__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

I asked that Captain Swoop please give the priority of what postings he wants me to respond to first; he said to answer posting #188 first so I will do so. Upon finishing this brief reply I will try to answer Nereid's last two questions in post #330 which I may not have time to do in just one cession today. If I get no further instructions from the Captain then I believe I would be free to answer somebody else's posting before I proceed with two more of Nereid's questions.

So I will start first by answering the questions proposed by Nereid in post 188 which I believe I have already answered.

Nereid, you did not propose anything; you were just making a statement concerning the number of predictions in my book that were quantitative in nature and I was agreeing with you. That's all. No big deal.

I answered this question in posting 300 below:

As far as I can understand, I have previously responded to the questions that she had asked in post #188. If not I request that if there are other intended questions in any post, that they be followed by a question mark so that I can understand that Nereid is requesting an answer from me. Comments are great but they do not necessarily require an answer.

respectfully, forrest

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

One thing to clarify: by "my last posts" I mean #323, #324, #325, #327, #328, and #329. The first four of these are simply copy&paste of nine of the ten predictions that forrest said "are related to my gravity theory"; the last two are on prediction 17, the topic introduced in the OP (forrest's 'pushing theory of gravity'), and the posts in this thread that seem to me have a direct bearing on that prediction and that topic.

My first question is nothing more than a request for confirmation that I have accurately and completely captured the essentials re forrest's 'pushing theory of gravity' as presented so far in this thread (and that any inaccuracies or omissions be corrected).

This is a question for anyone, not just forrest. Depending on what answers forrest gives to my questions in post #330, it might become a direct question for forrest.

If the experiment described in the OP were to be done at the surface of the Sun (the photosphere), would the expected difference in the speed of light be ~550 m/s (cf ~64 ft/s on the surface of the Earth)?

And on the Moon, ~3.2 m/s?

And on the surface of a typical white dwarf star, ~2,000 km/s?

Quote from Captain Swoop.

Quote from Nereid.

re. Post #330 question: Nereid's post, questions and my answers below are referring to her posting #329. The reader must refer back to this very long posting to prevent too long of a posting here.

Nereid,

I will answer according to the order of the quotations and questions starting with post 329. After finishing the quotation section I have made this posting. Following this I will write and present my theory of gravity in one posting. Following that I’ll answer your questions concerning posts 328 and 327.

Answers and review of postings in post #329:

The first quote is from the Prediction section of my book and is directly related to this post as explained by the leading post of this thread. It can stand as is, as a prediction.

It must be noted however that I believe that most of the predictions, like this one and any other part of the book, would be difficult or impossible to understand out of context. In the beginning of the book it mentions this point – that for understanding the concepts and theories involved you need to read the book in sequential order from beginning to end otherwise a lengthy explanation would have to follow each prediction.

Regarding the related prediction, this speed involved is in regard to the speed of light at the earth's surface only. Said speed differential would decrease according to the inverse square law of gravity as one would move away from the earth's surface. The round trip of light radiated up and down (the average speed) added together will always simply be at the speed of light. Additionally the logic behind why this is so, which is also in the book, is also missing here but will be explained here along with my theory of gravity.

The third quote has a few sentence errors or missing info that I will clarify.
"As Einstein showed, gravity also bends photons and there waves............."

This should have been "As Einstein showed, gravity also bends the path of photons and their waves............."

"To test both this theory of light and the above theory of gravity there should accordingly be a difference in the speed of light, down traveling at 64 feet per second faster than the speed going up (twice the acceleration speed of gravity)." This sentence should have been followed by the sentence:
"This would be my expected value within a tolerance range of +/ - 40 feet per second of this speed at the earth's surface within the predicted probability range to a 95% degree of certainty, according to the related expectation.

The next sentence/ statement that I made, in retrospect, I believe was too strong of a blanket statement.

"If this experiment shows the predicted difference it would nullify Special Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms, it would nullify General Relativity because it would generally confirm a different theory of gravity and its equations which I have developed, as well as bringing in to question the Big Bang Theory which has as its mathematical basis the equations of General Relativity."

