Follow Us On
E i n s t e i n G r a v i t y . c o m
Frequently Asked Questions
Below are some questions from some humble folks.
As well as . . . some futile refutes from some not so humble folks. Refutes that try to denounce mathematics that are simply . . .
IR - refutable.
But first off we can't help but say that if you think this here below is just a coincidence, well . . . you're bonkers.
EinsteinElectricity.com plainly states that the Tesla (Magnetic Field) is = 1 / Velocity.
And get this, Wikipedia then plainly states that the Magnetic Field of earth is equal to .000032
Hence when you input earth orbit velocity (the true mathematics) you get;
1 / Velocity of earth = 1 / 30,689.1802 = .000032
You cannot deny the math ! !
Back to viewer refutes;
1. The "units" to your equations do not add up !
Well you're just not seeing the big picture.
The job of a scientist is to "open" your mind, not to raise your arms in frustration and remain blind to reality.
ALL units work perfectly.
The first example is;
The Velocity of earth2 / Pi = the speed of Light
On this website we never use complete equations simply in order to keep things as simple as possible for our readers.
The units in the above equation do not equal because the "complete" equation is;
The Velocity of earth2 / Pi x Tesla (due to the earth moving through the aether) = the speed of Light
m/s = m/s
A second example is;
The Acceleration of earth in orbit x orbit Diameter = Speed of Light;
.00100338656877 x 298,780,616,894.579 = 299,792,458
Again, the complete equation is;
The Acceleration of earth x orbit Diameter x Tesla = Speed of Light;
m/s = m/s
2. Gravity upon the surface of the earth is not constant.
Varying Gravity has nothing to do with it. Gravity is governed by Pressure upon the earth, pressures are always varying.
3. The "image of the moon" varies in size. So does the moon's actual physical size vary too?
That's a funny one. Moon image variation occurs due to the earth's atmosphere. For accuracy the only image used is when the moon is high in the sky. Your attempt at refuting does not change the fact that the moon's image is squeezed down by 299,792,458 during the time it travels from the moon to the earth.
By the way: Nice trick there, by disregarding the units of the speed of light to not get in trouble!
Whatever. Factors of contraction don't have units. Good grief.
4. You also did a huge mistake: At an orbit with 10,000 times earth's diameter, gravity is weaker by 10,000^2. But hey, this law is just 350 years old, you couldn't possibly know that!
Mass itself, doesn't have a gravitational affect on other mass. It only has a pressure field of gravity surrounding itself. The moon only affects the earth because its pressure field comes in contact with the field of the earth. Sorry, your 350 year old law has deceived you personally for probably 30 or 40.
5. 1 / Velocity does not have the same units as Tesla!
When you realize that the Volt is Distance you'll understand.
Much Editing Needed Below
Your 299,792,458 is a unit-less number that you just picked out of a hat. You could have just as easily chosen 211519.91 as your unit-less number, which is the speed of light in units of inches per hour. Both the centimeter and the second are units chosen in an arbitrary (though useful for us humans) manner, and you can't just claim that a physical constant using those units magically becomes a unit-less number.
We can't believe you're actually saying what you're saying.
You claim that the moon image size changes due to its distance from the earth (moon eliptical orbit), therefore our compression "factor" by which it changes at one constant distance could not be real.
If you change the "standard" Distance from which the factor is determined, then you change the Factor.
When a beachball travels down or up through the ocean and decreases or increases in diameter, you can't just then say that moving it a little bit more or a little bit less in depth from that prerecorded (factor producing depth) then abolishes that FACTOR.
If a beachball gets squeezed down 10% over 10 meters depth it doesn't matter how much you change the distance, that change per meter factor is a Constant.
Only the "pressure per distance moved" can change that factor.
And that is the Density of the ocean.
If the beachball was moving down through sand, the "compression factor" would be much higher. Your increased -depth- has nothing to do with the Factor of compression.
And the Density of the electrical-mass ocean that surrounds the earth is exactly parallel to the density of the water ocean that squeezes the beachball.
