 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Red_Dog
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Posts: 37
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: A new theory of GRAVITY |
 |
|
| |
Sunspot expert Maurice Cotterell was recently on Coast to Coast with George Noory, and there was a few minutes where he snuck in his new work on gravity.
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html
Here is a recording of a that segment of the conversation
 Watch "Maurice Cotterell on Gravity"
Poor George was really lost in dialogging with Maurice, as the numbers and data came at him so fast.:laughing: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
TNuke
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: May 27, 2003
Posts: 730
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Interesting, but the EM force is 37 powers of 10 stronger than gravity. And radiation from one particle striking another would cause the target particle to move away (a repulsive force). The helical nature of the wave would effect the direction but not enough to cause it to be pulled towards the radiation. But the case of electrons from 2 different atoms interfering with each other does cause the atoms to be attracted but that is a different process and its 37 powers of 10 stronger than gravity as I mentioned.
Superstring Theory implies a better idea I think. A particle is coupled to the Higgs Field (fabric of space) by the strings that make up the particle. The strings vibrate at different frequencies/wavelengths, amplitude and phase. The greater the coupling, the greater the mass. Mass is just our way of quantizing this effect. Greater mass causes greater distortion of the Higgs field. Other nearby mass is thus effected by the distortion. Fits well with the inverse square law. The more strings you have, the greater the coupling also, so this fits with the additive nature of mass.
The question is, what are the exact wave properties of the strings with respect to the coupling (Frequency, Amplitude, Phase)? This theory implies that the Higgs Field itself vibrates, so its a kind of wave-to-wave interaction. |
|
_________________
"Sic semper evello mortem Tyrannis."
Welcome to 1984 citizen! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Red_Dog
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| TNuke wrote: |
Interesting, but the EM force is 37 powers of 10 stronger than gravity. And radiation from one particle striking another would cause the target particle to move away (a repulsive force). The helical nature of the wave would effect the direction but not enough to cause it to be pulled towards the radiation. But the case of electrons from 2 different atoms interfering with each other does cause the atoms to be attracted but that is a different process and its 37 powers of 10 stronger than gravity as I mentioned.
Superstring Theory implies a better idea I think. A particle is coupled to the Higgs Field (fabric of space) by the strings that make up the particle. The strings vibrate at different frequencies/wavelengths, amplitude and phase. The greater the coupling, the greater the mass. Mass is just our way of quantizing this effect. Greater mass causes greater distortion of the Higgs field. Other nearby mass is thus effected by the distortion. Fits well with the inverse square law. The more strings you have, the greater the coupling also, so this fits with the additive nature of mass.
The question is, what are the exact wave properties of the strings with respect to the coupling (Frequency, Amplitude, Phase)? This theory implies that the Higgs Field itself vibrates, so its a kind of wave-to-wave interaction. |
I don't mean to be belittle your comment, but I don't think you see the whole picture being proposed here.
Your comparing two tangential variables; The 'normal' EM force is based on the electric force and magnetic force (which are at right angles to each other) with corkscrew gravity EM radiation, which is not. Normal EM radiation cannot be compared to helically polarised gravity radiation. This is a common historical mistake. You'll find plenty of other researchers who have hit on this difference (Kealy, Schauberger,Carr, Tesla, Sereda, Meyers)
You'll also see it in the fringe overunity researchers who noticed something they call "back EM radiation".
The flaw in your premise has to do with `radiation from one particle striking another would cause the target particle to move away.'
An easy way to visulize this difference is see yourself as floating on an Ocean of water and a wave of water stikes you, the you move up and down, at right angles to that wave - like a cork bobbing up and down. The wave does not cause you to 'move away' from your geographical location.
Plus, you, as the particle bobbing on the wave, can take your arms and wave them around like a windmill, sucking water towards yourself, you can even swim towards the wave that hit your (See Schaubergers work on vortex action of suction)
The fact that the force of the wave might be 37 times the force of your vertical movement is a complete irrelevance.
Maxwell showed, through his equations, that the EM force that drives and electrical current concords with the same forces that drive electromagnetic waves, proving that light and electricty must be one and the same. If your wish to be taken seriously, you need to prove your equations which show that the magnitude 37 has a bearing on your premise.
It would appear you are confusing 'the effect of a wave on a particle' with 'the effect of a particle upon a particle [or wave on a wave]. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
doc87
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| If it does not have the normal properties of Electromagnetic Radiation then why call it EM radiation? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
doc87
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Sep 05, 2006
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| If it does not have the normal properties of Electromagnetic Radiation then why call it EM radiation? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Personanongrata
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Dec 31, 2007
Posts: 2464
Location: NAU
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
I have a new theory of gravity!
...The earth is made of velcro.  |
|
_________________
__________________________________________
"The obstacle is the path." -- Zen Proverb.
"**ck it, we'll do it live." -- Bill O'Reilly.
"...................................." -- Harpo Marx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Red_Dog
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| doc87 wrote: |
| If it does not have the normal properties of Electromagnetic Radiation then why call it EM radiation? |
He actually refers to it as helically polarized radiation, due to its apparent structure. It shares wave like properties of EM radiation.
These are just man made terms to verbally attempt a description.
This is why math is used more often to describe the action of the field.
One of the things I found most interesting about Helically polarized spiral waves, when described mathmatically, in two dimensions, you end up with a fibonacci sequence:
12 + 12 + 22 + 32 + 52 = 5 x 8
so
12 + 12 + . . . + F(n)2 = F(n) x F(n+1)
Found everywhere in nature from the micro:
To the macro:
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
IAM1
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 01, 2006
Posts: 5474
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Red_Dog wrote: |
| doc87 wrote: |
| If it does not have the normal properties of Electromagnetic Radiation then why call it EM radiation? |
He actually refers to it as helically polarized radiation, due to its apparent structure. It shares wave like properties of EM radiation.
These are just man made terms to verbally attempt a description.
This is why math is used more often to describe the action of the field.
One of the things I found most interesting about Helically polarized spiral waves, when described mathmatically, in two dimensions, you end up with a fibonacci sequence:
12 + 12 + 22 + 32 + 52 = 5 x 8
so
12 + 12 + . . . + F(n)2 = F(n) x F(n+1)
Found everywhere in nature from the micro:
To the macro:
|
Thanks Red Dog! Yes, the mathematical concepts are extremely interesting! They can be traced all the way back to the Indus Valley civilizations around 2600 BCE or more. It is speculated that Leonardo/Fibonacci took his ideas from these ancient Indus Valley concepts to get his Fibonacci numbers: F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2), F(0) = 0, F(1) = 1, F(2) = 1, etc. And it's fascinating how the spiral form or pattern can be found extensively throughout our world, in nature and in the universe! The pictures/images you posted of the spirals are great! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|  |
Online Stats: 
