differential in dynamic potential, so there is no differential to measure.

We must realize that the condition of the sun affects the suns field, as a unified field of frequency, which means the continuous acceleration of the sun's field affects an instantaneous increase in the expansion of Universe remaining relative to the sun, in the same manner as the condition of the Earth's field, as a unified field of frequency, which means that the continuous acceleration of the Earth's field affects an instantaneous increase in the expansion of Universe remaining relative to the Earth. But both conditions and both rates of expansion are different.

To clear up any misunderstanding about light traveling from the depths of space we can consider the basic concept of vision, in that it is assumed that light enters the eye. Whoa, would that be painful or what, as you'd be blinded in the process.

Light does not enter the eye, as the eye is a field frequency receptor which is intended to provide us with sight adequate to our survival. So vision is a lot like memory, in that both the field of vision and the content of memory exist as field frequency.

So it does not require light to be in linear motion to be received by the eye, just as memory is not in linear motion, whereby we can remember a memory as often as we wish for many years. But we have this crazy idea that memory is embedded in the fabric of our brains, but just how that works no one is quite sure. And of course memory is not trapped in our brain, otherwise we would run out of storage space and require an auxiliary brain.

So when we look into deep space we see what exists relative to the Earth as our system of reference. And even in space, despite our limited understanding of space, we remain within the field of the Earth.

A distant galaxy seen through the Hubble exists relative to our Earth at the present time and does not exist billions of years ago, as it exists in the present relative to the Earth as it is. The billions of years are pure fiction, they don't exist.

The lens of the Hubble modulates the condition of space relative to the Earth, which gives us these fantastic pictures of distant galaxies, but it does not involve billions of light years. What it does involve is a differential in dynamic potential remaining relative to our planet Earth, which is not the same thing at all.

You can't measure space with a meter rule or a yard stick, as the meter rule and the yard stick get longer as you move deeper into space, just as the second becomes longer as you move deeper into space, which means you wont reach your distant galaxy.

But coming the other way the meter rule gets shorter and the second gets shorter, which makes the return trip shorter than the out bound voyage, which is why the Earth looks so big from the moon. The two distances are not the same, as the distance from the Earth to the moon is longer and the distance from the moon to the Earth is shorter relative to the field of the Earth.

So the distance involved is a differential in dynamic potential and has nothing to do with meter rules or yard sticks, nor does it have anything to do with the speed of light or light years.

To attempt to defend the idea of light speed being constant requires some fictional information to be injected, as the speed of light is a relative variable at best.

The apparent speed of light is a condition of the field in which the light is perceived to be in linear motion, but it is not the light which is in motion as it is the field itself which is accelerating, but not going anywhere other than expanding or contracting.

The linear motion of a planet, moon or star is a very serious occurrence as this really upsets the harmony of Universe. In fact the linear motion of the Earth in any direction would bring about global disaster.

So while we're at it why don't we consider the dynamic differential between the sun and Mars, as this differential suggests that Mars should be closer to the sun. This means that Mars has at some time in the past been displaced from it's original orbit, which means there is a very real potential for further restructuring of the solar field.

Time is different for every system of Universe, of course it is, but there is no known means by which to determine the linear dimensions of Universe, despite what anyone might like to believe.

There is a different non-simultaneous condition of Universe remaining relative to every system of Universe, each of which is expanding or contracting at a different rate. And each and every one of these conditions is equally valid in terms of the real deal, as the physical condition of Universe is a dynamic condition remaining relative to the system of reference.

This allows both past and future conditions of Universe to exist simultaneously and remain relative to the non-simultaneous condition of Universe remaining relative to the system of reference, whereby there are an infinite number of conditions existing simultaneously. Therefore no one condition is any more real than another, as they are all equally real.

I suppose the people who think they can take pictures of events having occurred billions of years ago are the same people who think rockets are going to get us to the stars. Yet if you asked these same people if the condition of the moon existing relative to the Earth was a historical condition of the moon or a future condition of the moon, they would say neither one. They would say that the condition of the moon was contemporary with that of the Earth.

Unfortunately they would be wrong, as the existing condition of the moon, which remains relative to the Earth, is a historic condition of the moon existing relative to the present condition of the Earth. Yet the moon is our closest neighbor.

Time is not the result of space and motion, but space and motion are the result of time, in relation to a non-linear evaluation of time field frequency acceleration.
And meter rules have nothing to do with it, nor does the linear speed of light.

2 Comments:

At 2:17 PM, Blogger Sitarow said...

"Time is not the result of space and motion, but space and motion are the result of time"

Much like a filter is used in photography to limit light wavelengths from being exposed on film or frames per second in time laps photography. This concept of time is a result of our perceptions based on the behavior between matter & energy as they move over any distances in our environment.

It resembles the question, “What came first the chicken or the egg”.

We are dependent in our environment to remain a balanced linear system leaving us trapped or imprisoned from being able to notice the full spectrum of potential situations or concepts that occur with the passage of every "moment".

So is “Time” simply a result of our perception of the result of space and motion. A result that we use as a tool to explain our observations in our environments. If so then a change in the environment also effects what time represents, in so doing will our life be cut short? Or could it be lengthened?

I understand from this concept that in no way does time validate the existence of matter or energy or there possible interactions due to space and motion. All it permits us to do is measure these movements making us the center of reference.

Yet why are people so stuck on the idea that these movements are the same throughout the universe? I understand motion and time to be one and the same, as in everything is in constant motion it is just all relative to our perceptions of these activities.

Carbon dating speed of light aging what do all of these have in common? What could potentially effect their duration from point A to point B?

~Sitarow

 
At 2:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

your an idiot, take modern physics and learn about relativity...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Tracking