Elementary our dear Watson.
> Sorry for being skeptical, but that's what physicists do.
Before or after they study "all" the given material. What if a university student in their first class started throwing a whole whack of questions at the instructor ? Wouldn't seem right or ?
> Well, ONE of us is not understanding.
One of us hasn't closely studied;
EinsteinGravity . c o m
EinsteinElectricity . c o m
EinsteinMagnetism . c o m
;0) ;0) ;0)
> If your moon theory is correct, we should be able to do the same with the sun but the diameter of the sun seen reflected in a mirror is the same size as the moon's image.
Is the sun's image "after traveling from the sun" (now at moon orbit radius) not the same as the moon's image ? Are we abandoning distance optics ?
> as it moves closer and further from earth in its elliptical orbit.
Eliptical orbits are a myth. Do bubble diameters form in the shape of elipses ?
> How do you measure the diameter of the moon's image to 10 microns with a ruler??!?
Why microns ? 1.159 centimeters is perfectly fine.
> And, why 299792458? Did you just make that up?
Andy you get big points for making me chuckle.
> What if we use miles per second, ie 186670?
Because qA^2Z^2 is in a format that informs people that Energy is measured in . . .
meters and seconds. ;0)
> because you just made up those two numbers to give the right answer.
More giant points for making me "bark out loud" with laughter.
And did I just make up the fact that qA^2Z^2 coincides with each and every electrical unit.
Andy Andy Andy, how on earth can you not " see " on that video the fact that the Farad (ability to hold a charge) is the Distance of the segment of the cube which enables the Coulomb to exist. Is that just another "made up" fact ? Is the fact that Acceleration of Gravity x earth Orbit Time = Velocity of light just another made up fact ?
Is the fact that; Gravity having a "Direct" connection to "each and every" method of producing Time on earth, just another made up fact ?
Andy you need to start considering how embarrassed the grandchildren of the opposers of Newton and Galileo were when they found out that their grandparents flouted the truth. Or even all those blasphemers who hurled opposition at Einstein for 4 long years back in 1905. Where are they now after the bomb's proof ? Don't look at a long line of bear tracks in the sand and call them deer tracks and when you follow them and finally get to the bear standing there, you then call it a deerbear.
> Finally can you cite ONE PAPER by Einstein where he tried to connect energy and gravity?
Oh mercy Andy, why go there.
The ocean of electrical mass that surrounds the earth (a finer version of the ocean of atmosphere that surrounds the earth) (which is a finer version of the ocean of water that surrounds the earth) is (Light x Heat) (Mass x Velocity) (Pressure x Volume) (ENERGY).
Those q-particles are pushing you onto the earth. They move through the earth and give it its magnetic field. As they also move through an aligned atomic lattice (Magnet) they (via Bernoulli) cause that magnet to attract or repel via the q-particles opposing (head on force) or attracting (Bernoulli) each other = MAGNETISM. Now you have Energy = Magnetism.
As that ocean of q-particles (via your less Density) pushes you down onto the earth now you have Energy = Gravity.
As that ocean of q-particles is volumetrically dented, an electrical volt potential is created. When the positive and negative leads are connected, that volume is collapsed and an electric current is then created. Now you have Energy = Electricity.
The quest is over. It's a done deal.
The game of getting people to "see" began a while back.
> He failed because he didn't know about two other fundamental forces, the weak and strong nuclear forces
There's only one force, q-particles moving at c squared. Energy. It creates Magnetism, Gravity, and Electricity. And that gravity, the ocean of electrical-mass that is pushing you onto the earth (when factored to the quantum) is indeed holding all mass together.
Absolutely every electrical volt potential difference being created or released right now on the earth is but a meer expansional volume of the ocean of electrical mass surrounding the earth. Me way over here, plugging in my iPad, is "denting" the exact very ocean of Pressure at the exact very same time that you way over there, while shaving (if you use an electric shaver), is un-denting.
I'm more than happy to address any of your questions Andy but wouldn't it be so much more efficient "after" you watched (and studied) a video and did a-read-along or two ?