I would amend it in the following way:

"If this experiment shows the predicted difference in the speed of light, it would nullify Special Relativity in favor of Lorentz transforms since it would strongly suggest the existence of an aether. I believe it would nullify the predictions of General Relativity relating to the speed and motions of stars, galaxies, and the formulations concerning the universe as a whole. The results from this experiment, after confirmation, would generally support a different theory of gravity, as well as bringing in to question the Big Bang Theory which has as its mathematical basis the equations of General Relativity."

The rest of the assertions of this paragraph would stand as is.

The above quote was answered in several subsequent posts but I'll give the answer again here. My answer is based upon the background information that I have already presented concerning the asserted aether mechanics.

The 64 ft. per second is based upon the speed of the aether which I propose is 32 ft. per second at the earth's surface. Therefore, if light is being "carried" by the aether it should have a differential speed of 64 ft. per second up vs. down. The theory would accordingly predict that the reason for the acceleration rate of gravity is directly related or proportional to the speed of the inward accelerating aether. Accordingly if something were dropped from a cliff straight down, the first second of its acceleration would be caused by the accelerating speed of the aether field at that point. The result would accordingly would be the object traveling 32 ft. in one second. If there would be a linear relationship between the speed of the aether, 32 ft. per second, and the acceleration rate of gravity then this speed would be multiplied by one second giving a continuous acceleration rate of 32 ft/ sec./sec.

The sustaining force, as a difference in vector forces up vs. down, accordingly would be one "G,” the difference in the vectors forces of pushing gravity pushing up relative to the greater force pushing down.

If however the speed of light were to have some other differential value within the predicted range, other than the linear expected value, then there accordingly would instead be a proportional relationship between the speed of the aether and the acceleration rate of gravity, whereby the speed of the aether would be calculated to have a proportional value relative to the acceleration rate. If such a difference were confirmed other that the mean expected value, maybe after considerable analysis I might propose a hypothesis why this exact proportional relationship would exist and would try to propose other experiments that might suggest why this proportion would exist and whether it would be a constant or equation related variable concerning other gravitational sources.

The next quotation from post # 131, I believe, is generally clarified by my above explanations. Other than that it stands as is as far as a minimum expected prediction value is concerned.

The next is your referral to post #202. I believe the above statement also answers these questions except for your last question which was:

“Where can the details of the derivation of that quantitative prediction be found?” The answer to this question was given in a reply to Fortis who asked the same question.

My answer to him was generally that I thought that a differential speed in the speed of light less than 24 ft. per second, I believe, would be very difficult to either find or confirm if such differential existed. The other factor is that any very small speed differential would be more difficult for the related theory of gravity to explain therefore it would be somewhat unexpected. On the other end of the scale, I believe that if the differential speed were greater than 108 feet per minute, that this differential would have already been detected. These reasons are the only basis for the range of the expected value. Such a range is not discussed in the text or the prediction section of my book, but I intend to add this range to the expected value and the prediction itself would remain unchanged.

The next quote, posting #238 stands as is.

The quote after that is your post #243

Just did the calculations again. The numbers are 64/ 982,080,000 ft per second (the speed of light). The answer is 65.2 parts per billion which is in accord with your question -- it's about 50 ppb? This quantity I agreed with in my subsequent related posting.

Posting #265, I agreed with your conclusion and I still do.

Posting #266 stands as is.


Postings #257 and 259 have been clarified above and stand as is.

“forrest, to what extent would you consider your theory falsified if such a test were conducted, and no such discrepancy were observed?”

As I answered in another post, that it would be evidence against my theory of gravity. In the same way, if the results of the prediction were confirmed by others, it would be evidence in support of my theory of gravity as stated in these postings and in my book.

Post #268 stands as is.

Nereid, as far as the entire posting is concerned I can’t think of anything else pertinent, but as you know, the thread is very long. When I requested a two question limit per posting, I meant two questions that could be answered in about an hour; otherwise you cannot expect a timely response. If you followed that request this could be a dialog with others joining in. Right now it’s primarily your monologue.

