Monday, May 14, 2007

Gravity is . . . Part IV

Scientists, who claim that they go only where the evidence leads them, that nothing is sacred but the truth, are quick to point out that my explanation of inductance is meaningless because it doesn’t conform to the scientific definition of induction. That definition states that inductance is a property of an electric circuit by which an electromotive force is induced in it by a variation of current either in the circuit itself or in a neighboring circuit. What’s an electromotive force? Something that moves or tends to move electricity. What’s electricity? A fundamental form of energy. What is fundamental? When science knows nothing about anything, here energy, it simply classifies like things, here forces that produce work or can be converted to BTUs, and calls them fundamentals.
So let’s see what science knows about what it pretends to know about. A fundamental form of energy, electricity, something science has no idea where it comes from, can come from a property of an electrical circuit doing something to produce the fundamental energy, electricity.
When I was in my mid-twenties, I went out and bought a huge encyclopedia of science about 1,300 pages long, a really big book. I also purchased a stack of 5X8 cards. At the time, I still thought science knew everything it claimed to know and it was my understanding that was falling short. Each morning I’d start the day by excerpting one of the entries, along with its cross references. During the day, whenever I had a free moment, I’d refer to the card, finding out what I understood and what I didn’t understand, using the back of the card to jot down questions I had about the entry.
This went on for several years when I started to realize something. I was going in circles. Every explanation contained in the encyclopedia, other than just those items that categorized things such as the table of elements, referred to other entries for a fuller understanding. Those other entries referred to still other entries. If I followed the path of referrals, I ended up with the referrals being to the original entry that raised my question.
In short, I found that science, at its base, was nothing more than a giant ring of circular references that didn’t explain anything. It was like the actual circular explanation for gravity. What produces gravity? Mass. What is mass? Mass is what produces gravity. No one can get out of the circular pile of non-information once inside it.
With electricity, all the words, property, force, something, fundamental, energy, they’re all meaningless as explanations for anything. We all know how electricity behaves. We can measure how it behaves. It doesn’t add to our knowledge to say a grump stitcher forces ploobars as a result of moving a wire in a zolloback field around the electricity. But neither does saying it’s a property whereby something moves something else to produce electricity.
It’s even worse when the labelers and categorizers of our scientific ignorance claim an electron produces electricity and the definition of an electron is a moving charge, which is what, of course, electricity is. No one explains anything by describing what it is. When something is dynamic, it takes a dynamic explanation, an explanation that actually explains.
One thing is pretty clear about electricity. It is produced by particles that have two properties, one a property of motion, the other, a property of attraction. The property of motion is self-evident. When electricity was first harnessed, it was done so in a battery that had terminals. Thus, using a magnetic analogy, electricity was thought to move from positive to negative (or vice versa depending on the decade and logic).
When inductance was discovered some 30 years later, positive and negative clearly had no application. A circuit, while it has two points, does not create a flow between those two points. By definition, a circuit is circular, so the electricity is not moving from one point to another, it is moving around in a circuit.
The one thing we do know about the electricity, though, is it’s moving, so instead of making up properties and electromotive forces and the elusive “something,” let’s just assign the electron the property of motion, which it obviously has.
Next, the property of attraction is also pretty clear. Once electrons begin moving in a path, they move in unison, so it’s pretty lame to think they haven’t come together in mutual attraction. It's simple logic that if electrons repelled each other, circuits would not exist. The electrons simply wouldn't stay together. Also, it’s only normal that a flow of electrons would attract a circular flow around it simply because at every point in the flow, there are electrons. If those electrons had a property of attraction, they would attract other electrons out of the environment to form the circular flow.
Of course, all this is impossible because by the time inductance was discovered, a whole generation had grown up with the notion of positive and negative and by the time anyone got around to wondering how matter was constructed, another three or four generations of labelers and categorizers had cemented their reputations on the notion, so, like gravity is a property of matter, it simply became a given. Thus, when the atom was constructed with electrons orbiting a nucleus, the only thing that could hold the electrons in orbit, which had become negative by that time, was a positive particle, so a positive particle was made up, put in the nucleus to hold the electrons in orbit, and now that particle is as real as grey clay. In the scientific view, there's no force moving the orbiting electrons, just a minor problem.
The simple fact is, moving a conductor in an inductive flow around a primary flow of electrons will produce a flow of electrons in the conductor if the conductor is itself in a circuit. What easier thing to explain? The physical material of the conductor is capturing the electrons orbiting the primary flow, I prefer to use the image tipping the electrons into the conductor. They in turn become a flow of electrons. The electrons lost in the inductive flow are quickly replaced by electrons in the environment.
And here’s the key, a small point science wishes to ignore, much like it ignores, no, will destroy, a scientist who presses for an answer: What's the force that makes the electron obit the nucleus in the first place? There’s no question if motion is assumed in the electron, but as it is, science has no answer to the question and has no intention of providing one. The key is the movement of electrons in what I call the ambient field.
Science readily acknowledges that an electrical current will ionize atoms. Lightning ionizes atoms in the atmosphere. True to form, science doesn’t bother to explain how this might occur, but does admit that the atom loses “an electron” in the process. Wonders behold, science’s vision of the atom has, in recent years, evolved into one of an amorphous cloud of electrons orbiting the nucleus, rather than fixed numbers in fixed shells. Thus, ionization results in a massive loss of electrons in an atom.