Alex here's the deal. Lisa (Harvard Physicist) was on Charlie Rose the other night. She clearly stated that the particles in the accelerators that she's working on are traveling at the speed of Light. She specifically stated that in clear English words. So I emailed her and said hey Lisa, how can you say they're traveling at the velocity of Light when Einstein's mc squared clearly states that that particle would then possess infinite Mass, infinite heaviness. She quickly emailed me back and said, no, they're traveling "close" to the speed of Light. I could only chuckle as I shook my head, yes side to side. Did she back peddle or what. Even if the particle was traveling close to the speed of Light (according to Einstein's equation, not truth) that particle would then be a billion times heavier than the earth and I wouldn't be emailing Alex right now.
So if that sort of nonsense is coming from a Harvard graduate, even Alex can do the Math on the go figure part.
After you read the link on Newton breaking his own Laws (link C) think about this;
A lead ball moving horizontally is a form of energy.
And a lead ball simply dropped is an equal form of energy.
The lead ball moving horizontally is;
Mass x Velocity (Acceleration x Time) x a period of Time = mAZ2 And Energy=mA2Z2
The same ball simply dropped for a period of time is;
Mass x Acceleration x a period of Time = mAZ
So why is the dropped ball an equal form of energy yet it is short a factor of Time (Z) ? ?
Time = Movement (past stationary Light).
Because the dropped ball is not moving. The horizontal ball with velocity "is" moving.
That is why factors of Acceleration (Mass Expansion) and Time (movement) (AZ) must be multiplied to the dropped ball in order to = Energy. But only Acceleration (Mass Expansion) (A) needs to be multiplied to the horizontal ball in order to = Energy.
It all fits so perfectly. Disbelieving Physics profs really need to be ashamed.
Ros, have you understood that a falling apple (Newton's giant error) doesn't really fall but floats in space as the Expansion Acceleration of all Mass moves against it ? Yuppers, there's absolutely no difference between outer space and 10 feet above the earth except the presence of air and the amount of time that it takes Gravity to reach them both.
You did ? You smarty pants you.
Hi Alex, Thanks for your mail,
> What is the latest news from the scientific community regarding your thoughts?
It's a mixed bag Alex, China and Saudia Arabia have been positive, the U.S. is showing reluctance, India is producing a computer program to illustrate Expansion Acceleration. As for many who hear the news they are at an exact repeat in history when the scientific community replied to Galileo stating; Mr. Galileo sir, if you think we are going to believe that we can walk to the underside of your supposed round earth and not fall off into space, when our salt shakers that we place on the bottom of our kitchen tables clearly fall to the floor, you are sadly mistaken. Now remove yourself from our presence or we will have our swords do it for us.
Alex, we are Electricity. Unless a person can grasp that, it's very difficult for them to comprehend that all Mass is expanding past stationary light particles, giving us vision and Gravity.
Throughout history there has been a constant battle between what man sees and what really "is". And also between what really is and what man is willing to believe prior to some overwhelming physical proof giving him no other options.
However rest assured Alex all the above means absolutely nothing when placed up against that which can and will never lie, namely Mathematics.
Theories that are proven Mathematically are no longer theories. The Math on Einstein Electricity dot com is simple and pure and will certainly stand the test of time. Besides all the overwhelming enormous other circumstantial evidence.
> I canít seem to find much on the internet except for a few sites and they do not go into too much detail.
I would be most grateful if you could forward those sites to me.
> Can you make a video explaining in non mathematical terms?
Actually I don't have the graphical means to Alex but I assure you as soon as one exists I'll have it up on the site. There's a few on the net if you Google my name under videos.
> Why is the scientific community disregarding your work?
I wouldn't say disregarding as much as I would say they are overwhelmed by the discovery. Three reasons;
1. Einstein is their hero of whom they certainly do not want to mess with.
2. They can't physically see Mass Expanding therefore to them it quite surely doesn't exist.
3. The discovery simplifies Physics to the point where it sheds light on billions of dollars being wasted on many Physics projects around the world.
