Oh noes!! Gravity is easing it's pull!!!

"A particle can be near another, bigger mass or more distant from it. In the nearest situation the uncertainty of the particle's motion (p.e. appearances of an electron within a sphere with Heisenberg dimensions) is smaller than at the more distant spot. Therefore the probability of transition from the farthest spot to the nearer one is higher than in the reverse direction". --- Vasily Yanchilin's "The Quantum Theory of Gravitation".

Gravity does not affect me. *trips*

time to fly soon!~

Gravity doesn't pull. Misunderstood completely. Just because the apple falls, doesn't mean it's a pull. Man will continue to screw up until he learns it's a PUSH. Of cold hard space on the planet.

Just a little "light" reading for those who may be interested.

[link to www.i-b-r.org]

1. SCIENTIFIC IMBALANCES OF THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY 1
1.1 THE SCIENTIFIC IMBALANCE CAUSED BY ANTIMATTER 1
1.1.1 Needs for a Classical Theory of Antimatter 1
1.1.2 The Mathematical Origin of the Imbalance 3
1.1.3 Outline of the Studies on Antimatter 4
1.2 THE SCIENTIFIC IMBALANCE CAUSED BY
NONLOCAL-INTEGRAL INTERACTIONS 4
1.2.1 Foundations of the Imbalance 4
1.2.2 Exterior and Interior Dynamical Problems 7
1.2.3 General Inapplicability of Conventional Mathematical
and Physical Methods for Interior Dynamical Systems 13
1.2.4 Inapplicability of Special Relativity for Dynamical
Systems with Resistive Forces 14
1.2.5 Inapplicability of Special Relativity for the Propagation
of Light within Physical Media 15
1.2.6 Inapplicability of the Galilean and Poincar´e symmetries
for Interior Dynamical Systems 18
1.2.7 The Scientific Imbalance Caused by Quark Conjectures 21
1.2.8 The Scientific Imbalance Caused by Neutrino Conjectures 24
1.2.9 The Scientific Imbalance in Experimental Particle Physics 30
1.2.10 The Scientific Imbalance in Nuclear Physics 33
1.2.11 The Scientific Imbalance in Superconductivity 37
1.2.12 The Scientific Imbalance in Chemistry 38
1.2.13 Inconsistencies of Quantum Mechanics,
Superconductivity and Chemistry for Underwater
Electric Arcs 47
1.3 THE SCIENTIFIC IMBALANCE CAUSED BY
IRREVERSIBILITY 49
1.3.1 The Scientific Imbalance in the Description of Natural
Processes 49
1.3.2 The Scientific Imbalance in Astrophysics and Cosmology 52

Was thinking about this last night.

Since Newton's gravitational attraction is inversely proportional to the distance between the 2 objects, and we cannot tell how fast we are moving relative to the space around us, how can we prove gravity is a function of mass ?

Have there ever been any experiments measuring gravitational attraction between accelerating bodies of different masses ?

How the hell would you pull that off ?

Ttown will be excited to hear this...

lol, square of

Read the links in greater detail. You are right and wrong, it does both...think of electromagnetism.

Actually here is a really good discussion on Thunderbolts.

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

FIGURE 3.6: A schematic view of the simplest possible Santilli's elementary magnecule H2xH2 composed of two plane polarized hydrogen molecules in mutual magnetic bond. Note that, once the magnecule has been formed, it is stable (at ordinary conditions) because of the high value of the magnetic forces at the small inter-atomic distances of the bond. Note also that the elementary magnecule is considered here at absolute zero degree Kelvin and in the absence of any motion. At ordinary temperature, the magnecule is predicted to appear as a sphere of the same size as that of one conventional hydrogen molecule, yet possessing a molecular weight very close to that of ... helium. Similar elementary magnecules are predicted for H2xO2, O2xO2, COxCO, COxCO2, etc.



It was easy to see that one of the strongest, readily available sources of magnetic fields in gases is an electric arc. Therefore, Santilli predicted that magnecules exist in gases and liquids exposed to an electric arc. In this section we outline separately the experimental evidence for magnecules in gases, liquids, and solids.

I just keep on gnawing away at this bone; maybe, someday I will understand all of this much easier!! LOL

Last Edited by Smilin' Irish Eyes on 12/06/2010 09:52 AM

Ahh, it takes time, Smilin'! Still getting there myself

Thanks for the link, The chronology tables are a nice touch. It looks like Santilli really caught flak for this work. I'll enjoy it with some Ravi.

