Velikovsky & Einstein Were Right
It is commonly accepted that gravity and inertia are responsible for maintaining the orbits of the planets around the sun, in that gravity is perceived as a primary force of universe capable of allowing for the stability of this or any other solar system lasting for millions and billions of years.
It is only in recent years that the electromagnetic relationship existing between the sun and the planets has been acknowledged to exist, which has led to much speculation and experimentation in the area of electrogravitics.
Even so gravity itself still remains an enigma with many attempts being made to reconcile the relationship of gravity and electromagnetism. So it seems somewhat strange that we should consider gravity to be a primary force of universe without yet knowing exactly what gravity is or understanding its relationship with electromagnetism.
To date no one can tell you why or how gravity holds the planets in orbit other than by describing a mathematical relationship associated with mass.
An argument is made for gravity and inertia maintaining orbital stability on the basis of astronomers calculating the motion of the planets against the background of the fixed stars with precise accuracy extending both backwards and forwards over periods of time. But the accuracy of such extended precision cannot be confirmed or denied on the basis of calculations associated with gravity and inertia.
It must be understood that the extension of such calculations backwards and forwards in time is speculative at best, as there is no physical evidence to support such past and future events having occurred beyond the present era.
Only the confidence of astronomers in their existing standards of understanding allows for the acceptance of such speculation, even though such understanding is incomplete.
It is historically recorded that the planets and moons have not always followed their existing orbits and have on occasion altered their path of orbit and or crossed orbits involving near collisions resulting in cataclysmic events.
Velikovsky presented evidence to this effect in his book Worlds in Collision and those that followed, but for the most part his work was rejected by the scientific community. Yet it would appear that Einstein took a sincere interest in Velikovsky’s work and agreed with much of the material presented. http://www.varchive.org/itb/index.htm
It would appear that arguments demeaning the competency of historical recorders who claim to have witnessed the earth moved from its orbit during close encounters with both Venus and Mars are nothing more than an excuse for our inadequate understanding. It’s easier to simply dismiss the historical record on the basis of our own ignorance.
Realizing we live in a relatively primitive and barbaric world with little understanding of universe and little objectivity regarding the self imposed limitations we so guardedly adhere to, it should come as no great shock to discover that gravity is not itself a force of any kind, but simply a dynamic response.
If gravity is not itself a force of any kind it would be impossible for gravity to influence the orbit of the earth or the orbit of any other planetary body around the sun or the orbit of a satellite around a planet.
Therefore it would be equally impossible for gravity and inertia to determine the stability of planetary orbits, as orbital stability is simply the physical manifestation of a dynamic response corresponding to the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference.
If we consider the condition of field to be determined on the basis of a dynamic underlying force of energy we will realize that a differential in this energy exists between all systems in motion.
And in that this underlying force is its self dynamic in nature, the differential in underlying energy existing between all systems in motion must be continuously changing. This would suggest that the stability of planetary orbits is limited to a certain degree of dynamic variance existing between the systems involved.
Taking this one step further we might also consider that the stability of the earth in orbit around the sun, in the company of so many neighboring planets, could not be expected to be maintained for more than a limited duration due to the complexity and variance of the dynamics involved.
At the present time we are concerned with the problem of global warming, which we prefer to attribute to human industry. Yet we are aware of neighboring planets experiencing increased warming without the aid of human industry.
Consequently many scientists deny the possibility of the sun being responsible for global warming, while attempting to convince the population they are collectively responsible for the problem and its remedy. This allows political opportunities to be created on the basis of personal resolve to control the situation in a timely manner.
If it were not for a differential in the underlying energy of the sun and the earth there would be no earth/sun system. Furthermore, it is the degree of differential which determines the warming effect of the sun upon the earth and the greater the differential the greater the warming effect.
To suggest that the sun is not responsible for global warming is akin to saying an unattended campfire or a bolt of lightening could not be responsible for a forest fire, as the resulting forest fire was due solely to the tinder dry conditions of the forest, in which case we might prevent forest fires by cutting down more trees.