This is why I have many Physics "students" agreeing with me yet when they show it to their Professors (who have something to lose) they are quick to dismiss it. How they dismiss the Math boggles my mind.
Certainly even you yourself Alex would agree that (4 and 0) (3 and 1) (2 and 2) are the only whole number sets that can possibly satisfy x + y = 4.
Hence E = m(AxZ)squared is the only equation that can satisfy all of the already historically proven Electrical formulas. It's so simple it's ridiculous. Did I mention ridiculous ?
What are your next steps?
Continue to unveil subsequent findings of which they continually to arise.
Continue contacting Universities worldwide.
Grow a big mustache and bleach my hair white and not comb it while practicing a German accent.
Figure out how to physically graphically reveal the Expansion of Mass.
I appreciate you interest Alex,
Trust Math, it's one step above a dog, an eternal friend that cannot bite.
Best wishes, ;0)
So wonderful to hear from you Ros,
> and Tesla, one of the great geniuses
You are so right Ros, you must be part genius ;0)
> what a scoundrel that Thomas Edison!
My heart just skipped. Wow, to hear someone speak my exact feelings. I like you 10 fold more now Ros.
Edison was indeed a scoundrel, how on earth did he get such good press.
> Gravityís pushing?!! How can you do both, pulling and pushing?
Only pushing. No pulling at all. The moon is not being pulled. Newton's apple is "not" being pulled. Newton's apple is floating in space after it separates from the tree and the (pushing) Expansion Acceleration of all mass is moving outward only to make Newton's apple "look" like it's falling. We do not see Expansion Acceleration because our eyes are also experiencing Expansion.
> and yet, too often we feel too certain.
Feeling certain is a good thing as long as it's always solidly backed by Mathematics. If it's not backed by Mathematics then feeling certain is a bad thing. Newton was certain his apple was falling. That is exactly why he then attributed the "A" in his F=mA to the apple instead of what he should have attributed it to - the Mass of the earth. The earth's Mass is Accelerating, not the apple. Yes both Newton and Einstein sent us on wild goose chases and it was Gravesande and Tesla who we should have been listening to, the cat is now out of the bag and it's not going back in.
> Gravity is certainly one of the greatest mysteries
It shouldn't have been if we would have been a little more practical and asked ourselves; "Can something - really - pull something else through empty space without being attached to it ? ? Young children have even said to me that that assumption is plain ridiculous.
Newton himself was even the one who declared that a "Force" must be a Mass x an Acceleration. The Force must be a piece of Mass touching. Magnetism is what tricked him. He saw what he thought was a Force without Mass touching and he believed what he saw over his own Mathematics. Oh Mr. Newton, you gave us so so much but you were thrown and mighty curve ball and were so unpleasantly struck out, leaving the world in a state of wonderment for 400 years.
> A friend of mine, an Englishman, 87, is writing about Gravity. If you live in the area, or are here for a few days, would you like to visit him ?
I would be honored, however I am back in Canada and I promised my daughters that I would take them along on my next venture and that it would be Cabo San Lucas, so Berkley would have to be just a stop over. Thank you so much for the invite you are so kind.
Keep smiling Ros and don't ever stop asking questions, they are indeed the true fountain of youth.
Cheers to you, ;0)
My appreciation towards your actions is great.
On another note my calculus teacher seemed to put it to the wayside refuting credentials and the fact that it's not a peer reviewed and published book
Please go back to him and ask him if he thinks he would have agreed with or dismissed Galileo's (non peer reviewed) round earth. And tell him that I am so eager to meet him.
on the subject. If you could lend me anything about your academic background to strengthen your case it would be appreciated(though Albert Einstein was a clerk at the time he thought of E=MC^2).
I'm sure glad you added that last part Michael.
A child of a father who loved to teach.
College - Emergency Medical Tech (Ambulance)
A great faith and drive to solve mysteries.
In the words of Albert Einstein "Itís not that Iím so smart, itís just that I refuse to give up."
