Forward time

[Nobrainer]

So if part one of my Ghost wave theory to be true says that there should be evidence of gravitational wave emission and there is indirect evidence of gravitational wave emission and this evidence is inclusive of relativity and alternative theories concerning gravitational wave emission then it is perfectly acceptable to quote it as evidence.

So stop the ill thought out attacks and try to pick on an aspect of my theory that has a better chance of a flaw...

 

This part is in total agreement with Einstein.

 

We both agree there should be production of gravitational waves.

[Tres Juicy]

So if part one of my Ghost wave theory to be true says that there should be evidence of gravitational wave emission and there is indirect evidence of gravitational wave emission and this evidence is inclusive of relativity and alternative theories concerning gravitational wave emission then it is perfectly acceptable to quote it as evidence.

So stop the ill thought out attacks and try to pick on an aspect of my theory that has a better chance of a flaw...

 

This part is in total agreement with Einstein.

 

We both agree there should be production of gravitational waves.

 

 

You're missing the point:

 

 

This is accounted for already with standard physics. As I've explained, this cannot be used to support any other theories. You have to find something that GR doesn't predict/explain.

[Nobrainer]

No you are missing the point! The reason is, because my understanding encompasses GR and by explaining the mechanism of GR I also need proof of emitted gravitational waves. This is part 1. The proof of gravitational wave emission. Part two is where I completely differ than GR. I assume you are conceding gravitational wave emission.

 

Part one of my theory is all mass and energy create gravitational waves as a natural decay process, this is established as indirect evidence of that and that only. I postulate that this action is the basis for forward time and increased space. I go on further to state that as mass and energy decay into gravitational waves space increases. A total energy decrease = a total space increase. The conservation of total energy/ momentum is violated. Professor Ma and Wang mathematically wrote in the new field that exactly says that, which will be able to be tested.

 

I also explain the mechanism of this new field, which incorporates dark energy as simply F = M(measured over time) x A. Remember you have two observations

First is the 1993 Taylor data- gravitational energy loss second is the 1998 data that measured the movement of the furtherest galaxies showing an increase in acceleration- dark energy. Now putting those two together is a very important clue.

 

A decrease in total mass x an increase in acceleration = what? A constant Force. There is a constant force driving the universe apart, what could it be? well the decrease in mass is from mass giving off the gravitational wave. Could that also be responsible for the constant force? I suggest yes. And when I have more time I will review the second part of my theory to show how it all fits together.

 

 

Part two is that mass and energy, in giving off in phase monopole gravitational waves create the fundamental forces of gravity and dark energy with dark matter force of wave density.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Nobrainer

[Nobrainer]

Why is time a forward action? Why does entropy increase?

So far I have suggested that there is a guiding overall mechanism that runs forward time.

Einstein gave an example of how gravity works by stating that matter warps space-time and the warpage of space-time causes gravity. His equations are very valid for most situations but he did not know about Dark matter and dark energy unknown causes of actions. . I suggest incorporating dark matter and dark energy into general relativity and clarifying the unknown actions of the universe. The picture I present is that mass and energy do not warp space-time as Einstein theorized instead they create space-time as a natural decay process of mass and energy into the monopole gravitational wave. A monopole gravitational wave is a wave that originates from mass and energy but can not be reabsorbed, it is the endpoint of used potential energy. This means that as space increases, mass and energy decrease via an energy transfer into the gravitational wave. I have then used the Taylor/Hulse model as a foundation, "This is considered to prove that gravitational radiation really exists."- Discovery of the Binary Pulsar

www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...

 

So I am in agreement so far with Einstein that gravitational radiation exists.

I have then looked at the measurements for dark energy and realized they did not take loss of mass into account when analyzing their data for the universe increasing in acceleration. Newton has given us a formula for that F= M x A. So with a constant force and a decreasing mass the remaining shrinking mass over time will increase I'm acceleration. So what is driving the universe that gives it a constant force? And this is where I have gained a little insight.

If the universe, from the big bang of the singularity, created mass, energy and space as an energy transfer as Stephen Hawkins believes and if the singularity was finite then as space increases mass and energy have to decrease. I believe this is what the 1993 Taylor/ Hulse Nobel prize hints toward in conjunction with the discovery of the mass and energy in the universe is increasing in acceleration expanding the universe.

