Philosophy Discussion Forums

See link for source below (new account restrictions bar me from providing links):

Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed. Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: “If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S’, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J’, when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light.” (Eddington, 1920

After reading this article, I am going to re-explore Bill's Rope Theory. I recall it elucidating the instantaneous effect of gravity, whilst also adhering to the results of all known experiments, even gravitational lensing. Does anyone here have sufficient familiarity with Bill's rope theory to elaborate on how the ropes pull stronger as two distinct masses approach each other?

Apparently I cannot link the source in any conceivable manner that would be intelligible because of my new account restrictions.

The author of the article (from which I quoted) is Tom Van Flandern, the article comes from Physics Letters A.

If you regard gravity as a field rather than a force a lot of problems that are associated with it seem to disappear.

For instance a photon travelling at the same speed and direction as the field would not notice the passage of time anymore than a wood chip floating in a river would notice the passage of water. But if the wood chip ran aground then it would notice the passage of water. This accounts for the appearance of the various cosmic rays and light . I have little trouble thinking that light is not light until it is stopped or observed. Shrodingers problem writ large.

In order for the orbits to remain stable aparently there can be no lag in this field, This probably could not be the case if gravity is viewed as an attractive force but doesn't seem to be a problem in a field.

It gets rather more interesting the further into it that we investigate

Gravity only makes sense if there is an ether which is pushing the planets towards the sun and a counter force of waves of light which are pushing them back in the other direction. A pulling force is illogical and nature, thus, can't pull, it can only push. Pulling requires an intelligence and the use of muscles which only animals have. The old philosophers used the concept of the horse pulling a cart as their model which is a faulty model based on a basic misunderstanding of fundamental logic and universal properties of the universe. Orbital stability only occurs when the force of ether push equals the force of radiation outwards. Thus, planets are more stable in their orbit of the sun than what planets are in relation to their moons. This is why the moon is moving away from the Earth.

DarwinX wrote:Gravity only makes sense if there is an ether which is pushing the planets towards the sun and a counter force of waves of light which are pushing them back in the other direction. A pulling force is illogical and nature, thus, can't pull, it can only push. Pulling requires an intelligence and the use of muscles which only animals have. The old philosophers used the concept of the horse pulling a cart as their model which is a faulty model based on a basic misunderstanding of fundamental logic and universal properties of the universe. Orbital stability only occurs when the force of ether push equals the force of radiation outwards. Thus, planets are more stable in their orbit of the sun than what planets are in relation to their moons. This is why the moon is moving away from the Earth.

How do you explain a magnet, which demonstrates a clear pulling force?

Present awareness wrote: How do you explain a magnet, which demonstrates a clear pulling force?

A magnet is a stronger version of a planet. It contains elements which cause a stronger etheric current. All matter is magnetic. Its just that magnets have stronger magnetic qualities than other materials. Planets have 2 opposite poles which draws in ether similar to a magnet. The auroras are evidence of the etheric forces at play. The ether pushes in on one side of the magnet and pushes out on the other, thus, the magnetic material is focusing the etheric forces into a concentrated area.

http://www.simplegravity.com/

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23410705/#.UycNJKiSySo

Mechsmith wrote:If you regard gravity as a field rather than a force a lot of problems that are associated with it seem to disappear.

For instance a photon travelling at the same speed and direction as the field would not notice the passage of time anymore than a wood chip floating in a river would notice the passage of water. But if the wood chip ran aground then it would notice the passage of water. This accounts for the appearance of the various cosmic rays and light . I have little trouble thinking that light is not light until it is stopped or observed. Shrodingers problem writ large.

In order for the orbits to remain stable aparently there can be no lag in this field, This probably could not be the case if gravity is viewed as an attractive force but doesn't seem to be a problem in a field.

It gets rather more interesting the further into it that we investigate

But photons do not travel as you admit and they do not experience time. When you start believing gravity is a field it creates more problems than it solves. Bill Geades ropes do not require a medium nor does it require the most outrageous claim that gravity is independent of a relationship between objects of mass. If you classify gravity as a tension between objects of mass it most certainly dismisses the need of an aether.

Xris, I have had trouble regarding gravity as an attractive force for several reasons.

The curved path of photons and other wave forms seem to indicate that they travel in a preexisting field.