In the words of myself "I enjoy struggling to believe the hard to believe."
could you derive some integration equations to get the needed variables for your equations from information that's typical given in word problems with 3 variables commonly associated with them.
I'd love to Mike. Can you give me an example.
Here is a quirky video on the formation of the continents,
I've seen that and although it seems very convincing there's something askew about it.
Be sure to understand that it has absolutely no connection at all to Expansion Acceleration.
Expansion Acceleration is Electricity. Moving at the speed of Electricity. All Mass in the universe.
P.S. you never said anything about the keyboard :-P
I love it. I love logic. But I fear it's all political. All they have to do is implement it in the highschools. Why don't they ? Those who use Qwerty could still keep their old keyboards.
Hold onto Math Mike, it will always win over disbelievers.
Best wishes, ;0)
Kevin jumps much much too quickly towards dispelling what is in fact truth.
I'd be far more inclined to stay following close behind the greatest mind that ever contemplated the realm of Physics, the true genius Nikola Tesla, who may have in fact once stated;
This planet "is" Electricity.
Richard I'm indeed thankful for being able to chat with you.
Cheers to progress,
> They explain it, as far as I recall, as time, time changes as we move faster,
This is the crux of Einstein's error. When you invert Mass and Light it's like inverting the alphabet with numbers, you get a whole new and erroneous realm of Physics.
When you say that light moves instead of Mass Expanding past Light, you get crazy things like Time changing and objects with high velocities becoming heavier. It's all based on the fact that with E=mc squared, m and c are the only variables so if you change E you must change m or c. But with E=m(AZ) squared, if you change A or Z they cannot change m but only E.
> You say that WE move through the speed of light and therefore hit static light at that speed (i.e. instead of saying that light passes us, we pass it at that speed if staying still). But then where does human movement and speed come in?
Because Orbit and Expansion are ONE, the faster you move the faster you Expand. That's why if you shot a bullet horizontal at the speed of Electricity, it would Expand equal to the earth and remain floating above the earth instead of hitting the ground. It's Expansion would become equal to the earth and hover at the level it exited from the gun yet it would need to keep moving at that velocity. Electricity (Mass Expansion x Distance) also causes Expansion to increase, that's why if you run electricity through a coil it will levitate off the table. The bullet uses orbit to increase Expansion (and levitate) and the coil uses electricity to increase Expansion (and levitate). Velocity (orbit) and Expansion are ONE.
> What is going on when someone drives a fast car, in relationship to me, and in relationship to light? |How do you explain these variants in a system where we (expansion acceleration) is the parameter or bar, instead of the light|?
The faster you drive the faster you Expand, because everything is simply Electricity.
The earth obits the sun at the speed of Electricity. So if you drove around the earth at the speed of Electricity you would float off the earth because your personal Gravity would then be equal to the Gravity of the earth and you would still see Light as you now do because you are already expanding (seeing Light particles) at the velocity of Electricty.
Where does time travel fit in?
Another blunder of Einstein's inversion of Light and Mass. Time is simply motion past Light. Earth orbiting the sun. Us expanding or obiting past Light. We can't travel in time but "theoretically" Einstein's E=mc squared makes it possible. That's why people love those erroneouos time travel videos on YouTube.
If the earth's orbit sped up we would have a shorter year hence time would "seem" to speed up (only if we crammed all things in, easter, thanksgiving, etc.) But if we didn't do all the same amount of stuff in the shorter year, time would be the same. Only if you had a wire coiled around you (and were made of metal) and had electricity put through the wire would time seem to slow down because you would then see Light slower than other people because you would be expanding slower. That's why nails with wires around them become magnetic because they then Expand slower and the faster Expanding metals push against the nail.
Einstein's inversion does a lot of crazy stuff.
Where does 'time slowing down in jupiter or near the sun' fit in?