 

Could the same mechanism that causes gravity also cause the universe's mass and energy to increase in acceleration moment to moment?

 

 

There is an extremely simple mechanism, and here is a simple example.

 

Two balls of string are placed on the ground, they represent mass and energy in this simple example of a possible solution in three dimensions. The connected strings are brought together as an example of in-phase gravitational waves forming wavefronts. Then walk away from the balls of string while holding the connected strings that are attached to the balls of string. Two actions happen, the sting leaving at a constant velocity bring the balls of string following the direction increasing in acceleration until the balls completely unwind, all space, the other interesting fact is that the balls come closer together and touch. These actions are very similar gravity and Dark energy. Could a similar process be shown in nature? Yes more later...

[MigL]

No you are missing the point.

 

A static gravitational field emits no gravitational waves according to GR. A varying gravitational field, on the other hand, does, but the only energy 'carried away' by gravitational waves are the variable components. In effect if a mass is orbiting another static ( assume ) mass, gravitational waves carry away the orbital energy such that the orbit decays and eventually joins the static mass, at which point no more energy is lost to gravitational waves. The masses themselves do not decay gravitationally, at least not for more than 10^32 yrs ( proton decay ).

 

What does YOUR patented theory predict ???

[Nobrainer]

What predictions:

By treating gravity as a wave synchronization of in-phase wave emission which constructively interferes forming larger wavefronts(amplitudes), gravity and dark energy become one process with two actions. Dark matter is a wavefront formation of generated waves in space itself with no particles causing the action called dark matter, galaxies are held together by this process. So it predicts everything.

It accepts GR and the standard model except it states that everything eventually decays and the universe runs out of workable energy when the universe becomes all space. In this scenario the universe started as a singularity and is transitioning to a wave, the gravitational wave, the least potential energy form of matter.

 

If given the right circumstances, this gravitational wave synchronization balance between mass and energy by the hidden variable of the emitted and synchronizing gravitational wave should be evident in a plate like movement of all the planets in a solar system. Given the right conditions each planet will revolve around a star at the same revolution per unit time, violating Kepler's second law..

 

My theory predicts that space is expanding at a constant velocity but the mass and energy within the universe is expanding at an increasingly accelerated rate.

It predicts violations of Kepler's laws, such as odd synchronizations between planets and galaxies and stars and black holes in ways that defy traditional explanations.

 

 

To a casual observer the swimming pool in my back yard defies the laws of physics because the water level in the pool never changes, it appears to be decay(change) proof. Why? It may rain for two days or it may be 90 degrees and not rain for a month and my pool still contains exactly the same amount of water based on the level. Why?

 

Because it has an overflow and it has an automatic filler. It appears never to decay yet it does.

 

I have two nice cars, one is an 1985 Mercedes Benz 380sl. It looks just like new. My two year old car already looks older than the Mercedes, why ? Because one car is always in the garage and covered, the other is outside of the garage and exposed to the elements.

Thinking outside the box, here are just two concepts via real life type examples of how it is possible that something can decay yet go unchanged or decay is slowed by a protected enviorment. Protons have to somehow be stable over a long time and appear indestructible but there are several mechanism that allow a proton to remain unchanged to the observer.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Nobrainer

[swansont]

No you are missing the point! The reason is, because my understanding encompasses GR and by explaining the mechanism of GR I also need proof of emitted gravitational waves. This is part 1. The proof of gravitational wave emission. Part two is where I completely differ than GR. I assume you are conceding gravitational wave emission.

No, you need proof of gravitational waves in a way that is not already covered by GR. (MigL probably concedes GR. I do.) If you want to propose that gravity is due to the action of invisible pink fairies, you cannot take an apple falling as evidence for that conjecture.

[Nobrainer]

No, you need proof of gravitational waves in a way that is not already covered by GR. (MigL probably concedes GR. I do.) If you want to propose that gravity is due to the action of invisible pink fairies, you cannot take an apple falling as evidence for that conjecture.

And that comes in part two, which I have not given you yet. As of right now any theory that has gravitational energy loss in a system is still viable under Rhe 1993 Taylor/ Hulse data according to the Nobel Prize press release.

