gravity waves found

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

One more idea for viewing the 'gravity waves', in addition, but along the lines of the aura lenses:
Circularly polarized lenses... like they are using for 3d movies. Maybe even 2 circularly polarized lenses, one left hand, one right hand, placed over each other... I've just started playing with some myself... I tore apart some throw away 3d movies glasses (NOT the blue/red ones) and when they are placed over each other, in the correct direction, everything appears violet when viewing directly through them, but when tilted at different angles, the color changes, through nearly all the colors.

[gravityblock]

@ GravityBlock

You said: "If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies... "


I think we have all see (NASA?) video footage of spherical objects and water droplets orbiting each other in the weightlessness of space, and showing evidence of being attracted to each other.

So if I understand what your saying - and I don't think any of us can test this - those objects would NOT behave this way in the absence of light? (ie. if you ran the same test in total darkness those objects would no longer attract? I realize that many of the "facts" that we have been taught are wrong, however this seems counter intuitive (to me).

-Van

Why did you only quote half of my statement? Also, why did you leave the original post out of the quote where it could be found? The complete statement I made is found in reply #1964, "If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies, Jupiter, with a volume 1,330 times greater than Earth and 331 times as much mass, should be much closer to the Sun than Earth is". All objects have the same rate of fall in a vacuum which shows that the mass of the objects is attracted by the vertical component of magnetism. In the NASA experiment you cited, the spherical object and the water droplets being free of the atmosphere along with it's height above the earth is subject only to a small proportion of the vertical component of magnetism, then becomes more subject to its horizontal component and moves at a certain speed corresponding to the relation between its mass and the magnetic impulse.

Astronomers see that a planet is attracted, they also see that centrifugal force counterbalances this attraction, but they do not see that they have overlooked a third force which gives a planet movement. When one whirls a stone on the end of a string, the string represents the force of attraction and centrifugal force plays the part of repulsion, but the individual represents the third force which gives direction to the stone. If y = F or f= y x M, then the element of propulsion F is necessary to make the Earth move, since it is this that imparts an acceleration to the mass M. It is logical that a body to which acceleration has been imparted should begin to move, but it is absurd to state that this acceleration could be initiated without a force and then maintained without one, especially as there is a loss of energy as the result of the movement of the body against the action of gravity (solar attraction).

We use the term "centrifugal force," which means to say that all the points in a body tend to fly away from the centre. To put it differently, all the points M' tend to follow a straight line in space in the direction of the impelling force and at a tangent to the equatorial plane of the body. Now let us analyse the consequences of the terrestrial system based on solar attraction and repulsion through centrifugal force. If all the points of a body tried to fly away from the centre, the force of solar attraction resisted by the centrifugal force would give rise to a loss of energy and the planet would become stationary. We should also bear in mind that this loss of energy would be a double one as the Earth develops two kinds of centrifugal force, the first due to its orbital velocity, and the second due to its axial rotation. Work cannot be performed by a body without a source of power. If Earth itself were the source of the power, then the whole of physics, thermodynamics included, would be wrong. This alone is sufficient to show the incorrectness of terrestrial astronomy.

Earth's velocity in orbit is 66,000 m.p.h. and has a distance of 93,000,000 miles from the sun with a mass of 1. Jupiter's velocity in orbit is 29,500 m.p.h. and has a distance of 489,000,000 miles from the sun with a mass of 317 earth's mass. Jupiter, with a mass of 317 times greater than that of the Earth, should be subject to a far greater attraction than the Earth, yet the velocity in orbit is not high enough to counterbalance this and maintain it in orbit. This planet has a large mass and a low velocity. This being the case, either the orbital velocity of the Earth is too great for its mass, and it should be flung out of its orbit, or Jupiter's is too low, and it should be drawn into the Sun.

Note that I give Jupiter's mass as 317 times that of the Earth, so as not to differ from the estimate which is based on the force of attraction of the Sun against centrifugal force. This figure, however, is incorrect. The correct mass of Jupiter is 331 times that of the earth. You might raise the objection that Jupiter, with its large mass, revolves in an outer orbit according to the theory that spheres of greater mass are said to be more subject to the action of centrifugal force. Against this we have the case of Mars which is smaller than the Earth, yet is farther from the Sun. Or again, the planets beyond Jupiter which are smaller than it, and yet revolve at a tremendous distance from the Sun. Moreover their velocity in orbit is very low. So that does not make sense either. This alone is sufficient to show the incorrectness of terrestrial astronomy, as a theory is only valid when it answers all the relevant problems involved.