If you were on Mercury going around the sun 10 times instead of earth's 1 time, Time would be the same on Mercury and Earth, you would just see winter come and go more times in one year. A change in time would have to be a change in Expansion while still on earth, then you would see things move faster or slower (due to your personal Expansion difference) compared to others Expanding normally on earth. I'm not quite sure what that would look or feel like. Maybe the same as when people who experience trauma feel, that things really slow down while in the accident because the adrenalin is speeding up their brain.
I appreciate your correspondence Al, don't expect me to get this right off the bad, because if you are right its like a university student trying to understand Einstein before his fame.
It takes time to get it all straight. And just as much effort to continue to embrace the Mathematics, the anchor, the guidepost. We don't want to believe that a man who falls from a building is not really falling but simply floating in space and we and the earth are Expanding past him. We want to say that he is falling but he's not.
We need to work just as hard as those folks who needed to believe the earth was round when everything around them told them that the earth was surely flat. http://www.scivee.tv/node/16057
Don't give up Bud.
> how did Einstein get away with saying that the speed of light is constant for everyone?
Einstein knew Gravesande was right E=mv^2
And that "m" was the only real variable.
But this is for a moving particle. Einstein wanted to know the energy at the atomic level.
So he thought to himself that if the fastest thing in the universe were a constant then it would hold true in keeping with the fact that only the mass of a particle is relative to the energy of the mass. So he plainly could not find anything that even came close to traveling the speed of light so he just plugged the velocity of light into Gravesande's velocity. And it's there that he made the biggest error of all.
> Its a contradiction, how can we say that we are traveling at 99% the speed of light, and yet had light pass us at full speed?
Ken if you haven't read further down under "The Physical Proof to Unification" you need to go there as it compares Einstein's illogical Laws with the truth in a table format.
The earth is Expanding at the Velocity of Electricity (Lunar year Orbit Time x Gravity). We and all Mass upon earth are expanding at a slower rate hence the push of the earth on us. Light is not moving. The earth is expanding at its speed of Light and we're expanding at our speed of Light.
> the original premise of traveling the speed of light is false, since if we were, light would pass us at 1%.
Light is not traveling at all except when pushed by Mass (ex: a mirror)
> Either we are travelling at 99% or not!!!
We can't know. Our Orbit Time (Z) is the same as the earth but our Expansion (A) must be smaller. We could never know unless pushed out in space and detected our natural Orbit Time and Gravity.
Perfect example. This week I was in the San Francisco science centre (astounding place) and they have a drum with dry ice at the bottom. So the floor of the drum is a false (colder) equal to the earth. Then you blow a bubble and watch it fall down the drum. Then it hovers in space, why ? Because it's Expansion x Orbit remains natural but the dry ice forms a colder earth and so the bubble does not hit the ground. The bubble's (Z) is the same as the earth and it's (A) is still natural but the earth's new lesser (A) altered by the dry ice causes the anti-Gravity of the bubble.
> How do traditional scientits make sense of this?
Scientists are in the dark regarding Gravity because Newton completely messed them up and they'll remain in the dark until they comprehend that Gravity "cannot" pull Mass through empty space.
This error has given rise to false "dark matter" and false "black holes". (plus a load of other erroneous stuff)
In my hotel room I watch two big Physicists talk to Charlie Rose and one (a female) stated that particles in accelerators travel at the speed of light. I almost fell off my chair. Einstein made it perfectly clear by his mc squared that a particle at the speed of light obtains infinite Mass. (not true but yes according to the erroneous mc squared) Where on earth does she get the embarrasing idea (going against every university) to say that a particle can obtain infinite Mass in an accelerator ? ? ? She was from Harvard. I couldn't believe my ears.
> What is the math that can express this?
Sorry I need you to specify, the math for exactly what ?
> Does light slow down or speed up according to this
Light is stationary in the universe.
> as it passes by the space time topography?
There is no space-time topography. There's only space. Time is Mass moving past stationary Light. (The earth Obiting and Expanding past sunlight. (Orbit and Expansion are ONE).
> Does it slow down or speed up in relationship to the local space time zone?
Light (the vision of it, not the particles) only slows down or speeds up when Expansion slows down or speeds up. The faster the Expansion the faster the velocity of Light particles that the Mass expands past.
