Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-4 Poor

About Boohda

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

744 profile views
  1. Dynamic Gravity Everyone believes in General Relativity, but we all know its wrong. It fails to calculate anything in our solar system which is why we believe in Planet X, it has a 90% error in calculating anything outside the solar system which is why we believe in Dark Matter, and it can't even begin to explain Dark Energy. And it doesn't even explain how gravity works, is it waves, gravitons, magical dust? It simply doesn't even try beyond stating that somehow using no energy matter magically warps space around it. But we cling to it because its been more successful then any other theory, mainly because its the only one that predicted and calculated time dialation. But come on, can we just admit that its wrong, or at very best horribly incomplete? So, now that I have your attention. Lets take a look at Dynamic Gravity. This theory explains everything, and I mean everything. What time dialation really is, what Dark Matter is, Dark Energy, how gravity is created at a atomic level, why there is no gravity on a sub-atomic level. Litterly everything we have ever observed is exactly what Dynamic Gravity says should be, aside from the pesky bending of light around gravitational sources. But I have a few ideas how that could happen, but that is another argument for another day. So I want some people who actually understand physics to please look at my theory, and tell me if there is any reason that you can tell on why this theory absolutely cannot be true. If you still believe in General Relativity I will understand, but I am just asking for you to look at this theory with an open mind and see if there are any fatal flaws in it that make it impossible. Then determine if Dynamic Gravity has more or less flaws then General Relativity. Please read my carefully prepared explanation of Dynamic Gravity. SPAMMY LINK DELETED
  2. Too many replies to reply properly to them all, or even half. I will say this though since it appears the most everyone is just echoing one similar concepts all based around two root ideas. The first being that I don't understand GR and other basic principles of physics, if you believe I don't understand what I am talking about regarding anything related to Gravity then so be it. But I am no fool, and I assure you, I have spent more of my time wrestling with all concepts regarding Gravity over the last 18 years then anyone here will during their entire life. I guess your just gonna have to take my word of that, or don't. Just know there are many truths in this world, many of which are backed by quite seemingly sound math, but there is only one absolute truth. The second echo I hear ringing over and over is one simple request, "Do the Math, or it doesn't count". I have written volumes on this thus far in the post, and no one seems to be listening. Its an unrealistic request, and it is anything but simple. If Dynamic Gravity is true, then the math would involve a lot more parameters then GR does, and require numbers that we don't have even estimates for, and won't for generations. Numbers such as exact densities layer by layer of all near by celestial bodies, how the internal structure of atoms is setup between protons and neutrons, how far the Electromagnetic force projects of each atom as a whole, and how two projecting electromagnetic fields interact, which depends on other factors aswell such as temperature. Plus spinning fields interactions, the list goes on and on. I am not dodging the question of math, I have already answered it, its well beyond the abilities of any team of mathmaticians ludricrous salaries could possibly assemble, much less one person such as myself who has never made it past differential equaitons. Are you begining to see the scope involved here? So why did I post my theory here? And I do declare to call it a theory of 18 years in the making just doesn't seem justified by being called a simple idea. I posted here for the reason I said I did in the first post. To see if anyone here might have experimental evidience that could either prove or disprove my theory. I don't know if its right. All I know is that my theory makes a lot of predictions about how the universe would be, and they are almost exactly what we observe, GR can not make that claim, no matter how much math you drag out of it. And as I have said when substituting Einsteins median of space/time with DG's median of a displaced electromagnetic field, you will find the two concepts are so similar that Einstein has inadvertinly figured out a good chunk of the math. Concepts such as frame dragging in GR, translate over to DG by simply having the Eelectromagnetic Force field spinning as compared to GR's space/time. And the concept of time dilation transfers aswell if it is true that a stronger electromagnetic force field slows down the electrons ability to release photons. But as I have said, the math in DG is much, much more then GR, there is a lot going on in DG that is