GB

[Van T Stride]

Planetary Orbits

@ GravityBlock

You said:

If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies...

I think we have all see (NASA?) video footage of spherical objects and water droplets orbiting each other in the weightlessness of space, and showing evidence of being attracted to each other.

So if I understand what your saying - and I don't think any of us can test this - those objects would NOT behave this way in the absence of light? (ie. if you ran the same test in total darkness those objects would no longer attract? I realize that many of the "facts" that we have been taught are wrong, however this seems counter intuitive (to me).

-Van

[jonobl]

Sounds very interesting. Are there any videos?

[gravityblock]

An electron is an integration of electromagnetic waves. But, an electromagnetic wave can be of positive or negative polarity. If we were to send electromagnetic pulses between magnets, the waves thus produced would create an ether different from that on Earth. A variation in the distance between the plates would bring about a modification in the ether produced. By changing its polarity so as to oppose that of the Earth, we will be repelled from the planet at a speed corresponding to the difference in polarity between the craft and the Earth.

GB

Light is a bipolar force with both an attractive and repulsive component that can be controlled (not to be confused with light's radiation pressure). This not only applies to visible light, but it applies to all electromagnetic waves.



GB

[gravityblock]

Do you have any links that explore light repelling magnetic fields? This is very interesting. Great theory by the way. It's going to take me a few days to fully understand it though

The curvature of light is not due to the action of the mass of the Sun, but is caused by the magnetic centre of the system situated near the Sun. Even within a solenoid you can see that a stream of electrons is deflected by a magnetic field. If light were to be deflected when passing close to a mass, this phenomenon could be clearly observed in the vicinity of planets, let us say Mars, when it is close to Earth. Eclipses of the Moon, for example, would provide the best opportunity for such observation. Nevertheless, this curvature was only seen precisely where the magnetic centre of our system is to be found. Therefore, light is deflected by the magnetic centre and curves round the Sun. If we had proper apparatus, we would see that light also curves on the side opposite the centre, as though it were trying to get away from the Sun. The curvature of space is anti-scientific. Primordial space is not relative to any thing and has no form at all. It is neither a curve nor a straight line, and it has no dimensions, it is simply space, infinite in all directions. Wheresoever an observer may place himself, he will always have before him the infinite Universe.

The greater deflection of light near the poles causes a drop in temperature, whereas at the Equator a strong concentration of light gives more heat. The elliptical orbits of the planets are yet another consequence of the interaction of the two forces. By taking note of a planets distance from the Sun and their volume, we can discover their true density, and this will also give us the magnetic force of its poles. Thus the planet Jupiter is of low density and, having a large diameter, it is more subject to the force of repulsion than that of attraction. If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies, Jupiter, with a volume 1,330 times greater than Earth and 331 times as much mass, should be much closer to the Sun than Earth is.

Rotation is the result of the distance of the planet from the Sun, the overall diameter it presents to the Sun, its mass and the satellites which throw their light on its surface, minus its own self generated light. A comet approaching the Sun becomes flattened. Light is deflected when it comes into contact with a magnetic field (it is not deflected by mass). An electron, passing through a magnetic field, is also deflected. The planet Jupiter, when closest to the Sun, is able to exert a pressure upon it which moves it from its position. Light has weight and gives rise to friction (the weight of light is 410 atmospheric pressure per square mile). Solar light causes barometric pressure. In aphelion the planets move at slower speeds. The pressure of sunlight upon Mercury pushes it 23 million km. away from the Sun. I'll try to find some links when I have more time.

Thanks,

GB

[occy30]

Herschel and Newton mathematically proved the existence of our magnetic field, within which the Sun and the planets move, when they discovered that the point of equilibrium of the solar system lay at a distance from the Sun equal to three times its diameter, due to the proportion of 1 to 700 in the relative mass of the planets to that of the Sun. It is round this point of equilibrium that the Sun moves. While being attracted by this point, the earth is being repelled by the light from the Sun. It's orbit round the Sun represents the balance between these two actions of attraction and repulsion.