> How do normal scientists talk intelligently about this?
They don't. They don't believe Mass is in a state of Expansion. They believe Light particles move past stationary Mass. They believe that a piece of Mass can somehow send out a spooky unexplainable invisible force and cling onto another piece of Mass and hold it there. They believe that the act of simply looking at a wave or a particle causes it to "do" different things (Shrodinger's cat). Hilarious.
If all matter is expanding with acceleration then is it so that all matter in the universe expands with the same acceleration ?
No, the earth is expanding at 9.8 m/s^2 and the moon at 1.6 m/s^2 The difference in Expansion rates only unveils itself as "Orbital Motion". Because Expansion is spherical. If you were inside a log rolling down a hill, the straight line that you would move in down the hill, would only appear to you as "spinning".
We need to remember that Expansion and Distance are relative within Energy. Energy = Expansion x Distance. E = A x AZ^2
To determine a planet's Expansion rate just take it's orbit Velocity and divide by its orbit Time or orbit Distance and divided by its orbit Time squared.
And if it is not so then why donít we ĎSEEí other planets etc. increasing in size( I mean the sphere of the planet should increase its diameter) ?
Because orbit is the only visual evidence of different Expansion rates. Distance = Motion = Orbit = Expansion Rate.
When you throw a ball in the air it looks as though it follows a parabola. It is not. It is moving in a straight line, just as if it were thrown in space. All curves are illusionary results of the Expansion of circular Mass. When you throw a ball at a road sign while moving past the sign in a vehicle that is moving at a high speed, the path of the ball "seems" to follow an arc. This is the same illusion. Remeber Rohit that there is no difference between space and closeness to earth except air molecules. If you were in a tree that was 50 kilometers high and you threw a ball at a 45 degree angle, it would move in a straight line. Exactly the same as the ball that is thrown when you are only 45 feet from the earth. Both balls move in a straight line, the lower ball does "not" arc downward, it keeps moving in a straight line. The downward arc that we see is simply a result of "us" Expanding in a spherical realm. Because you and the earth are moving within spherical Expansion, the ball only "seems" to follow an arch. Mathematical Fact.
If you study further you will come to understand that things do not really move. Horizontal motion is nothing more than a different rate of Expansion. A very important fact to understand that Orbit (motion) and Expansion are ONE. A downward motion (falling) is not motion at all but rather "floating in space". It's hard to explain without a diagram which I will have up on the site soon. But basically, if two boxes were beside each other and the one on the right was expanding faster than the one on the left (keeping in mind that they are both Expanding within a combined realm of Expansion, the box on the right would look as though it's moving to the left simply because the distance "between" the boxes is getting smaller as the box on the right gets bigger. The box on the right is not moving towards the other box it is simply Expanding faster than the box on the left within that combined realm of Expansion. And thus looks like it is moving towards the other box. And because Expansion is spherical, orbits then re-new and thus so does Distance (like all the film frames within a movie projector re-newing with each flicker of the projection light bulb) so the overall Distance differences only show up in what we see as "motion".
Don't give up Rohit, it will all come together for you like a giant jigsaw puzzle.
> Please allow me to attack your theory
No problem indeed, but don't forget that theories proven "mathematically" are no longer referred to as theory. ;0)
> (this assumes we already know both "Orbit Velocity" and "orbit time")
We do know orbit Time via measuring the exact lunar year and of course the lunar year is used (like the gears of a clock) and not solar because using solar would be like viewing the motion of a clocks pendulum as opposed to its gears. The gears give true time where as the pendulum is affected by various motions.
> After going through it for some time I came to the conclusion that unless we know Two "Correct Values" Orbit Velocity" and "Earth Orbit Time".
And we do know them due to the fact that we know Pi. (orbit Velocity^2 / Pi = speed of Light)
> 1) You seem to take for granted the equation Earth orbit Velocity 2 / Pi = 299,792,458 Why is that?
Because Pi is infinite it's simply impossible that the equation is not correct.
> How did you come up with this equation?
Hours and hours of holding a calculator (a nice big one that clicks, on my iPad) and going from one equation to another regarding geometry and algebraic physics. I would seriously never be able to retrace the exact steps.
> What does it describe in non-abstract terms?
The electrical origin of the sun (proton) and earth (electron) and moon (neutron).
And their relation to what is driving them, hence; Star Combustion. Star combustion is equal to an expanded volume of aether (space). When you run a magnet through a coil you expand the aether, which is the very origin of electricity. When an expanded volume of space (aether) contracts, it pushes free electrons along any given conductor and you produce electricity. That contraction of the aether is exactly parallel to the pressure that comes from star combustion. Hence the pressure of space is what governs the speed of light through the aether, (because the speed of light is truly the velocity of the contraction of space) and this is directly correlated to the Velocity squared that the earth moves around the sun divided by the Circumference of that "volume" of space divided by the Diameter of that volume = Pi.
> The only reasoning you give about accepting the equation as true, is that it "coincidentally" relates the "speed of light", "Pi", and the "Earth orbit Velocity".
Not now that I've given it to you above, ;0). Editing the website to keep it up to date is not easy when I work 100 hours a week while trying to patent gadgets at the same time.
> At first sight i was convinced that this cannot be a mere coincidence.
Because you weren't allowing your non-logical part of your brain to rule at that time.
> But on second sight,
> I realised that the "Earth orbit velocity" you get from this is not correct. The observed velocity is 29,783 m/s. The velocity you get from your equation is 30,689.1802374659 m/s which is off by approximately 3.043%.
You mean 29,783 is off.
> If the formula would give velocity=29,783 then it would be a real amazing discovery, and the chances of it being coincidental would be astronomically low. But since it's not correct then it doesn't count as a coincidence. It is just an abstract value X that does't really mean anything. Please elaborate.
The core is the Circumference of the orbit.
Plus the fact that a charged (spin) particle (earth) inside a magnetic field (aether) follows a helix. If you've not got this fact correct, you'll never have Circumference distance correct.
> 2) You seem to take for granted that the "Earth orbit time" is equal to 30,585,600.0000007 s . Why is that?
Because F=mA and that means "push". There are absolutely no such things as "pulling" forces in this universe (give me one and I'll tell you how it's truly a push) and so when star combustion pushes the earth around the sun, it causes a higher pressure to form around the earth (Gravity) and when the Acceleration factor of that pressure upon any falling object is multiplied by the Time (30,585,600.0000007) it takes for the sun to push the earth in that orbit, you get the velocity of the aether's contraction pressure = 299, ...
> Which equation bring us to this number?
> The only reasoning you give is that this is the exact "Lunar year", which multiplied by the "acceleration of gravity" gives the "speed of light". This doesn't make any sense for four reasons:
a) because we are talking about the earth orbiting around the sun (sidereal year), not the moon around the earth (lunar year)
The moon is the fine tooth cog in the clock. The earth is like the sloppy chain on your bike.
b) because it's not even the "exact" observed lunar year of 354.36708 days (off by approximately 9 hours)
Mathematics always rules over observation. ;0)
c) because based on your model we can't know the "correct" value for "Acceleration of Gravity", unless we know the "Earth orbit time" first (circular reasoning)
We know c.
We know Pi.
We can calculate V^2 and all the rest.
> d) because the "Earth orbit time" you propose is 354 days, which is approximately 11.25 days less than a year of 365.256363 days. What is the logic here? If the year was 11.25 days shorter wouldn't we experience our error by climate change? Every 16 years or so the seasons would be completely turned around (summer in december, winter in august etc.)
That's the very reason we use the solar year, am I missing something ?
> Unless the above questions are met, the world will not be able to subscribe to your views,
Andreas, you must never have seen;
I would be a fool to expect any other form of acceptance.
Are you in Cyprus now ?
See the complete and amazing story at
www. EinsteinGravity .com
© Copyright All Rights Reserved EinsteinGravity.com 2008