simply non existant in GR. And as for Predictions of how the universe would be in DG, I have already gone into that, these are testable observations that if anyone of them failed to exist then I would abandon it, but they do exist. Predictions such as an expanding universe, galaxies that have other rims spinning nearly as fast as inner rims, black holes not producing any light, normal celestial objects never colliding, small objects never having orbiting debris trapped in orbit around it, planets being cospaciously sorted from smallest to largest from their parent star, stars of the similar size being similar distances apart, and larger stars being further away from neighbors, galaxies having interactions that form a structure to the universe, a proton not falling in a gravitational field, the speed of light as the speed limit for mass, and I am sure somethings I have forgotten about to mention. If you think DG is a waste of time, then show a reason why. Attack DG! Show why it can't be correct! Don't attack me, and my inability to provide the most complitaced math the world has ever seen all based on measurements we don't even have availible yet. And don't give credence to GR when it doesn't deserve it, you say GR predicts an expanding universe, then show me one quote from Einstein saying so, because he would disagree with you on that, and its his theory. You say GR explains Dark Matter, then why do we spend billions operating underground labs built for one sole purpose to find just one particle of dark matter, yet years and years pass by and nothing has ever been seen, billions and billions spend on infermeters to find just one gravitational wave predicted by GR, and nothing has ever been seen, And they haven't even come up with anything that can make GR be compatible with Dark Energy, so far all theories to even attempt to explain it have filed, because they can't explain why the universe is expanding but our solar system is not, how can space itself be expanding when our universe which is in space and we can measure quite accurately has never expanded not one inch since we have had laser measurments. And for all its flaws don't get me started on the fact that GR never even comes close to explaining why mass curves space/time at all. I understand GR, and I will never agree with you no matter who much evidence you throw in defense of GR until it can explain what we observe and know to be true. Give me an explanation for why the universe is as it is, not mathmatical formulas that can calculate the precession of perihelion of mercury to 574.64 when observed is 574.10. Yes its close, I get it, but its not perfect, and it doesn't explain whats going on, or any of the other observations we have that I just mentioned. Anyways, I have said what I came to say. If the only thing everyone hears in all my walls of text is "no math", then so be it. But at least my theory explains everything a theory should. I challenge you to do better, if you have drive to spend years of your life obsessing over one singular idea until it drives you crazy. What is Gravity And FYI, the calculations I did and posted up previously was designed to determined variation between the largest celestial objects and their parent body they orbited in our solar system. The numbers have no units because the units cancel out. Its not a measurement of force, but rather a measurement of how far away from the average celestial objects in our solar system are. If you believe in DG then this number is useful because it directly translates into the how much stress the two celestial bodies are putting on each other in ratio form compared to other pairs of celestial bodies. Its a very crude formula and i don't pretend its anything other then a measurement that you would expect to be similar between pairs of celestial bodies in orbit. Now whether you believe these numbers are similar or not is up to you. I personally think when comparing the scope of the numbers they are similar to a degree. Formula= (Radius of Celestial A x Radius of Celestial B)/Distance | All in kilometers I post the results up yet again for the second time: Sun | Mercury = 29.79 Sun | Venus = 39.00 Sun | Earth = 29.56 Sun | Mars = 10 Sun | Jupiter = 62.46 Sun | Saturn = 28.34 Sun | Uranus = 6.13 Sun | Neptune = 3.81 Jupiter | Io = 301.48 Jupiter | Europa = 162.61 Jupiter | Ganymede = 171.85 Jupiter | Callisto = 89.50 Saturn | Mimas = 62.32 Saturn | Enceladus = 61.66 Saturn | Tethys = 104.82 Saturn | Dione = 86.73 Saturn | Rhea = 84.36 Saturn | Titan = 122.71 Saturn | Lapetus = 12.02 Sun | Alpha Centari = .013 Ida - .488.4
  3. Oh I have something, just sad you deny anything unless it takes the form you prefer. I have encountered your kind before, never contributing anything positive, or even logical. Just simply rejecting anything that does not take the shape of your skull. As I have said, if you know and love math so much then bring the equations to this post to explain Dark Energy or Dark Matter. Otherwise stop trying to force other people to standards you yourself do not and can not uphold.