If all human industry were to cease immediately we would still be subjected to the effects of global warming, as global warming is the natural result of an increasing differential in the underlying energy of the sun and the earth. Global warming is a base level response to a disproportionate increase in the sun’s dynamic energy potential relative to that of the earth.
Therefore we can anticipate global warming to increase until the earth’s orbit shifts.
Gravity does not hold the earth in orbit around the sun and the earth cannot maintain a stable relationship with the sun forever, as the cyclical nature of the solar dynamics are solely dependent on the relative relationship of those underlying forces of energy involved.
The earth is held in orbit around the sun by means of a differential in non-linear dynamics associated with an underlying force of energy which is inherently responsible for the continuous existence of physical structure and the condition of universe remaining relative to the system of reference.
Therefore an accelerative increase in the existing energy differential between the earth and the sun will cause an ever increasing accelerative variance to grow. This means we cannot avoid the future, as it is determined on the basis of a dynamic force of energy and not personal bias.
posted by David Barclay @ 10:38 PM
.jpg)
6 Comments:
The basic question is the relationship of electromagnetic fields to the force of gravity. Einstein wanted a unified field theory that would correlate the mechanics of particles to electromagnetic fields. If this is indeed the case, then why are physicists trying to relate all basic physics theory to only particles? Planck showed the relationships between perfectly elastic mechanical systems and those of electromagnetic fields ("Planck's Columbia Lectures"). The basic subject of inquiry is therefore the relationships of the dynamic electromagnetic fields to all physical phenomena.
In order to define these relationships, perhaps the best approach is to consider the elementary hydrogen atom. It consists of just two electric charges - a proton and an electron. An electric field surrounds those two charges, and this field moves as the charges move. It is also known that all charges are effected by external fields. Since these fields extend out into space indefinitely, matter reacts with other matter at any distance. These basic phenomena obviously have the potential to account for the forces of molecular attraction and gravity, in addition to all other electrical and mechanical phenomena.
As to defining the "resistance" to the movement of electromagnetic field waves, this is a basic and profound question. One approach that has been used is to consider the hydrogen atom as a rotating dipole (http://www.science-site.net). The center line of this dipole lies on a plane that moves when the dipole moves. This plane is therefore a wave, and it is easily shown that it must bend with rotational velocity. With the proper degree of bending, the radial velocity of the wave is the same as the speed of light throughout space!
This study has been my prime interest for overy 20 years, resulting in four books on the subject. In these books, it is shown that the dynamic electromagnetic field also accounts for the gravitational effect ("The Secret of Gravity"). One of the questions raised is whether or not Einstein's energy equation is valid in all circumstances. If so, then mass becomes a variable, which happens to be the case. In the formation of the hydrogen atom from the two electric charges, the differential energy added in the process is equal to the difference in static electric energy due to varying separation between charges, which equates to the differential mass! I was able to derive Using this basic information, I was able to derive Einstein's energy equation in just two short pages of my book "Secrets of the Atom".
Electromagnetic waves do bend with velocity, as was suggested below, and therefore there must be an opposing force. Is this not so? Then what is it that causes the opposing force. Some might say it is the inertial force, in which case one might easily reach the conclusion that space is a form of matter. Others might say that it is caused by the "ether" [a now forbidden subject in physics, which also relates to the relationships between the E-field and the H-field (Planck)]. Another possibility is that it is both matter and an ether. But dare we say either?
A very fascinating subject.
Let me begin by stating right out that I am not a scientist by any means. I make less than 20,000 dollars a year, and I might be the guy who hands you your next Quarter-Pounder.
Allow me to begin with light. Is it plausible that the Michaelson/Morley experiment was made vulnerable to attack because of what I see as a fatal assumption; namely, that just because the apparent relative speeds of two light waves are constant relative to each other regardless of the defferential speed of their sources relative to the inertial plane, that does not imply that such velocity recorded by the waves is absolute.
