Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73

Thread: gravity waves and gravity speed.

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    More from Miles Mathis.....
    .........Addendum, March 20, 2014: The LIGO teams have now responded to the announcement,
    “congratulating their colleagues on this major discovery”. LIGO stands for Laser Interferometer
    Gravity-Wave Observatory. In the race to discover gravity waves, this is the opposing team, in other
    words. It is a much older team, having been founded in 1992. It is a 3/4-billion dollar project funded
    by the National Science Foundation, and is the largest project ever funded by the NSF. Since the NSF
    is a US Government agency, this money comes from taxdollars. The NSF has a yearly budget of
    around 7 billion. Anyway, it is again curious to see so little competition here. In about 12 years of
    operation, LIGO has spent three quarters of a billion dollars for nothing. No detection. And now
    BICEP2 comes along and scoops them with this garbage data, and they have no response except
    congratulations? They have no inclination to review the data and comment on its crushing weakness?
    Don't you find that odd?
    This is just more proof of something I have been commenting on for years: the control of mainstream
    physics. All these projects are operating on instructions from above, and in this case it appears LIGO
    was instructed to play along. The 800 scientists working for LIGO have been instructed to keep quiet,
    since this is where the Nobel Prize is going next year whether they like it or not.
    Which confirms my larger thesis: this is all fake physics. Since no real scientists would agree to keep
    quiet in a situation like this, they are fake scientists. The entire field and everyone in it is a fraud.
    Both LIGO and BICEP were created and funded only to spend taxdollars. They are government makework
    projects, not real science.....

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    KEEP AN EYE ON STEADY STATE THEORY IN WIKI AND SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR THE SCIENCE MAFIA TO CHANGE THIS ENTRY.
    mac.
    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............................................
    Steady State theory -------- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In cosmology, the Steady State theory is a now-obsolete theory and model alternative to the Big Bang theory of the universe's origin (the standard cosmological model). In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands, thus adhering to perfect cosmological principle.

    While the steady state model enjoyed some popularity in the first half of the 20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of professional cosmologists and other scientists, as the observational evidence points to a Big Bang-type cosmology and a finite age of the universe.

    Sir James Jeans, in the 1920s, was the first to conjecture a steady state cosmology based on a hypothesized continuous creation of matter in the universe.[1][2] The idea was then revised in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others. The steady state theory of Bondi and Gold was inspired by the circular plot of the film Dead of Night,[3] which they had watched together. Theoretical calculations showed that a static universe was impossible under general relativity, and observations by Edwin Hubble had shown that the universe was expanding. The steady state theory asserts that although the universe is expanding, it nevertheless does not change its appearance over time (the perfect cosmological principle); it has no beginning and no end.

    Problems with the steady-state theory began to emerge in the late 1960s, when observations apparently supported the idea that the universe was in fact changing: quasars and radio galaxies were found only at large distances (therefore could have existed only in the distant past), not in closer galaxies. Whereas the Big Bang theory predicted as much, the Steady State theory predicted that such objects would be found throughout the universe, including close to our own galaxy.

    For most cosmologists, the refutation of the steady-state theory came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965, which was predicted by the Big Bang theory. Stephen Hawking described this discovery as "the final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory". The steady-state theory explained microwave background radiation as the result of light from ancient stars that has been scattered by galactic dust. However, the cosmic microwave background level is very even in all directions, making it difficult to explain how it could be generated by numerous point sources
    and the microwave background radiation shows no evidence of characteristics such as polarization that are normally associated with scattering.
    Furthermore, its spectrum is so close to that of an ideal black body that it could hardly be formed by the superposition of contributions from a multitude of dust clumps at different temperatures as well as at different redshifts. Steven Weinberg wrote in 1972,

    The steady state model does not appear to agree with the observed dL versus z relation or with source counts ... In a sense, the disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady-state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal. The steady-state model is so attractive that many of its adherents still retain hope that the evidence against it will disappear as observations improve. However, if the cosmic microwave background radiation ... is really black-body radiation, it will be difficult to doubt that the universe has evolved from a hotter, denser early stage.[4]

    Since this discovery, the Big Bang theory has been considered to provide the best explanation of the origin of the universe. In most astrophysical publications, the Big Bang is implicitly accepted and is used as the basis of more complete theories.......

