# Thread: The misunderstood nature of space

1. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

## The misunderstood nature of space

The reason time, space and gravity are relative due to acceleration is the same basic reason that sound is relative. As sound has a point of origin and is an energy transfer resulting in a wave, so to the gravitational wave has a point of origin and is an energy transfer resulting in a wave.
All mater and energy decay into a monopole wave field from all electromagnetic radiation fields creating three basic actions; Time is the basic change in energy from the electromagnetic field into the gravitational field, a monopole field and the endpoint of decay. Space is the volume of that changing field.

And the key to understand is the interaction of different gravitational fields is emitted gravitational field synchronization which creates gravity, and modifies relative time and space.

2. Originally Posted by michael turner
The reason time, space and gravity are relative due to acceleration is the same basic reason that sound is relative. As sound has a point of origin and is an energy transfer resulting in a wave, so to the gravitational wave has a point of origin and is an energy transfer resulting in a wave.
Methinks you are confused. Gravitational waves have nothing to do with "gravity as we know it." It is not gravitational waves that keep us on the surface of the Earth.

Originally Posted by michael turner
All mater and energy decay into a monopole wave field from all electromagnetic radiation fields creating three basic actions; Time is the basic change in energy from the electromagnetic field into the gravitational field, a monopole field and the endpoint of decay. Space is the volume of that changing field.
mmmm, sounds sort of ATM to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say here about "matter and energy decaying," e.g. the proton is stable for up to 1036 years, and the decay of a neutron into a proton, electron and a neutrino has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

How do you suppose that the change in energy from the electromagnetic field into the gravitational field happens? Do photons suddenly become gravitons or .....

Originally Posted by michael turner
And the key to understand is the interaction of different gravitational fields is emitted gravitational field synchronization which creates gravity, and modifies relative time and space.
What exactly is emitted gravitational field synchronization? The only result of googling this terminology ends up with a link to a post of yours on Physics Forum.

Apparently this:

Originally Posted by michael turner on physics forum
all energy, (Matter, mass, energy) that has potential energy as in a compressed spring for example, releases that energy naturally at the level of the decay of all quanta of electromagnetic radiation into a monopole, non absorbing, non binding gravitational wave.
is your theory, or at least the beginning of it. I think if you want to pursue this, this thread needs to be moved to ATM.

3. Originally Posted by tusenfem
I do hope you are patient.
This poster is averaging a post every 3-1/2 years. Since that mens the next post is in 2012, that might be the end of it.
Any explaination may not matter at that point.

4. I see I failed to notice his joining date and number of posts. Darn! That fraggin 2012, always popping up at the wrong time.

5. Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
I do hope you are patient.
This poster is averaging a post every 3-1/2 years. Since that mens the next post is in 2012, that might be the end of it.
Any explaination may not matter at that point.
LOL Neo!

6. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27
Hard to believe that something so easy to understand has you all so confused.
The nature of time is generated by each individual reference frame. The nature of space is generated by each individual reference frame. Time and space are wave functions of a generated field, that is why they are relative. It ain't that hard. And since waves do not change frequency or length relative to themselves, then they work like your zipper. Each side of your zipper can be thought of as a wave attached to a source, your pants. When you zip up your pants, the metal and fabric dont change as they align but the sources, each side of your pants, come together. So extrapolating that to the universe, Gravity is a function of each quanta of energy decaying naturally into a gravitational wave and the waves synchronize, not by changing themselves, but by the sources generating the wave come together. So matter (and energy) does not warp time and space but creates time and space as a natural decay process via the monopole gravitational wave and it is the interaction of waves aligning from different sources that creates gravity, relative time, relative space. It is not too hard to deduce that relativity has to be a wave function and through the understanding of the short comings of the Huygen's principle along with the basic question of how waves create constructive and destructive patterns it is easy to understand the how waves can move with out changing. They zip all the way to the source, just like your pants, yet in a fundamental way. This means that gravity doesn't pull but synchronizes then the original force of the big bang is essentially constant and therefore the universe's mass, as a whole should be following F=M x A, as it is shrinking becoming space itself and the change, decrease, in mass should be shown by a change in increasing acceleration which it has been shown to be.
A constant speed of light by adapting to the reference frame, the bending of light, gravitational lensing, inflationary theory can all be explained in only three dimensions by the simple concept that matter and energy all decay into a monopole gravitational wave and there is ample evidence in the binary neutron star noble prize for the discovery and with quite simple logic if you can use simple, embassasingly simple logic. and quit staring at your zipper!

7. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

## Clueless

Originally Posted by tusenfem
Methinks you are confused. Gravitational waves have nothing to do with "gravity as we know it." It is not gravitational waves that keep us on the surface of the Earth.

mmmm, sounds sort of ATM to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say here about "matter and energy decaying," e.g. the proton is stable for up to 1036 years, and the decay of a neutron into a proton, electron and a neutrino has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

How do you suppose that the change in energy from the electromagnetic field into the gravitational field happens? Do photons suddenly become gravitons or .....

What exactly is emitted gravitational field synchronization? The only result of googling. this terminology ends up with a link to a post of yours on Physics Forum.

Apparently this:

is your theory, or at least the beginning of it. I think if you want to pursue this, this thread needs to be moved to ATM.

Did it occur to you that you really do not know what you are talking about with respect to the original concept that I am conveying, although I do appreciate you researching and crediting me with my own idea. I do wonder what makes people stuck on stupid. I never mentioned the surface of the earth or gravitons. Did it occur to you that if a monopole wave is the most basic, most kinetic, form of energy then it would be impossible to interact with it to establish a graviton's existence. It is also not relavent. In order to understand a wave as a particle there has to be interaction, monopole, means non- interacting. Here is the bottom line, you do not know how gravity works and you probably are all rapped up I a theory that you take too personally. So when a newbie comes along instant aggression. I really don't care anymore. Once I took the blinders off I then umderstood. We have all been trained our whole life to avoid looking inside matter for the answer. We are told that a proton takes longer to decay than it did to make, it doesn't even occur to us to question certain things we are told as facts and we can't accept the obvious in front of our face. Question- this is retorical- woodcock. where does the energy go that is lost during the lifespan of magnetism?

Did it ever occur to you that a decaying magnetic field into a gravitational field is your answer? Did you even ponder the question?
Did you ever wonder why gravity is relative along with time and space? When I accelerate up in an elevator it is just like I am standing still and the earth is growing beneath me. Did it ever occur to anyone that relativity in any form has to be a function of an emitted wave field,mathmatically. It baffles me to no end how easy it is and how hard of is for others to see. Emitted wave fields whereby we measure rate of decay as continously flowing time and space and the ratios and interferences of various wave field interactions modulate the specific individual and overall processes. And you wonder why I only show up every 2 and 1/2 yr. or so. Everything works in only three dimensions buy three dimensions is a changing and specifically synchronizing state. Yes all radiating wave need a medium, even light itself. Michelson and Morley never ram am experiment to eliminate the ether of space generated from with in all matter and energy. As mass decreases, space increases. This process is your
Dark energy and Dark matter. It is why the speed of a photon is constant relative to the reference frame and why gravity exists. You can go around thing hundreds of different ways and exceptions exist, like multiple dimensions, Branes, virtual energy, dark flow or you can study what makes all the physics laws tic and conclude the mechanism of how the nature of relativity actually functions.

8. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

## Modarater review

Censorship? Another review?
Why let this post through and not my explainations?
Last edited by michael turner; 2008-Nov-25 at 01:38 AM. Reason: Add

9. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27
Here is your answer, Magnetic fields decay into the gravitational field which is a non binding monopole field. Why do you think magnets exert force perpetually? Why do we need many theories when the answer is so simple. Relativity is a comparative wave function and the evidence is present in many examples. I will give examples of necessary. Since two or fields cannot occupy the same area at the same time, field synchronization occurs, you understand that to be constructive wave interference. The way gravity works is that the waves so not change as they align but the sources of the waves close on until they contact as the path of least resistance. This is how gravitational waves create gravity as we know it. You may know that the Huyguns' principle does not address this specific kickback action of wave force. Has it really been three and a half years? Wow! And I only posted once very unlike me. Well at least for now, I am back!
Last edited by michael turner; 2008-Nov-25 at 02:13 AM. Reason: Misspelling

10. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27
[QUOTE=tusenfem;1372397]Methinks you are confused. Gravitational waves have nothing to do with "gravity as we know it." It is not gravitational waves that keep us on the surface of the Earth.

mmmm, sounds sort of ATM to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say here about "matter and energy decaying," e.g. the proton is stable for up to 1036 years, and the decay of a neutron into a proton, electron and a neutrino has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.

