Thunderbolts Forum

'13-12-15, 18:27 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Sparky wrote: Maybe you should check out Edward Dowdye's presentation entitled, "The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing": Looking forward to it.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek 44 min. of mumbling I don't think so! He should have had someone else present... ********************************************************** viscount: And is action at distance actually something that happens.------gravity affect everything immediately and instantly maybe and -------------not on a reasonable scale. They rely on their maths for proof of gravity's range.. Lemme look this up. I haven't talked about action at a distance for a long time. To that, I was only prompted to it by marengo because that is basically what I finally deciphered to be his cryptic "gravity is the speed of light" premise (as, for unknown reasons, he never outright stated what he meant when he could have simply used already-established ideas to explain himself. Margeno is apparently allergic to clarity). Einstein called it "Spooky action": (I typically can't stand Michio Kaku but he explains things well): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QErwOK3S5IE And this is a highly interesting variation on the theme: "Human consciousness, effect on DNA and reality" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im01RsX6THM Evidently action at a distance is a reality. It actually happens.
'13-12-15, 21:16 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Kaku is wiggling electrons in a lab environment. Then makes the leap to galaxy distance! Let's assume that the controls are in place and the data is what they think it is. There is still the possibility that something else is influencing these electrons. It sounds like nonsense. Kaku believes all sorts of nonsense, so his critical judgement is in question.... Kaku says that no information can be transmitted faster than c...He is wrong. Action at a distance should be tested over a distance of Earth to moon, not just in a lab or 400 miles. And a double blind or triple blind protocol should be used.. And seeing DNA get emotional is stretching it. Again, there may be other factors to check. Like god is a teletype operator.
'13-12-16, 00:22 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Sparky wrote: Kaku is wiggling electrons in a lab environment. Then makes the leap to galaxy distance! Let's assume that the controls are in place and the data is what they think it is. There is still the possibility that something else is influencing these electrons. It sounds like nonsense. Kaku believes all sorts of nonsense, so his critical judgement is in question.... Well you're preaching to the choir here about Kaku. I think he's a priest in scientist's clothing. He spins pure fantasy among some science. I only posted that to explain action at a distance. Sparky wrote: Kaku says that no information can be transmitted faster than c...He is wrong. Yes I agree with you. In hindsight I should not have posted anything with Kaku in it. Sparky wrote: Action at a distance should be tested over a distance of Earth to moon, not just in a lab or 400 miles. And a double blind or triple blind protocol should be used.. And seeing DNA get emotional is stretching it. Again, there may be other factors to check. Like god is a teletype operator. Well that part was apparently proven.
'13-12-16, 01:00 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity just taking the opportunity to rag on kaku and his dogmatic nonsense...
'13-12-16, 01:28 Solar	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Sparky wrote: :? just taking the opportunity to rag on kaku and his dogmatic nonsense... Sparky, you are making me laugh so hard. I thank you good Sir. viscount aero wrote: Lemme look this up. I haven't talked about action at a distance for a long time. There is no such thing as "action at a distance". The phrase is a substitute colloquialism, or alternate way of saying, 'We don't know.' Unfortunately the term itself has become a mindset parading as an actual physical condition when in reality it references the inability to recognize and/or understand the conveyance of Force(s). Its an illusive perception; not a real condition. A Continuum forbids it thus the quest for a UFT. They know its not a real condition by virtue of the quest.
'13-12-16, 01:40 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Solar wrote: Sparky wrote: :? just taking the opportunity to rag on kaku and his dogmatic nonsense... Sparky, you are making me laugh so hard. I thank you good Sir. viscount aero wrote: Lemme look this up. I haven't talked about action at a distance for a long time. There is no such thing as "action at a distance". The phrase is a substitute colloquialism, or alternate way of saying, 'We don't know.' Unfortunately the term itself has become a mindset parading as an actual physical condition when in reality it references the inability to recognize and/or understand the conveyance of Force(s). Its an illusive perception; not a real condition. A Continuum forbids it thus the quest for a UFT. They know its not a real condition by virtue of the quest. Well again I don't know either way. But this accounts for the varied applications of the phrase. Kaku has his expected and cliche'd "quantum entanglement" paradigm; there is the older "gravitic" paradigm, and now there is a non-locality of DNA/emotional paradigm. Take your pick. Oh, and I forgot about marengo. His "gravity is the speed of light" is a version or lesser derivative of it. That's how this talk became diverted there.
'13-12-16, 04:34 Solar	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Oh, before I forget. Someone was mentioning Pound Rebka Experiment: The frequency of an atomic clock is driven by the energy difference between excited states of an atom. Since the frequency of an atomic clock is a function of the gravitational potential, the energy difference must likewise be a function of the gravitational potential. Thus, the Pound-Rebka experiment rather than showing that a falling photon picked up energy, simply showed a higher frequency by comparison to a lower reference frequency. The frequency (energy) of a falling photon is unchanged. This shows that the General Theory of Relativity is wrong—gravity does not act on all forms of energy. This revision of gravitational effects is explored. Significant implications arise and potential explanations for significant ongoing problems in cosmology are developed. - Ron Hatch: Gravitational Energy and the Flatness Problem Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of these results that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are "proof" of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. – Absolute Motion Institute: Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In? This isn't what its relativistically trumped up to be either imho.