Now, a body in space can only be in a state of equilibrium if two contrary forces meet to support it. If there were only a force of attraction without a corresponding one of repulsion, the planet would move towards the point of attraction. If the repulsion were caused solely by centrifugal force, the planet would slowly spiral in, towards the source of attraction. Without the repulsive force of the Sun, there would, however, be no circular movement. There would be neither axial rotation nor orbital revolution. A body impelled in one direction only does not move in another direction. How could Earth move in orbit in a different direction to this repulsive force? Surely a thrust from one direction cannot give rise to another at right angles to itself?

If the magnetic centre lies between a planet and the Sun, the force of attraction is predominant and the planet is drawn in. However, if the Sun is between the planet and the centre, the force of repulsion predominates and the planet moves out, its path disturbed (this is why planets move in elliptical orbits). As the position of the Sun changes in relation to the "point zero" centre, each successive aphelion and perihelion of a planet occurs in a different position.

Scientists forgot, when dealing with the movement of planets, that energy must have been used up as a result of solar attraction working against the two centrifugal forces mentioned. If no explanation was given as to the source of power necessary to sustain the movement, then it is because the problem was based on false premises. In the theory which I contend is the correct one, this force is derived from difference of energy potential which sunlight sets up by illuminating one face of the planet while leaving the other in darkness. A body which is balanced between two opposing forces (attraction and repulsion) has no weight and moves like a stone whirled round on the end of a string, the radius of its orbit being represented by the string.

There is an internal pressure which causes the nebulae to move away from one another. You may raise the objection that this pressure is also applied in the direction of flight so that the internal pressure coupled with the external one would make them stable and they would not move apart, which would cause their mass to condense. My answer to this would be that energy created outside a galaxy tends to be drawn into the galaxy, condensing itself into material form. Thus we have an internal pressure coupled with an external decompression.

The flight of the nebulae prevents condensation taking place for three reasons: 1) This movement causes the interior pressure to disappear. However, nebulae appear to maintain an acceleration caused by an internal pressure within the Universe. (2) As the nebulae move apart, that space which had been transformed into matter endeavours to return to its former state of primordial space in accordance with the law of rotation of masses in a magnetic field. This reconstitutes the energy that had been used for condensation of the matter, turning it into light, whose wave energy goes on decreasing until the moment of entropy is reached. This is what takes place on the Sun. Leaving aside the reaction that they bring about on the planets, the Sun's discharges into space are, in a sense, matter returning to its original state of primordial space. (3) Light repels magnetic fields. Light from a myriad of suns in the various galaxies produces a very great force of repulsion on all the nebulae, and under this pressure they move away from one another.

In the first instance God supplied the power that brings about the deformation of space and the Sun, by an opposite process, turns it back into energy, thus re-establishing the balance. That is why neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.

GB

Do you have any links that explore light repelling magnetic fields? This is very interesting. Great theory by the way. It's going to take me a few days to fully understand it though

[sucahyo]

It interacts with matter itself.

I see. The unmeasureable part of magnetic field.


Thanks for the theory. I don't have any solid one for the solar system.

I believe in effect of energy other than light from the sun. The one that make device produce power related to sun position.

[gravityblock]

The precession of Mercury's perhelions, which gave rise to Einstein's relativity theory, is due to the planet's proximity to the Sun. As it moves closer to the Sun, it receives more light, rotates more rapidly and moves through space with greater speed. In the case of Mercury, science maintains erroneously that it revolves once on its axis for every revolution in orbit. What happens is that Mercury has a very rapid axial rotation. This does not take place on the equatorial plane of the solar system, but at right angles to it. Mercury is really a satellite of the Sun and not, strictly speaking, a planet, because only satellites have this peculiarity.

GB

[gravityblock]

Herschel and Newton mathematically proved the existence of our magnetic field, within which the Sun and the planets move, when they discovered that the point of equilibrium of the solar system lay at a distance from the Sun equal to three times its diameter, due to the proportion of 1 to 700 in the relative mass of the planets to that of the Sun. It is round this point of equilibrium that the Sun moves. While being attracted by this point, the earth is being repelled by the light from the Sun. It's orbit round the Sun represents the balance between these two actions of attraction and repulsion.

Now, a body in space can only be in a state of equilibrium if two contrary forces meet to support it. If there were only a force of attraction without a corresponding one of repulsion, the planet would move towards the point of attraction. If the repulsion were caused solely by centrifugal force, the planet would slowly spiral in, towards the source of attraction. Without the repulsive force of the Sun, there would, however, be no circular movement. There would be neither axial rotation nor orbital revolution. A body impelled in one direction only does not move in another direction. How could Earth move in orbit in a different direction to this repulsive force? Surely a thrust from one direction cannot give rise to another at right angles to itself?