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................
    AND, THE PREDICTION THAT THE BB WOULD YIELD BLACKBODY SPECTRUM WOZNT A PREDICTION AT ALL.
    AND, 2.7dg WOZNT EVER A PREDICTION.
    I DONT THINK HUBBLE SAYD IT WOZ EXPANDING. INITIALLY EINSTEIN SAYD IT WOZNT.
    AND, (IDEAL) BLACKBODY SPECTRUM DUZNT EXIST (the synthesis woz adhoc and fudged according to an admission by one of the pioneers).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-17-2014 at 05:02 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    Ok this iz where we are at.
    There aint no such thing az gravity-waves, gravity-turbulence, gravity-ripples, gravity-disturbance etc.
    What we do hav iz aether-waves, aether-turbulence, aether-ripples, aether-disturbance, aether-drag, aether-torsion, aether-spin etc.
    Acceleration of aether exerts a force on matter (=gravity), and acceleration of matter exerts a force on aether (=inertia).
    Thusly gravity and inertia are opposit sides of the same (aetheric) coin.
    Matter sliding throo aether at constant slippage speed experiences zero gravity-force & zero inertia-force.
    Aether iz continuously created somewheres somehow, and aether iz destroyed by matter (matter akts like a sink), aether moovs.
    Aether iz very stiff, and disturbances travel much much faster than c.
    Light (whatever that iz) travels at constant speed c throo aether, in addition to the speed of the aether.
    Thusly the apparent speed of light depends on how fast u are travelling relativ to the aether (eg c+v or c-v).
    Likewize the apparent speed of apparent gravity depends on how fast u are travelling relativ to the aether.
    Elementary particles are probly some small-scale vibration or spin or torsion or wobble or ?? of the aether.

    But getting back to aether-waves and aether-ripples -- i reckon there are no such things (contrary to what i sayd abov).
    An aether-wave would (simply) involve a back&forward&back&forward etc etc (large-scale) vibration of the aether (in a simple case).
    But there are no large-scale aether waves or ripples. Small-scale waves, yes (eg praps gamma rays?, neutrinos?, photons?).
    What we hav iz a one-way aether-surge, a sort of aether-tide, or aether-tsunami (with no wavey entrées or exits).
    And, aether-tides don't bounce back or reflect off anything. (A large-scale aether-wave would bounce or reflect, if it existed, which it don't).
    The latest big mystery iz aether-turbulence (or aether-something) being measured at 500km/sec (see Shnoll and see Cahill).
    For more info re a dynamic steady state universe see Ranzan (there aint any bigbang).
    Einstein's Special Relativity iz 99.9% wrong 99.9% of the time.
    Einstein's General Relativity iz 99.99% wrong 100.00% of the time.
    Lorentz Relativity (predates Einstein's rubbish) iz 100% korrekt 100% of the time.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:31 PM.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    Ok, this iz where we are going.
    Aether iz destroyed by matter, Earth iz a sink for aether, aether accelerates towards Earth & drags matter, hencely gravity-g.
    Every atom on spinning Earth haz a spin-g force which reduces the measured-wt, giving a false lower value for the measured-g.
    The spinning Earth pulls aether inwards near the equator, due to spin-g pulling on the aether. Aether iz pulled towards the nearest point on the spin-axis & pulls matter in that direktion, hencely what i call inertia-g.
    Near the equator inertia-g inkreeces the measured wt, near the poles inertia-g dekreeces the measured wt.
    The spinning Earth pulls aether inwards (towards the axis) near the equator, and hencely pushes aether outwards near the poles. The inwards equals the outwards, koz spinning duznt destroy nor create aether, unlike gravity-g which iz due to destruction of aether.