  4. Like I said, the math involves a lot more parameters then GR and is hence a lot more complicated. If you love math so much over theory then how about you give me the math to explain dark matter? or Dark energy? or even an equation that is 100% accurate to explain the movements of the planets. Because GR does none of these, yet you parade it because of its complexity overlooking all of its failures. You know very well that Einstien didn't do all his equations alone, the notion of a lone mathmatician figuring out the equations that govern astrophysics hasn't been realistic in over a century. Your expectations are unrealistic my friend. If your one and only point is that I, like every other soul that has ever lived have failed to produce perfect equaitons to describe gravity, then it has been made. Now I challenge you to find them before you post again, since that does seem to be the overlining tone of your post is it not? Are you not basically stating that if anyone no matter what evidence they bring unless they are capable of single handedly fabricating perfect equation to apply then their opinion is obsolute? I am sorry, but I just simply don't subscribe to that logic. For every time you can name of a mathmatical equation being perfect that has held true through the test of time, there are multiples more of the math plain out right being wrong, but it was convencing enough to fool everybody, yet wrong it still was proven to be. I prefer to deal in predictions of observable events. And from where I am sitting your paraded GR has failed, it must be modified if it even can be, or erased all together. No offense, but there are a few errors here with your data. For one I do not claim that an electromagnetic field is related to gravity, but rather the electromagnetic force, I understand the question has been raised before numerous times of why the electromagnetic force doesn't consist of gravity somehow, but I have taken it upon myself to create a full fleshed out theory of exactly how it could. And the ramifications that my theory expects are exactly what is observed, is that not reason enough to break away from the failed theory of GR for at least a few minutes to properly evaluate it? Do you not agree with the all the astronomers that if GR is correct as it is, then Dark Matter and Dark Energy should not exist? Yet they do. Second all known matter in the universe consist of Protons, electrons, and a nuetron which is simply both combined. All the rest of the standard model is essentially made from high energy interactions, such as particle accelerators. We have no way of measuring the gravitational pull of any sole particle, we can only measure how much they are deflected in magnetic fields, unless you can refer me to an actual experiment that successfully measured the gravitational attraction of anything at a subatomic level? Which is pretty much impossible since there are so many other forces that guide sub atomic particles. And any particle that has no mass goes the speed of light, such as neutrinos. And to all the other data you threw out there out of context, I can only assume you are trying to establish some sort of crediability to your argument. I don't doubt that you are very knowledgable about such matters, but perhaps you can refer me once agian to an specific experiment based of any of these princibles that disproves my theory? Because I feel like you are not making any specific point here, just simply bragging about your knowledge of the many endevors of Einstien. I agree Einstein was a fantastic mathmatician. But that doesn't prove his theory that mass magically warps space/time. it only proves that the elements in his equations are factors in the truth. Obviously he is wrong, or we would be able to reconsile observation with calculation, yet we can not. And I fail to see why throwing his work on gas laws aids his work in astrophysics, two different things my friend. And as for your comment as to me being an expert on all leading theories for Gravity before I dare insist that they are wrong and I have no right to challenge them, that is a trap. I don't have to spend decades or even my whole life trying to master every aspect of every theory and master all the math to understand the basic concept and decide if it explains what is observed. The only duty I owe anyone is to understand my own theory, if you think GR is so perfect then once again I besiege you, use it to completely explain dark matter or dark energy. If you can not perhaps the reason is not because you haven't wasted enough of your life trying to learn it, but rather it is wrong. To put it in another way, I am not a carpenter, but I still can tell the difference between a well made house and a crappy one.