How do you suppose that the change in energy from the electromagnetic field into the gravitational field happens? Do photons suddenly become gravitons or .....

What exactly is emitted gravitational field synchronization? The only result of googling this terminology ends up with a link to a post of yours on Physics Forum.

Apparently this:

is your theory, or at least the beginning of it. I think if you want to pursue this, this thread needs to be moved to ATM.

Why is it you can't ask the same questions about time and space? What is the mechanism. And to tell me that gravitational waves do not cause gravity as we know it with you having a clue as to the mechanism? If you can listen to yourself and realize you are making statements as fact with pit knowledge

11. Originally Posted by michael turner
Here is your answer, Magnetic fields decay into the gravitational field which is a non binding monopole field. Why do you think magnets exert force perpetually? Why do we need many theories when the answer is so simple. Relativity is a comparative wave function and the evidence is present in many examples. I will give examples of necessary. Since two or fields cannot occupy the same area at the same time, field synchronization occurs, you understand that to be constructive wave interference. The way gravity works is that the waves so not change as they align but the sources of the waves close on until they contact as the path of least resistance. This is how gravitational waves create gravity as we know it. You may know that the Huyguns' principle does not address this specific kickback action of wave force. Has it really been three and a half years? Wow! And I only posted once very unlike me. Well at least for now, I am back!
I see a lot of what could be called word salad or perhaps on-topic babbling.

Can you show us, in appropriate mathematical detail, why you think your idea does better than the standard body of theory in accounting for a multitude of observations?

12. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

## yes

Originally Posted by Hornblower
I see a lot of what could be called word salad or perhaps on-topic babbling.

Can you show us, in appropriate mathematical detail, why you think your idea does better than the standard body of theory in accounting for a multitude of observations?
yes, and you can review what you want with newton's laws and Einstein's special and General relativity yourself. In this case the math all ready exists and is easy to babble back to you.
I am giving you a new insight as to why the math actually works, why there is a gravitational constant. Why Huygen's Principle in incomplete. I assume that you don't want me to go through each of Newton's laws and show why? or do you?

There is nothing new mathmatically here, just as there was nothing new approx. 15000 yrs. ago when the sledge was in use and someone looked at the principles and used the principles to create a cart.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that with out understanding the process you can create an imaginary number and eventually people treat that as common knowledge. It is the process that defines the math and not the math that defines the process!

The reason that we can not mathmatically relate all the forces that we know together is that strong, weak, and elecrtomagnetic forces are binding forces, absorbable forces, polar forces and gravitational forces are monopole, non binding forces. If you include increasing the tempature to unbind the forces to monopole forces then at high enough tempatures, guess what, the forces can relate, no brainer.

Let me give you a prediction to stick in the recesses of your mind. This is in addition to the concept of space flattening and accelerating as it is synchronizing. Here is my prediction, if correct when the results are in to the Hadron accelerator experiment of colliding protons at 99.9% the speed of light in the opposite direction they will mysteriously be missing mass. They will not be able to account for the total mass and energy conversion and they will think they missed something, degree of error? after a few repeats, if it is possible with solder joints as they used, they will be baffled and have many new and old ways to fudge. But you know what I think, and I am predicting the missing energy= the gravitational wave= space.

Now just use your brain and think on your own and try to visualize what if....

What would the laws of physics look like if time started once the electromagnetic field of all energy formed and then decayed into the gravitational wave. We would have a problem because according to current standard theory the electromagnetic field formation, it didn't happen until after the big bang. Well thank goodness for inflationary theory. It says

"According to the inflationary theory, for a tiny fraction of a second right after the explosion began, the universe expanded at an exponential rate that was far greater than in any subsequent period. Scientists do not know what happened in the first 10–43 sec after time 0; for theoretical reasons, conventional physical laws are thought not to apply to this period, usually called the Planck time, or Planck epoch (after German physicist Max Planck). The Planck time was followed by a so-called inflationary epoch lasting from 10–35 to 10–32 sec after time 0, during which the universe is believed to have inflated by a factor of the order of 1050.