'13-12-16, 07:09 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Solar wrote: Oh, before I forget. Someone was mentioning Pound Rebka Experiment: The frequency of an atomic clock is driven by the energy difference between excited states of an atom. Since the frequency of an atomic clock is a function of the gravitational potential, the energy difference must likewise be a function of the gravitational potential. Thus, the Pound-Rebka experiment rather than showing that a falling photon picked up energy, simply showed a higher frequency by comparison to a lower reference frequency. The frequency (energy) of a falling photon is unchanged. This shows that the General Theory of Relativity is wrong—gravity does not act on all forms of energy. This revision of gravitational effects is explored. Significant implications arise and potential explanations for significant ongoing problems in cosmology are developed. - Ron Hatch: Gravitational Energy and the Flatness Problem Proponents of the theory of General Relativity offer three different conflicting explanations of these results that are said to be equivalent to each other and therefore all equally correct. All make the claim that the results of the Pound-Rebka Experiment are "proof" of the Equivalence Principle even though nothing in these measurements suggests any need for the Equivalence Principle. – Absolute Motion Institute: Just Which Equivalence Principle Do You Believe In? This isn't what its relativistically trumped up to be either imho. I haven't read the experiment but how can a photon "fall"? If it "falls" then that is gravity acting upon it.
'13-12-16, 07:29 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: I haven't read the experiment but how can a photon "fall"? If it "falls" then that is gravity acting upon it. The terminology expresses the assumptions of the theorists. The photons were definitely traveling downward, but that's just because the light source was pointed down. They didn't fire some photons up, and then wait for the ballistics to kick in, and get the photons to arc back down and into the collection device. Rather, the light source was pointed down, and the theorists assumed that the photons picked up energy on the way, hence they were "falling".
'13-12-16, 07:33 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: viscount aero wrote: I haven't read the experiment but how can a photon "fall"? If it "falls" then that is gravity acting upon it. The terminology expresses the assumptions of the theorists. The photons were definitely traveling downward, but that's just because the light source was pointed down. They didn't fire some photons up, and then wait for the ballistics to kick in, and get the photons to arc back down and into the collection device. Rather, the light source was pointed down, and the theorists assumed that the photons picked up energy on the way, hence they were "falling". AHA moment Ok. And then, to follow the reasoning, because the downward "falling" photons did not gain any energy on their way down then that proved gravity to be null and irrelevant to the photon's travel. Gravity acting upon the photons would have altered their energy states I am assuming. But no evidence of this was found, hence, Relativity is wrong. If my understanding is correct about their experiment and reasoning then that is quite profound of a finding. That would invalidate Einstein.
'13-12-16, 12:23 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: No, Eddington said that the mirage effect did most of the bending, but that there was a discrepancy of couple of arc-seconds that he attributed to GR. The criticism is that he didn't have the instrumentation necessary to estimate the mirage effect to that accuracy. We still don't. Maybe you should check out Edward Dowdye's presentation entitled, "The Failed Attempts to Detect Macro Lensing": Eddington believed in grav. light bending so he did not consider the mirage effect to be of consequence. As you disagree with Eddington I suggest you post your proof here. But what is the point of arguing on light bending when you have already admitted defeat on Grav. redshift.
'13-12-16, 12:30 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Then would you agree that the propagation velocity is superluminal? Action at a distance violates c. I would agree that if such a thing is true then it would originate in a field. The question is what is it. And is action at distance actually something that happens. The mainstream alleges it does as it proposes that local masses and their gravity affect everything immediately and instantly, no matter how far away things are. To me this paints them into a corner as they have a lot of explaining to do yet they don't really explain it. The prop. velocity of the Aether is the speed of light so how can it also be super-luminal? It cant. Action at a distance does not violate c as the potential field is established in the Aether at c. The acceleration of light and mass is a function of the gradient of the Aether potential fields AT THE LOCAL POSITION of the accelerated object at the time of acceleration. The action at a distance aspect comes from the prior establishment of the pot. field.
'13-12-16, 12:34 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Solar wrote: There is no such thing as "action at a distance". The phrase is a substitute colloquialism, or alternate way of saying, 'We don't know.' Unfortunately the term itself has become a mindset parading as an actual physical condition when in reality it references the inability to recognize and/or understand the conveyance of Force(s). Its an illusive perception; not a real condition. A Continuum forbids it thus the quest for a UFT. They know its not a real condition by virtue of the quest. And people say my explanations are not clear!!!
'13-12-16, 12:41 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: But what is the point of arguing on light bending when you have already admitted defeat on Grav. redshift. OK, you win. Defeat suits me just fine in situations like this. Ciao, and good luck!
'13-12-16, 12:42 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: I haven't read the experiment but how can a photon "fall"? If it "falls" then that is gravity acting upon it. You have the problem inverted. The fact that a photon 'falls' IS gravity. Take my statement that the grav. pot is the speed of light (SoL). Thus the SoL is slower close to the Sun than a long way from the Sun. Now consider a tangential light ray. That side of the ray nearest the Sun travels slightly slower than the opposite side. The effect is to bend the ray towards the Sun. The bending of the ray can be considered to be a acceleration of the ray towards the Sun. One can term that as a falling towards the Sun. Hence the light ray is falling. Bending is the same as falling. It is all very simple.