Where do these electrons go? Into the ambient field, which is to say, the atmosphere. What do they do? Chase concentrations of electrons, be that concentration an atom, an electric flow, the clouds that generate lightning, or perhaps as inductive flows around flows of light from the sun.
Which brings us back to Young’s two-slit experiment, where the spheres of expanding light are intersecting and, in the process, recombining. The only way they could be recombining is if the expanding light had inductive flows regulating its expansion. When the light intersects, the light that matches up on the basis of direction and frequency acts like flows of electricity in two electric wires that are brought into proximity with one another. The inductive flows combine the primary flows of light, and this results in the uniform absence of light on the collection screen.
The question is, how do the inductive flows regulate the uniform expansion of the light in the first place?
Picture light expanding on the surface of the sphere. At any point on the sphere, the light, like the light in the two-slit experiment, is overexpanding. Thus, the expanding light on the surface of the sphere is like the light intersecting in the two-slit experiment: Each point is a tiny sphere, and the light in these tiny spheres, light from the same source that has traveled the same distance and is aligned with respect to frequency, intersects and recombines.
What is the physical description of this recombination? Unlike the light in the two-slit experiment, where the light has been grossly overexpanded, the light doesn’t disappear. As soon as it overexpands, the light contracts, not to the point that it was at the time it began to expand, but at the next point further on, the next expanding sphere. It is the consolidation of the light after it overexpands that creates the next expanding sphere (in effect, replaces the next expanding sphere which has itself expanded into the next, and so forth).
Thus, while the flows of light that make up the expanding sphere of light are frequencies, the expanding sphere itself is an oscillation, a sphere the surface of which is constantly expanding and contracting. When the sphere expands, it is moving out into an area available for it to expand. When it contracts, it is consolidating itself.
What effect does this consolidation have?
The consolidation of the overexpanded light by the inductances regulating its expansion produces a mechanism at any point on an expanding sphere of light. The overexpanding spheres are intersecting at every point. Every point of intersection is connected to the expanding sphere by a flow of light. Thus, mathematically, these points are vertices of cones. The surface of an expanding sphere of light is therefore covered with cones that have the pointed end facing away from the expanding sphere. The inductive flows collapse this cone. The mechanism that regulates the uniform expansion of light can be visualized as a cone, with the vertex pointed away from the expanding sphere, collapsing back into the expanding sphere to form a new expanding sphere of light.
However small this mechanism is, it has force, and anything that might be caught in the mechanism would move back toward the source of the emissions. Once a unit of an atom, for instance, was caught in the mechanism, it would move back toward the source of the emissions. As expanding spheres surround the area around a source of emissions, at each point a unit of an atom was pushed back, it would be caught in another mechanism, a point closer to the emissions, and be pushed back once again, only to be caught in the next closer mechanism, and so forth until something intervened to stop the movement.
If we visualize the nuclei of atoms as having units, without attempting to put names to them, we know that these units are held together by some force. Whatever force is holding the units of the nucleus of the atom together would not come into play as long as all the units were being caught up in the mechanisms and being pushed back toward the source of the emissions. Only when something stopped the atom's movement, and the atom came to rest still subject to the mechanisms that were holding it to whatever stopped it, would the force holding the units together come into play. If an attempt were made to move the atom against the mechanisms, then the force holding the units together would require all the units be moved at once. Thus, the more units, the more work it would take to move the atom against the force, and this is exactly what we have when it comes to matter acting in a field of gravity.
As to the measurement of the unit’s force at any point in the expanding sphere, the light is diminishing uniformly with the square of the distance from its source. As the inductive flows are proportional to the primary flows, the inductive flows are also diminishing inversely with the square of the distance from the source of the emissions. As the force of the mechanism equals the force of the inductive flows, the strength of the mechanisms are also diminishing inversely with the square of their distance from the source of the emissions.
This, of course, is the measurement for gravity.
Examining how emissions expand provides a mechanism that describes exactly how matter moves as a result of gravity.
As to the inability to detect magnetic qualities in expanding light, with the inductive flows equaling the expanding primary flows, there is no measurable charge.
The mechanism that produces gravity is associated with a dynamic source of matter doing something, it results in the inverse square acceleration of matter as it diminishes inversely with the square of its distance from the source resulting in objects of different weights falling at the same rate but moving against the mechanisms at different levels of force, and the mechanism itself has, as its primary purpose, the regulation of the expansion of the electromagnetic emission field, which in our example, is represented by light.

2 comments:

Monte said...

This is so amazing!

James said...

Couple of points.

First it isn't possible to attribute the inverse square law of light to a mechanical attenuation since the ivsl is purely geometric. It's like you're arguing that Science doesn't know about the ivsl (false) because it's cause is a dynamic process (also false). In fact if you take the luminosity of the Sun and the brightness of Sirius and plug them into the ivsl, you'll calculate a distance roughly similar to the distance to Sirius derived from parallax measurements. Therefore, to save your theory you would rather have to prove that light diminishes much faster than the ivsl predicts. E.g., you would have to prove that the luminosity of the Sun is underestimated.

In philosophical terms, you've made the usual cause for correlation blunder of metaphorically linking two phenomenon through a common attribute. In this case you've tried to link gravity and light through their shared property of obeying the ivsl.

Second, without any diagrams it's very difficult to visualise your ideas about how light expands, but if I've understood, it looks as though it wouldn't be possible to see a clear image because a point source would not simply divide but diffuse as it was re-emitted.