Part two, as I will discuss, differentiates my idea from GR.

 

And this is where I differ from Einstein's explanation of General relativity. I believe generality relativity is fundamentally based upon the decay of all mass and energy into the monopole gravitational wave. Monopole in this case means once released there is no return, no second pole ability to exchange any particles, it is a Newtonian type of relationship vs. a Feynman diagram of particle exchange.

 

 

So then how does gravity work? Continuously emitted waves of the same energy from different sources spatially separated collide and form larger amplitude wavefronts, this is an action, wavefront formation. I state here that this action is a contact force and follows Newtons law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction to an increase in amplitude, and that equal and opposite reaction is gravity.

 

Since the big bang created a force behind the expansion of space along with sending mass and energy outward i believe this continued process of wave emssion and alignment with the existing generated waves by each poece of mass and energy create a constant force of wave emission and since the wave is figuratively unwinding from mass and energy it is pulling the remaining mass and energy with it- this is dark energy.

 

 

Can I show a case where there is a new physics law? that in- phase waves are a contact force?

 

Now Maxwell's equations encompass and can derive the Huygens principle and the Huygens principle clearly has a back action to wavefront formation but it has been ignored and because of this problem the Huygens principle has remained a principle.

Is the phrase; because we can not find "it" reason to believe "it" doesn't exist? No. That is what Michelson and Morley claimed with space, it doesn't exist because they could not find it and everyone else could not think outside the box... Space is generated from within in my scenario and everything needs a medium to transmit energy because the laws are universal yet generated locally.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Nobrainer

[swansont]

And that comes in part two, which I have not given you yet. As of right now any theory that has gravitational energy loss in a system is still viable under Rhe 1993 Taylor/ Hulse data according to the Nobel Prize press release.

Part two, as I will discuss, differentiates my idea from GR.

 

And this is where I differ from Einstein's explanation of General relativity. I believe generality relativity is fundamentally based upon the decay of all mass and energy into the monopole gravitational wave. Monopole in this case means once released there is no return, no second pole ability to exchange any particles, it is a Newtonian type of relationship vs. a Feynman diagram of particle exchange.

 

 

So then how does gravity work? Continuously emitted waves of the same energy from different sources spatially separated collide and form larger amplitude wavefronts, this is an action, wavefront formation. I state here that this action is a contact force and follows Newtons law, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction to an increase in amplitude, and that equal and opposite reaction is gravity.

 

Since the big bang created a force behind the expansion of space along with sending mass and energy outward i believe this continued process of wave emssion and alignment with the existing generated waves by each poece of mass and energy create a constant force of wave emission and since the wave is figuratively unwinding from mass and energy it is pulling the remaining mass and energy with it- this is dark energy.

 

 

Can I show a case where there is a new physics law? that in- phase waves are a contact force?

 

Now Maxwell's equations encompass and can derive the Huygens principle and the Huygens principle clearly has a back action to wavefront formation but it has been ignored and because of this problem the Huygens principle has remained a principle.

Is the phrase; because we can not find "it" reason to believe "it" doesn't exist? No. That is what Michelson and Morley claimed with space, it doesn't exist because they could not find it and everyone else could not think outside the box... Space is generated from within in my scenario and everything needs a medium to transmit energy because the laws are universal yet generated locally.

So we're back to what I asked last week: How do you test this? What predictions does this model make?

[Nobrainer]

But now you understand where I am coming and why everything in GR has a rational Newtonian explanation.

If wave alignment through constructively interfering has merit, I should be able to show that when two in phase waves interact they create a reaction to wave front formation.

 

Let me point out something that I challenged originally, if more than one wave can occupy the same space then why does the amplitude increase, it is as if they are rearranging and stacking isn't it? If that is the case then that is a

contact force by definition isn't it? And if it is a contact force then Newton's laws must be taken into account.

III.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

In the 1600's during Christopher Huygens life he did not have access to a simple way to prove contact forces applies to waves.

Take two ping pong balls, place them 1/4 inch apart and hold them six feet above a solid surface and drop them and watch as they drop to the solid floor and bounce staying 1/4 inch apart. Repeat over still water, watch the ping pong balls hit the water (change in acceleration to einstein's credit) and two waves are created which when they cross each others path become one thicker wave. As a contact force this wave formation requires a reaction and the two ping pong balls touch togethe as they bounce off the water. One example here.