If the magnetic centre lies between a planet and the Sun, the force of attraction is predominant and the planet is drawn in. However, if the Sun is between the planet and the centre, the force of repulsion predominates and the planet moves out, its path disturbed (this is why planets move in elliptical orbits). As the position of the Sun changes in relation to the "point zero" centre, each successive aphelion and perihelion of a planet occurs in a different position.

Scientists forgot, when dealing with the movement of planets, that energy must have been used up as a result of solar attraction working against the two centrifugal forces mentioned. If no explanation was given as to the source of power necessary to sustain the movement, then it is because the problem was based on false premises. In the theory which I contend is the correct one, this force is derived from difference of energy potential which sunlight sets up by illuminating one face of the planet while leaving the other in darkness. A body which is balanced between two opposing forces (attraction and repulsion) has no weight and moves like a stone whirled round on the end of a string, the radius of its orbit being represented by the string.

There is an internal pressure which causes the nebulae to move away from one another. You may raise the objection that this pressure is also applied in the direction of flight so that the internal pressure coupled with the external one would make them stable and they would not move apart, which would cause their mass to condense. My answer to this would be that energy created outside a galaxy tends to be drawn into the galaxy, condensing itself into material form. Thus we have an internal pressure coupled with an external decompression.

The flight of the nebulae prevents condensation taking place for three reasons: 1) This movement causes the interior pressure to disappear. However, nebulae appear to maintain an acceleration caused by an internal pressure within the Universe. (2) As the nebulae move apart, that space which had been transformed into matter endeavours to return to its former state of primordial space in accordance with the law of rotation of masses in a magnetic field. This reconstitutes the energy that had been used for condensation of the matter, turning it into light, whose wave energy goes on decreasing until the moment of entropy is reached. This is what takes place on the Sun. Leaving aside the reaction that they bring about on the planets, the Sun's discharges into space are, in a sense, matter returning to its original state of primordial space. (3) Light repels magnetic fields. Light from a myriad of suns in the various galaxies produces a very great force of repulsion on all the nebulae, and under this pressure they move away from one another.

In the first instance God supplied the power that brings about the deformation of space and the Sun, by an opposite process, turns it back into energy, thus re-establishing the balance. That is why neither matter nor energy exist, but only deformed space, which is called matter, and what you call energy is nothing more than a phenomenon of transition between primordial space and deformed space.

GB

[gravityblock]

Are you saying it interact with magnet or can be detected with magnet detector?

It interacts with matter itself. It's more commonly known as gravity, but gravity does not exist in reality. Gravity is only effects of the secondary magnetic fields. Heat is a factor which affects this phenomena, not because it is itself an agent causing the phenomena of gravity, but because it influences magnetism and density. Gravity is no more than a wrong interpretation of a combination of phenomena. In my next post, I'll give an explanation to how bodies in space has an orbital revolution without a force of gravity.

Thanks,

GB

[sucahyo]

I believe its a form of magnetism in which the whole body is endowed with.

Are you saying it interact with magnet or can be detected with magnet detector?

[gravityblock]

Anyone still believe it is magnetism or electricity now?

I believe its a form of magnetism in which the whole body is endowed with. An electron is an integration of electromagnetic waves. But, an electromagnetic wave can be of positive or negative polarity. If we were to send electromagnetic pulses between magnets, the waves thus produced would create an ether different from that on Earth. A variation in the distance between the plates would bring about a modification in the ether produced. By changing its polarity so as to oppose that of the Earth, we will be repelled from the planet at a speed corresponding to the difference in polarity between the craft and the Earth.

GB

[sucahyo]

that is a possibility but it took my dad 2 months before he saw it ..i hope the eye can be trained?

There is one more factor, you. I believe it is a "special talent" that can be shared.

There is an evidence of a device can only be replicated after the replicator meet the successfull one.

So, I think people can see it sooner if they meet you personally. I am not sure if "sharing" via internet if possible. But "sharing" via personal talk should be certain.

I think you already mention that people around you see it sooner than people on the net.

[david lambright]

sucahyo

that is a possibility but it took my dad 2 months before he saw it ..i hope the eye can be trained?