    Earth's g at Earth's surface due to Earth's mass shood exklood.......
    (1). Spin-g due to Earth spinning (this spin-g iz a centrifugal-g)(to exklood spin-g u add it to measured-g).
    (2)(3). Orbital-g's due to Earth orbiting the Moon and the Sun (theze are centrifugal-g's)(orbital-g iz added to measured-g if on the far-side of Earth relativ to the center of rotation, subtracted if on the near-side).
    (4)(5). Orbital-g's due to Sun's orbit and Milky-Way's orbit.
    (6). Gravity-g's due to other masses (ie the Moon, Sun, planets, stars etc)(theze are added or subtracted depending).
    (7). Inertia-(spin)g due to Earth's spin (at the equator subtrakted, elsewhere uzually added).
    (8)(9). Inertia-(orbit)g's due to Earth's orbits (added or subtrakted depending).
    (10). Inertia-g's due to spins and orbits of the Moon and the Sun planets etc (added or subtrakted depending).

    Skoolkids add/dedukt (1) to (6), but don't allow for (7) to (10).
    Not forgetting that gravity-g haz different values in different places on Earth's surface due to elevation abov sea-level etc etc.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 06:33 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    (11). Other-g's.
    Earth's gravity-g shoodnt inklood other-g's. Theze inklood magnetic-g's and electrostatic-g's (and others).
    Miles Mathis says that fields of massive mooving-spinning photons create powerfull charge-fields that mechanically act on matter -- let's call this charge-(mech)g. Miles says that this iz the source of electrostatic and magnetic forces.
    Charge-(mech)g shood not be inklooded in gravity-g.
    Mathis' charge-photons hav mass, and according to mac's ideas their mass iz a source of gravity-g, ie charge-(gravity)g.
    Some of this charge-mass iz within Earth, but it shoodnt be lumped in with Earth's ordinary mass, ie it shoodnt be inklooded in Earth's gravity-g. Earth's gravity-g shood not inklood charge-(mass)g nor charge-(mech)g.

    Earth's gravity-g shood only inklood g due to Earth's simple stationary mass.
    Earth's gravity-g shoodnt inklood centrifugal-g's or inertia-g's or charge-g's, or non-Earth mass-g's.

    Miles' charge-field (ie charge-(mech)g) kan akt in any direktion it likes, into Earth, or outfrom Earth, or both. Allso, its power and direktion and mass vary with location and time (allbeit slowly). And Miles' charge-field kan produce surprizingly different rezults at Earth, at the Sun, the Moon, & planets, & galaxy, & cosmos. No, we shood keep charge-g separate to gravity-g (if possible).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 02:51 AM.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    Lets hav a closer look at Earth's inertia-(spin)g.
    The primary force for inertia-(spin)g iz the centrifugal-force (spin-g), akting radially outwards on every aetheron in/on spinning Earth.
    This rezults in a secondary force. Eech orbiting aetheron pulls aether radially inwards towards Earth's axis (not center).

    Say Earth iz transparent and porous. Massless water (aether) entering Earth due to spin-g wants to go to the spin-axis, none gets there. Entering water veers and exits near the two poles, total inflow equals total outflow. If we put spots of dye on Earth's surface, the rezulting streamlines of water moving in and throo and out wouldn't show the direktions of the primary spin-g force, they would only show the resulting flow of water. The entering water must gradually veer allmost 90dg before it exits. Water would try to enter Earth at all points on the surface, but near the poles no water would enter, here entering water would be overpowered by exiting water. I reckon that the fastest flow might be the outflow at the surface at the poles.

    Look at an equatorial cross-section -- all streamlines are a simple straight line going to the axis -- ie the streamlines converge az the water flows in towards the axis. If the streamlines converge then the water speed allmost certainly inkreeces, ie the water accelerates. But no water ever reeches the axis. If one then had a look at the water outside Earth, approaching Earth, the water would be seen to be flowing in on the same straight converging lines.

    Look at a polar cross-section -- the entering streamlines are heading towards the axis, ie at 90dg to the axis. The streamlines veer almost 90dg before exiting near the poles. While veering the streamlines converge strongly at first, then less so az they near the surface to exit near the poles. Converging iz acceleration, diverging iz deceleration. If one then had a look at the water outside Earth, approaching Earth, the water would be seen to be flowing in radially towards the surface, ie straight for the center of Earth, then, once inside, the streamlines would head towards the axis (not the center), before veering. Water leeving the surface of the earth near the poles would simply continue on its line for a goodly distance, neither converging nor diverging. But all of this karnt happen. Nearer the poles entering water must fight exiting water, there will be a large area where no water enters, water only exits. Somewhere tween the pole and the equator there will be latitude where water neither enters nor exits -- this will probly be closer to the pole, say near 55dg (in which case there would be 55dg of entering, and 35dg of exiting).