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]




[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]

Mystery Spots and Gravity Hills

Cars and balls seem to roll uphill, people appear able to stand at impossible angles - all in contradiction to the laws of gravity and physics. What's really happening at these curious locations?

There are dozens of mystery spots to be found around the U.S., and many more gravity hills - places where gravity itself seems to be warped. Our perceptions of up, down, straight and crooked are confused by what some say are powerful gravitational anomalies and dizzying magnetic vortexes. Is that the case, or are our senses being fooled by clever man-made and natural optical illusions?
[link to paranormal.about.com]

Hey Aether! If you're here then hopefully Sickscent and Rex Khristos aren't far behind. :)

Wow you're such a genious!

You might want to correct the grammatical mistake in your thread title before you get too deep into your lecture, professor.

Speaking of balls or spheres...LOL




[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]

The "pull" is only half of all gravity. The pressure (push) is the other half. (Pressure from everywhere, toward everywhere)

Gravity anomalies in the world
[link to www.zonu.com]

Yikes! Negative gravity for around where I live! LOL

Yes, it should be "its" not "it's".

"Its" is a possessive pronoun, meaning "belonging to it." The confusion arises because if you don't substitute the pronoun "it" for the noun, an apostrophe is used. For example, the bone belonging to the dog is "the dog's bone." The eraser on the pencil is "the pencil's eraser." Both examples use an apostrophe plus an "s" in order to attribute ownership.

So other than my quickly typing the thread title what did you think of the theorum? Or did you only post to comment on the grammar? If so, then the lure worked.....muh ha ha ha.



Last Edited by Smilin' Irish Eyes on 12/06/2010 02:10 PM

[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]

Great, easy to understand video.




[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]

[link to video.godlikeproductions.com]

[link to goodfelloweb.com]

How does the Sun shine? The Victorians believed the Sun was a burning ball of coal. In the atomic era it is thought to be a nuclear furnace. Each age reflects its own successful power source and attributes it to the radiating phenomena in the heavens.


This paper will demonstrate that it is possible to create the force of gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass. This phenomenon can be demonstrated in a way that is easy to observe and understand.

The means of solar evolution and propagation outlined in this paper is but one example of this effect.


ABSTRACT
The Sun is inducing gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass. This phenomenon is brought about by a plasma in a magnetically unified state; a magnetically sustained 'non-space', an absolute vacuum held in place by the photospheric plasma shell.

Specific neutrino observations will verify this hypothesis.


Since this paper is chiefly concerned with the verification of gravitational induction, only a brief summarization of 'Non Space' will be presented here.
On a rudimentary level, non-space behavior can be compared to a vortex, which is a 'low energy' example of this phenomenon. Milk added to a stirred cup of coffee outlines a vortex, which consists of a high pressure exterior and a low pressure center. The vortex behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler's Second Law of Planetary Motion(1). Objects placed closer to the center of the vortex orbit at a greater speed than objects further out from the center, in accordance with Kepler's Laws. The depression in the center of the fluid is thus a relative absence of matter producing an effect characteristic of gravity.
No observable space in the universe is a vacuum.(2) It is notable that most dictionaries describe a vacuum as: " A space devoid of matter." This definition is no longer sufficient description of a vacuum, since it appears that all known space contains some measure of mass/energy. Perhaps a more accurate description would be: " A vacuum is a volume devoid of space."
Since a higher pressure attempts to nullify a lower pressure, a hypothetical volume of absolute vacuum (non-space) will attract space.

Non-space is an absolute vacuum which induces gravity. This causes the exterior mass/energy space to gravitationally implode upon non-space. Any given volume of non-space has a temperature of absolute zero and is without time.
I believe that a magnetic field can exist in non-space, because it is a manifestation of mass/energy, but is not mass/energy in itself. In the following chapter I shall discuss how Non-space can be brought about by high energy plasmas in magnetically unified configurations.
Return

PLASMA
To understand how non-space is possible, it is important to consider the rudiments of plasma behavior.
It was not long ago that physics classified matter into only three states: Solid, Liquid, and Gas....




*********Continued at link with illustrations as well******

Dark matter, solid, liquid, gas, plasma.
5 states. That my count.