Reviewing the mechanical aspects of gravitation you will also find this; "Lord Kelvin (1871) and Carl Anton Bjerknes (1871) assumed that all bodies pulsate in the aether. This was in analogy to the fact that, if the pulsation of two spheres in a fluid is in phase, they will attract each other." -echanical reasons for gravitation (pulsation): Wikipedia.

 

Now combining historical knowledge with current observations of dark matter/ dark energy this one process of energy loss in all systems and the mechanism of generated in-phase wave synchronization always aligning with the original force give rise to all current observations and new reasons for such unknown phenomenon such as black hole evaporation, dark energy dark matter. Many other actions not seen yet, violation of Kepler's laws, the flattening of space at the edges of the furthest galaxies, the dimming of galaxies energy after they are no more but before we know they do not exist. Dark matter has no actual matter, it is the wave synchronization of space aligning and acting as if there is a gravitational pull of mass. Loss of gravitation at absolute Zero.

[swansont]

But now you understand where I am coming and why everything in GR has a rational Newtonian explanation.

No, not really. Without a model with clear set of predictions I can't tell if I understand it or not. And you seem to want to skip ahead to where we supposedly understand all these heretofore un- or less-than-fully-explained phenomena, when your conjecture hasn't even been tested. You can't skip the part where you have a model and make predictions. It comes next.

[Nobrainer]

The simple model is this;

Constructive wave interference follows Newton's 3rd law of motion as a contact force.

A new law in physics.

 

This results in the mechanical reason for gravitation, which modulates as the governing retardant of wave emission.

 

This gravity and time dependen/ mass dependentt decay of an object is directly related to he degree per unit area of the amplitude of the continuously generated gravitational field ( waves forming wavefeonts) over the original density of the emitting field of the relative moving object is the formula for gravitation's relationship to decay rate. - to me- this is word salad.

 

But saying that the essence of time is mass decay and anu decay slows by the dwnsity of the field the mass decays into or time slows by increasing the thickness of the field. One way is to travel faster and faster, another way so to increase the mass that generates a thicker field.

 

 

 

 

As a result of this law the underlying mechanism of gravitation is reveled correcting General Relativity to include the constructive interference of dark matter by showing violations of kepler's second law by the prediction of plate like rotations of planetary star systems along with the prediction of the absence of mass associated with actions of Dark matter.

 

The direct relationship between total energy change(decrease) in the universe and the expansion of space in in the universe

 

Total energy (mass plus energy) in the universe continually decreases, a violation of the conservation of energy.

 

Black holes will lose energy over time and evaporate with no added mass or energy and black holes may appear smaller in older galaxies than younger galaxies as a result of this.

 

 

There are many wave interference and loss of total energy on system examples once you get the new law and action of generated waves creating space.

 

So if you agree just say non-testicleword salad, haha

Edited October 3, 2012 by Nobrainer

[ACG52]

Nonsensical word salad.

[swansont]

The thing is, that interference can be constructive or destructive, and you can't have constructive interference everywhere if the sources are not co-located. So I would assume your model would predict that there would be the opposite effect in places, i.e. antigravity, and of course we don't see this. I can't tell for sure, because you don't have a model that can be independently checked. That's one of the problems with hand-wavy mumbo-jumbo.

[Nobrainer]

In conclusion,

By thinking out of the box, where others can not precieve to venture and by using the resources available today, the universe can be shown to follow Newton's laws of motion with respect to wave to wave interaction.

When Einstein proposed a senerio where matter warps time and space and this warpage creates gravity he admitted he did not know the mechanism.

By showing a wave to wave constructive interference is a contact force and by knowing time is a forward action, entropy increases, a new physics law becomes evident and the explanations for unknown phenomenon become evident such as space with out mass can warp radiation, currently known as dark energy. The extra missing mass in the galactic rotation problem can be solved by modifying general relativity as Prof. Ma and Wang have done. Dark energy, inflation, relative time all become actions of mass formation and decay into a wave. Time, space and gravity are treated as wave functions of mass and energy as they decay into the aether, the gravitational wave, creating space and as waves join increasing in amplitude there is a reaction to wavefront formation which locally and in space is gravitation, unmasking the idenity of dark matter and revealing the reason for forward time.