    The secondary force rezults in a tertiary force. This iz now the only force that counts, we kan now ignore the primary force (spin-g) and the secondary force. The tertiary force iz found by simply looking at the streamlines, in particular the aether accelerations. Every acceleration rezults in a force akting on aetherons. Any streamline veering iz an acceleration. Any streamline convergence iz an acceleration. Any divergence iz a deceleration.

    We hav an aether acceleration radially inwards. The streamlines converge in one dimension, not two, ie a bit like a wedge. The acceleration in a wedge would not be linear, it would greater than linear. But the veering would rob some of the inwards flow from our wedge. However i reckon that there iz a possibility that the centrifugal forces inside a spinning solid sphere don't follow the skoolkid equation. Skoolkid centrifugal force doubles az the distance from the axis doubles. But i reckon that there are bits of the sphere where the centrifugal force iz greater, and bits where it iz less. This wouldn't necessaryly apply to a disc, or to wts on the ends of rods.

    We hav axial aether accelerations. Firstly strong accelerations outwards, in the area of veering. Later nearer the surface (near the poles) less strong. Theze giv rize to forces pulling Earth apart axially.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-09-2014 at 04:30 AM.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    This brings us to (so called) gravity-shielding.
    A number of experimenters hav measured a deekreec in measured-g (ie wt) very closeby abov a disc-axis when the disc iz spinning in a horizontal plane. In some cases a watch direktly abov gains or loozes time. The deekreec in wt iz due to inertia-(spin)g akting upwards from the spin-axis. They would hav found an inkreec in wt under the spin-axis. But few experimenters think of the aether -- and fewer think of inertia-(spin)g.

    Some hav measured a deekreec in the measured wt of the spinning disc itself. I don't beleev it.
    Praps if the rezultant vector sum of gravity-g and inertia-(spin)g akted in some non-linear way then i might beleev it. But i karnt see it being anything but very very very linear. (My high-skool math probly aint fooling anyone here).
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 09:28 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    Predictions of inertia-(spin)g.

    A. Equatorial bulges of planets and stars will be shown to be less bulgy than predicted by skoolkid theory.

    B. Stars spinning so fast that gravity iz barely keeping the star from flying apart are more likely to hav jets streaming out at their poles......What!!! -- u hav seen such stars!!......What!!! -- the jets are suppozedly due to electromagnetik effekts, but the EM theory duznt work!!......Well, i'll be a monkey's uncle.

    C. The borehole gravitaty anomaly will bekum less anomalous if inertia-(spin)g iz inklooded in calcs.

    D. The anomalous behaviour of space-missions will be less anomalous if inertia-(spin)g iz inklooded in calcs.

    E. Wt abov a horizontally spinning disc will be less, below will be more.

    F. When flywheel-power-storage bekums more popular (ie when flywheels are much larger and much faster), the jets of air rushing away from their poles (due to inertia-(spin)g) might provide free power (but praps knot).

    Not forgetting that simply applying Cahill's aether and Ranzan's aether and Mathis' Charge Field would explain the major parts of anomalys.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-03-2014 at 11:35 PM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    One classification of perpetual motion machines refers to the particular
    law of thermodynamics the machines purport to violate.
    wikileaks.

    A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces work without the input of energy. It thus violates the first law of thermodynamics: the law of conservation of energy.