  5. According to the principles that govern DG the math would quite simply make Einstiens formulas look like childs play. Even with Einstien being arguably one of the best mathmaticians in the history of the world. It still took him 10 years and a legion of help from other fantasic mathmaticians. And he still messed it up and had to have it all redone as tensors to a 3d enviorment. I am no mathmatician. But I have figured thus far that for any objects gravatational interaction to be correctly caculated you would need to device a system similar to how calculas works in approximating over all values into smaller more managable segments, the more the more accurate the answer. You would have to account for the density changes in different layers of celestial objects as this changes, the inner core of the earth has a different density then the crust for example. Also since objects large enough to hold themselves together with gravity would also be emitting the positive repulsive force to other celestial bodies you have to account for this aswell, their dynamic interactions. In addition you would have to have the same principles found in Einstiens equations regarding how the external displace field that DG calls gravity is spinning and hence exerting force in that direction. Plus lets not forget the force exerted on our solar system from the milky was galactic black hole core, and black holes in DG are considered super celestial that violate principles of celestial interaction, such as no collisions. Anyways, no I have not figured out even a simpistic equation to govern the movements of the celestial bodies that is better then even Newton's. But let me make it clear to you that even if I had it would not make a difference, there are far too many unknowns to even get an answer if I could give you a full equation. Since we don't know things like the densities of planets at each specific layer or even our own planet for that matter, and according to DG the very accuracy of G must be called into question since almost all experments to calculate it use lead as the source of gravity, and remember in DG mass density changes the strenght of the Gravity field. But I was able to work out a very generic equation working into the estimated masses we have for all of our planets and the distances from them to calculate a sort of positive gravitational stress if you will, I can get you the formula and you can work it out for yourself if you doubt my ablities but I must retrieve if from work tomorrow as I don't have it with me, with these numbers you must realize DG would expect them to be simuliar, when I look at them and taking into account that we are talking astronomical numbers and objects I think they are simuliar to a degree, and keep in mind as I said this formula doesn't even begin to take into account everyting needed for great accuracy, its just looking for a ballpark figure at current form: Sun | Mercury = 29.79 Sun | Venus = 39.00 Sun | Earth = 29.56 Sun | Mars = 10 Sun | Jupiter = 62.46 Sun | Saturn = 28.34 Sun | Uranus = 6.13 Sun | Neptune = 3.81 Jupiter | Io = 301.48 Jupiter | Europa = 162.61 Jupiter | Ganymede = 171.85 Jupiter | Callisto = 89.50 Saturn | Mimas = 62.32 Saturn | Enceladus = 61.66 Saturn | Tethys = 104.82 Saturn | Dione = 86.73 Saturn | Rhea = 84.36 Saturn | Titan = 122.71 Saturn | Lapetus = 12.02 Sun | Alpha Centari = .013 Ida - .488.4 1.) I thought I did, GR predicts an static or collasping universe, and in the last 10 years we know according to redshifts that we are in an expanding universe. Hence Dark energy 2.) GR fails at accurately describing the motions of stars in galaxies by a factor of 90%, hence dark matter 3.) GR fails at even describing the motions of the planets in our own solar system, to correct numbers another planet larger then jupiter would have to be orbiting our sun. 4.) GR has no explanation of how Mass effects space/time, it comes down to magic or a maricle, 5.) According to GR the fact that our planets are all orbiting the same direction and are sorted by size is mere coincidence, 9 planets orbiting the same direction is one hell of a coincidence don't you think? Hehe, I am sorry, this is a lot to address, I will do the best I can. Displacement of the electromagnetic force is the mechanism for creation of gravity in DG, it simply assumes that the electromagnetic force which has carrier particales of virtual photons behave the same way encroaching magnetic fields that have the carrier partical of virtual photons. That two separate fields will interact with each other for form one larger field that is larger in space then the original field before it was combined. And as with fields there is a positive and negative entity, DG assumes aswell that the majority of the electromagnetic force is carried by the proton, since it is much larger and is the more unstable unpaired partical then an electron (the negative entity). So yes, there is a repulsive gravitational force that only comes into play between celestial bodies, small objects will not have that repulsive property, so I don't think the term antigravity realy applies here. And as for the binary gravitational waves they have detected that they are moving slowing (at least we think) and an explanation for this is lost energy from gravity waves, that is hardly hard proof. For all we know there could be some other reason why this binary star system is slowing down, and if gravity waves were real then why has LIGO and its counterparts not detected them, they were made to detect gravitational waves well beyond