[swansont]

A physics law is something that can be expressed as an equation, so you have shown no new law. When several people have asked for clarification, all you've done is repeat yourself. That's not the way forward in science.

[Nobrainer]

The thing is, that interference can be constructive or destructive, and you can't have constructive interference everywhere if the sources are not co-located. So I would assume your model would predict that there would be the opposite effect in places, i.e. antigravity, and of course we don't see this. I can't tell for sure, because you don't have a model that can be independently checked. That's one of the problems with hand-wavy mumbo-jumbo.

 

So why would the universe ONLY be a constructive interference pattern?, why does time only travel forward and at verying rates?

Since from the big bang, the gravitational wave emission had not stopped and is continuous, the expansion itself as the initial wavefront formed aligned everything into an a constructive interference pattern and is the driving force of continuing this process via and as evidenced by the reactive force of gravity modifying space to align everything., dark energy and dark matter.

 

I do believe this works and can show predictable behavior of space itself as a constructive wave alignment or wave synchronization as a long distance expanding dipole.

One end of space is a wavefront, created at the big bang and the other end is connected to each and every piece of mass and energy.

Edited October 3, 2012 by Nobrainer

[swansont]

So why would the universe ONLY be a constructive interference pattern?,

Um, that's what I want you to explain. I don't think it can. But if gravity is the result of this, then there must be pockets of nongravity.

 

why does time only travel forward and at verying rates?

Since from the big bang, the gravitational wave emission had not stopped and is continuous, the expansion itself as the initial wavefront formed aligned everything into an a constructive interference pattern and is the driving force of continuing this process via and as evidenced by the reactive force of gravity modifying space to align everything., dark energy and dark matter.

 

I do believe this works and can show predictable behavior of space itself as a constructive wave alignment or wave synchronization as a long distance expanding dipole.

One end of space is a wavefront, created at the big bang and the other end is connected to each and every piece of mass and energy.

How is it possible the waves from the earth and the sun only show constructive interference?

[Nobrainer]

Excuse me for repeating myself and I apologize in advance but concepts and language from the 1600's and the 1800's have different language than today but in this circumstance mean the same thing.

So let's go over terms first;

"When the crest of one wave passes through, or is superpositioned upon, the crest of another wave, we say that the waves constructively interfere. Constructive interference also occurs when the trough of one wave is superpositioned upon the trough of another wave.

 

During any wave interference the shape of the medium is determined by the sum of the separate amplitudes of each wave. We often say that when waves interfere, amplitudes add."

 

Let me talk about two magnetic's aligning and being pulled together. A magnet is a dipole and when two dipoles the North pole sends the field in the direction of the south pole.

 

Imagine magnetic field wave alignment as a particle spin alignment = attraction , where the particles within the waves aligning spinning in the same direction as to increase the amplitude (strength) Repulsion as a spin conflict between misaligned dipoles resulting in the fields repulsing each other due to the spins in opposite directions and therefore the waves act, in a way, like flexie solids bouncing off each other.

 

Now let's take that same concept and apply it to a monopole interference and think of that interference as a long distance monopole with gravitons all spinning in the same direction as they leave mass and energy and form space itself as spin wave alignment from all mass and energy decay. This is why the strength of the gravitational field is so weak, a monopole, not a dipole and also the strength is related to the distance from an expanding circle (sphere), why time runs forward, space expands at an accelerating rate, mass and energy are being pulled and synchronized by this process of potential energy working creating space.

Angular velocity plus spin synchronization of the gravitational wave given off from the earth and the sun = the orbital relationship. There are no pockets of non gravity because everything is giving off gravitational waves with the same spin, as the north pole of a dipole always gives off magnetic field spin, the only problem is that space has no dipole so the waves pull and align forming increasing amplitudes.

 

Now this is just for fun to review the quotes that Einstein has said;

Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein

 

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

 

 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

 

 

"If you can't challenge what physicists think they foundationally know, you will never be able to correct a mistake that physicists can not even recognize exists"-CMT

Edited October 4, 2012 by Nobrainer

[swansont]

Excuse me for repeating myself and I apologize in advance but concepts and language from the 1600's and the 1800's have different language than today but in this circumstance mean the same thing.