Next I'll answer your other postings and then your second question and explain again my theory of gravity. This, I agree, is probably a good idea so that you can see a summary of the whole related theory and logic in one location.

respectfully, forrest

The next review I will make is Nereid’s posting #327.

I have said before in this thread that according to my book, everything in physics and astronomy can be directly related to everything else. The common link would accordingly be the aether field. These are from the prediction section of my book which Nereid was inquiring about. They are posted without the related logic and/ or observational support that are described in the book. She was questioning which ones are directly related to my theory of gravity posted herein.

This prediction is referring to dark matter and aether as being the same thing. Not the dark matter needed to explain rotation curves of galaxies however. Instead it is an omnipresent aether/ dark matter that is needed to explain the “reasons why” concerning my theory of gravity. It is an explanation why we see only see 1/3 of the electron neutrinos radiated from the sun than what was originally expected. It is a prediction that stars are older than mainstream theory predicts and that they would accordingly have a longer life than what current predictions indicate.

This is a similar prediction to the one above indicating the heat of the earth’s core is caused by gravity in contrast to mainstream theory. Again this prediction is generally unrelated to my theory of gravity posted herein. At the present time these heating effects are estimates generally unrelated to my gravity formulations.

The above prediction is related to my theory of magnetism and unrelated to this thread.

This prediction is related to the subject theory of gravity but it is non-quantitative in nature. It discusses gravity vortex currents which would accordingly surround galaxies and galaxy clusters. It accordingly would be the fast moving aether currents which astronomers now call dark matter. This alone, however, could not explain the motions of stars or galaxies in a cluster without a revision of the mainstream theory of gravity. It also discusses that some galactic jets are truly superluminous which does not at all violate my theory of gravity or light. This is a non-quantitative prediction. (again, the reasons, logic, and observations relating to these predictions are not included but can be found at pantheory.org.)

To answer question two of Nereid’s post #330, I will post a summary of my theory of gravity in a subsequent posting.

respectfully, forrest

I know that you are busy answering Neried's questions, but I just thought that I would mention that this looks awfully like the Michelson-Morley experiment with one path oriented vertically.

Fortis,

I agree with you. That's exactly what it is. There are two paths vertically proposed, one going up at roughly a 30 degree angle and one going down at the same angle. The difference in speed observed, for a positive result, would be trigged out after zillions of back and forth timing, averaging, stististically analyzing etc. The average speed in both directions would always be equal to the standard value of the speed of light. The reason I believe Michelson-Morly could not find the aether, if it exists, was accordingly because:

1) Their equipment was not sensitive enough to detect such a small variance as I have proposed, and

2) Their equipment was designed to be leveled to the horizontal for friction reasons, therefore they could not look up or down.

respectfully, forrest

Thank you for the clarifications, forrest.

The editing of the extract from the OP, describing the proposed test, is considerable, so I've tried to piece together what it should now be.

The original:
The revised version:
The answer to hhEb09'1's question, in post#123, is now clearer (and not scattered across several posts). Here is the Q, and the A, in one place:
I hope I've got everything right.

I look forward to the completion of your clarifications.

respectfully, Nereid

Nereid,


I'm still working on the posting regarding the distillation of my theory of gravity (as per your request) but I will take time off to answer this simple posting #335 according to my theory. After looking it up, I see that your figure for the acceleration speed of gravity at the moon's and sun's surface, my expected value of the difference in the speed of light, up vs. down, would be the acceleration rate of gravity times two, divided by one second for reasons that I've explained now on numerous postings.

For the moon this relationship and your proposed differential speed rate of ~3.4 m/ sec. would be correct at the surface of the moon. As to the Sun and a white dwarf star, however, no incoming light would be possible. Accordingly the outgoing radiation would dominate the scenery and no incoming light could exist. If you are talking about burnt out stellar remnants (that do not radiate and are therefore undetectable to us) that accordingly would have aether speeds at their surface the same as the sun and a white dwarf with the same gravitational attraction, then yes your estimates would be correct.

respectfully, forrest

My bold for reference. If that is not the most absurd assertion I have seen in this forum, it certainly is a contender in my opinion.