Posit: What if the reason there appears to be no higher velocity than that attained by light is because LIGHT IS STANDING STILL? What's to say the percivers (us) are the ones stationary? With respect to the inertial frame at the horizon, the apparent angular velocity of a light wave could be the result of an energetic emission propogated through a line-stationary plenum.
Therefore, what is the progenitor of gravity, time and centrifugal force?
Perception on a specific plane, where the tensor fields on many orders aquire a skewed apperance with respect to the apparent position of any of their given secondary and tertiary dynamics.
~K80~
Hello K80 (anonymous)
Yes, you are perfectly correct light is not in linear motion.....
If you would like to join our forum send us a user name and password, so have a look at http://www.gravitycontrol.org
I've done the burger thing and worse, so hang in there and don't waste your intelligence.
Hello again. I would be delighted to join your forum, Mr. Barclay.
But might I make a suggestion?
If you want to control the effect known as gravity, I submit that a good place to start would be a carnival ride called the Gravitron....If we can formulate a technique to control the centrifugal tensor (which if I'm not mistaken would be a third order tensor--but as a field, not only a mathmatical expression), I'm certain we could apply such a principal to "gravity" as well, on an order of magnitude separation in scale.
Since the empirical perception of centrifugal force is misleading in an inverse, though proportionate way; that is, the effect which keeps a carnival rider pinned to the wall of the ride is not any outward-flinging pressure, but rather an inward pressure which maintains the rider in an orbital path about the central axis, the first thing to be done is establish a process for alleviating the perception of this pressure, so to the observer they are un-affected by the rides' rotation. I fancifully reffer to the sci-fi concept of the inertial damper.
I guess the question is: How does one generate a dynamic array or manifold field which lends the perception of travel in a straight line to an observer who when observed from an un-affected point is traveling in a circular path.
To aid me, I consider the basic model of the circle and the sphere; wherein a 3D sphere attepts to describe itself to a 2D circle in terms the circle can understand to comprehend a sphere. It's all a matter of dimention.
Does anyone know of any physical condition or plane of energetic potential where two dimentions are all that exist? Can we manipulate events in such a state?
I ask because to a one-dimentional point on a triangle, the other two points appear to be stages on a line, which appears infinate to the point but to a second-plane point of view is obviously one point in a triangle. Likewise, a point on a triangle on the the surface of a sphere would see its own line as infinate, as would that second-plane point see the surface of the sphere as infinate, while still observing that the triangle no longer sums 180 degrees at its angles, but still cannot see the sphere for what it is--not infinate, just continuous.
The reason I say this is that perhaps if we can apply some of these priciples in a nutralizing way (which means getting Newtonian Second Law of Motion on it's ass) on a single- or two-dimentional event, then perhaps we can apply an inverse principle to higher dimentional frameworks.
If you've ever read Battlefield: Earth, the Psychlo technology, which works by manipulating causality, is a great conceptual inspiration to me.
Oh, and I think unified field theory can work just fine. WHEN you remove time from the numbers. Having time in there seems to me a bit like taking into account the frame-rate of a motion picture when calculating it's weight on the reel. Two wholely un-related mesurements, but worse, attempting to use a second-order tensor to define a scalar mesurement. Of course it won't work.
Gravity arise from matter. Which part of (atom) matter is electromagnetic? Certainly electron coat. And this part of atom (matter) is origin of gravity. So, electromagnetism in matter is origin of gravity. Connection between electromagnetism and gravity is matter. I do not see direct connection between electromagnetism and gravity. Consequence is, that if we can building single atom of any makro size, we can make synthetic gravity field. Synthetic variable gravity field inside space vehicle is "propulsive force" for real visit other planet.
The connection between electromagnetism and light depends upon cause and effect. The four electromagnetic forces between the electrons and protons in two hydrogen atoms do NOT cancel out as previously believed. In "The Secret of Gravity", my computer analysis proved that the force of attraction between two hydrogen atoms is actually slightly greater than the force of gravity in the far field.
Post a Comment
<< Home