So let's go over terms first;

"When the crest of one wave passes through, or is superpositioned upon, the crest of another wave, we say that the waves constructively interfere. Constructive interference also occurs when the trough of one wave is superpositioned upon the trough of another wave.

 

During any wave interference the shape of the medium is determined by the sum of the separate amplitudes of each wave. We often say that when waves interfere, amplitudes add."

Understanding constructive interference is not the problem. The problem is assuming that constructive interference is all you have.

 

If you have spherical wavefronts from two sources, how can you not also have destructive interference at some points?

 

 

Let me talk about two magnetic's aligning and being pulled together. A magnet is a dipole and when two dipoles the North pole sends the field in the direction of the south pole.

Makes no sense. Something is missing in the bolded section. When two dipoles do what?

 

Imagine magnetic field wave alignment as a particle spin alignment = attraction , where the particles within the waves aligning spinning in the same direction as to increase the amplitude (strength) Repulsion as a spin conflict between misaligned dipoles resulting in the fields repulsing each other due to the spins in opposite directions and therefore the waves act, in a way, like flexie solids bouncing off each other.

Of what "particles within the waves" are you discussing?

 

Now let's take that same concept and apply it to a monopole interference and think of that interference as a long distance monopole with gravitons all spinning in the same direction as they leave mass and energy and form space itself as spin wave alignment from all mass and energy decay. This is why the strength of the gravitational field is so weak, a monopole, not a dipole and also the strength is related to the distance from an expanding circle (sphere), why time runs forward, space expands at an accelerating rate, mass and energy are being pulled and synchronized by this process of potential energy working creating space.

Angular velocity plus spin synchronization of the gravitational wave given off from the earth and the sun = the orbital relationship. There are no pockets of non gravity because everything is giving off gravitational waves with the same spin, as the north pole of a dipole always gives off magnetic field spin, the only problem is that space has no dipole so the waves pull and align forming increasing amplitudes.

Again, your use of monopole and dipole is seemingly at odds with their definitions. A single charge is a monopole. One pole. Field lines leave or arrive according to a 1/r^2 behavior. A magnet is a dipole — north and south; you can also make one from charges, with a positive charge and a negative charge with some separation. Field lines go from one to the other (N/S or +/-), and drop off as 1/r^3. A monopole is inherently stronger than a dipole of the same interaction, so your claim that gravity is weak because simply it's a monopole is nonsensical. It's wrong.

 

And the rest is just word salad. There is no mechanism being explained or description of how things behave.

[Nobrainer]

Constrictive interference is when two waves form a larger wave. The two waves are large waves and when the two sources are large waves they automatically form constructive wave interferences and the sources come together. Remember that as you go down the energy scale of different frequencies the energy of waves decreases the size of the wavelength increases....

 

 

 

"Lord Kelvin (1871) and Carl Anton Bjerknes (1871) assumed that all bodies pulsate in the aether. This was in analogy to the fact that, if the pulsation of two spheres in a fluid is in phase, they will attract each other; and if the pulsation of two spheres is not in phase, they will repel each other. This mechanism was also used for explaining the nature of electric charges. Among others, this hypothesis has also been examined by George Gabriel Stokes and Woldemar Voigt.[19]

 

Criticism : To explain universal gravitation, one is forced to assume that all pulsations in the universe are in phase—which appears very implausible. In addition, the aether should be incompressible to ensure that attraction also arises at greater distances.[19] And Maxwell argued that this process must be accompanied by a permanent new production and destruction of aether.[16]"

Concerning waves,

"Robert Hooke speculated in 1671 that gravitation is the result of all bodies emitting waves in all directions through the aether. Other bodies, which interchange with these waves, move in the direction of the source of the waves. Hooke saw an analogy to the fact that small objects on a disturbed surface of water move to the center of the disturbance.[17]

 

A similar theory was worked out mathematically by James Challis from 1859 to 1876. He calculated that the case of attraction occurs if the wavelength is large in comparison with the distance between the gravitating bodies. If the wavelength is small, the bodies repel each other. By a combination of these effects, he also tried to explain all other forces.[18]"

So by postulating that the universe is expanding into wavefronts with a finite beginning and an eventual end Maxwell's objections are erased.