There is infrared radiating from the Earth's surface, lots of it, but it does not prevent similar radiation from coming in from deep space objects and being observable. Why, in principle, should it be different in the visible light band and the hotter surface of the Sun?

Forrest,


So, in order for your experiment to work. Gravity is suppose to slow down light traveling up at an angle, is that correct? Because light speed is constant and in your model light travels in this aether, so gravity would have to effect light traveling in this "aether". Therefore gravity couldn't be outside of the aether, gravity would have to be inside of it. Is this correct?

__________________
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's true!

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it!

Indeed.

The analysis of (photometric) observations of eclipsing binaries explicitly includes the light from one star reflected by the other, see here for a brief overview. This early CoRoT light curve illustrates the reflected light clearly. And sometimes the reflected light is the only (visual waveband) light seen in certain binaries (an example)!

No question here, yet, forrest ... but there may be later.

This posting is in accord with Nereid's last request, to explain my theory of gravity again (in summary).

This theory will begin similarly to the beginning of this thread.

Background information:

We have been aware of the ZPF (zero-point-fluctuations/ field) for many decades now. Within this field the primary known particles that we are aware of are neutrinos, millions per square centimeter and waves of EM radiation containing photons. In proton accelerators we see jets coming from these collisions which they presently call quark jets. Theorists have proposed the existence of type of “dark matter” to account for the failings to predict orbital speeds of galaxy disk stars by mainstream gravity theory. Together all these known and theorized entities could be called the new aether.

There are at least two mainstream theories to account for most of the particles that may be associated with gravity in this field. One of these theorized particles are called a gravitons from quantum field theory. Other particles were theorized based upon the failings of General Relativity to predict orbital motions of disk stars in spiral galaxies. These theories were proposed by particle physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists and others, and have been called theories of dark matter. One the particles concerned with these theories is called an axion, another is called a neutrilino; another proposed group of possible configurations are called WIMPs. Collectively all of these dark matter theories were conceived so that the mainstream theory of gravity, General Relativity, could remain functional without modification.

The assertions:

The theory of gravity that is presented below agrees with the other theories mentioned above to the extent that gravity would accordingly be caused by particles. The differences between these theories and the theory below would be twofold. First, instead of these particles transferring or carrying a pulling force by contact as the theories above propose, the particles in the theory to be presented would simply be forcefully pushing by contact and they would be massless like photons; no “a priori force” would be involved. Secondly, besides being neutral in charge without spin, they would be many of thousands of times smaller than any of the other theorized entities above on an average. They accordingly would be long strings comprised of many separate tiny particles, and would come in thousands of different lengths. These mainstream hypotheses and the subject hypothesis all propose that particles are the source of gravity.

Accordingly we would be starting with an even playing field. The resultant energy of these particles may have already been observed as the ZPF and quark jets. What we now call virtual particles may be small vortices produced by energized particles from this theoretical field.

The beginning point of the theory of gravity below involves the statement above: that gravity is caused by pushing forces only, no “a priori” force would be involved. The meaning of this statement is that gravity would not accordingly be a fundamental force of nature, instead it would only be the result of the interactions of field particles accelerating against matter. According to the same master theory, the same thing would be true of magnetism. Accordingly the other supposed forces of nature such as the Strong Force, the weak force, and the Strong interaction would all be mechanical connections between particles that would require a force to be separated. Accordingly none of these entities could rightfully be called fundamental forces of nature. No theory to adjoin these “forces” would be needed, simply an understanding as to the pushing forces and the resistance forces involved.

The last assertion is that gravity at the galactic and intergalactic scale, will always have unpredictable currents based upon unobservable variables. The farther away, the greater the number of these unpredictable variable. Accordingly, all estimates concerning intra-galactic motions as well as the motions of galaxies in a cluster can only be estimates based upon what has been observed, there will always be tolerance range for these estimates.

Note: The assertions above that involve other theories are not a subject for discussion here but I believe are necessary for a reader to get the big picture of the theories involved and how they fit together with the theory of gravity being presented. These subjects, however, can be discussed at pantheory.org or on future threads.