The "ropes" would require some sort of entanglement that would hold up at faster than light speed.

What would the ropes be made of. I had had some hopes that they could have been made from Higgs bosuns but that didn't work out. However the field could be made of those bosuns but so far I doubt it.

I have no idea yet as to what the field is made of but it seems to work pretty well as a flowing field. So far I cannot get anything else to move quickly enough.

A field would not require anything except space time to collapse on encountering any massive object, similar to a magnetic field.

I hope you can come up with some more ideas

Mechsmith,I hope I am not misrepresenting Gaedes ropes but he attempts to explain these ropes as two strands consisting of one electrical energy and one of magnetic ability .. Electromagnetic ropes that bonds all atoms together giving atoms their mass and creating a constant relationship to all other atoms(gravity).When activated they transmit EM radiation of a certain frequency. This bond creates a permanent tension that does not require an aether nor can we describe it as travelling. I hope this helps explain the view I have developed through trying to understand Bill Gaedes EM ropes.xris

Xris wrote: But photons do not travel as you admit and they do not experience time. When you start believing gravity is a field it creates more problems than it solves. Bill Geades ropes do not require a medium nor does it require the most outrageous claim that gravity is independent of a relationship between objects of mass. If you classify gravity as a tension between objects of mass it most certainly dismisses the need of an aether.

Mechsmith didn't mention anything about the aether, so I guess you must be having a cheap shot at my post. Note - If there is no aether, there can't be any tension. Therefore, your logic is unsound again. The ropes need a medium to travel through. In fact, the ropes are just a property of the aether itself. Thus, the ropes don't exist in themselves but are just an easy to understand metaphor for the properties of the aether. Just as space time is a metaphor for aether. Just as virtual photons is a metaphor for the aether etc, etc......

Xris, I am having some trouble finding out the necessity of ropes. If we need one rope per atom I'd tend to call it a field. Also these ropes would need to exist in all directions in order to work instantaneously. Again more field like. Worth thinking about though. Also with a field I wouldn't need all those wires

Mechsmith wrote:Xris, I am having some trouble finding out the necessity of ropes. If we need one rope per atom I'd tend to call it a field. Also these ropes would need to exist in all directions in order to work instantaneously. Again more field like. Worth thinking about though. Also with a field I wouldn't need all those wires

Gaede claims every atom is connected to every other atom by these EM ropes. What is your field made of exactly? How does it differ to others aether? An aether that regular science calls space time because no aether has has never been found.

Xris wrote:

Mechsmith wrote:Xris, I am having some trouble finding out the necessity of ropes. If we need one rope per atom I'd tend to call it a field. Also these ropes would need to exist in all directions in order to work instantaneously. Again more field like. Worth thinking about though. Also with a field I wouldn't need all those wires

Gaede claims every atom is connected to every other atom by these EM ropes. What is your field made of exactly? How does it differ to others aether? An aether that regular science calls space time because no aether has has never been found.

Nobody has ever found space-time, EM ropes, virtual photons or Planck's constant either.

DarwinX wrote:

Xris wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Gaede claims every atom is connected to every other atom by these EM ropes. What is your field made of exactly? How does it differ to others aether? An aether that regular science calls space time because no aether has has never been found.

Nobody has ever found space-time, EM ropes, virtual photons or Planck's constant either.

You see light, feel the effects of gravity. So we construct theories to explain them and by logic we should eliminate any that do not fully stand scrutiny. Have you seen the aether?

Xris, I have not seen the aether. I have felt its effects though, and I also have seen some of the effects that I attribute to the field, perhaps mistakenly I have not seen a magnetic field either but I have seen some of the effects that the field seems to have.

My personal hypothesis is that gravity is a result of motion on the atomic scale. However it ( the hypothesis) still needs work. (Yankee understatement) .

I further hypothesize that the field collapses into energy at the atomic scale. We cannot tell what the fields are made of, only how they seem to act. This may only be due to a paucity of our senses. Some fish may be able to see water but I suspect that they are only able to see its effects on things

Happy thoughts, M

Mechsmith we all have our beliefs but do you really feel fields? Changing the subject slightly. If light permeates a 3 dimendional field or an aether can you indicate or give me an image of how complex light waves from various sources manage to create a clear image on your retina?