The inflationary theory resolved several problems that existed in the original formulation of the big bang theory. The cosmic microwave background radiation pervading the universe, for example, represents rather uniformly—with only tiny fluctuations—a temperature of about 2.725 K (–455˚ F). This relative homogeneity could not be explained by early versions of the big bang theory, which required such a fast expansion through the ages that disparate regions of the universe would not have had enough time for the exchange of heat required for uniformity. Another example was that early conceptions of the big bang predicted the production of large numbers of magnetic monopoles (hypothetical particles with only one magnetic pole), but no monopoles had ever been observed. Inflationary theory did not mandate the creation of numerous monopoles, and it envisioned the expansion of the universe as beginning from such a tiny region that homogeneity was conceivable."- History.com

Hum, magnetic monopoles predicted with inflationary theory? Newton, Einstein, even Alan Guth had a piece of the truth.
Now as I believe that you know that radiation formed after the big bang but before mass and since I believe the monopoles are generated from radiation, it should be noted that I agree with the conclusions that the observations and mathmatics come up short in distance from where the big originated. I just don't believe that the speed of light was violated, I believe that the way we measure time, energy transfer from E-M radiation to the gravitational wave didn't start as inflationary should have predicted. Just as Einstein's equations predict an ever expanding universe. Both are easy to see once you realize that gravity doesn't pull, it synchronizes. If no pulling then no pushing therefore no need for dark matter. If space is the continously generated monopole wave as inflationary theory should have predicted then F=MxA explains the increase in expansion, Newton Force is constant, mass is decreasing, therefore remaining mass is accelerating at a continuous increase. No reason for Dark matter. No reason for string theory because the difference in poles explains the problems with the TOE theory.
Everything works in a changing synchronizing three dimensions. 100lbs. or 50lbs. falls to Earth at the same rate, according to Newton because the wave synchronization, wave alignment, is constant independent of amount of mass, and discounting friction. Time and space are relative due to emitted wave field comparisions relative to acceleration.

i am just showing the cart. Time and space are not warped by matter and energy, they are created be mass and energy as emitted waves. It is the independently emitted waves that synchronize to create relative time, relative space and gravity.

13. Originally Posted by michael turner
Here is your answer, Magnetic fields decay into the gravitational field which is a non binding monopole field.
Interestingly, this has never been observed.

Originally Posted by michael turner
Since two or fields cannot occupy the same area at the same time, field synchronization occurs, you understand that to be constructive wave interference. The way gravity works is that the waves so not change as they align but the sources of the waves close on until they contact as the path of least resistance.
I think you are mistaken here, if two fields cannot be in the same place, what are you doing watching TV sitting on Earth? Obviously, the electromagnetic fields and the gravity field are NOT mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as a Pauli exclusion law for fields.

Originally Posted by michael turner
This is how gravitational waves create gravity as we know it.
No! Gravitational waves DO NOT generate gravity. Obviously, you have no comprehension about what gravitational waves are.

14. Originally Posted by michael turner
snip snip, lots of blahblah

Inflationary theory did not mandate the creation of numerous monopoles, and it envisioned the expansion of the universe as beginning from such a tiny region that homogeneity was conceivable."- History.com

Hum, magnetic monopoles predicted with inflationary theory? Newton, Einstein, even Alan Guth had a piece of the truth.
do you even read what you copy and paste?

15. Originally Posted by michael turner
Censorship? Another review?
Why let this post through and not my explainations?

16. Originally Posted by michael turner
yes, and you can review what you want with newton's laws and Einstein's special and General relativity yourself. In this case the math all ready exists and is easy to babble back to you.
I am giving you a new insight as to why the math actually works, why there is a gravitational constant. Why Huygen's Principle in incomplete. I assume that you don't want me to go through each of Newton's laws and show why? or do you?

There is nothing new mathmatically here, just as there was nothing new approx. 15000 yrs. ago when the sledge was in use and someone looked at the principles and used the principles to create a cart.