The Pan-Gravity Theory: Both the How and Why of gravity mechanics.

No other theory of gravity, nor any theory in physics for that matter, can answer the “why questions.” For instance in Newton’s theory, why does matter attract other matter? Or in Einstein’s theory, why does matter warp space? This theory on the other hand explains the exact mechanics of how gravity works and why it works that way.

This is because it’s not just formulations, there is considerable verbal logic involved. Gravity is accordingly based upon aether mechanics of real vortices of aether which are accordingly created by matter in the aether field. The distributions of these particles in the field however cannot explain the failings of GR like the other theories above. This theory instead proposes that these particles are generally omni-present, not just surrounding galaxies and galaxy clusters, but of varying densities like atmospheric weather vortices. Matter would create a low pressure area in the field surrounding it by its continuous radiation of EM radiation, which accordingly would be outward radiated pressure waves in the aether reducing the pressure of the surrounding field.

This theory does not have a specific requirement for a field particle’s size or form, only that the field particles move and accelerate. The motions and accelerations of these particles are herein described as an “aether field.” This name is based upon a similar theorized particle and field which was mainstream theory of the 19th century.

The Motions and acceleration of these particles would accordingly be due to a difference in the field density of these particles from one location to another. Because of a generally high overall density these aether particles would be bouncing off each other with a uniform random pressure similar to gas pressure. EM radiation in the form of waves of higher density than the field accordingly would be radiated away from all matter leaving a lower field density surrounding all matter according to its mass. Therefore there would be a force vector differential in the space surrounding all matter resulting from an inward accelerating aether that would be the cause of gravity.

Any surrounding matter in this space would feel a stronger force pushing toward the matter and a weaker force pushing away from it. Accordingly matter would be pushed toward other matter.

As to the Earth, if a rock were dropped out of a high altitude aircraft, the rock would be pushed toward the Earth by the acceleration of this aether toward the earth’s surface. As the rock would begin to move toward the Earth the aether would move in behind it at the speed of light. The rock would continue to have a stronger vector force behind it than in front of it so that it would continue to accelerate toward the earth, hence gravity.

Surrounding spiral galaxies these aether currents would accelerate inward in a vortex current. The exact form of the vortex for each galaxy can be seen accelerating into the lower field pressure of the galactic matter in a similar manner as a weather vortex of air moves. Trace the path of the arms of spiral galaxy inward toward its center and you would be able to see the form and path of these pushing aether currents for each galaxy inward. The galaxy accordingly would rotate in the direction as would be indicated by the direction of this pushing current.

Mathematical Formula:

These formulations have been designed to work for the orbital momentum of spiral galaxy disc stars, the motions of galaxies within a cluster, and the gravitational motions of the universe as a whole.

The mathematical formulation of this pushing current would be based upon the Newtonian style equation Ø ≈ G • Mm/ r^n where the value of “n” would be determined by two variables that would depend on the mass and its relative positions within an analyzed entity. . Where n = 2^ (1 + ar. / cr.) . ar. is the distance of the active range in a given system where the vector forces of gravity becomes non-linear. cr. is the considered range which is the distance between the beginning of the active range to the particular location being evaluated.

For the outer range equations of a galaxy or cluster the value of the ratio of ar. & cr. are a negative number between zero and one. The explanation and drawings of these inside and outside ranges can be seen on pages 57D2 and 57E at pantheory.org respectively.

For a star of one solar mass, for instance, Newton’s equational linear vector force range would begin at an estimated 23 AU to ~ 94,000 AU. The Newtonian linear vector force would be Ø ≈ GM/ r^2

After an estimated 94,000 A.U. the equation again would become Ø ≈ GM/ r^n where the linear force of gravity toward the Sun and the related equations of Newton & Einstein would accordingly start to lose accuracy on a grand scale concerning linear vector forces

As the linear vector force would decrease, according to the above formula, a vector force orthogonal to the star and parallel to the plane of the stellar system, would slowly increase which would makes up the loss in the equivalent straight-line vector. The result, according to the formula above, would be a parabolic motion of an object at this distance as it would move toward the star. The same result but to a lesser extent, would occur with an object with velocity/ momentum leaving the stellar system. vector force This parabolic motion and the above gravity formulations are shown on pages 57D2 and 57E.