what was predicted, yet there is none. You cannot dismiss all the evidence against gravitational waves inlight of one sole binary star system that is slowing down. And as for gravitons, the graviton was coined because all the other fundamental forces use carrier particales, so it was assumed that so must gravity. Yet 70 years later, that assumption still has no proof. And what about my comment on energy transfer? do you mean that according to DG that the force of gravity would cease to exist if the entire universe were to be frozen to absolute zero? This is a prediction of DG, but according to GR the universe even at absolute zero would still have gravity unchanged. Obviously this cannot be proven on any level yet. So I think it just important to think of it more of an theorectical understanding on how DG works. As I said, I have spent many years sleepless nights thinking about DG and GR, I stand firmly that my theory of DG explains the universe we observe ten fold better then GR ever has. And unlike GR, DG actually explaines how gravity works from the ground up. Lets not split hairs in terminology, espicially when GR has no explanation of how or why mass curves space/time. And according to GR there is no energy that takes place between mass and space/time to create gravity, it just happens. Like magic and then goes on for infinaty 1.) Read a couple paragraphs up, I just answered that in this reply 2.) There are so many predictions that DG makes, and all of them but one is observed. I already explained why just simply one man creating the math for DG isn't likely to ever happen in this reply a couple sentences up. But as some of the many predictions DG makes, all have been observed: Normal celestial objects will never collide, planets will tend to be arrnaged from smallest to largest going from sun, planets will all travel in the same direction around the sun with the direction of the sun, Stars will tend to be about the same distance apart if they are about the same size, stars in galaxies will orbit almost the same speed in outer rings as the inner ones due to the repulsive force in DG (there is no need for dark matter in DG), we will live in an expanding universe since super celestial (galactic black holes mainly) will consume near by stars growing in mass producing larger gravity field (positive part in DG that repels other celestials) hence there is no need for dark energy in DG, and there is a speed limit the speed of light for anything that is affected by graivty, protons will not be pulled in by gravity (we cannot weigh a proton), and gravity would travel at the speed of light (not yet observed but predicted), the list goes on and on of how the universe operates if DG is indeed correct. 3.) The interaction of light and gravity according to DG can be explained this way, electrons are affected by the electromagnetic force within the atom, and according to DG, gravity is essentially just the displacement of the electromagetic force, hence we are bathing in an immense electromagnetic force constantly here in the earths gravity field, this is obviously going to affect how electrons behave even in releasing photons, this could easily account for redshifting you describe. Now this explanation doesn't exactly fit well with me, and I believe if anything will disprove DG it will be the insanity of the photon. And as for equations, that is more of a quantum mechanical event and our understanding of the quantum world is spotty at best. I do believe that Einstiens equations are 99% correct, I think he just got it wrong on what the equation is actually calculating. Sad, do you always give up on the first paragraphs on all your readings? Please, lets not split hairs in terminology, or we can spend our entire lives arguing over what the best word phrase to be used is to explain something and never actually figure anything out. You know nothing more then according to GR mass somehow magically warps space/time, because that is all Einstien ever said about the matter. His equations as I stated are not invalid, they just don't take everything into account, and Einstiens reasoning as to why energies fall off and behave as they do is incorrect. I would have no problem accepting GR in its entirety if it didn't fail in so many ways, and still never even mention how mass interacts with space/time. As for the mathematics of it all, I said something about that a few paragraphs up. Its quite simply too advanced to complete Einstiens equations to complete the equations to make them 100% accurate. And I did not study Einstiens equations formally in a university because I did not take graduate level classes on the subject, so I do not even pretend to know them as well as others, but I do not need to spend a lifetime study GR to know and understand how it fails according to astrophysics, and purpose another mechanism for gravity that does not fail in those ways. Was it not Newton who was praised as a mathmatical genuis for calculating how gravity affects the planets and calculating their orbits? Yet time has proven his math is wrong, but we still use it when launching satelites into orbit because wrong or not, its accurate. And we just discovered the universe is expanding not that long ago, to say that this is all explained by ideal gas laws is a statement I don't think you will get any astrophysist to agree too. the very existance of dark energy defies all reason in all theories of gravity, except mine, mine predicts it. I would like to think that at least should afford that my theory can be taken seriously.
