Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity

[AlanA]

@ Moro

Thanks for the theoretical input. This is important but can also curtain the own claims.
What I want to say. There is a lack of input/output calculation of your (impressing) demonstration (bike). Even thought it was a schematic representation so you have not answered to my input calculation 
Alana

[gravityblock]

The "effect" as you put it (outcome) is generally understood... It is the "cause" (source) to which there is a general lack of understanding. Gravity is not the expansion of space. It is more likely the displacement of the sea of energy in the space field that we call and perceive as TIME. Matter requires this energy for it's existence in the space field. Matter at any point in space uses this energy, causing the surrounding energy to move inward by displacement. The greater the clump of matter existing near a general point in space, the more perceptible the displacement as you approach. The centripetal force that pushes on Earth's Moon to hold it in orbit is caused by this displacement. There is in reality no such thing as a force that pulls.

Time should play the part, instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force were infinitely small and ceased to exist, then time and space would be infinitely great. But, again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself. Again this impulse only exists as a function of a Will that gives rise to it. To sum up, time and space are the outcome of a powerful Will acting on the Universe, that is what we should measure, taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon. In our Universe this Will manifests itself as galactic time.

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E, each path starts at the same height and ends at the same height, so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage (The net fall is the same for each ball).  Also, take note on how the path which dips the lowest doesn't always win.  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  However, the shortest time between two points is a curve.  It's the shortest time because the curve provides the greatest force with the least amount of resistance to overcome to impel the body through space (the greatest momentum), and not because time decreased, increased, or was displaced.  Mass moves faster on a curve than it does a straight line.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome.  Gravity isn't a curvature in space-time (if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great).

Gravock

[NerzhDishual]

@GravityBlock

Thanks for your post.

"galactic time" is over my (left?) mind.

Anyway:

[....] each path starts at the same height and ends at the same height,
so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage
(The net fall is the same for each ball). 
Also, take note on how the path which dips the lowest doesn't always win.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. 
However, the shortest time between two points is a curve.
................
Gravity isn't a curvature in space-time.

Might evoke something to my right brain.

Anyway I have the  feebleness to believe that - apart from any theory- some very simple experiments might be of any help.

Very Best

[MoRo]

@ Moro

Thanks for the theoretical input. This is important but can also curtain the own claims.
What I want to say. There is a lack of input/output calculation of your (impressing) demonstration (bike). Even thought it was a schematic representation so you have not answered to my input calculation 
Alana

Even if it were true tha I was the first to suggest such theory as an explanation of gravity, and I "curtain own claims" by mentioning it here, I would be happy that such knowledge became openly available to all. Just as my MagnaMoRo YouTube channel expresses... "Free Energy For All".  I am unconcerned for my self... The benefit of all is the seat of my motivation.

Also, I am still working out the proper way to demonstrate the input/output with the bicycle setup.  Stay posted.

[johnny874]

Time should play the part, instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force were infinitely small and ceased to exist, then time and space would be infinitely great. But, again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself. Again this impulse only exists as a function of a Will that gives rise to it. To sum up, time and space are the outcome of a powerful Will acting on the Universe, that is what we should measure, taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon. In our Universe this Will manifests itself as galactic time.

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E, each path starts at the same height and ends at the same height, so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage (The net fall is the same for each ball).  Also, take note on how the path which dips the lowest doesn't always win.  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  However, the shortest time between two points is a curve.  It's the shortest time because the curve provides the greatest force with the least amount of resistance to overcome to impel the body through space (the greatest momentum), and not because time decreased, increased, or was displaced.  Mass moves faster on a curve than it does a straight line.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome.  Gravity isn't a curvature in space-time (if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great).

Gravock

  Hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on this point;
"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed"
The reason being is that the slower something moves, the more force it can impart. Also, the greater the distance it travels between 2 points gives it a greater potential.
An example of this last part is if point A is 9.8 meters above point B. Either way, via the straight line or if travelling with a radius of 9.8 meters, they are considered to have identical velocities at point B minus resistence.
How ever, with aradius of 9.8 meters, the velocity of m*9.8m/s/s/9.8*3.14 is greater tha work = mass times distance travelled.
By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially. As such, the greater the radius of a weights downward path,the greatness in the amount of work it can perform increases like wise.

                                                                                                                                  Jim