In the above equation since the distance factor is the quotient of the equation as the value of “n” increases, the strength of linear gravity would accordingly decrease. The lost gravitational force, or linear vector, would be equally compensated for by a vector force in the same direction as the “closing field”, a force perpendicular to the linear force. The equation for this perpendicular vector would then reduce down to: F = (S/ r^2 ) – (S/ r^n), where (S/ r^2 ) is the orthogonal vector and (S/ r^n) is the Newtonian force between the two bodies.

See page 57 -- Starting at point “P” and progressing toward the star, the object will first start out having nearly a vertical vector, it will progress on this parabolic path indicated as the motion-line-of-mass until it reaches the Newtonian Range of gravity where its motion will become close to linear.

(see next posting for the complete gravity summary)

In actuality there would rarely be a situation where there would be two adjacent stellar vortices on the same plane moving the opposite direction, without gravitational interferences from other adjacent stars and seemingly unpredictable gravity currents at the stellar vortex boundaries. This formulation of vortex gravity allows for a galaxy of stars to generally retain their relative position within the galaxy which only very slowly would change its form based upon reducing gravity currents, field pressure differences, and the diminution of stellar matter. All these variants would make gravity predictions at this range more a matter of calculated possibilities instead of present day “straight” calculations.

No ultimate formulations are possible without tolerances, similar to quantum mechanics. The same situation would be involved with motions of galaxy clusters and the gravitational motions of the observable universe in general.

The values of ar. and cr. above have different constant values in the outer and inner range of the solar system. As to the interactions between stars and galaxies these values are for most considerations not needed just the ration of them which can be estimated. Accordingly you would calculate the estimated Newtonian value and then by the estimated ratio determine the estimated direction vector of pushing gravity at that point. For most of the inner portion of the core of a spiral galaxy, for instance, Newtonian gravity would prevail. For the galactic disc of a spiral galaxy most of the vectors of gravity would be in the direction of maintaining orbital momentum and maintaining stellar separation and a smaller force would be holding the galaxy together, therefore accordingly after a certain age galaxies would expand faster than the Hubble constant rate and all of the disc stars would slowly be lost to intergalactic space. The core of the galaxy would expand and it would become an old elliptical galaxy with primarily Newtonian mechanics.

There is one other important factor in this gravity formulation that concerns the diminution of matter principle of the Pan Theory of Relativity which are “e” exponential factor equations which relates to galactic orbital motions primarily for redshifts greater than .3. I will not go into these formulations here but you can view them on the website and related book at pantheory.org starting on page 97.

Related experiment:

This experiment would be a proof of concept experiment to verify the existence of an aether which would help reinforce my theories of both gravity and EM radiation.

According to my theory of gravity, the prediction is that there should be a difference between the speed of light going up and the speed going down. The down speed should accordingly be 32 feet per second faster than the horizontal speed, and the up speed should be 32 feet per second slower..

There are two paths vertically proposed, one going up at roughly a 30 degree angle and one going down at the same angle. The difference in speed observed, for a positive result, would be trigged out after zillions of back and forth timing, averaging, statistically analyzing etc. The average speed in both directions would always be equal to the standard value of the speed of light. The reason I believe Michelson-Morley could not find the aether, if it exists, was accordingly because:

1) Their equipment was not sensitive enough to detect such a small variance as I have proposed, and

2) Their equipment was designed to be leveled to the horizontal for friction reasons, therefore they could not look up or down.

Argument against the equational modeling of this theory:

You need detailed observations to do your modeling. You need to do permutation calculations to make your model work and need to add as many as six different equations to make the answer match what we are already observing. We do the same thing by adding dark matter in different locations and change its speed depending on what is being observed. Once you get done, your model cannot do anything different then what we are doing with GR and maybe not even as good. Observation rules concerning galaxies and clusters since nothing new comes out of mathematical modeling, only unverifiable implications.