What I am trying to get you to understand is that with out understanding the process you can create an imaginary number and eventually people treat that as common knowledge. It is the process that defines the math and not the math that defines the process!

The reason that we can not mathmatically relate all the forces that we know together is that strong, weak, and elecrtomagnetic forces are binding forces, absorbable forces, polar forces and gravitational forces are monopole, non binding forces. If you include increasing the tempature to unbind the forces to monopole forces then at high enough tempatures, guess what, the forces can relate, no brainer.

Let me give you a prediction to stick in the recesses of your mind. This is in addition to the concept of space flattening and accelerating as it is synchronizing. Here is my prediction, if correct when the results are in to the Hadron accelerator experiment of colliding protons at 99.9% the speed of light in the opposite direction they will mysteriously be missing mass. They will not be able to account for the total mass and energy conversion and they will think they missed something, degree of error? after a few repeats, if it is possible with solder joints as they used, they will be baffled and have many new and old ways to fudge. But you know what I think, and I am predicting the missing energy= the gravitational wave= space.

Now just use your brain and think on your own and try to visualize what if....

What would the laws of physics look like if time started once the electromagnetic field of all energy formed and then decayed into the gravitational wave. We would have a problem because according to current standard theory the electromagnetic field formation, it didn't happen until after the big bang. Well thank goodness for inflationary theory. It says

"According to the inflationary theory, for a tiny fraction of a second right after the explosion began, the universe expanded at an exponential rate that was far greater than in any subsequent period. Scientists do not know what happened in the first 10–43 sec after time 0; for theoretical reasons, conventional physical laws are thought not to apply to this period, usually called the Planck time, or Planck epoch (after German physicist Max Planck). The Planck time was followed by a so-called inflationary epoch lasting from 10–35 to 10–32 sec after time 0, during which the universe is believed to have inflated by a factor of the order of 1050.

The inflationary theory resolved several problems that existed in the original formulation of the big bang theory. The cosmic microwave background radiation pervading the universe, for example, represents rather uniformly—with only tiny fluctuations—a temperature of about 2.725 K (–455˚ F). This relative homogeneity could not be explained by early versions of the big bang theory, which required such a fast expansion through the ages that disparate regions of the universe would not have had enough time for the exchange of heat required for uniformity. Another example was that early conceptions of the big bang predicted the production of large numbers of magnetic monopoles (hypothetical particles with only one magnetic pole), but no monopoles had ever been observed. Inflationary theory did not mandate the creation of numerous monopoles, and it envisioned the expansion of the universe as beginning from such a tiny region that homogeneity was conceivable."- History.com

Hum, magnetic monopoles predicted with inflationary theory? Newton, Einstein, even Alan Guth had a piece of the truth.
Now as I believe that you know that radiation formed after the big bang but before mass and since I believe the monopoles are generated from radiation, it should be noted that I agree with the conclusions that the observations and mathmatics come up short in distance from where the big originated. I just don't believe that the speed of light was violated, I believe that the way we measure time, energy transfer from E-M radiation to the gravitational wave didn't start as inflationary should have predicted. Just as Einstein's equations predict an ever expanding universe. Both are easy to see once you realize that gravity doesn't pull, it synchronizes. If no pulling then no pushing therefore no need for dark matter. If space is the continously generated monopole wave as inflationary theory should have predicted then F=MxA explains the increase in expansion, Newton Force is constant, mass is decreasing, therefore remaining mass is accelerating at a continuous increase. No reason for Dark matter. No reason for string theory because the difference in poles explains the problems with the TOE theory.
Everything works in a changing synchronizing three dimensions. 100lbs. or 50lbs. falls to Earth at the same rate, according to Newton because the wave synchronization, wave alignment, is constant independent of amount of mass, and discounting friction. Time and space are relative due to emitted wave field comparisions relative to acceleration.

i am just showing the cart. Time and space are not warped by matter and energy, they are created be mass and energy as emitted waves. It is the independently emitted waves that synchronize to create relative time, relative space and gravity.
This poster has printed close to 1000 words, but for all practical purposes has said "No" to my question, at least as perceived by my feeble brain.

17. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27
Like two old fuddy duddies. Ask something intelligent and postable. I am explaining How the existing math and fundamental laws and observations actually fit together in three dimensions. Can you ask a specific question rather than looking for the relationship to an all encompassing formula, because there isn't, but there is an all encompassing process that with in itself explains the nature of energy and matter as continually undergoing change to space itself and space synchronizes with the objects that are generating it via the emitted gravitational wave.

18. Moderator
Join Date
Jul 2003
Posts
4,564
Moved to ATM. Now, micheal turner, please start answering questions and showing the math of your idea.

19. Originally Posted by michael turner
Like two old fuddy duddies. Ask something intelligent and postable. I am explaining How the existing math and fundamental laws and observations actually fit together in three dimensions.
kewl, then here we go!

Please show us mathematically and physically how the magnetic field is transformed into a gravitational field. If it is all so easy and straightforward, it should not be too difficult to give some equations, instead of some great amount of word salat.

Please show us also evidence of observations that magnetic fields turn in to gravitational fields.

Please explain why I can watch television whereas I am very much embedded in a gravitational field and according to your ideas two fields cannot occupy the same space.

Originally Posted by michael turner
Can you ask a specific question rather than looking for the relationship to an all encompassing formula, because there isn't, but there is an all encompassing process that with in itself explains the nature of energy and matter as continually undergoing change to space itself and space synchronizes with the objects that are generating it via the emitted gravitational wave.
Oh, and please tell us what you think a gravitational wave is, and how you think that gravitational waves create gravity.

And don't be shy with the math, we can deal with that. But then, the bolded part of the first quote and of the second are mutually exclusive, are they not?

20. and be nice

21. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
477
Originally Posted by michael turner
It is the process that defines the math and not the math that defines the process!
Ooh, my favorite kind of scientificated ATM salad. I also am curious how magnetic fields decay into gravitational fields (all those physicists sitting around like doofuses for all these years, to miss a thing like that). Such a fine salad needs a dressing of pureed Maxwell and diced Algebra. I am positively salivating in anticipation of the recipe. Ah, but wait, if the salad describes the recipe, instead of the recipe describing the salad, then why indeed should we bother? And I was so looking forward...

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139

3) None of the above?

23. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
2,577

Wow, we haven't had word salad like this since . . . since . . . it occurs to me that I can't say since who, since they can't defend themselves. Such a lack of harmony.

OP, you need to respond to the questions about the math. If you don't want to work in ATM, you can ask a moderator to close the thread. If you do want to stay, you are obligated to answer the questions to keep the thread open. You might consider narrowing the scope of your claims so that answering the questions is easier.

Good luck, John M.

24. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

Originally Posted by Fortis

3) None of the above?

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by michael turner
And how is it generated?

26. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

## you are wrong, many scientists did not miss it.

Originally Posted by thorkil2
Ooh, my favorite kind of scientificated ATM salad. I also am curious how magnetic fields decay into gravitational fields (all those physicists sitting around like doofuses for all these years, to miss a thing like that). Such a fine salad needs a dressing of pureed Maxwell and diced Algebra. I am positively salivating in anticipation of the recipe. Ah, but wait, if the salad describes the recipe, instead of the recipe describing the salad, then why indeed should we bother? And I was so looking forward...
1). That is the nature of vibration, monopole creation
2). Doofuses are your words, not mine but on the lighter side, the Harvard Physics Dept.

In the year 1919 the Harvard physics dept. published a book in which they believed gravity to be a byproduct of electromagnetic radiation, turns out they were right! Unfortunately 1919 is the year they were overshadow by Eddington's obsrevations of Einstein's calculation of Mar's orbit in which Einstein's recepie is correct but description of the mechanism is missing.

3). What part of the math has all been done don't you get. I am just stating why the math, the laws of physics, actually work. And why observations are as they should be. Why time, space and gravitation are relative, why the universe is accelerating, why we will never find a graviton, why black holes evaporate, why there is only three dimensions, the mechanism of gravity.

27. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

## the nature of gravity

Originally Posted by Fortis
And how is it generated?
It is a natural decay process of all electromagnetic radiation, it is the cause of vibration, it unwinds through the process of least resistance. I do not have all the answers. But as with anything process energy is given up. The gravitational field is the endpoint of all processes, except monopole field synchronization which aligns everything eventually.