  6. Okay. So there are a lot of request for me to write a summary of my theory and why GR is bad despite my carefully prepared video. So I shall, but I haven't the time to rewrite such a complicated ideal down over again, so I am copying and pasting an essay I did on Dynamic Gravity for the National Gravity Fondation. Sorry if anyone feels robbed, but I am very short of time lately. Gravity is currently regarded as spontaneously forming from the curvature of space-time with no energy transfer and thereafter having infinite range and lifespan. Even Einstein stated that a gravitational field and matter together must satisfy the Law of Conservation of Energy [1], of course he didn’t mention how this would apply to gravity’s creation. But there is another way to explain gravity, one that satisfies the Law of Conservation. Once presumption that gravity is confined to operate requiring energy to manifest. Then freedom in choosing purposed methodology of gravity’s creation can arise solidly based on origins of energy feeding it. I purpose a thought that is not entirely original, but none the less has not been entirely explored. That gravity does not perpetuate in waves, nor is there any such exotic graviton particle exerting the force recognized as gravity. Instead gravity manifests itself as a field. Generating itself from the displacement of the electromagnetic force, particularly under extreme pressure and high temperatures found in the cores of celestial bodies. This is not to say that only celestial bodies are capable of producing displaced electromagnetic forces, the electromagnetic force is within all atoms. Atoms are forced tightly together encroaching two separate electromagnetic fields together at uncomfortably close proximity. The fields do not merge into one field with simply twice the strength, but rather behave as like entities in a field displacing each field slightly further away from its source. Once a critical limit is reached the effect grows exponentially allowing the electromagnetic force to reach vast distances and remain exceptionally strong. The denser the material, the stronger the gravity it emits. Perhaps this is why Cavendish experiments are unsuccessful using lighter materials then lead as the source of gravity. Protons represent the positive entity in the electromagnetic force, the negative entity being the electron. However, a proton is roughly 1,000 times heavier than an electron, which adds significant weight to the argument that the bulk of virtual photons are produced by the proton. As atoms are compressed the electromagnetic field carried by virtual photons expands, drawing towards it all electrons, which all matter contains. Force is exerted on the electrons not only from their parent protons, but also from any large external electromagnetic fields. Pulling the electrons toward the gravitational field’s source, all while the parent proton to the electron is exerting its pull as well. The end result is a net force exerted on the entire atom as a whole towards the source of gravity. Orbital paths of the electrons becoming seemingly erratic could be contributed to such an effect. How curious that the most unstable particle in all of known physics is a single proton. The particle that is so unstable that modern science must still deduce its mass from hydrogen by subtracting the known mass of an electron. The proton is classified as extremely reactive requiring an electron to become stable, and perhaps this is mostly true. Along with the notion that protons have not been observed to fall in a gravitational field as all other matter does. Additionally considered, of the four fundamental forces only gravity and the electromagnetic force share the 1/R2 fall off rate [3]. When two large celestial bodies become in range to be affected by their gravity fields the result is dynamic, in that both bodies emit strong gravitational fields that are positive, and hence will repel each other. But both bodies contain electrons which are attracted to the positive gravity fields. If given a long enough period of time, the overall effect is the celestial bodies will eventually stabilize a distance apart from each other dependent on field strength; locking them into relatively steady orbiting distances. Evidence in this capacious sorting effect can be seen in looking at our own solar system observing the moons of Saturn [2], or even the trend of planets going from smaller to larger in moving further away from the Sun. This is simply because our solar system has had billions of years to reach a state of quasi-stability. The smallest planets will produce the smallest gravitational fields, meaning the gravitational field of the Sun will not be resisted as much when the Sun’s gravity field is pulling on the electrons in a smaller planet like Mercury. From this a rough estimate of how far the effective gravitational fields emanate from celestial bodies can be inferred in proportion to their size. It would be very difficult to estimate the actual falloff of a large celestial body such as the Sun’s gravity to the point where it exerts no gravitational forces upon electrons. Although, it is not unreasonable to assume that vast majority of stars having neighbor stars only 5 light-years away in our galaxy, is the result of a typical stars gravitational field finding stability among other stars at that distance. This repulsive force