Answer to this argument: It is true that both observations and permutations are needed for these equations to make a model of what is being observed. The results of this modeling would not have identically the same results as the dark matter model since they involve different equations.

The prediction above concerning the speed of light on earth is an example of the prediction differences of these models. Also this model would say that the likelihood of a flat rotation curve for the disk of a spiral galaxy would be highly unlikely. Instead the mathematical model for the Milky Way would suggest that the outer stars of the galaxy are moving between 5-35% faster than the inner stars near the core. Predicting that this speed progressively increases as one would move from the inside of the galaxy progressively outward. Since the density and the speed of the inflowing aether would accordingly be faster at a galaxies perimeter, the gravitational pushing influence of rotation would be stronger.

The biggest difference however would be in the mass of a galaxy. If by using the dark matter model 90% additional matter would be thrown into the equation, then this alternative model would predict that our galaxy’s matter, for instance, would be roughly only 10% of what is presently being predicted.

These models and formulations above could predict a drastic difference between current gravity and universe models. These equations collectively would do away with both the present dark matter approach as well as dark energy. Accordingly, the masses, speeds and motions involved would be completely different. Both dark matter and dark energy accordingly would be only illusions based upon GR and the Hubble redshift formulation. The result would be that an equational model of the gravity mechanics of the observable universe would be completely different, resulting in completely different predictions, some of which have been posted on this thread.

Note:

The dark energy disputing aspect of these equations are "e" factor exponential equations relating to the Pan Theory of Relativity and are not part of this thread so are not part of this discussion. It was necessary to mention this above since it also is a part of this gravity formulation at distances greater than a redshift of about .3. A future thread could discuss this or other matters not directly related to this gravity model by contacting me at pantheory.org.

Happy Friday night Rebel,

Rebel, the old idea of the 19th century was that light waves were waves in an aether field. An analogy would be our atmosphere. The same thing would be true of this theory. The theory of aether in the 19th century was called the luminiferous aether and it proposed that the waves of light were actually waves in the aether. The familiar analogy for this would be ocean waves. This ocean wave idea of light however would be a simplified model.

According to my theory, in the observable universe light would travel through the aether in all locations at the familiar speed, about 300 million meters per second. This is the same speed as proposed by conventional theory. The difference would be that in my theory the aether would accordingly be moving into the earth at a speed of 32 feet per second which is related to the acceleration rate of gravity. If the aether is the "carrier of light," as in this theory asserts, and if light is traveling through the aether at exactly the same speed going both up and down, then the speed of light would be 32 feet per second faster going down from its horizontal speed and 32 feet per second slower going up; a differential in the speed of light of 64 ft. per second at the surface of the Earth.

The experiment would be conducted at an angle so that the up vs. down vector could be determined. For example if the experiment were conducted at a 30 degree angle, the speed differential at that angle would be only half of the differential up vs. down. The cosecant of 30 degrees is 2. So whatever direct measurement would be measured at that angle, the results would be multiplied by two.

Does that make sense to you?

respectfully, forrest

Forrest, I understand the experiment. I don't understand the third sentence in the above quote. The one about the aether moving into the earth at a speed of 32 ft. per sec. Where does the 32ft/s come from?

__________________
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's true!

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it!

Forrest,
I wanted to put this in a separate post! In your model of "creation", how does it begin? Is your model in epicycles as well? How did the elements form? What started this "push"? Please try to keep it "simple", you've been doing a great job so far! Thanks for your time, and I hope you are enjoying your weekend.

__________________
Just because it's complex doesn't mean it's true!

If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it!

rebel,

Please contact me at my website pantheory.og. If you want me to start another thread concerning the beginning of everything according to my theory, I will seriously consider it. If you just want the straight scoop right now just ask me on the referenced website. I'll refer you to the appropriate book pages to read first and after reading you could ask questions away.

respectfully, forrest

According to previous postings the acceleration force of gravity is known to be 32 ft/sec./sec. According to this gravity theory the reason for this acceleration rate would be caused by a differential pressure in the earth's surrounding aether field. The field would accordingly be denser away from the earth because all matter accordingly radiates pressure waves of EM radiation which reduces the aether pressure surrounding the matter. The outside field aether would therefore continuously accelerate toward the earth. If the relationship between the acceleration force of gravity and the aether's speed has a linear relationship then I would expect the aether speed to be at the rate of 32 ft. per second. If this speed ,however, were some other speed, I would try to provide an hypothisis as to why this proportional relationship would exist.

respectfully, forrest

What is "up"?