    A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However, it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved, which is being spontaneously cooled without involving a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir. This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

    A more obscure[according to whom?] category is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind, usually (but not always)[13] defined as one that completely eliminates friction and other dissipative forces, to maintain motion forever (due to its mass inertia). Third in this case refers solely to the position in the above classification scheme, not the third law of thermodynamics. Although it is impossible to make such a machine,[14][15] as dissipation can never be 100% eliminated in a mechanical system, it is nevertheless possible to get very close to this ideal (see examples in the Low Friction section). Such a machine would not serve as a source of energy but would have utility as a perpetual energy storage device.....
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 03-25-2014 at 06:16 PM.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,838
    I redd that a flywheel spinning in deep-outerspace would be nearnuff a PMM (3rd-class).

    Gravity-g. All matter experiences gravitational attraction, ie gravity-g. If something haz gravity-g then it haz gravity-mass. If something haz gravity-mass then we call it matter. All science iz like that. Circular.

    Gravity-Mass. Lets assume that an atom iz the smallest bit of matter. Atoms destroy aether, thusly atoms are aether-sinks, pulling aether in, & the accelerating aether pulls on nearby atoms. Thusly every atom pulls on every other nearby atom, & hencely we hav what we call gravity, ie gravitational attraction and gravity-mass and gravity-g. An atom's gravity-mass iz the same size etc in deep-outerspace az in the real-world, an atom's contribution to gravitational attraction iz the same everywhere and anywhere. Hencely a flywheel haz the same gravity-mass in deep-outerspace and in the realworld.

    Inertia-(spin)g in deep-outerspace iz tricky.
    Tangential-inertia. During flywheel spin-up the aether creates inertia in the tangential direction, ie rezisting spin-up.
    Radial-inertia. This iz due to radial-acceleration (towards the flywheel center) due to spinning (it iznt due to spin-up az such).
    When spin-up ends tangential-acceleration and tangential-inertia drop to zero, but radial-acceleration and radial-inertia persist (whilst spinning persists).

    No, i am wrong. If there iz no other matter nearby (we are in deep-outerspace remember), and if aether haznt mass, during spin-up we will hav radial-inertia but we wont hav any tangential-inertia. Aether duznt rezist motions (ie speeds), it only rezists accelerations. But this rezistance iz only by virtue of aether pulling on other matter nearby. Radial-inertia allways haz other matter to pull on, koz a spinning body haz matter on both sides of the spin-axis (or in the case of a spinning flywheel, on all sides). But tangential-inertia aint so lucky.

    (Not Important). If there iz zero tangential-inertia then flywheel spin-up kan be instantaneous (if u want).
    (Erratum). Later i remembered that the flywheel's own mass will supply (some, not much) tangential-inertia, rezisting spin-up.

    Inertia iz trickyer than gravity. If u bump an atom (in the real-world) the atom rezists, thusly we hav what we call inertia & inertia-mass and inertia-g. But an isolated single lone atom (in deep-outerspace) wont rezist. The atom will drag aether with it (az uzual), but the aether wont hav anything to drag, hencely the aether wont rezist, & a lone atom will allways hav zero inertia & zero inertia-mass & zero inertia-g.

    Ok, now u place a second identikal atom nearby and u giv the formerly isolated atom a bump towards or away from the second atom (we are in deep-outerspace). This time u feel rezistance koz the aether haz that other atom to drag on, but strangelynuff that rezistance iz only 1/2 of what it would be in the real-world (where there are lots of atoms nearby). If u had 3 atoms in-line it would feel 2/3rd az massiv (i think). Four atoms in-line would giv 3/4ths. Ten atoms in-line 9/10ths. A thousand atoms in-line 999/1000ths.

    But in every case abov if u bumped any atom at 90dg to the line-up (instead of bumping along the line-up) u would feel zero rezistance, ie zero inertia & zero inertia-mass. Koz aether haz zero (large-scale) shear rezistance, & zero (large-scale) torsional rezistance. Very small-scale shear and torsion might not be zero -- that iz a different realm.

    (Not important). If u had 2 atoms in-line and u bumped one at 90dg, the two atoms might orbit eech other. If the speed of orbit woznt too great then gravity-g attraction would overkum the centrifugal-g repulsion and the 2 atoms might kum together and form a spinning molecule. In a spinning molecule strong short-range forces help prevent atoms from escaping. A flywheel breaks apart if it spins too fast.
    mac.
    Last edited by cushioncrawler; 04-08-2014 at 09:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •