ZetaTalk Gravity: Insight or Insanity?
In Article <[email protected]> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Thusly, I derived an equation that should describe the force
> produced: Pd*Md*t*(Vg+Vo)=F where
> Pd=Particle Density ...
> Md=Mass Distance ...
> t=time ...
> Vg=velocity of Gravity particles ...
> Vo=Velocity of Object ...
> F=Force ...
>
> Newton's Law (HA) ...
> F=ma=Pd*m*t*(Vg+Vo)*G ...
> a=Pd*distance*G
Excellent start, but you err in including velocity.
Although in the finite analysis this would be included,
in the gross comparison to Newton and what you have
termed HA, this does not apply. Do you compute the
velocity of LIGHT when doing a computation on light
refraction on the surface of Earth, or light reflection
from Mars? You do only when dealing with light
coming from great distances, as a factor of the distance,
but not when close at hand. In this regard, treat gravity
particles as you do light particles, during your generation
of a human Repulsion Force formula.
ZetaTalk
In Article <[email protected]> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Now the box advances a bit to the right but gravity
> particle continues down in a straight line. Thus, any
> moment after t, the gravity particle will not only have
> advanced downward but also to the left with respect
> to the box. If we equate force with gravity particle
> direction, then gravity is now exerting a force down
> and TO THE LEFT on the box. The box's motion is
> degraded.
This is correct, but so infinitesimal as to be negligible
for close at hand computations, and by this we mean
any computations within your solar system. The
particle flow of gravity particles is rapid, and the
interaction with other particles essentially mechanical,
so the bulk of interactions is out FROM a gravity giant
and back INTO that giant. When the weatherman
reports the velocity of hurricane winds, do they bother
to mention that some of these winds on occasion,
depending upon the density of the air between tall
buildings or in depressions in the ground, may move
to the SIDE a tad? This exists, defecting slightly and
thus slowing or speeding up the forward wind force, but
for the report to those in the path of the hurricane, it is
the FORWARD motion only that matters.
ZetaTalk
In Article <[email protected]> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> However, if (in accordance with quantum mechanics
> (HA)) we allow gravity particles to be viewed as both
> waves and particles, the contradiction disappears (think
> of a huge light overhead - the intensity of light does not
> change as we move one way or the other). Oddly,
> extending this reasoning to include present human
> assumptions leads to the prediction that, while still, we
> would see gravity particles as virtual, but when moving to
> either side we would see them as waves and therefore real.
They are never still.
ZetaTalk
In Article <[email protected]> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> According to Zetatalk satellites... if far enough from the
> surface of a gravitational giant such as a planet, find a
> down-draft and updraft of gravity particles in balance,
> what humans might term in their ignorance a zero gravity
> field, weightlessness.(ZT) But we would also term
> falling off a cliff (in the absence of air resistance)
> weightlessness.
The nature of a cliff determines that it is ATTACHED to
the surface of a planet, thereby negating your logic. For
a tiny object, the falling climber, this hardly produces the
distance to create a situation of updraft and downdraft of
gravity particles. Do your cliffs extent to the distance
your astrophysicists must place satellites, in order to have
them behave in accordance with Newton and sustain their
distance based on their velocity? What Newton has
included in his math, without knowing, is the balance of
updraft and downdraft. In point of fact, if the object was
NOT at the distance to create this balance, it either
plumeted to the gravitational giant or was subject to
attraction by another passing or nearby gravity giant.
Thus, those orbiting objects you examine are there to BE
examined BECAUSE of the updraft and downdraft balance.
Thus Newton and his followers negated the influence of
gravity particles in his orbit equations, as all they saw
seemed to fit!
ZetaTalk
In Article <[email protected]> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Zetatalk contends that Space travel is a irresistible kiss,
> and a quick kiss, between two gravity attractors. This quick
> kiss is achieved by turning off the repulsion force between
> two points, and is a carefully controlled process.(ZT) I find
> two problems with the above description. First, it implies
> that the repulsive force can be subtracted out.
How do you think we HOVER, in our spacecraft, without
whirling blades or blasting jets? How do we NEGATE the
downdraft of gravity particles toward the surface of the
planet we are hovering upon, while at the same time
negating the upblast of gravity particles which would send
us upward in a wink unless also countered? We control
BOTH directional flows, creating a gravity barrier around
the ship. Likewise space travel, our irresistible kiss, creates
a tube through space composed of this same barrier.
Gravity particles exist in the space within this barrier or
tube, but only create their own gravity dance among
themselves - not enough time or quantity to coalesce a
gravitational giant. And what is this barrier? It is composed
of gravity particles themselves, glued with an overabundance
of another particle it DOES interact with, unlike the majority
of sub-atomic particles which interact with gravity particles
only in a mechanical manner. Does this not produce a
situation where the space or tube might become permanent?
There is a time factor, such that we must continually
reproduce a space for our craft to hover, and quickly use the
tube arranged for instant space travel. The barrier degrades,
in a wink, equalizing into the surrounding area where it was
GATHERED to be the glue. You can equate this to your use
of electricity, where it dissipates quickly into becoming
electrons behaving normally in the surrounding matter as
soon as interference by man in making them stream ceases.
ZetaTalk
In Article <[email protected]> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> But according to human assumptions mass and energy cause a
> curvature of spacetime with and thus gravity. The larger the
> energy and mass concentrated at a given point in space the
> more gravity. By subtracting out the repulsion force, we also
> subtract out a large amount of energy in a give unit of space.
> By human theories and assumptions this should cause gravity
> to become LESS; by the Zetatalk theory gravity should become
> MORE. It seems the only way to reconcile this is to say that
> the repulsion force causes a NEGATIVE curvature of space
> time.
In that a recycling of sorts occurs, with the gravity BECOMING
repulsion and then returning to become gravity, there is no
negation. The interaction is thus local, and does not affect the
overall.
ZetaTalk
In Article <[email protected]> Quantum Certainty wrote:
> Zetatalk states (in another section) that The repulsion
> phenomena only manifests when, as we said, the objects are
> of equal size, are free to move, and dominate the immediate
> environment.(ZT) But if objects must be of equal size how
> does the repulsion force affect a satellite (very small) and a
> spacecraft (I assume to be relatively small)?
Manifests to be, without question, evident to HUMANS.
The Repulsion Force is simply gravity particles in a rapid
updraft away from a gravitational giant. The balance is
achieved when a floating object, far enough from a
gravitational object to find the umbrella of downdrifting
gravity particles more a mesh than a solid which it cannot
resist, but near enough to experience the bump up from an
occasional blast of gravity particles outbound from the
gravitational giant. Does this create a jiggle in the floating
object, a drift downward and jerk outward? Yes, and would
explain some of the anomalous behavior of your probes,
exiting the solar system and NOT in accordance with human
understanding. When your computation of the Repulsion
Force reaches the state of being able to interface with your
current gravity formulas - plug that in, and see if the probe
behavior .. behaves! A good test.
ZetaTalk