Is it, for example, the line from the centre of the Earth through you?

Or does it have something to do with gravity? So, for example, if you are close to a dense mountain, your "up" would be different than if there were no such dense mountain (all other things being equal)?

Another 'up-depends-on-gravity' example: suppose there is a total eclipse of the Sun, directly overhead ... 'up' would be in the direction of the Sun and Moon at that time (directly overhead), but 'up' would be in away from 'differently overhead' 6 hours earlier, when the Sun and Moon would be (almost) in the direction of the horizon (i.e. horizontal)?

If I change the unit if time that we use, from second to minute, then the acceleration due to gravity is 115200 ft/min/min.

Using this value, what is the equivalent aether velocity in ft/min?

forrest noble,

Are you going to answer my question in this prior post?

Forrest Nobles Pushing Gravity

Hornblower,

Sorry Hornblower. Thought your above comment was rhetorical.

I think it goes like this Hornblower. As you're standing on Earth at high noon you get out your trusty telescope. It's not just any telescope, it happens to be the best optical telescope in the world. You try to find the planet Mercury but you can't see it. You know exactly where it is relative to the position of the sun but it simply cannot be seen.

The problem is that the light from the sun like other light are waves. In the case of a star like our sun so close to us its waves are very powerful coming through our atmosphere. Regardless of your efforts to see the small reflected light coming from the planet Mercury at high noon you could see nothing.
You bring out the photo plates. You try all different exposure times and frequencies, you still can see nothing. The problem is that there is refracted light pollution in our atmosphere from the sun. Through refraction, the light of the sun is spread all everywhere in our atmosphere. The tiny reflected light from Mercury cannot get through during the day time.

Although at night the earth also produces copious quantities of EM radiation as you suggested, this radiation is of low frequency and intensity. Infrared heat radiation is comprised of long wave lengths compared to light frequencies. Star light is relatively much more intense so that their comparatively short waves would move right through outward moving infrared radiation. This same effect would be multiplied by countless millions so that an optical telescope near the sun could never see anything other than the sun itself. The same thing would be true of white dwarf star, although their mass has condensed, their light would still be super-strong near the star's surface blocking out the ability to do any measurements of the speed of incoming light.

Hope this answers your question Hornblower.

Respectfully, forrest

What do you make of this image then?

By the way, any response to my question about the aether speed in ft/min?

Fortis,

Although the speed of the aether per second at the earth's surface would accordingly be 32 ft/ sec., its calculated acceleration rate given was very small, 3.788 times 10^ -7 ft./sec./sec. The speed in feet per minute would simply be about 32 x 60 or 1,920 feet per minute.

Whatever the correct acceleration rate of gravity would be for any given gravitational entity, per whatever interval of time you are interested in, convert this acceleration rate into per second intervals. This per second rate supposedly is where the close correlation with the speed of the aether would be expected to exist.

respectfully, forrest

All you have done here is convert 32 ft/sec into 1920 ft/min.

How do you get the figure of 1,920 feet per minute from an acceleration due to gravity of 115200 ft/min/min?

Fortis,

Although the aether is accelerating into the earth, this tiny acceleration rate of the aether would not significantly effect the speed rate of the aether in just one minute. The speed rate per minute would be 1,920 ft. per minute. You might say coincidentally that the speed of the aether is close to the speed rate reached by the acceleration of gravity from rest in .6 seconds here on Earth.

Since both the force of gravity and the speed of the aether are determined by the inverse square law of distance, but the rate of this change would be very different but would have an equational relationship for reasons as yet untheorized.

respectfully, forrest

Fortis,

Cool pictures of Mercury eclipsing the sun . What does it mean to you my friend?