 

 

You are wrong about everything. The mechanism is that mass and energy decay permanently into gravitational waves that can not decay anymore, they could be made up of magnetrons or gravitons, it doesn't matter at this junction because once bound into the wave, they can not change themselves. By a wave leaving mass or energy and not returning or be able to be absorbed, this is a monopole. Imagine that at the dipoles of electromagnetic fields there is this process in which the poles decay into gravitational waves forming wavefronts. This explains all Acrions of the universe as a function of wave emission into an enviorment that has wave densities with wavefronts forming in direct relation to the size of the mass. So Rhe dipole is a dipole with the magnetic field but a monopole as the result of decay of the magnetic field into a gravitational wave at the dipole. It has a dual purpose. Since this gravitational wave is a monopole wave, the actions of the wave are weaker than the actions of a. Magnetic dipole wave.

 

References;

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation#section_10

^ Taylor (1876), Peck (1903), secondary sources

^ Poincaré (1908), Secondary sources

^ Maxwell (1875, Atom), Secondary sources

^ Descartes, R. (1824–1826), "Les principes de la philosophie (1644)", Oeuvres de Descartes (Paris: F.-G. Levrault) 3

^ Descartes, 1644; Zehe, 1980, pp. 65–70; Van Lunteren, p. 47

^ a b c Zehe (1980), Secondary sources

^ Huygens, C. (1944), "Discours de la Cause de la Pesanteur (1690)", Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens (Den Haag) 21: 443–488

^ a b Van Lunteren (2002), Secondary sources

^ a b Newton, I. (1846), Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy (1687), New York: Daniel Adee"

Edited October 5, 2012 by Nobrainer

[illuusio]

In conclusion,

By thinking out of the box, where others can not precieve to venture and by using the resources available today, the universe can be shown to follow Newton's laws of motion with respect to wave to wave interaction.

When Einstein proposed a senerio where matter warps time and space and this warpage creates gravity he admitted he did not know the mechanism.

By showing a wave to wave constructive interference is a contact force and by knowing time is a forward action, entropy increases, a new physics law becomes evident and the explanations for unknown phenomenon become evident such as space with out mass can warp radiation, currently known as dark energy. The extra missing mass in the galactic rotation problem can be solved by modifying general relativity as Prof. Ma and Wang have done. Dark energy, inflation, relative time all become actions of mass formation and decay into a wave. Time, space and gravity are treated as wave functions of mass and energy as they decay into the aether, the gravitational wave, creating space and as waves join increasing in amplitude there is a reaction to wavefront formation which locally and in space is gravitation, unmasking the idenity of dark matter and revealing the reason for forward time.

 

Galactic rotation problem can be solved just by modifying the "constant" G. It can be done simpler

 

 

 

[Nobrainer]

Galactic rotation problem can be solved just by modifying the "constant" G. It can be done simpler

Anyone can explain one piece of a pie with an imaginary constant but that does not explain the fundamental process nor does it explain all the other problems concerned with our observations; such as gravitational lensing of dark matter, then requires a different constant and inflation requires a different constant and dark energy a different constant. I know let's invent a variable constant!!! Funny but that is where you are heading. A variable constant is a funny contradiction in terms...

You can't beat me in this- you will have to try something else just like I showed you the stationary aether does not compute with observations therefore it is eliminated.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Nobrainer

[illuusio]

Anyone can explain one piece of a pie with an imaginary constant but that does not explain the fundamental process nor does it explain all the other problems with our observations, gravitational lensing of dark matter, then requires a different constant and inflation a different and dark energy a different.

You can't beat me in this- you will have to try something else

 

Beating your "theories" is child's play to me Dark matter is not need. Have you read my theory?

 

 

 

[Nobrainer]

Beating your "theories" is child's play to me Dark matter is not need. Have you read my theory?

The fresnel stuff of a stationary theory... I read what you wrote about it and really, you have not said one concrete piece of evidence that convinces me that you know what you are talking about. And if you could have debunked my theory, it would havenonly taken one post as I have done with yours.