could attribute to force currently known as dark energy. If gravity was displacement of the electromagnetic force then it could theoretically be shielded and even canceled out. Which could radically change our perception of faster than light speed travel. This is inferred from Einstein’s equation of E = mc²/v(1-v²/c²) by using a more detailed definition of mass such as Mass = Weight/Gravitational Acceleration as compared to the standard Mass = Volume*Density the true reason for why no matter can travel faster than the speed of light is revealed. Drag force is exerted on it by gravity’s carrier particles, drag that must be overcome by energy. However, when the gravity exerted on a mass becomes zero we get the same result in the equation as when the object reaches the speed of light. A zero in the denominator which is an illegal function, hence the equation no longer applies. Meaning if you can be 100% free of gravity acting on mass, the mass is now free to travel speeds faster than that of light. In calculating energy levels required by intelligently designed objects in space, the assumption that object density is more important than gravitational forces acting upon it is untested and unfounded. It is important to understand the significance of mathematics. Generic formulas like that of exponential growth can be used to calculate a plethora of processes from albedo to nuclear fission [9]. More complicated mathematical formulas will apply to more specific processes, but never entirely exclusive to any one process. Gravity Probe B used a gyroscope to measure the geodetic effect and frame dragging caused from the Earth warping space-time [11]. & However, the formulas used are incapable of determining if the effect is caused by a medium such as space-time, or a medium such as a field. Experiments such as the ones testing time dilation must be completely recognized as what they are. Equations used in predicting time dilation have no time dilation formula components, or a time dilation proportionality constant. They are simply showing an affect that has strength determined by distance from a source of gravity, or how fast an object travels through a gravitational field. The time keeping devices used are atomic clocks that work off of electron transition [6]. Electrons emit electromagnetic radiation as they decay to lower energy state orbital paths within the electromagnetic field of the proton [12]. But is electron transition immune to the effects of a large electromagnetic force field? How would the electrons ability to release energy vary as it travels through the field, or as the field itself becomes stronger? Predictions involving any technology based off of electron transition becoming inaccurate cannot be dismissed without proper investigation. The popular model of large celestial bodies creating depressions in the fabric of the universe is wrong. There is no reason to believe that anywhere in the universe there is an invisible fabric made from space and time woven together surrounding celestial bodies. The trampoline model showing the bending of space-time is nothing more than a visual graph showing the falloff rates of gravity’s affects. None the less, billions are spent building large interferometers such as LIGO. And ten years later not so much as one gravitational anomaly detected [4]. No collider has ever detected a graviton particle [5]. The universe continues to expand at a growing pace [8], something that is impossible if gravity is spontaneous and infinite. Dark flows are postulated to explain unconventional falloff rates of gravity [10]. Luminosity surveys and observed phenomenon’s suggest that as much as 90% of the universe must be made of undetectable matter [7], else admit that the current theory of gravity has a 90% error rate from equation to observation.
  7. I have spent many years trying to understand gravity. I know very well the current theories and their flaws, which is why I do not believe any of them are correct; not even the much praised General Relativity. And after much research, and nearly every scientific undergraduate classes offered by the good college of USF. I have found a way to understand gravity that fits in very well with almost all of the observed experimental data that I am aware of anyways. And hence created this theory I call Dynamic Gravity. Here is a video of me doing my best to explain it and show some of the reasons behind it: Dynamic Gravity Video Now, why do I post this theory on these forums? Simply to see if there is anyone here that might possibly have knowledge that I do not, of verified experimental data not based on assumptions that either helps prove this theory, or shows it is simply not possible. If you think you know something I do not, please let me know. But as I have said, I have spent many years contemplating every aspect of this theory compared to GR. I will be pleasently surprised if someone can enlighten me to knowledge I am not already aware of, for all that I have already learned but only proves this theory as truth. Aside from one known phenomenon that remains a thorn in my side. I plan to release another video further showing how this theory explains all of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in much better detail. Since I see how I did not explain it very well in this video. Thank you for your time.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.