28. Join Date
Apr 2005
Posts
27

## Dear John

Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Wow, we haven't had word salad like this since . . . since . . . it occurs to me that I can't say since who, since they can't defend themselves. Such a lack of harmony.

OP, you need to respond to the questions about the math. If you don't want to work in ATM, you can ask a moderator to close the thread. If you do want to stay, you are obligated to answer the questions to keep the thread open. You might consider narrowing the scope of your claims so that answering the questions is easier.

Good luck, John M.
My first Dear john letter,

I have responded by stating that the current three dimensional math and the laws governing that math all ready exist and are common knowledge. I am only stating the link between the math and the laws and the mechanism that ties everything together.

I guess I could complete one principle if you want. To complete the Huygens' principle you need to subtract the gravitational constant as the kickback to all wave interactiions. Call me crazy but he missed the fact that each wavelet point creates a kickback and that kickback can be traced all the way to the source.

If two or more objects generating joining waves are combining they the kickback combines to bring the wave generating objects together in a process that you might call gravitation.

Now if you are asking for a TOE theory, it ain't gonna happen, not because I wouldn't like to get the credit but because of the nature of a monopole wave function vs. strong, weak, and electromagnetic multipole wave functions. Nature doesn't relate that way except when everything is superhot and those equations have all ready been done too.

29. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by michael turner
It is a natural decay process of all electromagnetic radiation, it is the cause of vibration, it unwinds through the process of least resistance.
What does this actually mean? It "unwinds"? What was woound up, and how does it unwind? What does that even mean? It is the cause of what vibration? Are we talking about sound? Are we in the realms of seismology? What is the process of least resistance? Can you quantify the "resistance" of your hypothetical process?

How does EM radiation decay? Through what process? What evidence do you have for any of this?

30. Originally Posted by michael turner
1). That is the nature of vibration, monopole creation
2). Doofuses are your words, not mine but on the lighter side, the Harvard Physics Dept.

In the year 1919 the Harvard physics dept. published a book in which they believed gravity to be a byproduct of electromagnetic radiation, turns out they were right! Unfortunately 1919 is the year they were overshadow by Eddington's obsrevations of Einstein's calculation of Mar's orbit in which Einstein's recepie is correct but description of the mechanism is missing.

3). What part of the math has all been done don't you get. I am just stating why the math, the laws of physics, actually work. And why observations are as they should be. Why time, space and gravitation are relative, why the universe is accelerating, why we will never find a graviton, why black holes evaporate, why there is only three dimensions, the mechanism of gravity.
Dear michael turner,

Please consider us dumb and unedumacated, and explain it to us. Statements like "Harvard physics dept. published a book in which they believed gravity to be a byproduct of electromagnetic radiation" are all good and fine, but tell us the title and the authors of said book, so we can look it up, if it exists at all.

Another statement "What part of the math has all been done don't you get. I am just stating why the math, the laws of physics, actually work." Nobody here knows the book that you are alluding to (I think, but I could be wrong) so we do not have the foggiest about what math you are talking. You need to show it to us explicitly here on the board.

And then there are still my other questions that you need to answer:

1. Please show us mathematically and physically how the magnetic field is transformed into a gravitational field. If it is all so easy and straightforward, it should not be too difficult to give some equations, instead of some great amount of word salat.
2. Please show us also evidence of observations that magnetic fields turn in to gravitational fields.
3. Please explain why I can watch television whereas I am very much embedded in a gravitational field and according to your ideas two fields cannot occupy the same space.

However, this:
Originally Posted by micheal turner
It is a natural decay process of all electromagnetic radiation, it is the cause of vibration, it unwinds through the process of least resistance.
is not an answer on my quiestion 1, like Fortis says, "what does this actually mean?" You say you have the math, so explain it to us.

A quick google showed me that on the key words "Harvard physics dept. electromagnetic radiation gravity 1919" the only link to something similar to what you said is a ... post by you on PhysicsForum (to which I cannot link at the moment, apparently those threads do not exist anymore???????)

#### Posting Permissions

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